Male Genital MutilationBodily Integrity, Genital Autonomy and Religious Freedom

1. November 2016

A NGO supplementary report related to the Danish state report with regard to the CRC treaty Fifth periodic reports of States Parties due in 2016 – Denmark

Authored by Intact Denmark

Original full-length report submitted in English Subsequently to be published in Danish

Version 1, abbreviated

Intact Denmark℅ Lena Nyhus

Paltholmterrasserne 57 DDK-3520 Farum

Denmark+00 45 20 83 37 67

kontakt@intactdenmark.dkwww.intactdenmark.dk

2

Table of contentsMALE GENITAL MUTILATION.........................................................................................................2TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................................................................................................3ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..................................................................................................................4SUMMARY.........................................................................................................................................5MALE GENITAL MUTILATION – DEFINITION.................................................................................7TESTIMONIALS................................................................................................................................7

HUSSAIN ALI....................................................................................................................................8ANONYMOUS....................................................................................................................................8ERCAN ALICI....................................................................................................................................9JEREMY WILSON..............................................................................................................................9LEO MILGROM................................................................................................................................10ANONYMOUS..................................................................................................................................11HALIME OGUZ................................................................................................................................11AYHAN AL KOLE.............................................................................................................................12AIDA MAY CEESAY.........................................................................................................................13GÜRAY BABA.................................................................................................................................13MIKAEL AKTOR...............................................................................................................................14

EDUCATIONAL STRATEGY..........................................................................................................14LEGISLATIVE STRATEGY.............................................................................................................15

18 YEAR AGE-LIMIT.........................................................................................................................15NON-THERAPEUTIC CIRCUMCISION CONSTITUTES INJURY..................................................................15GENDER DISCRIMINATION...............................................................................................................16CHILDREN’S RIGHT TO GROW AND DEVELOP TO THEIR FULL POTENTIAL..........................................16THE APPROVAL OF RELIGIOUS RITES..............................................................................................16

LEGISLATIVE MEASURES............................................................................................................17CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................................................................17DISCLAIMER...................................................................................................................................17

3

AcknowledgementsOn behalf of Intact Denmark, we thank all the activists and specialists who contributed to this report.

Without you, we would not be seeing such progress concerning children’s rights in Denmark and the world today. Without your passion and compassion, this report would not have become a reality.

Lena Nyhus, Chair Mikael Aktor, Vice Chair

4

SummaryIntact Denmark is a non-governmental interest organisation for involuntary genital surgery victims and their allies. Intact Denmark1 seeks to promote the physical integrity of children of all biological sexes – girls, boys and intersex2 – as well as the religious freedom and genital autonomy of the adolescents and the adults they become.

Involuntary genital surgery includes female genital mutilation (FGM), male genital mutilation (MGM) and intersex genital mutilation (IGM). In this context, genital mutilation is defined as the affliction of serious harm to the healthy genitals of a person below the age of majority. It is aptly described in the words of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) Resolution 1952 as “the… non-medically justified violations of children’s physical integrity which may have a long-lasting impact on their lives.”

According to the International NGO Council on Violence against Children, which has worked in concert with the UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence against Children, “All violations of children’s rights can legitimately be described as harmful practices.” However, the common characteristics of the violations highlighted in the report Violating children’s rights: Harmful practices based on tradition, culture, religion or superstition are “that they are based on tradition, culture, religion or superstition3 and are perpetrated and actively condoned by the child’s parents or significant adults within the child’s community. Indeed, they often still enjoy majority support within communities or whole states.”

The report continues:

“Harmful practices based on tradition, culture, religion or superstition are often perpetrated against very young children or infants, who are clearly lacking the capacity to consent or to refuse consent themselves. Assumptions of parental powers or rights over their children allow the perpetration of a wide range of these practices, many by parents directly, some by other individuals with parents’ assumed or actual consent. Yet the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), ratified by almost every state, favours the replacement of the concept of parental “rights” over children with parental “responsibilities,” ensuring that the child’s best interests are parents’ “basic concern” (Article 18).

