XPost: uk.legal, soc.culture.irish, soc.women   
   XPost: alt.religion.druid   
   From: hex@unseen.ac.am   
      
   The Todal wrote:   
   > On 21/9/12 14:23, Norman Wells wrote:   
   >> The Todal wrote:   
   >   
   >>   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > If you can't see how foolish and ill-informed your views will appear   
   > to jews and muslims, there is certainly no point in you being the   
   > standard-bearer to oppose ritual circumcision. Which fortunately you   
   > aren't. Whoever takes on that role will have to find a better way of   
   > persuading these religious people to see the error of their ways.   
      
   There will be no way of persuading them short of criminal sanctions.  It   
   will have to be imposed either by the courts under the present law, or   
   by a change in the existing law if the courts find it difficult.  The   
   courts in Germany are already going that way.  If a case were to be   
   brought in Britain, I have no doubt it would be found to be an assault,   
   with the appropriate criminal sanctions applied.  I can see no valid   
   defence.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)