Nigerian Cleared Over Circumcision Death

RuggieBear

aertel page 105 wrote:

Nigerian cleared over circumcision death

07 October 2005 20:04

A Nigerian man accused of reckless endangerment in relation to a home circumcision he carried out in Waterford two years ago has been found not guilty.

Osagie Igbinedion was found not guilty this afternoon by a jury of 10 men and two women at Waterford Circuit Court.

31-year-old Mr Igbinedion, who lives in Kilkenny, left the court this afternoon in the company of his wife Kathleen, who a few minutes earlier had burst into tears as the verdict was delivered.

It had taken the jury one and a half hours to reach their verdict in this case, the first of its kind in Ireland.

The court had been told 29-day-old Collis Osaighe had died from haemorrhage and shock due to bleeding. He had been circumcised a number of hours previously by Mr Igbinedion.

In directing the jury, Judge Kevin Haugh said that they could not bring what he called their white western values to bear when they were deciding this case.

Afterwards, Mr Igbinedion said he would like to continue carrying out circumcisions but will only do so if allowed to by the Government. He said most Nigerians would like to see the procedure being available and done in hospitals.

If your case is being brought before an Irish court shouldn't it be expected/normal that your jurors will naturally draw upon their 'white western values' when making their decision?

Wibbs

I wonder if this was any form of female circumcision would he have gotten off so lightly? Would they say it was tradition/culture etc. All the things that this chap and his supporters said on the news tonight were exactly the same reasons people in certain African countries give when they excuse and support female circumcision, yet we seek to stop that practice. Non medical genital mutilation seems ok when it's male. Funny old world.

seamus

RuggieBear wrote:

If your case is being brought before an Irish court shouldn't it be expected/normal that your jurors will naturally draw upon their 'white western values' when making their decision?

I think what he probably should have said was "Please consider it from a Black traditional African viewpoint", but then he would have been branded a racist. Can't win.

He said most Nigerians would like to see the procedure being available and done in hospitals.

Surely it is?

Calibos

Are Rabbi's legally allowed to carry out home circumcisions in Ireland? If so whats the differance?

Wibbs

seamus wrote:

I think what he probably should have said was "Please consider it from a Black traditional African viewpoint", but then he would have been branded a racist. Can't win.

True enough. I think we can all see what he was getting at, but he was screwed either way he put it.

Surely it is?

AFAIK nowadays it's considered an unnecessary operation unless for medical needs so they would be reluctant to do it. Seems fair. "First do no harm" and all that.

lostexpectation

the rabbi thing, surely they have some sort of license or are registered to do it, he hadn't, there probably isn't a system set up for it, never heard the parents view on it...

Sangre

RuggieBear wrote:

If your case is being brought before an Irish court shouldn't it be expected/normal that your jurors will naturally draw upon their 'white western values' when making their decision?

Depends if the law was seeking a subjective or objective standard.

Karl Hungus

RuggieBear wrote:

If your case is being brought before an Irish court shouldn't it be expected/normal that your jurors will naturally draw upon their 'white western values' when making their decision?

That sounds like an absolute miss-trial to me. Not only should it be the expected thing that jurors would drawn on their 'white western values', but seeing as the man is living here and has a wife, it seems to suggest that he has citizenship, and as such submits himself to our law and our judicial system, therefor asking such a thing from jurors is something that should not have been done.

What that Judge has done effectively de-railed the entire judicial process, and is extremely biased.
This really is the PC age gone absolutely schizoid.

This has nothing to do with whether or not circumcision is moral, nor is it case of a difference of culture. The man carried out a completely unnessicary procedure that resulted in the death of his own 29 day old infant son, and to boot, he said he wants to do it again! Dare I say, the man is a danger?

Quite simply, this is a joke.

Sangre

Not at all KH.

Some elements of law, especially criminal law, require a subjective standard as oppossed to an objective one...if that was the case here the Judge was perfectly correct in advising the jury as he did.

Although I don't know for sure if that was applicable here.

Karl Hungus

Sangre wrote:

Not at all KH.

Some elements of law, especially criminal law, require a subjective standard as oppossed to an objective one...if that was the case here the Judge was perfectly correct in advising the jury as he did.

