German Court rules religious circumcision a crime

[Napoleon the Clown]

I'd like to take this chance to point out that Broomstick isn't saying banning circumcision is inherently bad, just that it's a big deal to the Jewish community. Hell, she seems to prefer that it not happen at all. All she's been arguing is that it's a bigger deal to a particular religion than it's being made out to be on this board. At least, if I'm correctly parsing what she's been saying this whole time.

I do find it odd that Jewish law would not have a clause saying that if secular law prohibits an action that it's permissible to hold off until it's actually legal.


As to the Mormons and polygamy thing... Not quite accurate to say that it wasn't that big of a deal. If "God" told you to marry multiple women and you didn't then there would be Trouble for you. You know, excommunication, damnation, God having you whacked... It was a big fucking deal. To the point that they ignored secular law until "God" told them they no longer had to practice polygamy.

[Simon_Jester]

I'd like to take this chance to point out that Broomstick isn't saying banning circumcision is inherently bad, just that it's a big deal to the Jewish community. Hell, she seems to prefer that it not happen at all. All she's been arguing is that it's a bigger deal to a particular religion than it's being made out to be on this board. At least, if I'm correctly parsing what she's been saying this whole time.

I do find it odd that Jewish law would not have a clause saying that if secular law prohibits an action that it's permissible to hold off until it's actually legal.

If this were a relatively minor thing they'd probably be flexible about it (say, a legal requirement that you do some minor work on the Jewish Sabbath or get in trouble with the law). But circumcision a bit more central than that in their book (literally). So they're going to be less flexible.

And for most of their post-Diaspora history things like this didn't come up. Either Jews were allowed to practice their own customs in relative peace (in an isolated ghetto, usually), or they were being actively, systematically persecuted such that any Jew with sense would want to move out of the territory before the pogroms started again. Sometimes you'd have someone who said "convert or die" to Jews and the Jews might fake-convert while secretly practicing some of their customs and ignoring others that would make people suspicious, but that's not the same as what's happening here. Because technically there's no duress, there's no penalty for "being Jewish" as such, there's just (the possibility of) a penalty for doing the things that make a Jew Jewish in the eyes of the Jews.

I'm not sure they really have a body of custom for what to do about living in a society that proclaims "We are fine with your religion, you can build synagogues and pray and have your own food and holy days and whatnot, but we're going to outlaw this particular ritual central to your religion for our own reasons."

[Akhlut]

Slight nitpick: until they are circumcised they can not have their bar mitzvah. They have to be circumcised first, then have the ceremony.

Sucks to be part of that crazy ass religion, then.

The risk of medical complications would have to be FAR higher than it is currently, there's too much weight of evidence that the average male newborn will survive the operation just fine.

And, when performed under medical supervision, girls who have Pharonic circumcisions have high rates of survival too.

I quite understand your lawyerly point of view here. However, others are not arguing from that standpoint but from a misunderstanding that circumcision is somehow a negotiable aspect of Judaism. Jews have compromised over a lot in the past, but that's one point that they haven't budged on. If anything, over the course of time they've gotten even stricter about it.

Too fuckin' bad for them that one of the fundamental parts of their religion involves infant genital mutilation. If worship of Huitzilopochtli was still around, I'd tell them that it's too goddamn bad that their god requires human hearts to survive; I guess ol' Hummingbird-on-the-Left is going to expire due to the lack of human hearts, then. Similarly, if YHWH requires human baby foreskins in order to accept his own, well, I guess his own aren't going to be accepted until they're old enough to consent to lopping off their foreskins. Too bad, so sad.

Until the male child is circumcised he can't be a fully Jewish - well, he IS Jewish, but unable to participate in the rituals of the community and separated from God which, again, is no big deal to an atheist but for Jews the bad afterlife isn't so much fire and being poked with pitchforks by demons as being separated from God for eternity. THAT is what hell is to them, and from their viewpoint what a male child is in danger of if he dies before circumcision (some Jews will even circumcise stillborn infants in hopes they will avoid that fate).

Again: too bad, so sad.

Plus, most of Judaism allows for the breaking of the Law if noncompliance is forced upon them. If you're a devout Jew and are starving to death and just happen upon a Creole gumbo filled with shrimp and pork, well, YHWH won't be mad if you eat the gumbo. Similarly, most readings of the Torah say it's okay to break the Law if one simply cannot follow it due to reasons beyond ones control.

