iceland mps propose a ban on circumcision of boys

That is a reference to Islam and Islam is not a religion that calls for it. Read the Quran, read the Hadith, ask any Muslim Scholar. It's a cultural practice in parts of Africa and the Middle East, but it's not called for by Islam.

I've heard the same exact arguments made about male circumcision in Islam, that there's no explicit law or obligation for it and that it's cultural. Which I've found kind of hard to reconcile with how male circumcision is close to universal in Islam and has followed it almost everywhere it's spread, but I haven't studied Islam enough to make this judgement. I also get the impression that there's no explicit age for when circumcision must be carried out in Islam, since I've seen circumcised boys range in age from infancy to preteens. Never really beyond that though, but that variation tells me they should likely be able to abide by a "no non-medically indicated circumcisions under 18" law.

A similar pattern follows for FGM though, since it's altogether common in the muslim world, is thought to be more common than previously thought, and apparently, FGM was not found in southeast asia before the introduction of Islam. It also has a very similar variation in age, from infancy to pre-adolescence. And while it might be true that, like male circumcision, there is no call for it in Islam, it doesn't seem like Islam has done anything (except until very recently, via international pressure) to stamp out the practice, where it pre-dated it.

Orthodox Christianity in Africa- the Coptic, Ethiopian, and Eritrean churches- all believe in male and female circumcision. They represent some of the earliest forms of Christianity, before circumcision was explicitly disavowed by the Church and not seen as a requirement in Christianity. Somewhere along the line, they all seemed to have picked up female circumcision, and have likely been practicing it for a very long time. They could be wrong in their beliefs, like Islam and circumcision, but you're still up against tradition in these cases.

So what does that leave us with? Judaism? Circumcision (for those under 18 and without a medical indication) can't be banned because one religion, of which has less than 20 million adherents worldwide, calls for it in infancy? That isn't even going into the idea early Judaism's form of circumcision was far less invasive than the most common forms of circumcision now.

Given how entrenched it is though, legislators in Australia (and I believe also Finland) have called for a ban with specific religious and cultural exemptions. That's probably not going to go over well either though, since groups that are allowed to do it while everyone else is banned from it are likely to feel alienated.

It's completely relevant.

You're technically right, but what he's saying is no different from the views of much of the international community. It's why it's worth noting that the WHO has four different categories of FGM that range greatly in severity, such as the form that involves cutting off all external parts, damaging some of the internal vagina, sewing it up etc. (which I imagine you're thinking of, and I should also add is found exclusively in northeast africa) to, well, this:

Type 4: This includes all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, e.g. pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterizing the genital area.

"Pricking." Pricking is not mutilation. In fact, the form of pricking common in southeast asia, when performed properly, does not even draw blood:

Thrashing wildly, 5-year-old Reta wails as she is hoisted onto a bed during a circumcision ceremony in a school-hall-turned-clinic on Java.

“No, no, no,” she cries, punching and kicking as her mother cups her tear-soaked face to soothe her.

Doctors clap and cheer encouragingly. One of them gently swipes her genital area with antiseptic and then swiftly pricks the hood of her clitoris with a fresh sewing needle, drawing no blood.

The ordeal is over in seconds as other girls and babies waiting for their turn shriek in fear.

This should tell you right now that the term "female genital mutilation" encompasses things that aren't, by any sane definition, mutilation, and that it really basically is just "invasive, non-medically indicated procedures performed on an unconsenting female's genitals." But apparently, even grown women are barred from undergoing "FGM" procedures in atleast Kenya.

So while I agree "Regardless of procedure, scope, or outcome, any medically unnecessary cutting of a non-consenting child's genitals is an egregious violation of his or her body.", I also do think the severity of the procedure is relevant. So it begs asking why a bloodless prick from a sewing needle is basically considered "mutilation" in the vein of infibulation, whereas removing a boy's foreskin for any reason at all is considered a non-issue by the international community, including an abomination like this.

/r/europe Thread Parent Link - ruv.is