Although I don't know for sure if that was applicable here.

If this case was about whether or not circumcision is an illegal act, I'd agree with you. However, there's nothing subjective about clearing a man of charges, who not only through his actions caused the death of his own son through pure negligence, but he expressed a willingness to do the same thing again.

Sangre

Just saw it there, 'reckless endangerment' was what he was charged with.
Yeah, completely subjective if I remember correctly. 'Reckless' is quite a specific legal term and there is a lot of case law behind it, it isn't just a descriptive word.

And Justic Haugh isn't one to be making simple mistakes like that with criminal law.

Karl Hungus

I simply don't see how doing a Medical Procedure that resulted in a death at home would not be considered reckless endangerment. I'm also rather suprised that he wasn't charged with manslaughter, or something of the like.

Board@Work

lostexpectation wrote:

the rabbi thing, surely they have some sort of license or are registered to do it, he hadn't, there probably isn't a system set up for it, never heard the parents view on it...

They had brought in a jewish rabbi from the UK who clained that two thirds of rabbis that perform circumcision are not doctors and have no medical training. They have training in the religious procedure as performed for 5000 years but no 'medical' training. I think this had a huge affect on what the jury where thinking.

lostexpectation

good point, board at work, that goes along way to explain the juries answer...

i don't think that one line about "white western culture" was the entirity of the judges summing up!

it wasn't his own son was it?

i wonder how many male children in say the US die from circumcision...,is it something you could ever regulate even if you offered it in clinics or hospitals...?

Karl Hungus

lostexpectation wrote:

it wasn't his own son was it?

Actually, no. My mistake.

ArthurDent

Can't quite get me head around the fact this wasn't reckless endangerment - is it just 'cos jury were directed in effect not to bring their preconceived white european attitude to bear on the case?

If it was a child that had died because of bleeding following a tribal tatoo or piercing would the outcome have been the same - or if it had been a child who died as a result of having their ears pierced (bit far fetched but trying to look for something that wouldn't have cultural/religious significance)?

How can doing anything to a child that causes them to bleed to death not be reckless endangerment?

Uthur

F*** cultural relativism. You live in this country you play by our rules. That
child-killing MF performed a surgical procedure on a child OUTSIDE of a
hospital with a RAZOR BLADE! He should be in jail.

Sleepy

Whatever way you look at the validity of performing unnecessary surgery for religious reasons (personally I consider it to be the exact same as FGM), the man was practicing medecine without a licence. This is not something that can, or should be tolerated in any country imho. He should be in jail.

Nasty_Girl

Wibbs wrote:

Non medical genital mutilation seems ok when it's male. Funny old world.

Thats a very good point.

Is there an actual reason for male circumsicion? What purpose does it have?
The "reason" for doin it to girls is to cut out all the nice bits and stitch em up so they'll be "pure" for their arranged husbands and will have no desire for sex. (correct me if I'm wrong here) so I think that would be one of the reasons people are a lot more opposed to it.

so I'm just wonderin why do it to boys at all is there a reason, cultural or medical?

Also I think people don't kick off as much over boys becasue it seems they have it done when they're babies and as such don't remember it when they're havin it done to their own kids, where as girls are older when it takes place (as far as I know) and are a lot more aware of it and possibly traumatised.

I'm not saying that a child feels more pain than a baby or anything like that. I still don't think it should be done to either sex, unless they want it done when they're old enough to decide.

Wibbs

Nasty_Girl wrote:

Thats a very good point.

Is there an actual reason for male circumsicion? What purpose does it have?

so I'm just wonderin why do it to boys at all is there a reason, cultural or medical?

Mostly cultural/religious it seems, sometimes medical in fairly rare cases. There's one theory that has it that it became popular in Victorian times as an anti masturbation operation. I kid you not as it is known to reduce sensitivity. The US seems particularly keen on the procedure. I've even heard American women describe the normal state as being unnatural and unclean. Go figure.

As I said the same reasons are given in support of the female type as are given for the male. I just don't see how one can condone removing an important part of the male sexual organ. Put it this way I'm glad I've still got mine.

