Anorak

Anorak | The Council of Europe’s purge on circumcision enshrines anti-Semitism and anti-Islam in law

The Council of Europe’s purge on circumcision enshrines anti-Semitism and anti-Islam in law

by | 3rd, October 2013

foreskin man

HAS the Council of Europe banned Jewish boys from being Jewish boys? The Council has decreed that circumcision is “a violation of the physical integrity of children”. It says all 47 nations in the Council’s zone will  “initiate a public debate, including intercultural and interreligious dialogue, aimed at reaching a large consensus on the rights of children to protection against violations of their physical integrity according to human rights standards”.

Member stats should “adopt specific legal provisions to ensure that certain operations and practices will not be carried out before a child is old enough to be consulted”.

Hey, boys. You’ll get to be circumcised not when very young but when you’re 18. Happy days.

Brendan O’Neil writes:

What these fashionable loathers of circumcision don’t seem to realise is that if you ban circumcision, you ban Jewish boys; you make it impossible for Jewish boys to exist. Circumcision is not some warped ritual that blood-loving Jews get a kick from – it is a central part of their belief system, and has been for thousands of years, emanating fromGenesis itself, in which God says: “And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of a covenant betwixt Me and you.” That modern-day officials, commentators and religion-bashers would so casually float the idea of banning this ritual, of effectively tearing up the covenant that Jews believe exists between them and God, reveals how cavalier they are about religious freedom, how intolerant of faith they are, how willing they are to stamp over any belief system they don’t like or don’t understand.

What we are witnessing in the great circumcision scare is the exploitation of so-called children’s right as a means of undermining adults’ rights, parental rights and fundamentally a community’s right to cleave to beliefs and practices it considers to be historically and religiously important. Lawmakers and assorted atheists are turning children into battering rams against religious liberty. I find that infinitely more grotesque than circumcision.

In 2012, Norway’s Centre Party spokesperson Jenny Klinge, said:“Circumcision on religious grounds should be a criminal offence.”

I replied:

To be accepted among the decent peoples, Jews should wait until there children hit 16 or 18 before asking them if they want to be circumcised. The child can only then know what is best for them. The non-Jews know how to make the Jews good. Listen to the non-Jew and become a better kind of Jew. Sod the fact that for Jews the circumcision is entwined with their very being and religion. Jewish boys get the snip on the eighth day of their lives. If you grow up with a foreskin you can’t be a proper Jew. The State is effectively outlawing your beliefs until you opt in. But you’ve already been ordered on pain of law to opt out.

And some Germans want it banned.

Writing in the Jerusalem Post, then British Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks, sensed danger for Europe’s Jews.

It is hard to think of a more appalling decision. Did the court know that circumcision is the most ancient ritual in the history of Judaism, dating back almost 4,000 years to the days of Abraham? Did it know that Spinoza, not religious but together with John Locke the father of European liberalism, wrote that brit milah in and of itself had the power to sustain Jewish identity through the centuries?

It was racist:

Did it know that banning milah was the route chosen by two of the worst enemies the Jewish people ever had, the Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV and the Roman emperor Hadrian, both of whom set out to extinguish not only Jews but also Judaism? Either the court knew these things or it did not. If it did not, then how was it competent to assess the claim of religious liberty? If it did, then there are judges in Germany quite willing to say to religious Jews, in effect, “If you don’t like it, leave.” Do judges in Cologne today really not know what happened the last time Germany went down that road?…

In historical context, however, it is far worse. By ruling that religious Jews performing their most ancient sacred ritual are abusing the rights of the child, a German court has just invented a new form of Blood Libel perfectly designed for the 21st century.

In San Francisco, Foreskin Man aims to win hearts, minds and future penises of America by campaigning for foreskins. And do not doubt that this is a big issue. This November San Francisco locals will be able to vote on a proposal to ban circumcision for the under 18s. Matthew Hess knows who Foreskin Man is. Hess channels Foreskin Man through his pen and crayons. Hess is not only the artist behind foreskin Man, he is the founder of San Diego group, MGM Bill (male genital mutilation). Says he:

“A lot of people have said that, but we’re not trying to be anti-Semitic. We’re trying to be pro-human rights.”

It’s just a dumb coincidence that Foreskin man (blonde, blue eyes, devoid of cunning) is fighting Monster Mohel (a leering Jew in black garb who wants your kids). Hess is not “trying” to be anti-Semitic.

But might another cause save the Jews? Adelaide surgeon Dr Paul Cowie champions a new environmentalist cause:

We will save many litres of water if more men were circumcised because there would be less fiddling in the shower to keep it clean.

First they came for the halal and kosher meat.

Then they came for the clothes.

Now, they want your kids…



Posted: 3rd, October 2013 | In: Key Posts, News Comments (2) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink