Dan Rickman recently stated the case for circumcision by setting out its central importance to Judaism and Jewish identity. These are the arguments that convinced me to circumcise my own son. However, in dealing with some of the issues raised, he failed to engage with the most cogent argument against circumcision – the fact that it is fundamentally at odds with English law.
The term "genital mutilation" sounds far less civilised that the commonly used term "circumcision". Yet the former is only ever used in relation to the removal of parts of female reproductive organs, and the latter, generally, for the removal of the foreskin from a male's penis. Make no mistake, a circumcision is the mutilation of genitals regardless of the terminology.
Male children from the Jewish and Muslim faiths have their foreskins removed at a young age under as part of religious practice. This is an irreversible procedure that would otherwise be classed as grievous bodily harm, contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861. The fact that it is performed with parental consent has been deemed sufficient in allowing this procedure to be performed under English law.
The argument that parental consent suffices to override the law falls flat when compared with the act of tattooing. The Tattooing of Minors Act prohibits the tattooing of any person under 18, regardless of whether a parent consents on their behalf. A tattoo is arguably less permanent than a circumcision. If a person must reach the age of 18 before being deemed able to understand and consent to the permanence of a tattoo, then why should this not apply to a male child being circumcised?
Religious grounds have long been cited as the reason for this anomaly. Britain prides itself, rightly so, on its freedom of religion. Why then is male circumcision allowed at any age, and female circumcision proscribed even after a woman turns 18? Surely religious freedom cannot be given solely to males.
Furthermore, if circumcision of males is allowed on religious grounds, then the ruling in the case of Adesanya must have been erroneous. The court here decided that a Nigerian woman could be prosecuted for cutting her teenaged sons' faces according to her cultural norms. It seems that freedom to commit GBH only extends to males, and only then of particular faiths or cultural backgrounds.
The final spin of the dice for the pro-circumcision group is the health argument. Circumcised males have been proven to have a lower incidence of a number of diseases, and even a lower chance of contracting HIV. Yet religious circumcisions are not performed on the grounds of health, and are often performed by religious practitioners who are not medically qualified to do so. The health argument is merely a coincidental, although happy, one. Were this to be the decisive factor, then surely circumcision should be extended to all male children at birth as has recently occurred in some American states. Moreover, according to this line of reasoning, circumcisions should all be performed by doctors, or medical practitioners, and at a time that is optimum for the health of the child rather than at a religiously prescribed point in his life.
I am not advocating the abolition of male circumcision. However, the law needs to create guidelines that are applicable to all persons regardless of creed, gender, or religion. The existence of different sets of rules for different groups can only be seen as placing some people on a pedestal, elevated above the laws that the rest of us must follow.