AdMMM

What a joke to have him cleared.

Nasty_Girl

Wibbs wrote:

I've even heard American women describe the normal state as being unnatural and unclean. Go figure.

I heard that on Sex n the City once,
its the same for women who have pubic hair, not quite in the same league thou

annR

Was the charge murder or manslaughter or what? Is it illegal to do a circumcism?

Personally I don't think the guy should have been jailed. He was carrying out a procedure which is done in many cultures, even here, for health/religious/cultural reasons. Apparently there wasn't anything wrong with how he did it, it was that the parents didn't bring the child to a hospital afterwards when the bleeding didn't stop. I just don't think he deserved to go to jail.

>>Non medical genital mutilation seems ok when it's male. Funny old world.<<

No one said it was ok, but they cleared him of whatever the charge was.

About the male bit, male circumcism is nowhere near as barbaric as female circumcism. You don't see that being carried out in hospitals etc. There's *no* possible health reasons etc associated with that. It's so that a man knows a woman is a virgin when he marries her. What the exact cultural reasons for male circumcism are I don't know.

Ireland might have to look at bringing in some laws about circumcism to stop it from going on at all.

Wibbs

annR wrote:

Was the charge murder or manslaughter or what? Is it illegal to do a circumcism?

As a quite complicated medical procedure I would say it's regulated and restricted to those with medical training.

Personally I don't think the guy should have been jailed. He was carrying out a procedure which is done in many cultures, even here, for health/religious/cultural reasons.

The same health/religious/cultural excuses that the female version is done for.

Apparently there wasn't anything wrong with how he did it, it was that the parents didn't bring the child to a hospital afterwards when the bleeding didn't stop.

Surely if he did it in a medical correct way, such bleeding resulting in death wouldn't have happened?

About the male bit, male circumcism is nowhere near as barbaric as female circumcism. You don't see that being carried out in hospitals etc. There's *no* possible health reasons etc associated with that.

While it is not as obviously barbaric, any procedure performed on a normal infant for no medical reason whatsoever, without their consent is barbaric. Especially if there are no health benefits and the sexual function of the male organ is compromised.

It's so that a man knows a woman is a virgin when he marries her.

Among other things. It also reduces sexual response. It can be argued the male version has a similar but lesser effect.

Ireland might have to look at bringing in some laws about circumcism to stop it from going on at all.

Agree with you there.

Dades

I really can't make up my mind on this issue. Quite frustrating really.

annR wrote:

Ireland might have to look at bringing in some laws about circumcism to stop it from going on at all.

That is never going to happen. Maybe if the operation was dangerous the argument might hold some sway; but it is performed every day as a matter of course in many countries over the world (not least the US). This particular case is an anomaly.

Yes I think it's a daft leftover of religious beliefs, but I don't think anyone has the right to tell people they can't exercise those daft rituals.

And it doesn't seem to bother a couple of my mates who I know were snipped.

annR

So what was the actual charge? Let's know that before deciding if he should have been found guilty.

>>The same health/religious/cultural excuses that the female version is done for. <<

I don't agree. It's not carried out in order to *eliminate* sexual function until marriage and sexual pleasure probably forever. I actually don't know what the reasons were for male circumcism were in this case but I do know that lots of cultures seem to find perfectly decent reasons for it.

I very much doubt that the intention of male circumcism is similar to that of female.

>>Surely if he did it in a medical correct way, such bleeding resulting in death wouldn't have happened?<<

I'm not a doctor so can't really argue this but my understanding was that the bleeding could and should have been stopped and everything would have been fine, like in a lot of operations etc which are carried out correctly.

>>Maybe if the operation was dangerous the argument might hold some sway<<

As we've seen, doing it at home is dangerous and I am really worried that this suggests they are doing female c at home too which is even worse. I know people seem to disagree but it is worse!

Karl Hungus

annR wrote:

So what was the actual charge? Let's know that before deciding if he should have been found guilty.

The charge was reckless endangerment, as stated in the first post.

