XPost: uk.legal, soc.culture.irish, soc.women   
   XPost: alt.religion.druid   
   From: hex@unseen.ac.am   
      
   The Todal wrote:   
   > On 21/9/12 10:45, Norman Wells wrote:   
   >> The Todal wrote:   
   >>> On 21/9/12 09:38, Norman Wells wrote:   
   >>>> GB wrote:   
   >>>>> On 21/09/2012 09:01, Norman Wells wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On the contrary, they are _all_ to do with parents wanting to   
   >>>>>> impose their will on their children.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> And black is white. I think we all understand you, Norman. You   
   >>>>> find a position and stick to it against all reason.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The truth is absolute.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> And your reasons are non-existent.   
   >>>   
   >>> I hesitate to ask you whether you have children, but surely this   
   >>> notion of the parent imposing his will on his child applies to just   
   >>> about every aspect of parenting. Asking the child to brush his   
   >>> teeth, eat up his food, tie his shoelaces, do his homework, tidy   
   >>> his room, all that stuff. Even before the child can speak he is   
   >>> asked to eat his food, not throw it at the walls, and stop kicking   
   >>> his mother. And to go to bed and stay there when it is night time.   
   >>   
   >> Not many of those, however, are mutilating assaults which, if   
   >> anything similar to circumcision were done to a child, would result   
   >> in criminal prosecution.   
   >>   
   >>> Having a child circumcised for religious reasons is essentially no   
   >>> different from having it christened.   
   >>   
   >> Except that one is a mutilating assault on a defenceless child   
   >> whereas the other isn't.   
   >   
   > It isn't an "assault" because English law permits parents to make such   
   > decisions and to impose circumcision on their child.   
      
   As far as I'm aware, there has never been a case where that has been   
   decided, probably because there has never been a prosecution for it.  If   
   it were to be taken to court, however, as it was in Germany, I think it   
   could well be held to constitute 'committing bodily injury' as it was   
   there, and hence assault.  If there is no valid defence of medical   
   necessity, convictions for it would follow.   
      
   > However if you   
   > believe it should not be lawful it is reasonable for you to say that   
   > you view it as an assault.   
      
   I do, just as the court in Germany held too.   
      
   > It should hardly be necessary for me to   
   > point out that if you take a complaining child out of a car, that too   
   > could be viewed as an assault in the same way. That cutting its hair   
   > or its toenails without express consent could likewise be viewed as   
   > an assault. That operating on an unsightly birthmark or harelip could   
   > be viewed as an assault. Or removing a painful splinter from the skin.   
      
   The criterion in Britain is that it  must be 'in the best interests of   
   the child'.  All of the above undoubtedly are, though it's an open   
   question whether removing a birthmark or any 'unsightly' blemish   
   shouldn't be left until the child is competent to decide for himself.   
      
   With circumcision, it's an assault inevitably resulting in a permanent   
   mutilation for which there is generally no medical indication   
   whatsoever, and to which the child should be left to decide for himself   
   later.  If there's no urgency, ie medical necessity, it shouldn't be   
   done.   
      
   > As it happens I disapprove of religious circumcision and I think   
   > religious communities should be encouraged to abandon this practice,   
   > but it takes the argument no further to accuse these people of   
   > "assault". You will be no more persuasive than if you kept telling   
   > them that smacking a child is an outrageous assault. All they'll say   
   > in reply is that you are an idealist who understands neither children   
   > nor religious cultures and whose view should be disregarded.   
      
   If you can't see the difference between actions that are deliberate   
   assaults for no reason that result in permanent mutilation, and   
   temporary punishment, then there's something seriously wrong with your   
   intellect.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)