Many of the practices identified in this report involve gross and unlawful discrimination against groups of children, including gender discrimination, and in particular discrimination against children with disabilities. Some are based on tradition and/or superstition, some on religious belief, others on false information or beliefs about child development and health. Many involve extreme physical violence and pain leading, in some cases intentionally, to death or serious injury….The International NGO Council on Violence against Children believes the continued legality and social and cultural acceptance of a very wide range of these practices in many states illustrates a 1 The organisation is funded entirely with symbolic contributions from private members, and all efforts of the organisation are voluntary and performed without salary.2 Intersex is a biological sex. Approximately 1.7% of the global population presents with biological sex characteristics which are atypical in terms of chromosomes, hormonal balance, gonads, genitals etc. These children often undergo unnecessary and involuntary surgical and hormonal treatments in order to assign them to a binary gender construct.3 Full report available here http://srsg.violenceagainstchildren.org/sites/default/files/documents/docs/InCo_Report_15Oct.pdf

5

devastating failure of international and regional human rights mechanisms to provoke the necessary challenge, prohibition and elimination. Comprehensive, children’s rights-based analysis and action are needed now. Above all, there must be an assertion of every state’s immediate obligation to ensure all children their right to full respect for their human dignity and physical integrity.

The CRC also upholds the child’s own independent right to religious freedom (Article 14). Children are not born into a religion. Every individual has the right to religious freedom. Thus, parents and others cannot quote their adult religious beliefs to justify perpetrating harmful practices on a child, before she or he has the capacity to provide informed consent....

Until recently, male circumcision has generally been challenged only when carried out by non-medical personnel in unhygienic settings without pain relief. But a children’s rights analysis suggests that non-consensual, non-therapeutic circumcision of boys, whatever the circumstances, constitutes a gross violation of their rights, including the right to physical integrity, to freedom of thought and religion and to protection from physical and mental violence.”

Intact Denmark finds that ritual or non-therapeutic circumcision of minors meets the definition of violence against children as described by the International NGO Council on Violence against Children. Hence, the practise must be discontinued and an 18 year age-limit introduced.

The primary focus areas of Intact Denmark are:

Legislative protection of children’s universal, inalienable human rights to physical integrity, genital autonomy, and religious freedom

Promotion of information about scientific and ethical aspects of non-therapeutic genital surgery to educate parents, health care personnel, teachers and the general public, and increase children’s knowledge and self-empowerment

Support and counselling for physically and psychologically affected individuals and their families, including parents who regret circumcising their children4.

The main subject of this supplementary report is the genital mutilation of boys (called ritual or non-therapeutic male circumcision), as it has been the centre of intense debate in Denmark for several years. (FGM has been prohibited since the late 1990s.)

The report will analyse relevant current legislation and conventions as well as medical data, ethical principles and additional relevant information in order to suggest viable methods to implement full protection of children’s rights to bodily integrity, genital autonomy, and religious freedom.

The complimentary report will rely on data provided by the Danish Health Authority, independent medical studies, and representative public opinion polls.

Please, consult the original full-length version for relevant chapters on medical and legal issues.

4 Some parents come to regret circumcising their child because of their child’s anguish or complications during the procedure, others due to a growing understanding of natural genital functions, or because their child grows up to be dissatisfied with the procedure. The majority seem to become regretful for ethical reasons – they grow to understand that they have infringed upon the inalienable rights of their child. To date, no formal scientific study of Danish parents who regret circumcising their children has been undertaken.

6

Male Genital Mutilation – definitionMale genital mutilation includes a number of harmful, involuntary procedures endured by both minors and adults.This supplementary report will focus on the type of male genital mutilation which is commonly known as ritual or non-therapeutic circumcision of boys. The procedure involves amputation of the foreskin (prepuce) of the penis of boys under the age of majority, which is currently 18 in Denmark.

TestimonialsNon-therapeutic circumcision of non-consenting minors affects victims as well as their families and communities.