So... it would force exile on the young boys until they could be legally circumcised. What is the age of medical consent in Germany? Because under the law that would be the earliest age at which they could be legally circumcised. All other things, bar mitzvah, celebration of holidays with the family/community, everything else - would have to come after that. Torah and Hebrew studies would be permitted prior, as it is to potential converts and interested gentiles who can convince Jewish learning institutions to admit them.

Too bad, so sad. Maybe they should convert to a religion that doesn't require the mutilation of boys' genitals.

The only compromise I can foresee are German Jewish families taking a vacation to Israel shortly after the birth of a son and the German authorities looking the other way. If that starts happening there's the possibility of gentiles taking Jewish male newborns away from their parents for safety/legal reasons.

Perhaps Germany should do that to prevent such barbarism.

No, that would not be acceptable. That is 13 years and 357 days too late.

Man, YHWH's a total fucking asshole if he consigns infants to hell simply because a parent thinks that bodily integrity trumps genital mutilation forced on a non-consenting child.

[tezunegari]

Does the Torah even give a reason to have the males circumcissed beyond the "Otherwise you are not a Jew" reasoning?

[Broomstick]

Sorry to be on the shortish side, don't have time for a lenghthy reply, again sorry but here it goes. Reask if anything remains unclear.

A little too short in spots so I hope I don't misinterpret anything.

For stuff relating to the ruling check the der spiegel article above.
illegal point/enforce the law = see the der spiegel article
law being a sham = nope see the article

I'm still not getting this point – you have a law in Germany that says circumcision for religious/ritual purposes is not in a child's best interests and therefore illegal, but no one is being penalized for performing a circumcision.

ballistic=claiming it being intrinsic to the religion when it is just cultural as usual, as in going waaaay out there, I'm sorry for the implications of something else

You DO understand that I am playing Devil's Advocate here and that I have repeatedly stated that is not my personal position, correct?

propaganda=this ruling is not as bad as the religious make it out to be

To Jews yes it is that bad. Forbidding circumcision by the 8th day of life is a major, major problem for them.

slavery in constitution = yes, the US should remove any such passages, no it doesn't invalidate the whole document

There is absolutely zero mechanism to remove ANY passage in the US constitution. The only way to do that is to scrap the entire thing, call a constitutional convention, and write a new one. Sorry, the US constitution carries its history along with it.

Frankly, I'd rather stick with amending the current version than attempt a re-write in these political times.

slavery in talmud = it invalidates the argument that it is intrinsic to the religion when it just viewed as such by cultural norm just like with everything else of this type

Er... no it doesn't. There is nothing in even modern Judaism that prohibits owning slaves other than the fact Jews do in fact try to live within the laws of the nation(s) in which they reside. There is also no requirement Jews own slaves, either. There is, however, a requirement to circumcise all male Jews. I'm sorry you don't understand the difference between “permitted” and “required” in this context.

in name only = people who does not necesarily believe it all but still inherit their religion from parents or local culture

something exists in name only, it is officially described in a particular way, although that description is not really true Two-thirds of the population are Catholic, though many are so in name only.

OK – I'm still not clear on what you were saying back when you were speaking of Jews “in name only”. Sure, there are some in Israel who'd fall under that definition, but there's also a shitload of people in Israel who are secular Jews, that is, people who are Jewish by descent but who do not, in fact, believe in the religion, nor do they practice it, they participate only minimally in distinctly Jewish cultural traditions, and some are outright atheists. I can certainly see that group foregoing circumcision.

So when you wave a stat about non-circumcision rates in Israel I want you to clarify if it is among observant Jews or secular Jews.

It is not a sacrament, and any child born of a Jewish mother is a Jew, whether circumcised or not.

Well, sure, he's Jewish but he's barred from entering the central part of a synagogue, he's barred from participating in Sabbath or holy day rituals – basically, he can't participate in the religion he is allegedly a member of.

Agreed, I was refering to the adherents of jewish faith only.
Hence my reference to the majority of jewish adherents in sweden not being circumcised as evidence that it is a cultural norm and not a religious necessity.

