At its 31st Sitting (on 1 October 2013), Council of Europe adopted the text of Resolution 1952 (2013) dealing with some issues of 'Children's right to physical integrity', inter alia circumcision for religious reasons.
Despite
Council of Europe's important contributions for the protection of children’s
rights and the rapporteur’s (Mrs Marlene Rupprecht, from Germany) commendable
and consistent record of initiatives and reports for the adoption of measures
for the protection of children at European level, the above-mentioned
Resolution fails to consider the uniqueness of Jewish circumcision, treating it
among other forms of circumcision and not even referring to it.
The very fact
that this Resolution states that ‘supporters of the procedures tend to present
as beneficial to the children themselves despite clear evidence to the contrary’
suffices to cause concern.
First, Jewish circumcision is not a practice primarily
based on medical grounds.
Second, the point that should be considered is not
whether Jewish circumcision is medically recommended, but whether this entails
physical or psychological consequences for Jewish boys.
Third, the necessary reference to
discussions on whether circumcision is beneficial or not to boys has been
avoided in a Resolution where it wrongly states ‘clear evidence to the contrary’.
A fair discussion would easily highlight the beneficial consequences of Jewish
circumcision as pointed out by a large number of medical doctors in Europe and
elsewhere and most of all that such consequences carry no negative long-lasting
impact on the lives of Jews, as wrongly mentioned in Resolution 1952 (2013). However, I would like to stress once more, the point is not whether Jewish circumcision is medically recommended, but that this carries no negative consequences.
Given
the growing number of cases of anti-Semitism in Europe, any parliamentary
initiative towards preventing or regulating circumcision should avoid treating
this issue without considering the specificities of Jewish circumcision and
without first consulting with Jews themselves and representatives of their communities.
Since
Resolution 1952 (2013) refers to ‘Children’s right to physical integrity’, we
found just fair to name our draft resolution ‘Adults’ right to intellectual
integrity (concerning Jewish circumcision)’ for the adopted Resolution contains serious mistakes by treating as
equal Jewish circumcision and other forms of circumcision and as comparable to
female genital mutilation. These matters should never be treated in the same
legal text. Of course, the name we chose is exclusively for the purposes of
drawing the necessary attention to these points. However, our draft resolution
could bear a more appropriate name, such as ‘Protection to Jewish circumcision’.
But its name is not the issue at stake.
Here-below we post the text of Council of Europe's Resolution 1952 (2013) for information and we subsequently submit our draft
resolution (produced during Sunday, 6th of October, 2013).
COUNCIL OF EUROPE
PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY
Resolution 1952 (2013)1
Provisional version
Children’s right to physical integrity1. Many legislative and policy measures have been taken by Council of Europe member States in recent decades to improve the well-being of children and their protection against any form of violence. Nevertheless, children continue to be harmed in many different contexts.
2. The Parliamentary Assembly is particularly worried about a category of violation of the physical integrity of children, which supporters of the procedures tend to present as beneficial to the children themselves despite clear evidence to the contrary. This includes, amongst others, female genital mutilation, the circumcision of young boys for religious reasons, early childhood medical interventions in the case of intersexual children and the submission to or coercion of children into piercings, tattoos or plastic surgery.
3. According to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), in all actions concerning children, comprising every person under 18, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration and States are required to take “all appropriate ... measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse ... while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child” (Article 3).
4. The Council of Europe has been actively promoting children's rights and child protection since 2006 through its Strategy for the Rights of the Child, and in which “Eliminating all forms of violence against children” can be found as one of four strategic objectives.
5. The Assembly itself has adopted numerous texts drawing attention to various forms of violence inflicted upon children in bad faith (sexual violence in different contexts, violence in schools, domestic violence, etc.). It continues to fight against different forms of violence inflicted upon children via different promotional activities and campaigns (domestic violence, sexual violence). However, it has never looked into the category of non medically justified violations of children’s physical integrity which may have a long-lasting impact on their lives.
6. The Assembly strongly recommends that member States promote further awareness in their societies of the potential risks that some of the above mentioned procedures may have on children's physical and mental health, and take legislative and policy measures that help reinforce child protection in this context.