Oh, and:

annR wrote:

>>The same health/religious/cultural excuses that the female version is done for. <<

I don't agree. It's not carried out in order to *eliminate* sexual function until marriage and sexual pleasure probably forever. I actually don't know what the reasons were for male circumcism were in this case but I do know that lots of cultures seem to find perfectly decent reasons for it.

I very much doubt that the intention of male circumcism is similar to that of female.

I don't think Wibbs insinuated that the intention was the same, but rather the reasons behind it, eg for cultural or traditional reasons.

Either way, I don't think you should be defending male circumcision, and at the same time lamblasting how cruel and barbaric female circumcision is. Your logic on this is that the male variety isn't as barbaric, but by that logic, giving someone a severe beating should be ok, because it's not as bad as murder. Barbaric is barbaric and shouldn't be excused.

Sleepy

annR, whilst FGM is barbaric, it's no more barbaric than male genital mutilation, it's just that the practice of circumcision has been accepted by our culture. If we were living in a culture that accepted FGM, we'd probably be wondering what all the fuss was about.

You're also wrong in the reasoning behind male circumcision as it is a practice that appears to have originated as a means of preventing men from masturbating. Yes, there CAN be a medical reason to perform a male circumcision, but it's quite rare and despite what The Atheist maintains, it obviously holds risks given that this infant died from the procedure.

IMHO, the fact that this man was cleared is pure sexism. If he had been performing a Female Circumcision, he's be in jail today. As it was, because it's deemed perfectly acceptable to hack off part of the male anatomy, he's walking free.

The Atheist, why do you believe that we don't have the right to outlaw what you call a "daft ritual"? We wouldn't tolerate the sacrificing of virgins for religious purposes, nor do we tolerate the mutilation of the female genitalia for religious reasons, to my knowledge we don't even accept the docking of dog's tails anymore, so why on earth should we accept the mutiliation of the male genitalia for religious resons?

If it was self mutilation, I could understand the argument as it would involve one's right to self-determination. However, in this issue, the individual being mutilated has no choice, nor even the capacity to make the choice to allow this to be performed.

I'd re-try him for practicing medecine without a licence tbh.

Sangre

Male circumcision will never be outlawed here, its just too entrenched in Western society not that I advocate it.

I see your point Sleepy but you can't really compare Male/Female.

Its more like chopping a finger off vs the whole arm.

Karl Hungus

Sangre wrote:

Its more like chopping a finger off vs the whole arm.

Hmm... there's that logic again. :rolleyes:

Mind if I break your kneecaps so? You know, because it can't be compared to killing you?

Sleepy

annR wrote:

I know people seem to disagree but it is worse!

Why is it worse?

Because it's being carried out on a woman? - I'll assume you're not this sexist.

Because it's being carried out on someone who's "more aware" it's happening? - Our society values the defense of the rights of those who can't make decisions for themselves equally as much as the rights of those who can. There's nothing to prove that mutilation at an early age doesn't still cause trauma or hurt the individual in question.

Now, I will grant you that the genital mutilation of a woman is physically more intrusive and will have more long-term effects on her life than the mutilation of a male infant in the process of circumcision. This, however, does not excuse the latter as any less morally wrong. For example, stabbing someone's arm is less likely to kill them than stabbing someone's thigh (where you can hit the femoral artery), we don't excuse stabbing someone's arm for this reason though.

Sleepy

Sangre wrote:

Its more like chopping a finger off vs the whole arm.

A better analogy than mine

Again, there are instances in medecine where the amputation of the finger is a medical necessity. This doesn't mean we should allow people to chop off their children's fingers for religious reasons though, does it?

Its just too entrenched in Western society

As were the principles of slavery, not allowing women the vote etc. in their time.

Things only remain entrenched in society if you allow them to.

Karl Hungus

Oh, and on the notion that circumcision is entrenched in 'Western' society, why would the judge demand that the jurors not bring their "White western values to bear"?

lostexpectation

it seems to me his actions have fallen betweeen laws, and the baby was in his parents care when it died...


there's many calls to outlaw fgm, would you have to outlaw it.

most people think MGM isn't as bad and fgm is worse becaue it sympthom of repressive patriachy but it seems these guys think its the same with MGM

http://www.noharmm.org/geography.htm
http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/net-quot/

annR

Probably because he did it in a house according to their custom which would be insane for us but the judge asked the jury to put themselves in his shoes for a moment. They decided he didn't deserve to be jailed.