According to a recent poll 87% of the Danish population oppose ritual circumcision. The reasons vary, but generally the tradition is questioned from the perspective of children’s inalienable rights to physical integrity, genital autonomy and religious freedom.

We have invited a number of different persons to come forward with testimonials for this report in order to allow their voices to be heard by the UNCRC and the international public.

Some have never publicly aired their opinions previously. For safety reasons the names of some have been withheld. Our experience is that it can be particularly difficult and perhaps even dangerous for especially Muslim women to come forward against non-therapeutic circumcision of minors.

Some witnesses have chosen to come forward with their full names and pictures in spite of the fact that they have previously experienced threats and live at secret addresses, or have been forced to seek advice from relevant authorities in order to ensure their protection.

Some have experienced the procedure personally and found it highly traumatic, or suffered short-term or long-term complications. Others do not perceive negative consequences from their circumcisions, but oppose it for ethical reasons.

Some are relatives of victims of traumatic procedures, others have grown up in circumcising communities but question the tradition from the perspective of children’s inalienable rights.

One premise is universal: respect for children’s inalienable rights as individuals.

7

Hussain AliMuslim backgroundStudent

(Hussain Ali is in the company of Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen)

“It should be illegal to circumcise healthy children under the age of 18. Denmark is a highly secularised country. Circumcision violates religious freedom.

According to my conviction it is permissible to raise the child and guide it towards a specific religion, but the child should be allowed to choose religion. One should not tattoo a religious mark on the body, neither should it be carved into their bodies by circumcision.

I was circumcised because my parents are Muslims.

Had my parents not circumcised me, I would probably have chosen it for myself today. But just the fact that I did not have the choice in one of the world's most democratic, prosperous and secular societies hurts.”

AnonymousMuslim backgroundStudent

Due to safety concerns the name of this activist is withheld

“I am a proud Muslim woman. A hijabi. My family never forced Islam on me. They never forced me to wear the hijab.

I chose to become a woman of faith. I chose to wear the hijab. I have chosen to carry my religion with me. Every day. Everywhere.

That is my religious freedom.

I will never force my religion on my children. I will never force my culture on my children. I will introduce them to it gently.

If my daughter chooses to wear the hijab as an adult, I will support her. I will also support her, if she chooses not to. That is her freedom of choice.

8

If I am ever blessed with a son, he will not be circumcised without his consent. I will introduce him to Islam, just as I have introduced my daughter to my religion and culture. If he then chooses to become a Muslim and chooses to be circumcised as an adult, I will support him.

Until then, he should be protected from forced circumcision – genital mutilation – by me and by society. We need to introduce an 18-year age limit.”

Ercan AliciMuslim backgroundSocial Worker

“Non-therapeutic circumcision is a thoroughly unethical phenomenon. The child’s opinions, voice and rights are ignored and amputated both figuratively and tangibly.

We fail children, if we do not stop non-therapeutic circumcisions of minors. I was let down too.”

Jeremy WilsonChristian backgroundHigh-school studentBoard member of Intact Denmark

“I was born prematurely, but when I was six months old, my parents had me circumcised at a leading Danish hospital.

Circumcision is almost universal in my mother’s culture. She is a Christian and from Ghana. My father is Danish.

He didn’t know much about circumcision, but thought it was harmless and complied because it was important to my mother.

9

I don’t think any of them gave my rights much thought. I don’t mean to say that they disregarded my rights. They just never thought about the fact that they were inflicting permanent damage to my body.

It has not been easy to come forward in the media and express my regret that I was circumcised, but I am doing it to support all the other victims of genital mutilation and to protect the children of the future.”

Leo MilgromJewish backgroundChild Assistant

"Like the widespread and deep roots of an ancient tree, Jewish circumcision stems from a time before our memories. The idea is destructive in its essence: take something from the child that belongs to no one else but the child. It is carnal theft. But there is more: circumcision is a blood rite related to the horrific historical fact of child sacrifice. The Gods demand it. What a tragic lie.