Since when do Swedish Jews set the rules for all the other Jews in the world? If they aren't circumcising most other Jews will see them in violation of God's Law.

I'd like to take this chance to point out that Broomstick isn't saying banning circumcision is inherently bad, just that it's a big deal to the Jewish community. Hell, she seems to prefer that it not happen at all. All she's been arguing is that it's a bigger deal to a particular religion than it's being made out to be on this board. At least, if I'm correctly parsing what she's been saying this whole time.

You are correct, sir.

I do find it odd that Jewish law would not have a clause saying that if secular law prohibits an action that it's permissible to hold off until it's actually legal.

Why is that odd? Jews have long held their central religious commandments to be above those dictated by secular or other-religion governments. Some points of Jewish law are negotiable, circumcision is not. Now, if some Talmudic scholar comes on line and argues why putting it off would be acceptable I'll accept that, but folks who clearly have little to no understanding of Judaism standing up and proclaiming it something to be compromised on just shows their ignorance of the religion and culture.

Mind you, I have no problem with people objecting to the entire custom. It's not their culture and they certainly don't have to like it or condone it. It's the “oh, I'm certain they can reach a compromise” that's the problem. The Jews don't see it that way, not even very modern, westernized Jews. Although in many ways they are mainstream they really are a separate culture with different values and viewpoints no matter how long they've lived in Europe and how much they look/act/sound/behave like other Europeans.

As to the Mormons and polygamy thing... Not quite accurate to say that it wasn't that big of a deal. If "God" told you to marry multiple women and you didn't then there would be Trouble for you. You know, excommunication, damnation, God having you whacked... It was a big fucking deal. To the point that they ignored secular law until "God" told them they no longer had to practice polygamy.

I'd also like to point out that there are a significant number of Mormons who never gave up the practice, either, who continue to be a troublesome sore spot in Utah/Arizona/other nearby states. Also a colony of them in Canada as well.

The risk of medical complications would have to be FAR higher than it is currently, there's too much weight of evidence that the average male newborn will survive the operation just fine.

And, when performed under medical supervision, girls who have Pharonic circumcisions have high rates of survival too.

That's a bullshit comparison. If we were discussing castration Pharonic FGM would be an appropriate comparison but we are not. We are discussing Jewish circumcision (there are variants of Muslim male circumcision that are pretty horrific, but despite the court case being over a Muslim child and parents we're discussing Jews because they are the ones most inflexible about timing of circumcision). Really, comparing Pharonic FGM to what the typical Jewish boy undergoes trivializes the much worse thing done to the girl. That doesn't make Jewish circumcision OK or acceptable, but let's not pretend it's any worse than it actually is. Jewish circumcision doesn't prevent a man from enjoying the sex act (even if it may diminish that enjoyment, it far from eliminates it), doesn't prevent him from having an orgasm, and doesn't increase his odds of dying during procreation which Pharonic FGM does in women.

Too fuckin' bad for them that one of the fundamental parts of their religion involves infant genital mutilation.

I agree, although I will find it ironic that a pretty tolerant and pacificist German government finally succeeded in driving the Jews out of Germany where the Nazis could not.

If worship of Huitzilopochtli was still around, I'd tell them that it's too goddamn bad that their god requires human hearts to survive; I guess ol' Hummingbird-on-the-Left is going to expire due to the lack of human hearts, then. Similarly, if YHWH requires human baby foreskins in order to accept his own, well, I guess his own aren't going to be accepted until they're old enough to consent to lopping off their foreskins. Too bad, so sad.

If you think the Jews are going to submit to that quietly you're nuts, though. The more peaceful ones will bugger off to places the practice is allowed. The others will range from continuing it underground to actual open defiance.

Plus, most of Judaism allows for the breaking of the Law if noncompliance is forced upon them. If you're a devout Jew and are starving to death and just happen upon a Creole gumbo filled with shrimp and pork, well, YHWH won't be mad if you eat the gumbo. Similarly, most readings of the Torah say it's okay to break the Law if one simply cannot follow it due to reasons beyond ones control.

