22,223
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
wikify
</blockquote>
The Court seems to have essentially adopted the mother’s position, which is entirely consistent with international [[human rights ]] law. The Court refused to order circumcision and said:
<blockquote>
It is a finely balanced decision but one in respect of which I have reached a clear conclusion. First and foremost, this is a once and for all, irreversible procedure. There is no guarantee that these boys will wish to continue to observe the Muslim faith with the devotion demonstrated by their father although that may very well be their choice. They are still very young and there is no way of anticipating at this stage how the different influences in their respective parental homes will shape and guide their development over the coming years. There are risks, albeit small, associated with the surgery regardless of the expertise with which the operation is performed. There must be clear benefits which outweigh these risks which point towards circumcision at this point in time being in their best interests before I can sanction it as an appropriate course at this stage of their young lives.
</blockquote>
Mrs. Justice Roberts, in making this order, placed the rights of the child above the rights of the two divorcing parents. She made no reference to international [[human rights ]] law. Nevertheless, her conclusion is entirely consistent with the rights of the child under [[Human rights| human rights law]]. Her order also is entirely in accord with Resolution 1952 of the [https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal Council of Europe].<ref name="resolution1952">{{REFdocument
|title=Children's right to physical integrity
|url=http://semantic-pace.net/tools/pdf.aspx?doc=aHR0cDovL2Fzc2VtYmx5LmNvZS5pbnQvbncveG1sL1hSZWYvWDJILURXLWV4dHIuYXNwP2ZpbGVpZD0yMDE3NCZsYW5nPUVO&xsl=aHR0cDovL2Fzc2VtYmx5LmNvZS5pbnQvbncveG1sL3hzbC1mby9QZGYvWFJlZi1XRC1BVC1YTUwyUERGLnhzbA==&xsltparams=ZmlsZWlkPTIwMTc0