I've said, I do think that doing it outside a hospital should be outlawed though either way because it's obviously unsafe.

I'm being lambasted for "defending male circumcision" - I just pointed out that it seems to be an accepted practice all over the place not just in Africa, and I presumed there must be reasons for this. Well are there or aren't there? I don't know what they are. Why is it so accepted? If it's accepted, and it seems to be, well it's hardly shocking that the guy attempted to do one is it. Albeit outside a hospital which he shouldn't have but maybe where he comes from they don't have them who knows.

>>whilst FGM is barbaric, it's no more barbaric than male genital mutilation<<

I disagree.

>>Why is it worse? Because it's being carried out on a woman? - I'll assume you're not this sexist.<<

No because it's a different thing altogether which has much worse results, causes terrible injuries, is done for *exclusively* sexist reasons and because of this is not "accepted" in Western Society.

Does male c involve chopping off a guys dick and sewing it up because women like it that way? If so I apologise I've made a mistake.

I'm not going to argue it anymore. I can't believe you think I'm sexist for pointing this out, I only did so because people were equating the two operations in seriousness as well as morally.

RuggieBear

annR wrote:

Probably because he did it in a house according to their custom which would be insane for us but the judge asked the jury to put themselves in his shoes for a moment. They decided he didn't deserve to be jailed.

well if i ever get caught drinking alcohol in Saudi Arabia, i hope the judge asks the jury to discount saudi values and take into account that it's pretty widespread practice in Ireland

Shabadu

Wibbs wrote:

I wonder if this was any form of female circumcision would he have gotten off so lightly? Would they say it was tradition/culture etc. All the things that this chap and his supporters said on the news tonight were exactly the same reasons people in certain African countries give when they excuse and support female circumcision, yet we seek to stop that practice. Non medical genital mutilation seems ok when it's male. Funny old world.

I don't personally agree with male circumsision, but one could argue that it has very few negative impacts on the child if carried out successfully. The male can still reach climax, feel enjoyment etc.

Female circumcision removes the labia minora and clitoris, and sews up the labia majora so tightly that when women need to urinate, or have their period, the liquid drips slowly through a tiny hole that is left open. When they have sex for the first time, the pain they feel as the stiches are ripped open is excruciating. It is common for husbands to have their wives sewn up again after childbirth.

Apples and oranges tbh.

Nasty_Girl

Sleepy wrote:

IMHO, the fact that this man was cleared is pure sexism. If he had been performing a Female Circumcision, he's be in jail today. As it was, because it's deemed perfectly acceptable to hack off part of the male anatomy, he's walking free.

.

Pure Sexism?

by your logic, I could say
"Oh he only got away with it because he was a man, if he was a woman he'd be in jail right now"

"If he was white he'd be in jail right now"

"if the baby was an adult he'd be in jail"

Grow up Sleepy ffs.
The jury was mostly male and so was the judge

(By the way, if a baby girl dies as a result of a circ in this country and the guy goes to jail I will take all this back.)

Dades

Shabadu wrote:

I don't personally agree with male circumsision, but one could argue that it has very few negative impacts on the child if carried out successfully. The male can still reach climax, feel enjoyment etc.

That's exactly my point.

For me it's a balance between: a (for the most part) straightforward procedure that has neglible impact on the subjects life, and a ban that would cause uproar in any country it was introduced.

I don't think we can justify tramping all over millions of people's millenia-old beliefs because we think it's daft - unless the procedure offers a real danger of immediate or future damage to a subject.

And the male/female argument is indeed, a dead end. They are both "medical" procedure based on religious beliefs - but that's where the similarity ends.

Nasty_Girl

Shabadu wrote:

Ah, don't worry about sleepy. He's got serious issues with women. We're all bitches, whores, idiots, or sexist. Or all at the same time.

he he he he he he

Sleepy

annR wrote:

Probably because he did it in a house according to their custom which would be insane for us but the judge asked the jury to put themselves in his shoes for a moment. They decided he didn't deserve to be jailed.