ONLY to preserve life, not merely because some foreign gentile group deems it unacceptable. If you haven't eaten in two days no, you can't have the pork and shrimp gumbo, you have to be in actual danger of starving to death, not merely inconvenienced. It's pretty clear to me that many Jews would find breaking secular law more acceptable in this case than breaking God's law, paying a fine or even serving a jail term. Only if there would be an actual, enforced death penalty for the practice would that argument serve to allow an exception. Indeed, the ONLY exceptions are for those with medical conditions where there is a truly significant chance of the practice causing death. Not complications, death.

No, that would not be acceptable. That is 13 years and 357 days too late.

Man, YHWH's a total fucking asshole if he consigns infants to hell simply because a parent thinks that bodily integrity trumps genital mutilation forced on a non-consenting child.

Yeah, well, I'm not here to argue you out of your viewpoint (which largely agrees with my own actual views), I'm trying to dispell the notion that this is a minor thing for Jews. It's not. It's huge.

Does the Torah even give a reason to have the males circumcissed beyond the "Otherwise you are not a Jew" reasoning?

Nope, pretty much it's because God said so. It's the physical mark of the covenant between Jews and their God. Well, between male Jews and their God, female Jews are not required to have their genitals altered in any way. In fact, it would probably be argued God would disapprove, citing Leviticus 19:28 "You shall not make gashes in your flesh for the dead, or incise any marks on yourselves: I am the Lord". Except, of course, when God orders you to cut off your son's foreskin, but that's the only exception. Otherwise, Jews pretty much are against permanent body modification. Interpretations vary from one group to another, but in the group my paternal ancestors were part of they used that verse to ban ear piercing, something some other cultures almost make mandatory for women. They certainly wouldn't approve of FGM.

Note that is for voluntary marking/cutting – if the evil Nazi bastards hold a gun to your head while tattooing camp numbers onto your arm that's not your fault. Better tattooed than dead.

Again, the only exception to permanent body mods is the circumcision thing, and that's God's direct order.

[Serafina]

I'm still not getting this point – you have a law in Germany that says circumcision for religious/ritual purposes is not in a child's best interests and therefore illegal, but no one is being penalized for performing a circumcision.

Okay, let me say it again:
THERE IS NO SUCH LAW!
Again: There is NO law specifically pertaining to circumcision and declaring it illegal. The decision of the court was based on the constitutionally guaranteed right to physical inviolability. The decision of the court carries no legal weight beyond this specific case, it does not set a precedent which other courts can use to declare circumcision illegal. ONLY if this case goes for some reason to our supreme court COULD it result in a declaration that the right to physical inviolability inherently makes infant circumcision illegal, which would in effect make such a law.

The reason why no one was punished in this case is specifically because there is NO LAW. Since there was no law, the judge decided that no one could have known previously that the act was illegal, thus not justifying a punishment.

[Simon_Jester]

Noted.

Interestingly, quite a few people in this thread who were opposed to circumcision and religious ritual circumcision made that mistake and thought such a law had just been passed- or seemed to.

Or thought there ought to be such a law, in which case it makes sense to debate the hypotheticals.

[Serafina]

Well, i think that infant circumcision should be illegal (unless medically necessary).
And in my opinion the odds are good that, if this goes to our supreme court, they will uphold this ruling. Which then (as i just explained) will effectively make this a law.

[D.Turtle]

The decision of the court was based on the constitutionally guaranteed right to physical inviolability. The decision of the court carries no legal weight beyond this specific case, it does not set a precedent which other courts can use to declare circumcision illegal. ONLY if this case goes for some reason to our supreme court COULD it result in a declaration that the right to physical inviolability inherently makes infant circumcision illegal, which would in effect make such a law.

The reason why no one was punished in this case is specifically because there is NO LAW. Since there was no law, the judge decided that no one could have known previously that the act was illegal, thus not justifying a punishment.

Neither party appealed the ruling, so this particular case has run its course in the courts. However, because of the wide-spread publicity this ruling is getting, in the future it will be pretty much impossible to protect oneself by claiming to be confused about the legality of circumcision. So, in effect, until there is a law addressing the legality of male circumsion, this ruling has resulted in a defacto banning of male circumcision.

[Simon_Jester]

Whcih brings us back to square one- that this effectively drives all but the least observant Jews out of Germany.

Apparently that's just the price you pay for social justice, but it's a really drastic change in policy- one I think a lot of people in Germany, and elsewhere in the world, would go "wait, let me think twice about that..." again.