7. The Assembly therefore calls on member States to:
7.1. examine the prevalence of different categories of non-medically justified operations and
interventions impacting on the physical integrity of children in their respective countries, as well as the specific practices related to them, and to carefully consider them in light of the best interests of the child in order to define specific lines of action for each of them;
7.2. initiate focused awareness-raising measures for each of these categories of violation of the
7.3. provide specific training, including on risks of and alternatives to certain procedures, as well as the medical reasons and minimum sanitary conditions that should be fulfilled when performing them, to various professionals involved, in particular medical and educational staff, but also, on a voluntary basis, religious representatives;
7.4. 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;
7.5. take the following measures with regard to specific categories of violation of children’s physical integrity:
7.5.1. publicly condemn the most harmful practices, such as female genital mutilation, and
and effectively fight these practices, including through the application of extraterritorial “legislation or other measures to establish jurisdiction” for cases where nationals are submitted to female genital mutilation abroad, as specified in Article 44 of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (CETS No. 210);
7.5.2. clearly define the medical, sanitary and other conditions to be ensured for practices
which are today widely carried out in certain religious communities, such as the non-medically
justified circumcision of young boys;
7.5.3. undertake further research to increase knowledge about the specific situation of intersex
cosmetic rather than vital for health during infancy or childhood, guarantee bodily integrity,
autonomy and self-determination to persons concerned, and provide families with intersex
children with adequate counselling and support;
7.6. promote an interdisciplinary dialogue between representatives of various professional
backgrounds, including medical doctors and religious representatives, so as to overcome some of the prevailing traditional methods which do not take into consideration the best interest of the child and the latest state of medical art;
7.7. raise awareness about the need to ensure the participation of children in decisions concerning their physical integrity wherever appropriate and possible, and to 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.
________________________________________________
OUR DRAFT RESOLUTION
COUNCIL OF EUROPE
Parliamentary Assembly
Resolution No. ____ (2013)
Provisional version
Adults’ right to intellectual integrity (concerning
Jewish circumcision)
1. Europe is a continent where Jews have been present for more than two millennia.
2. Jews have always been a distinctive group for their religion and practices within their communities, but no Jewish community has ever acted against European values and the rule of law of the place, region or State where they live or have lived.
3. Jews have always adapted their external practices in order to abide
by the laws of the place, region or State, even where such laws had been
adopted in order to discriminate the Jews, preventing them from certain
activities or restricting their rights, or to force them to pay for the
fundamental or basic rights recognised to non-Jews.
4. Not a single discriminatory law adopted all over Europe at different
periods of European history has ever been justified by any recognised European
values, but exclusively by reasons, be them economic or political, that can be
all encompassed under the term of anti-Semitism.
5. European anti-Semitism has produced large massacres and the
destruction of Jewish communities and eventually allowed the Pogroms and the
Holocaust (or Shoa), where six million innocent Jews perished under the Nazi
regime.
6. After 80 years of the appointment of Adolf Hitler as Chancellor of
Germany and the Parliamentary Enabling Act giving him dictatorial powers, the burning
of the Reichstag, the opening of the Dachau, Buchenwald, Sachsenhausen and Ravensbrück
concentration camps, the first Nazi policies boycotting Jewish shops and
businesses, the burning of books in Berlin and throughout Germany, the adoption
of legislation allowing forced sterilization of those found to have genetic
defects, the exclusion of Jews from Arts, the prohibition of Jews from owning
land and from being newspaper editors, among other discriminatory measures, and
after 70 years of the liquidation of the Krakow, Vilna, Minsk and Bialystok
Ghettos, the Waffen-SS attack of the Jewish Resistance in the Warsaw Ghetto,
the declaration of Berlin to be Judenfrei
(cleansed of Jews) and Himmler’s open talks about the Final Solution, Europe is
facing a renewal of open anti-Semitism, such as the killing of innocent Jews,
including children, for the mere fact that they are Jews, negationism of the
Holocaust by certain public figures with widespread media coverage or open
political statements against Jews among many other examples of anti-Semitic
expressions.
7. Europe faces also a series of disguised anti-Semitic initiatives,
including measures aimed at preventing or prohibiting Jewish circumcision by
treating it as equal to any form of circumcision or as comparable to female
genital mutilation.
