Nigerian Cleared Over Circumcision Death

Sleepy · 13-10-2005 1:09pm

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 · 13-10-2005 1:15pm

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 · 13-10-2005 1:34pm

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 · 13-10-2005 1:47pm

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 · 13-10-2005 1:56pm

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 · 13-10-2005 2:16pm

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 · 13-10-2005 2:32pm

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 · 13-10-2005 2:47pm

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 · 13-10-2005 2:54pm

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 · 13-10-2005 2:59pm

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 · 13-10-2005 3:09pm

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 · 13-10-2005 3:21pm

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 · 13-10-2005 3:22pm

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 · 13-10-2005 3:39pm

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 · 13-10-2005 3:45pm

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 · 13-10-2005 3:54pm

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 · 13-10-2005 4:35pm

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 · 13-10-2005 5:34pm

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 · 13-10-2005 5:46pm

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 · 14-10-2005 11:21am

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.

Wibbs · 14-10-2005 11:47am

Shabadu wrote:

Female circumsision is a greater crime than male circumcision, as the damage done is immensley larger, not because of the sex involved.

Both in my opinion are a crime regardless of the damage involved. Both are unneeded procedures which reduce the function of the genitals. While the male is lesser(other than the FGM type I refer to below), the idea that any such operation is acceptable for either sex due to culture/tradition is morally dubious. My point was that although FGM is unacceptable, the male isn't because it's considered a "normal" part of our culture with the same reasons given as for the female version(religion/tradition/cleanliness/reduction of sexual feeling etc). FGM practicioners could use the same argument. How are they wrong?

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.

Well there are some forms of lesser FGM which involve only removal of the clitoral hood and part of the labia, which would be comparable to the male circumcision. Would that be ok in that instance? Of course not. The fact is that keratinisation of the male glans that occurs after circumcision does reduce sexual function. Just because the male can still orgasm doesn't mean some function isn't lost. The male prepuce is there for a reason after all, to protect and lubricate the glans.

RuggieBear · 14-10-2005 12:36pm

Mortmain wrote:

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.

The Law does not operate within a bubble....

Shabadu · 14-10-2005 12:39pm

Wibbs- I also don't agree with male circumcision. I also take your point about there being different extremes of FGM.

What I am trying to say is that the punishment is dictated by the crime, and an extreme form of female circumcision is a greater crime than male circumcision only when the damage caused is so much greater.

You can't equate the two.

My point was that although FGM is unacceptable, the male isn't because it's considered a "normal" part of our culture with the same reasons given as for the female version(religion/tradition/cleanliness/reduction of sexual feeling etc). FGM practicioners could use the same argument. How are they wrong?

Because of the damge caused. Simple. Male circumcision is tolerated because it *is* far less severe and damaging than female circumcision. That is a fact.

The fact is that keratinisation of the male glans that occurs after circumcision does reduce sexual function. Just because the male can still orgasm doesn't mean some function isn't lost. The male prepuce is there for a reason after all, to protect and lubricate the glans.

At the end of the day- there are men who are glad they were circumcised. A LOT of men. There are some who aren't.

How many women do you think are happy about it?

Wibbs · 14-10-2005 2:04pm

Shabadu wrote:

At the end of the day- there are men who are glad they were circumcised. A LOT of men. There are some who aren't.

A lot are glad because they feel they "fit in" to the society that approves it. It certainly can't be for any increased sensitivity, as the fact is it reduces the sensitivity. If you can imagine the clitorus being exposed to the world without protection. How sensitive would it be after it basically calloused up? Others are happy because of medical treatment for a condition that requires it(very few. Most can be cured by less invasive procedures)

How many women do you think are happy about it?

Quite a few. As has been pointed out some even feel proud as they're now better marriage material in the societies that call for FGM. If they weren't happy to have it done, how come so many put their daughters forward for the procedure? Mainly because of the social pressures in those societies to have it done. A similar case can be made for the male form.

Dades · 14-10-2005 2:20pm

Wibbs wrote:

A lot are glad because they feel they "fit in" to the society that approves it.

I don't think I'd like to be the only kid in a Jewish school with a foreskin in the showers.

Maybe the relevant question is how many circumsized teen/adult males wish they weren't?
I would hazard a guess at next to none.

Maybe that doesn't make it right in our "sheathed" eyes, but it sure as hell makes it more acceptable.
Especially in the context of the particular society you are part of.

Wibbs · 15-10-2005 12:17am

The Atheist wrote:

I don't think I'd like to be the only kid in a Jewish school with a foreskin in the showers.

Hardly a a basis for deciding if it's alright morally, is it? I'm sure many mutilated women in FGM societies feel they "fit in", otherwise, why does the procedure continue?

Maybe the relevant question is how many circumsized teen/adult males wish they weren't?
I would hazard a guess at next to none.