I wonder what a poll on this would look like in Germany? What percentage of Germans think it's worth driving the observant Jews out of the country in order to enforce a nationwide ban on infant circumcision? I suspect Germans who feel that way are strongly overrepresented on this forum, since SDN is intensely anti-religious in general.

[Broomstick]

I'm still not getting this point – you have a law in Germany that says circumcision for religious/ritual purposes is not in a child's best interests and therefore illegal, but no one is being penalized for performing a circumcision.

Okay, let me say it again:
THERE IS NO SUCH LAW!
Again: There is NO law specifically pertaining to circumcision and declaring it illegal. The decision of the court was based on the constitutionally guaranteed right to physical inviolability.

OK, now I get it. Thanks.

It doesn't help the English-language media are being confusing about this, but that's the media's fault.

Whcih brings us back to square one- that this effectively drives all but the least observant Jews out of Germany.

True - circumcision is arguably the most widely shared practice among Jews.

Apparently that's just the price you pay for social justice, but it's a really drastic change in policy- one I think a lot of people in Germany, and elsewhere in the world, would go "wait, let me think twice about that..." again.

I wonder what a poll on this would look like in Germany? What percentage of Germans think it's worth driving the observant Jews out of the country in order to enforce a nationwide ban on infant circumcision? I suspect Germans who feel that way are strongly overrepresented on this forum, since SDN is intensely anti-religious in general.

Consider also that a lot of people still don't regard male circumcision as mutilation or a big deal. That is balanced by those who conflate foreskin removal with practices that amount to castration. Not all surgeries/body modifications/mutilations are equal and it would sure help these discussions if folks kept some perspective.

[Simon_Jester]

The US is a country where male circumcision has... caught on, I guess you could say, as a secular practice. It's going out of style, which I think is just as well, but that may be coloring your attitude.

I imagine Germans are, on average, less sympathetic to circumcision than Americans. And I don't call them wrong to feel that way. But that doesn't mean they'd be uniformly content with driving the Jews out of the country for the sake of being rid of the practice.

[Broomstick]

Yes - there is room to argue that driving Jews out of Germany is a greater harm than allowing infant male circumcision as practiced by the Jews. There are times when outlawing something causes greater harm than finding a way to both tolerate and discourage it at the same time.

And no, I don't think the historic popularity of male circumcision in the US is doing much to color my attitude. Certainly, if I had had a male child I would have opposed having him cut. Despite the Jewish heritage, neither of my sisters had their sons cut. I do think it's a barbaric practice and should be discontinued but there are far greater harms in this world than this particular unnecessary ritual.

[AniThyng]

I think we should instead be celebrating that this has proven that Muslims and Jews can in fact work together for a common cause.

It seems to be lost somewhere in this discussion that it was a Muslim couple's child that sparked the case.

Though where I'm from muslims don't circumcise till they are about 10-12 years old.

[LaCroix]

Consider also that a lot of people still don't regard male circumcision as mutilation or a big deal. That is balanced by those who conflate foreskin removal with practices that amount to castration. Not all surgeries/body modifications/mutilations are equal and it would sure help these discussions if folks kept some perspective.

You are forgetting that while routine circumcision is no thing in the US, in Europe, it's a "you did WHAT?" thing...
http://www.circinfo.net/rates_of_circumcision.html

Apart from the odd one (one of my brothers, for example) who needed to do it for medical reasons (usually at age 12-16, when certain changes set in ), and thus consented to it, the rates correlate tightly with the Judaic/Muslim belief rates. You will need to look very hard to find a circumcised Christian.

[Broomstick]

I actually do understand that European Christians don't circumcise outside of medical reasons. I am guessing that while EC's see it as odd they probably don't consider it the very worst thing in the world, either. It's no secret Jews and Muslims do this, after all, and sometimes it really is necessary.

A 55% male circumcision rate in the US looks pretty massive, but I remember when that was near 95% - this generation the practice (outside of religious reasons) has plummeted, it's just that there are a lot of guys already cut who are still around and won't die off for another 40-50 years. It's not nearly as common over here as it used to be.

[hongi]

With the possible exception of keeping kosher, it's the thing that religious Jews of whatever denomination have most in common.