What remains is a family with the natural connection of love literally cut to pieces. The act of cutting children’s genitals for the parents’, for the rabbi's, for the community’s,  for the doctors’ or for God's sake does the exact opposite of bringing the family closer together: the child is horrified, its understanding of genital, bodily and psychological boundaries destroyed.

Parents, as my own parents, may not even be aware that performing a religious circumcision is like detonating a bomb in the middle of the family: everybody gets hurt.”

AnonymousMuslim backgroundStudent

Due to safety concerns the name of this activist

10

is withheld

“When my father first arrived in Denmark as a refugee, he came to understand that circumcision is not necessary, in fact it is harmful.

It was too late to protect my older brother from the procedure, but my father shared his knowledge with his brother in order to protect my cousin.

Unfortunately, my grandmother had my cousin circumcised, while my uncle was resting. Both my uncle and my father were furious.

Today, I am active in politics and in the work for genital autonomy for ALL children, regardless of gender.

I think of ritual circumcision as an act of social control exerted over the child. A person who has been involuntarily ritually marked on their body can never be fully free to choose his own path.

I am proud that my father and my uncle tried to protect my brother and my cousin. I will protect my future sons, personally and with legislation. Their bodies, their choice.”

Halime OguzMuslim backgroundCandidate for the national parliament, FolketingetCand.mag in Literature and Middle East Studies

“What stirs me emotionally is the massive violation the child is exposed to as a result of the foreskin amputation. Regardless of whether it is older boys or infants. Their destiny is fixed in advance.

The Jewish boys are circumcised with a sharp object within the first eight days of their lives, while the Muslim boys are older and can attempt to escape. They will fail. They will be captured and forced down by the adults – several of them – in order to ensure the mutilation. There will be no mercy, regardless of whether they scream of pain and beg for mercy. Mercy from whom? The parents of the child, with whom it should feel the safest, suddenly pose the largest threat. I have seen it happen. I know.

When people argue that non-therapeutic circumcision is a right – the right to freedom of religion – they are not considering the rights of the child. The sole consideration is the parents.

11

Circumcision of a healthy boy is at its core a fundamental attack on the personal integrity of a human being. When we address gender equality, we must accord boys the same rights and the same legislative protection as girls.”

Ayhan Al KoleMuslim backgroundMedical DoctorAssembly of Representatives for Junior Doctors in DenmarkParliamentary Candidate for Denmark

“I was circumcised at the age of four. Like a defenseless animal I was held down by my nanny and her mother. The area was numbed and 1-2-3 off with the foreskin! I remember the cold tools against my penis as if it were yesterday.

My parents had tried to prepare me as best they could beforehand, but when the man with the suitcase arrived – that is what I called the doctor – I ran around the living room frightened like a headless chicken.

In spite of my own experience and my knowledge as a medical doctor, I defended non-therapeutic circumcision up until recently, when my stance on the issue was challenged by a friend, who also has Muslim background.

That made me realise that non-therapeutic genital surgery on a person who is in essence unable to consent or to defend himself is unethical and indefensible.

I do not know whether I would have chosen circumcision for myself as an adult, but I do know that my rights were violated when that choice was taken from me.

I have dedicated myself to the protection of children’s rights to bodily integrity, genital autonomy and religious freedom.”

12

Aida May CeesayMuslim backgroundStudent

“I have a Gambian background, but I was born and raised in Denmark.

As a woman in the west, my rights are protected. It is not even a matter of debate. It is unfathomable to me that the rights of boys still aren't protected and parents actually can choose whether or not they would like to cut a part of their child’s body off. I do not believe parents have the right to choose which body parts their child gets to keep.

I understand that parents do not do this to harm their children, but that is nonetheless what is happening.”

Güray BabaMuslim backgroundBSc Political ScienceSoMe Editor, Intact Denmark

“Everyday I look at my body and am reminded of my mutilation. The ones who should have protected me, mutilated me.

It is a bad excuse to call circumcision an act of love. Circumcision is not based on love for the child, but a sacrifice for the community.