I've said, I do think that doing it outside a hospital should be outlawed though either way because it's obviously unsafe.

I'm being lambasted for "defending male circumcision" - I just pointed out that it seems to be an accepted practice all over the place not just in Africa, and I presumed there must be reasons for this. Well are there or aren't there? I don't know what they are. Why is it so accepted? If it's accepted, and it seems to be, well it's hardly shocking that the guy attempted to do one is it. Albeit outside a hospital which he shouldn't have but maybe where he comes from they don't have them who knows.

It's accepted for the same reason that FGM is accepted in Africa: religious and cultural ignorance.

>>whilst FGM is barbaric, it's no more barbaric than male genital mutilation<<

I disagree.

I agree that it's physically and emotionally much crueler to perform a female "circumcision" than a male one, however, I see both acts as being barbaric, forgive me if my phrasing was less than perfect.

>>Why is it worse? Because it's being carried out on a woman? - I'll assume you're not this sexist.<<

No because it's a different thing altogether which has much worse results, causes terrible injuries, is done for *exclusively* sexist reasons and because of this is not "accepted" in Western Society.

Does male c involve chopping off a guys dick and sewing it up because women like it that way? If so I apologise I've made a mistake.

I'm not going to argue it anymore. I can't believe you think I'm sexist for pointing this out, I only did so because people were equating the two operations in seriousness as well as morally.

I like the way you cut the rest of my post out there. I'm not accusing you of being sexist but society itself. I do not consider it acceptable for society to defend one sex but not the other.

Sleepy

Nasty_Girl wrote:

Pure Sexism?

by your logic, I could say
"Oh he only got away with it because he was a man, if he was a woman he'd be in jail right now"

"If he was white he'd be in jail right now"

If he was white he quite probably would be in jail right now as the judge most likely wouldn't have asked the jury to disregard their "western values". I'm not saying this is right, just probable.

"if the baby was an adult he'd be in jail"

Of course he'd be in jail if he tried to mutilate an adult without their consent.

Grow up Sleepy ffs.

Should I use you as my paradigm of maturity? :rolleyes:

The jury was mostly male and so was the judge

And? Do you think a jury made up of a majority of women in western Africa would have convicted a woman for performing a cliterectomy on a young girl?

Sleepy

Nasty Girl wrote:

Shabadu wrote:

Ah, don't worry about sleepy. He's got serious issues with women. We're all bitches, whores, idiots, or sexist. Or all at the same time.

While I appreciate the fact that you seem to have deleted this post, I can assure you I have no such issues. The majority of my close friends are female. I'll admit to having issues with religion and society at large but you'll find I'm pretty vocal when women are being discriminated against too.

The Atheist wrote:

I don't think we can justify tramping all over millions of people's millenia-old beliefs because we think it's daft - unless the procedure offers a real danger of immediate or future damage to a subject.

Tell that child's mother that there's no real danger in performing a circumcision on an infant.

Circumcision is mutilation. Sure, there can be legitimate medical reasons to mutilate someone but I don't think anyone has the right to mutilate someone too young to make that choice for themselves.

Nasty_Girl

Sleepy wrote:

If he was white he quite probably would be in jail right now as the judge most likely wouldn't have asked the jury to disregard their "western values". I'm not saying this is right, just probable.

So it mightn't be "pure sexism" then?

Sleepy wrote:

Of course he'd be in jail if he tried to mutilate an adult without their consent.

So it might be pure age-ism (sp?) then?

Sleepy wrote:

And? Do you think a jury made up of a majority of women in western Africa would have convicted a woman for performing a cliterectomy on a young girl?

I don't know.
I could just turn around and "go yeah they probably would" or "of course they wouldn't" but I honestly don't, so I'm not going to assume a conclusion to it they way you just decided that a man who did it to a girl would be in jail.

I don't know all the answers so I'm not going to pretend I do.

Like I said in my other post if the same guy (or similar) performs a circ on a baby girl who dies and goes to jail then I will accept your assumption that it is "pure sexism", til then, I need a little more to give your persumption any weight.

Sleepy

Nasty_Girl wrote:

So it mightn't be "pure sexism" then?