Keeping kosher isn't popular among secular Jews (the largest group of Jews) in America at least. Circumcision on the other hand is still a massively popular tradition even among secular Jews, and a lot of them get the religious brit milah ceremony that accompanies the circumcision, because it's one of those traditions that just identifies you as a Jewish man. Keep in mind that Jews in the past fought a war partly because circumcision was banned, namely the Maccabean revolt. I'm not saying they're going to do so again, but it just proves that people have historically had strong feelings about this.

The Muslim community, over a billion strong, may be in a better situation, since shari'a law differs on when circumcision has to take place. Like someone else mentioned, lots of Muslim children get circumcised at 10-12. I imagine that would take the sting out of the claim that circumcision is wrong because it's done without consent. Kids at that age I think should be able to express their disapproval. Although maybe you could claim that the parents are 'forcing' the kid to do it anyway.

Anyway, if circumcision is made illegal and you can get punished with fines and prison sentences, that won't stop Muslims and Jews from doing it. You'd be naive to think so. They'll just do it in their homes in secret.

[LaCroix]

@ Broomstick
Actually, where I live, we do. It is seen as something barbaric to do to a child without proper reason (which usually do not exist, yet, at infancy). A friend of mine had their son circumcised because her husband is African (christian). He half-insisted on it, and while she could have stood her ground, she knew very well, that this would have happened once they took their child to see his parents in Nigeria. So she let it be done to avoid that risk. Even though we all understood that reasoning, ~95% of her friends still reacted less than understanding on doing this.

@hongi
If this ruling will be ignored, not only will there be fines and arrests, I can also imagine that it is very much possible that CPS will intervene. After all, circumcision will be equated with beating the child severely. Keeping it secret under that ruling will be hard, as doctors will report such things if they see it. Teachers will report it if they hear children talking that Achmed or Ismael look funny, down there.

While I doubt that they outright start taking children from parents and put them in foster homes, CPS visits aren't funny, and you will be under constant watch. One transgression and they might as well do it.

Ps: Germans don't like their rules circumvented, especially if its something in constitutional rank concerning children.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, if there's a rule that the Germans decide to enforce with Teutonic thoroughness and authoritarianism, then... yeah, that's basically going to drive the Jews out of Germany. If not the Jewish ethnicity, certainly the Jewish religion.

[Serafina]

Well, if there's a rule that the Germans decide to enforce with Teutonic thoroughness and authoritarianism, then... yeah, that's basically going to drive the Jews out of Germany. If not the Jewish ethnicity, certainly the Jewish religion.

And that's a bad thing which i hope won't happen (it won't cause any net-improvement, since all those boys will just be circumcised outside of Germany then).

However, i simply see no way to combine Right to Physical Inviolability and infant circumcision. Freedom of Religion can't cover it - it would be totally against precedent, and it would allow worse things to happen under the same reasoning (such as refusal of blood transfusions). And that is the ONLY legal argument in favor of infant circumcision (arguing that the child can consent is just absurd at that age).


As for actually spotting fresh circumcisions: yes, that will happen even if it is done completely under the hood. Germany has (by now, thankfully) rather extensive structures for spotting child abuse and resulting injuries, and most of that would apply here as well (adapting existing structures for a similar purpose is far easier than creating new ones in the first place). CPS is also pretty damn strict about it when actual abuse happens, which this would definitely fall under.* And no, complete isolation of the child isn't an option - attending public or private schools is mandatory, and private schools have high government standards and have come under closer scrutiny in the past few years (during the whole catholic child rape scandal).

* In the past they were more strict about neglect than active abuse - to the point of being overzealous and handling cases where no actual neglect happened. That has been changed a lot since the middle of the 90s and was actually a major issue in the mid 2000s because it had swung too far into inaction.

[Blayne]

I don't think they will rule it, not at the risk of outcry from the Jewish community and the Anti-Defamation League; the risk of driving the jews from Germany (again) is just a public relations nightmare I think they will avoid or refuse to see the case to keep it in some kind of legal limbo, because it isn't the intent of the law to oppress the Jewish community.