Quite a few actually, especially those who have the procedure done at a later age when they can guage the difference. There are quite a few men out there trying to reconstruct their foreskins(I kid you not, google it). In fact I personally know 2 men who had it later in life who really regret it. Just because the loss is less because it's done to you as an infant, doesn't take away from the fact that loss is involved. I'm sure those who are born blind don't register the loss as much as those who go blind later. Regardless it doesn't take away from the fact that a valuable part of the male penile structure is taken away without consent. If FGM was done at birth would this make it more acceptable? hardly. So why is it acceptable to perform unneeded surgery on otherwise healthy male babies?

Maybe that doesn't make it right in our "sheathed" eyes, but it sure as hell makes it more acceptable.
Especially in the context of the particular society you are part of.

If context is everything, why don't we take the context into account when describing and admonishing those societies that agree with FGM? While the damage is more obvious in FGM, damage is damage, male or female.

Charles Bronson · 15-10-2005 2:24am

Judaism views circumcision as a religious ceremony, rather than just as surgery. Thus, it is recommended that a Mohel perform the circumcision. A Mohel is a Jew who has been trained in the physical procedures of circumcision and understands the religious significance of the ritual. If a mohel is not available, then a Jewish physician can perform the circumcision. It is customary to invite a rabbi to conduct the service.

80 percent of American circumcisions do not meet ritual standards, because the surgical procedure alone does not fulfil the religious requirement, and since many sons of Jewish parents are circumcised in a hospital by physicians, there is often no religious component to the event, and, some would say, no covenant with God. One could argue that a hospital circumcision no more fulfils the divine requirement than no circumcision. Where ritual is concerned, it is the meaning of the act and not just the act itself that is important.

Some Jews who choose not to circumcise but still want a ritual, change the ritual to omit the circumcision. They may include other ceremonial elements that are sensitive to the infant and the community. For example, something other than the infant’s body can be cut to symbolize the circumcision. An alternative ritual, sometimes referred to as a naming ceremony or “bris shalom,” may or may not be led by a rabbi. It has all the joy of the traditional ritual without the pain of the circumcision.

The use of an alternative ritual has another advantage; it can be used for both male and female infants. The growing interest in an equivalent ceremony for girls illustrates how culturally bound practices must change to be compatible with evolving values. Reformist observant Jews accept that each generation needs to create contemporary forms of expressing its connection to its religious tradition. Judaism, as a patriarchal religion, has been influenced by the women’s movement.

However, circumcision ceremonies are performed on African females as well as males. There are various types of female genital surgery. The procedure analogous to circumcision would be to remove the clitoral hood. Physiology is not an excuse for exclusively male ritual surgery. Rather than perform some kind of genital surgery on females, an idea that is repugnant and rejected by virtually all Jews, a ceremony without surgery for both sexes is the egalitarian solution.

Jewish male circumcision rituals are based on a covenant with God. They are carried out by an experienced Mohel using the Mogen clamp, a tool made for the job. The Mogen clamp is considered by many to be superior to the Gomco device used by doctors i.e. it is quicker and inflicts less pain. They should not be compared to African male circumcision carried out using a razor blade by someone with little experience “he had seen the procedure performed” and without the common sense to recognise when something has gone wrong. This is a crime that should be punished. African female circumcision is based on suppressing female sexual desire. Any culture that considers males to have more rights then females should not be considered civilised. Women in most African societies are considered beneath there husbands.

Ultimately, All Circumcisions performed without recourse to the recipient are barbaric in a modern society regardless of religion or culture.

Sleepy · 15-10-2005 12:07pm

Charles Bronson wrote:

all the joy of the traditional ritual

I'm sure the poor wee kid beeing sliced and diced is just full of joy during the circumcision :rolleyes:

Good to see that the Jewish religion is starting to behave in a less barbaric manner though...

lazydaisy · 19-10-2005 8:25pm

Does anyone know more details around the case? Did he phone 999 after he saw the child bleeding to death? Can you imagine the pain that child must have been in?

Surely, if you accidentally kill a baby because you messed up snipping baby foreskin it is MANSLAUGHTER?

How did that jury arrive at that crazy conclusion that he is not guilty?

Was he able to just walk free?

stevenmu · 20-10-2005 12:38pm

A friend of mine had to be circumcised fairly recently. The doctor performing the procedure got it a bit wrong and my friend kept bleeding, so the doctor tried patching him up a bit better. Things still weren't right and he kept bleeding so they had to patch him up again. The point is that the doctor checked to make sure the procedure was successful, and when it wasn't he took appropriate action.

IMHO (admittedly without knowing all the details of the case), this guy should have been found guilty of negligence for not doing the same.

Nigerian Cleared Over Circumcision Death

Comments