8. Many legislative and policy measures and recommendations, including by
Council of Europe, to regulate the
circumcision for religious reasons, have mistakenly not treated Jewish
circumcision with due regard to its distinctive nature and core value for any
Jewish identity and wrongly considered it as an issue of children’s right to
physical integrity as comparable to female genital mutilation, the latter clearly
impacting on a woman’s capacity to have pleasure and depriving them from a
normal sexual life, entailing permanent psychological effects.
9. During all the history of the Jewish people religious circumcision
has been performed on boys at the age of eight days with no negative effect for
their health and no negative mental consequences, thus having no long-lasting
negative impact on their lives.
10. By comparison, parents’, legal guardians’ and other responsible
persons’ decisions regarding the food and beverages to be given to small
children or their physical activities –or lack of it-, do actually have
long-lasting impact on children’s lives and most of the over-weight and obesity
health problems in Europe are a direct consequence of such decisions and
represent a real matter for concern, differently from any allegedly (and
totally unproved) consequence of Jewish circumcision.
11. Jewish circumcision as performed during all the Jewish history for
religious reasons does not constitute a physical or mental violence, injury or
abuse against boys (no dysfunctional or painful consequence has ever been
recorded for any human organ due to Jewish circumcision) and does not violate
any of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child (UNCRC) nor of any other international conventions or treaties adopted at
UN or European levels and certainly cannot be considered as violating any
children’s rights at any level.
12. National and international initiatives aimed at prohibiting Jewish
circumcision on grounds of health protection or prevention of violence against
children have not overcome any of the medical and cultural counter-arguments
presented by representatives of the Jewish communities and no evidence of
negative impact has ever been produced so as to justify such initiatives.
Therefore, these shall always be a matter of concern as to their likely
anti-Semitic hidden agenda.
13. Circumcised Jews have made great contributions to the world and to
Europe all long their history in all fields of Science and Arts. Given the fact
that Jews correspond to just a very small part of the population of Europe and
that their contributions to the development of European societies and nations
are proportionally much larger than their corresponding presence in any given
European society and nation, it is quite obvious that if Jewish circumcision
has had any impact on Jews –as alleged by its opponents-, it can only have been
a positive impact. This fact is further corroborated by the evidence that there
is no record of any Jews complaining about their condition of being
circumcised.
14. The social and psychological impact on Jewish boys of not being
circumcised would certainly be considerable and any attempt to prevent or even
regulate Jewish circumcision would certainly constitute a measure of violence against
their Jewish identity and may contribute to the weakening of the Jewish culture
and presence in Europe. Thus, any measures that might be taken to prevent
Jewish circumcision as it has been performed for more than two thousand years
in Europe should give rise to serious concern given their similarity with the
goals that inspired the facts of 80 and 70 years ago recalled above and many
other not recalled in this text.
15. The Assembly strongly recommends that member States promote further awareness in their societies of the potential risks that some of the above mentioned procedures of indistinctive approaches as to Jewish circumcision may have on encouraging anti-Semitism, and take legislative and policy measures to reinforce Jewish circumcision protection as a fundamental issue among other measures aimed at combating anti-Semitism.
16. The Assembly calls on member States to:
16.1 regard Jewish circumcision as a distinctive form of circumcision;
16.2 not consider Jewish circumcision as a form of violence, physical or
mental, or abuse or injury against children while discussing measures to be
taken in order to protect children’s integrity;
16.3 not discuss or treat Jewish circumcision as equal to other forms of
circumcision and not as comparable to female genital mutilation;
16.4 not discuss any issue regarding Jewish circumcision without
consulting with representatives of all the prevalent Jewish groups and without
taking into account their positions, statements and opinions;
16.5 take legislative and other measures in order to promote further
awareness that Jewish circumcision is a fundamental part of Jewish identity and
that measures to prevent or regulate it may have wider and further negative
consequences, including the increase of acts of violence against the Jewish
population in Europe and other forms of anti-Semitism;
16.6 extend these focused awareness-raising measures to schools, higher
education institutions, legislative, executive and judicial bodies, and media
professionals among other groups;
16.7 public condemn any initiative aimed at attacking or preventing
Jewish circumcision or at comparing it to other forms of circumcision or at
treating it among any forms of violence against children, including female
genital mutilation.
17. The Assembly calls on member States to take into account the present
Resolution when considering any other texts referring to circumcision for
religious reasons, including Resolution 1952 (2013).
_____________________________________________________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment