An interview with a General Practitioner from the Midlands giving his views on circumcision as it is practiced in 21st century Britain.
At a conference in Frankfurt this May the phrase “fair weather child protectors” was used by Christian Bahls of MOGiS in his presentation to the conference. What he meant was that there are organisations that claim to protect children but when the abuse strays into controversial territory then the organisation concerned turns a blind eye to the abuse. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) is just such an organisation.
When the video, a frame of which is shown below, was posted on Facebook the NSPCC demanded the removal of the video. The video shows a crying baby being held by the arms and repeatedly dunked into a bowl of water and the NSPCC quite rightly regarded this as a cruel practice.
There is no doubt that the cutting of any child’s genitals without an immediate medical imperative is a cruel and anachronistic practice and MDC hopes that the NSPCC will review it’s current position on the cutting of children’s genitals and will come to a gender neutral position and protect all children whether they be intersex, girls or boys.
Should anyone wish to see a video of a boy’s genitals being cut there are several available at circumstitions.com. Just the descriptions of the video content available on the site is scary enough, you have been warned.
In a link to an article analysing the judgement given by Sir James Munby on a recent case involving female genital mutilation we posted a graphic and upsetting image of the aftermath of a circumcision ceremony. The photo showed the male victims lying clutching their ceremonial gifts, semi naked with their wounds visible. Facebook told MDC that the photo did not comply with their policy on nudity. There is a need for people to understand the obscene reality of male genital mutilation and MDC recommends that everyone should read the article in Researching Reform where the photo came from.
The venue was the Lancaster Hotel in London. The event was the NSPCC’s fundraising “White Hat Ball.” This was just a few days after Sir James Munby, one of the country’s top judges, pointed out in a recent judgement that some forms of FGM (female genital mutilation) were less damaging that male circumcision (MGM). The authorities will eventually have to recognise that if you cannot photograph a child’s genitals; you cannot tattoo a child and you cannot touch a child’s genitals, except for cleaning or medical examination, then how is it possible that society can permit the excision of healthy tissue from the genitals of any child, boy, girl or intersex?
MDC’s response to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention proposed guidelines on circumcision has been filed. We post it here :-
“In the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) recent guidelines on male circumcision there is no account taken of the value of having an intact penis. The fact that the foreskin is specialised erogenous tissue is ignored.
Since the start of the organisation Men Do Complain about five years ago we have been contacted several times by men who have on medical advice had a circumcision as a treatment for a minor medical problem. These are a small group of men with important evidence to bring to this subject as they have experienced intercourse in both the intact and circumcised condition. They all report dissatisfaction with the procedure and feel that they were not properly informed about the negative consequences of circumcision.
The CDC should not be making an exceptional claim namely, that the excision of healthy specialised tissue from a child who cannot give informed consent is merely a risk against benefit calculation. The CDC should be providing exceptionally robust evidence that there is no degree of harm involved in the circumcision of a child who cannot give or withhold consent.”
You still have one more day to post a comment. Please do take the time to write and tell the CDC what you think about their guidelines.