My well-being as the circumcised counts for nothing, although my parents did not understand the consequences at the time.

It disgusts me, when it is said, that children should be circumcised when they are infants and under anaesthetic. An assault is never okay, just because the victim was drugged and were not able to remember it.

Circumcision cannot be called a legitimate practice, just because it is religious. The child is the one who is permanently cut – not the religious parents. Is it really freedom of religion to force an amputation on an innocent child, who did not consent?”

13

Mikael AktorJewish backgroundAssociate Professor in Study of Religions, University of Southern Denmark & Vice Chairman of Intact Denmark

"I was raised in the 1950s-60s in a liberal, secular Jewish family with progressive views on the upbringing of children and their rights to form their own ideas. Nevertheless my parents chose to circumcise me and my older brother in the orthodox synagogue in Copenhagen – just in order to avoid overwhelming conflicts with the more traditionalist part of the family. When later we brothers asked questions about the rationality of circumcision, the answer, which was quite common among Jewish secular families at the time, was that the foreskin is just superfluous, vestigial skin.

As an adult I understood by my own sexual experience, that for many of us this is certainly not the case. The lessening of the level of sensitivity which is normal with age will be increased beyond the natural degrees. Besides, as a homosexual I have had opportunities to talk with both circumcised and intact men about sexual functioning and as their partner I have had my suspicion ascertained that, indeed, sexual functioning and sensitivity is different.

When my son was born I was never in doubt that he should be left intact, and I felt no difficulties whatsoever in explaining to him, when he asked the question himself, why his penis looks different from mine.

Having investigated the status of circumcision in the context of human rights and Danish legislation, it has become evident to me how this operation remains a problematic anomaly that is only accepted by unspoken exceptions and disregard of basic principles."

Educational StrategyIntact Denmark recognises that parents act in ignorance of children’s fundamental rights and penile anatomy, when they opt for non-therapeutic circumcision of their children.

Furthermore, we understand that legislative measures are never effective as preventative measures if not anchored solidly in educational outreach to the affected parties.

We therefore find that a solid educational strategy in combination with legislative measures is key to eradicating MGM for future generations.

We therefore call on the Danish state to:

14

Further examine and analyse the prevalence of non-therapeutic circumcision of minors Initiate educational measures to be carried out in the specific contexts where information

may best be conveyed to families, such as the medical sector (hospitals and individual practitioners), schools or religious communities

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

Guarantee bodily integrity, autonomy and self-determination to all persons concerned, and provide adequate counselling and support to families

Raise awareness about the need to ensure the participation of children in decisions concerning their physical integrity wherever appropriate and possible

Legislative Strategy18 year age-limit Currently the age of majority is 18 years in Denmark.  Intact Denmark recommends a similar age-limit be introduced for non-therapeutic circumcision.

It might be argued that a lower age-limit would be appropriate. However, we find the following considerations to be of paramount importance:

18 years is the age-limit for other irreversible alterations of the healthy body such as cosmetic surgery, tattoos and sterilisation

Social control mechanisms may be very strong in the context of circumcision. A person with full legal majority will find it easier (if not at all easy) to assert their personal choice than a younger child

Circumcision is a procedure with far-reaching consequences and a risk of complications. Comprehension of complex medical information, as well as the sexual consequences of the procedure, is a necessary prerequisite in the decision-making process

The average age of sexual debut in Denmark is 16. In order to make an informed decision regarding irreversible genital alterations, the individual in question should be afforded sufficient time to explore his natural sexual organ, alone and with a partner

Non-therapeutic circumcision constitutes injury There can be no reasonable doubt that the irreversible amputation of a healthy, functional (non-vestigal) part of the genitals of a minor amounts to a bodily “injury” as defined by UNCRC Article 19 on violence against children.

