Danish government agrees that circumcision is a human right

Despite the vast majority of the Danish population being in favour of banning the circumcision of boys, the Danish government has accepted that it will not be passing any legislation on the issue.
In a report to the UN regarding human rights issues in Denmark, the government has agreed with an Egyptian contention that it is a human right for parents to be able to circumcise their male children.

A YouGov survey from 2014 showed that about three out of every four Danes were against the circumcision of boys.

“It’s grotesque,” said LA spokesperson Merete Riisager. “It’s not a human right to cut into one’s children. It is a human right, however, to wait until a person is an adult and can decide for themselves.”

In 2015, Denmark decided to delete its registry of circumcised individuals, reports the Local.

The basis is that circumcision of boys is rarely associated with medical complications, when performed under medical supervision...

it's viewed as a religious expression and therefore falls under the freedom of religion right.

has agreed with an Egyptian contention

Various Muslim countries had criticized the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights for its failure to take into account the cultural and religious context of non-Western countries.[2] In 1981, Said Rajaie-Khorassani—the post-revolutionary Iranian representative to the UN—articulated the position of his country regarding the UDHR, by saying that it was a relativistic "secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition", which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing Islamic law

In 1992, the CDHRI was presented to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, where it was strongly condemned by the International Commission of Jurists.[/url].

The CDHRI was adopted in 1990 by members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. It has been signed by 45 states so far.

Circumcision of boys will therefore remain legal as it complies with Danish law and is carried out by a doctor.

In February this year a controversial study published in the Journal of Medical Ethics in the US suggested that ‘nicking’ the genitals of young girls, under anaesthetic might be preferable to an outright ban.
Arguing that criminalising FGM pushes the practice underground the authors suggested legally permitting a minimal form of mutilation ‘in recognition of its cultural and religious obligations’.
The suggestion was lambasted by survivors and campaigners who referred to a similar proposal by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in 2010 suggesting paediatricians could offer a ‘ritual nick’ as a way of reaching families in practising communities. The AAP eventually withdrew the briefing paper.

Contrary to claims that circumcision in males is unproblematic, however, a Danish study
published in the International Journal of Epidemiology in 2011 finds
that circumcision leads to frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men.
The study also finds that women who are the sexual partners of
circumcised men also have significantly higher orgasm difficulties, more
problems with painful intrcourse (dyspareunia), and more often feel a
sense a incomplete fulfillment of sexual needs.

Banning circumcision is equality

By Mikkel Andersson, journalist and commentator
June 10, 2016, 20:00

No contest, no matter how much female circumcision is done in the best sense and might even be appreciated by the circumcision itself - then it is of course a choice that parents can not take on a child's behalf. Therefore, you should make it quite obvious and simple and undramatic provide boys and girls exactly the same legal protection body

So we once again come to the time of year when circumcision debate flares up. It's not exactly an uplifting topic, but it is nevertheless fine, it happens.

The debate return guarantees that Denmark with gradually increasing steps approaching the day when Denmark introduces equality in terms of boys and girls children's right to something as basic as the right to decide over their own bodies.

It actually requires only that lawmakers remove the word 'female' from the Penal Code section 245a - circumcision clause - which reads: "Whoever by a legemsangreb with or without the consent cuts away or otherwise removing the female genitalia whole or in part, be punished with imprisonment up 6 years. "

Of course, girls and boys have exactly the same right not to remove the external genitalia without consent and medical cause.

Often, it seems, the defenders of the right of parents circumcision of boys is bound to encounter in explanations of why it is incredibly understandable that it is illegal to cut parts of girls' sex, while the other hand is a God-given right (in either literal or transferred sense) to cut parts of the boys genetalier. A parent freedom that finally can not be restricted, you have to understand.

But when - often women - make female genital mutilation around
around it is of course also genuinely meaningful for them and made the best of intentions. Just as the male circumcision is to Jews and Muslims. Male circumcision performed also typical of people - mostly men - who themselves have been done, and who see it as both necessary, harmless and extremely large identity-bearing value.

The analogy is one to one.

Several defenders of circumcision of boys will then argue that FGM is far more brutal. But it is based on an often false analogy when comparing the most brutal forms of female genital mutilation, typically the so-called infibulation, the most "light" and less risky male.

But if one example comparator ritual boy circumcision in South Africa conducted under relatively primitive conditions (here died 32 boys alone in the summer of 2015) with a circumcision of girls on a Malaysian private hospital dedicated to the cutting of the clitoris' 'foreskin' in a relatively limited extent and under sterile conditions, see the comparison somewhat different. But it does not, for all recognize the obvious and fortunately that female genital mutilation is unacceptable no matter what.

No contest, no matter how much female circumcision is done in the best sense and might even be appreciated by the circumcision itself - as is the case certainly has been for millions who have continued the practice - then it is of course a choice that parents can take at a child's behalf.

Therefore, you should make it quite obvious and quite simple and undramatic provide boys and girls exactly the same legal protection of the body until they can decide.

Harder it is actually not.

googlish schrieb:

"The Liberals do not want a ban on boy circumcision, but it is crucial for us that any circumcision according to Danish law and carried out by a doctor," says Jane Heitmann (V).

Googlish schrieb:

Association against circumcision, Intact Denmark are shocked:
"I had not the imagination to imagine that the government would betray the Danish population that way," says chairwoman Lena Nyhus to Metro.
Both sides of parliament criticize the government. Unity does not believe you have to "cut in healthy children", while Liberal Alliance rapporteur Merete Riis Ager says:
"It is grotesque. It is not a human right for parents to cut his children. Rather, it is a human right to be able to wait until you are an adult to decide for themselves. "

Hussain Ali schrieb:

It should be illegal to circumcise children under 18, children circumcision is a serious breach of the freedom that all individuals should have.

Human children are not born with superfluous body parts
- Would not it in any other context be considered as abuse and mistreatment? And why do we accept it just because it is covered with religious reasons?
- Circumcision is not in the child's best interest, of course, born human children with superfluous body parts.

Over 500 doctors have asked the Danish Medical Association to call for a ban on circumcision of boys in Denmark. One of the doctors who oppose circumcision, the Iraqi-born Ayhan Al Kole, themselves circumcised. He wished he'd had the choice and struggles that other boys get it.

Ayhan Al Kole schrieb:

I remember the cold scissors against my penis, as it was yesterday.

How to describe the 26-year-old Iraqi-born doctor Ayhan Al Kole his circumcision, which occurred when he was four years old. He lived in Iraq at the time, but the procedure was the same as in Denmark. For while this country is forbidden to circumcise girls, the same law is not for boys. They must be circumcised, even though they are 18 years old.


The
debate over circumcision has flared up again after the Medical
Association's Ethics Committee this week put the topic on the agenda
following pressure from at least 547 doctors have signed that they want a
ban on circumcision of boys under 18 in Denmark. Medical Association is not expected until to decide whether to support a ban in September

Ayhan Al Kole schrieb:

"We do indeed UN Child Convention, when we just let the ban on circumcision apply to girls and not also for boys. It got me up in the red zone, when I read it. In addition there is the medical aspect. I can not find a single health reasons for us to circumcise young boys. Ritual circumcision is mutilation of the penis, "he says.

"An age limit between 1.5 years and 18 years for example. We should absolutely discuss, because I can well understand that the boys who remember their circumcision, is sad.

Would you move?
"Yes, I'd probably start looking at where else I would stay."

I have never met an adult man who said he had reduced sexual pleasure after his circumcision, "says Lene Andersen.