So it might be pure age-ism (sp?) then?

Ok, you have me. I concede that it's not "pure" sexism. I do however feel that sexism in society played it's part in the fact he was not sentenced.

I don't know.
I could just turn around and "go yeah they probably would" or "of course they wouldn't" but I honestly don't, so I'm not going to assume a conclusion to it they way you just decided that a man who did it to a girl would be in jail.

I don't know all the answers so I'm not going to pretend I do.

Actually, I used the example of a woman performing the mutilation on a girl, as is the standard practice in Africa. I'd be very surprised if the hypothetical woman in question would even end up in court there as the practice is so accepted in their culture. I remember a reading an article in the Sunday Times where they quoted a young girl who was actually proud of having recently undergone genital mutilation :eek:

My point is that whilst our culture is enlightened enough to see this as horrific and barbaric, we don't yet seem to be enlightened enough to realise that mutilating young boys for cultural or religious reasons is also barbaric.

Dades

I don't think we can justify tramping all over millions of people's millenia-old beliefs because we think it's daft - unless the procedure offers a real danger of immediate or future damage to a subject.

Sleepy wrote:

Tell that child's mother that there's no real danger in performing a circumcision on an infant.

Sleepy I don't undertand what you mean. I presume that in the majority of cases the childs mother is fully behind the procedure. Or are all the male children of Jewish women circumsized against their mother's wishes?

Nasty_Girl

Sleepy wrote:

we don't yet seem to be enlightened enough to realise that mutilating young boys for cultural or religious reasons is also barbaric.

Yes but my point is that you don't know how the trial would have went if the baby was a girl. I know that FGM gets loads of attention from the media, but in an Irish court a judge might turn around and think "If I send this guy down for something that happened as a result of him practiscing what he says is his 'culture' I'll be branded a racist"

I know thats a cop out, maybe that's not what would happen at all I dunno it's just a muse I have, I have several but they're not very PC at all so I probably shouldn't post them.

Sleepy

Nasty Girl, I think that's exactly what happened.

I'm 90% sure I've heard of someone being deported for carrying out female genital mutilation in Ireland though I could be entirely wrong on that...

And on an aside, the truth isn't always PC, so never be afraid to hold, or post a non-PC view.

Shabadu

Nasty_Girl wrote:

he he he he he he

Ah crap. I deleted that a minute after i posted it. I was going to edit it, but decided it wasn't worth the hassle. I quite like Sleepy, but when it comes to women, you do sometimes come off as having a massive chip on your shoulder. Not *everything* is sexist. Female circumsision is a greater crime than male circumcision, as the damage done is immensley larger, not because of the sex involved.

If male circumsision involved removing the whole penis and testes, and sewing the flap over the urethera, and female circumcision involved removing a small bit of the labia minora, then male circumcision would be the greater crime, imo.

Sex and gender do *not* come into this- only the amount of distress, pain, and degredation involved.

Sangre

Karl Hungus wrote:

Oh, and on the notion that circumcision is entrenched in 'Western' society, why would the judge demand that the jurors not bring their "White western values to bear"?

Because of how and where the procedure was performed.

Karl Hungus wrote:

Hmm... there's that logic again.

Mind if I break your kneecaps so? You know, because it can't be compared to killing you?

Hmm thats strange, I don't remember condoning male circumsion.
I was merely pointing out that Sleepy's comparison wasn't reasonable.

Mortmain

The reason the judge asked the jury to forego their western standards is so the accused could be judged according to his actions and not according the the juy's values. The Jury were meant to decide the case according to relevant points of law only - not on their views regarding circumcision. For example, if a man is accused of rape and it seems 99.99999% likely that he committed the rape, but there is no concrete evidence - should he be convicted? The answer, of course has to be no for reasons based on the rule of law - this is the decision that must be reached despite the personal opinions of the jury.

The question to be answered was "did the accused act in a fashion sufficiently negligent so as to render him guilty of a charge of reckless edangerment" - his actions, not his motives were at issue. It was held that he didn't as he carried it out the same way as he always did - and if the child had been brought to hospital quicker he would have survived.