Since the operation involves the use of a sharp instrument to cut through the healthy skin of the child it must as well amount to an instance of “violence”, notwithstanding the religious or cultural motives and the best intentions of the parents. In its General Comment to this article the Committee on the Rights of the Child writes: “The Committee on the Rights of the Child has effectively rejected all attempts of downplaying or excusing acts of a violent nature: The Committee has consistently maintained the position that all forms of violence against children, however light, are unacceptable. ‘All forms of physical or mental violence’ does not leave room for any level of legalized violence against children. Frequency, severity of harm and intent to harm are not prerequisites for the definitions of violence.”5

5 General Comment 13 (2011), IV.A.1.

15

Gender DiscriminationAccording to UNCRC 24.3 “States Parties shall take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children.” This statement has been referred to as a basis for banning FGM, but not MGM, although the statement is (and must be) gender neutral. This neutrality is also emphasised by UNCRC, Art. 2, which rules that all regulations of the Convention apply to all children regardless of gender among other circumstances (religion, nationality etc.).

It has been asserted that the health risks of MGM are insignificant compared with those of FGM. This is typical of a view on FGM and MGM under unequal criteria where FGM is understood as WHO types 2 and 3 and performed under unsafe medical conditions, whereas the circumcision of boys, an intervention which is more invasive but physiologically parallel to WHO type 1a, is understood as performed safely by authorised medical doctors.

Children’s Right to Grow and Develop to their Full PotentialApart from the fact that all operations involve risks and complications after MGM do occur, the problem with this discriminative assertion is the narrow definition of “health”. According to this view, only unintended post-operational complications are accepted as “prejudicial to the health of children”, not the intentional injury to the penis caused by the amputation.

This narrow view on health runs counter to the much more holistic definition promoted by the Committee on the Rights of the Child. In its General Comments to Article 24, it adopts the understanding of health recommended by the WHO: “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” Children’s right to health is, therefore, also “a right to grow and develop to their full potential”6. However, amputating a healthy part of the body can never be conducive to developing the child’s full physical potential.

The Approval of Religious RitesIn Denmark religious denominations outside the Evangelical Lutheran Church, Folkekirken, may apply for approval as an “authorised” or “approved” religious denomination. The approval involves certain tax exemption rights, as well as the right to perform legally binding marriages of its members. Applications will be assessed by the Advisory Committee on Religious Denominations referring to the Minister of Ecclesiastical Affairs.

It has been made clear by the Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Religious Denominations that an application for approval as a Danish religious community, if submitted today by Muslims or Jews, would not be granted due to the fact that child circumcision goes against several conventions ratified by Denmark. Thus, he maintains, the reason that non-therapeutic circumcision of minors is accepted today is that these communities were approved prior to the establishment of the Advisory Committee in 1998.7

6 General Comment 15 (2013), I.4.7 “Circumcision Cannot be Approved as Religious”, Berlingske Tidende, 20 June 2012. http://www.b.dk/nationalt/omskaeringer-kan-ikke-godkendes-som-religioese

16

Legislative MeasuresIt is a natural consequence of the definition of non-therapeutic circumcision as harmful and even violent that the state must take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolish the practice in accordance with UNCRC Article 24.

ConclusionsNon-therapeutic circumcision of minors violates the fundamental, inalienable rights of children as determined by the United Nations in the Conventions of the Rights of the Child.

In order to preserve the rights to physical integrity, genital autonomy and religious freedom for the child, as well as the adolescent and adult he will become, an age-limit for non-therapeutic circumcision corresponding with the age of majority must be introduced in combination with comprehensive educational measures.

DisclaimerThe present supplementary report on male genital mutilation of minors in Denmark represents an attempt to introduce key aspects of the debate on the matter from the perspective of non-consenting victims of the practise.

We do not present an exhaustive representation of the situation, partly because it is a complex issue with a number of involved parties, and partly because the situation is constantly developing.

Our intention is to develop the present report into an active tool which may introduce legislators and other interested parties to the issue, which they will hopefully utilise in their attempts to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the subject at hand for the benefit of the children.

Any omission or misrepresentation in the report is unintentional, and will be corrected as it is brought to Intact Denmark’s attention, to the extent that it is possible with the limited resources available to the organisation.

17