Or maybe shirk the issue entirely and leave it up to the European Union Here:

In June 1999, the Cologne European Council concluded that the fundamental rights applicable at European Union (EU) level should be consolidated in a charter to give them greater visibility. The heads of state/government aspired to include in the charter the general principles set out in the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights and those derived from the constitutional traditions common to EU countries. In addition, the charter was to include the fundamental rights that apply to EU citizens as well as the economic and social rights contained in the Council of Europe Social Charter and the Community Charter of Fundamental Social Rights of Workers. It would also reflect the principles derived from the case law of the Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights.

The charter was drawn up by a convention consisting of a representative from each EU country and the European Commission, as well as members of the European Parliament and national parliaments. It was formally proclaimed in Nice in December 2000 by the European Parliament, Council and Commission.

In December 2009, with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the charter was given binding legal effect equal to the Treaties. To this end, the charter was amended and proclaimed a second time in December 2007.

******
chapter II: freedoms (the right to liberty and security, respect for private and family life, protection of personal data, the right to marry and found a family, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of expression and information, freedom of assembly and association, freedom of the arts and sciences, the right to education, freedom to choose an occupation and the right to engage in work, freedom to conduct a business, the right to property, the right to asylum, protection in the event of removal, expulsion or extradition);

In the book I was reading "Sovereignty Games" they might do that, it has precedent behind it.

[Serafina]

I don't think they will rule it, not at the risk of outcry from the Jewish community and the Anti-Defamation League; the risk of driving the jews from Germany (again) is just a public relations nightmare I think they will avoid or refuse to see the case to keep it in some kind of legal limbo, because it isn't the intent of the law to oppress the Jewish community.

Yeah, i don't really think the Bundesverfassungsgericht will be swayed by "well if you don't rule in our favor we all leave". The intent of the law in question (which, again, is part of our constitution and doesn't mention circumcision per se) is to prevent undue harm to people - and especially children who can't consent to anything yet.


The European Union can do diddly-squat here. An International Treaty can not violate the Grundgesetz (Constitution), if it does it is null and void just like a law that does the same.
What they COULD do is appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (which is NOT an EU-court, people and media always get that wrong for some reason), which can explicitly overrule national laws and judgements.

[hongi]

@hongi
If this ruling will be ignored, not only will there be fines and arrests, I can also imagine that it is very much possible that CPS will intervene. After all, circumcision will be equated with beating the child severely. Keeping it secret under that ruling will be hard, as doctors will report such things if they see it. Teachers will report it if they hear children talking that Achmed or Ismael look funny, down there.

While I doubt that they outright start taking children from parents and put them in foster homes, CPS visits aren't funny, and you will be under constant watch. One transgression and they might as well do it.

Ps: Germans don't like their rules circumvented, especially if its something in constitutional rank concerning children.

I think that's barbaric.

If it's child abuse, so be it. It is child abuse that happens once. The parents have the rest of the child's life to make it up to them. Frankly, it's child abuse that I'm willing to live with, and I think society should live with it too. I don't think Muslims and Jews should have their children taken away even if they did abuse their children by cutting pieces of their penis off.

[Serafina]

Would children be taken away over this?

First of all - that's not what CPS is there for. Taking a child away from it's parents is a last resort.

Personally, i doubt it would happen - because CPS always has to consider whether taking the child away will protect the child from harm sufficiently strong to justify the harm done by taking it from it's family. This is most likely not the case here.

What would happen (assuming this ends up becoming an issue at all) are parents and performers of circumcision being charged with battery - because that's what a unwanted, unnecessary, non-reversible medical procedure that doesn't result in crippling or death is. Penalties in Germany are up to five years in prison or fines*. Parents would most likely be hit with severe fines, but the person who performed the circumcision might be hit with worse, and i wouldn't be surprised by short prison sentences here.


* There are several levels of battery in Germany. This pretty clearly fits into the lowest. Dangerous Battery applies when you do it as part of a group, using a weapon, poison or similar potentially lethal item or when a fraudulent medical procedure has a good chance of death - charges go up to 10 years in prison. Aggravated/Severe battery includes crippling of some sort and is again up to 10 years. Battery resulting in death is the worst form (obviously) and calls for at least three years in prison, with possible life-imprisonment.

[Broomstick]

So would this also outlaw piercing the ears of infants girls? Another unnecessary procedure done without the child's consent and one that I personally disapprove of.