Is Circumcision Legal in Canada

It is a fundamental principle of international law and the hallmark of any civilized community that discrimination is illegal. Human rights interpretations that recognize FGM, but not GMM, as violations violate the principles of equal protection enshrined in national and international law. Female circumcision is rightly a criminal offence in almost all countries, even if a “religious duty” is claimed; There can be no justification for not giving boys the same protection. All forms of sexual circumcision of children are profoundly harmful, boys or girls. To claim that only female circumcision can be considered a violation of various human rights conventions denies medical evidence of the pain, risks and sexual dysfunction caused by male circumcision of infants. It advocates for the formalization of discrimination against these male children on the basis of their sex, race and the religious beliefs of the family into which they were born. The principles of human rights are absolute and are not balanced against other violations of international justice. The cultural and religious ritual of male circumcision has been practiced for thousands of years. Circumcision as a medical procedure originated in the late 19th century in Britain and the United States. The historical medical benefits of neonatal circumcision include facilitating genital hygiene, reducing the risk of disease, and avoiding circumcision later in life. By the middle of the last century, most Canadian boys were circumcised. However, the rate of neonatal circumcision has dropped over time to the current Canadian average of 32%, with significant regional differences.

[1] The Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) issued a statement in 1996 stating that circumcision was not recommended as a routine procedure for male infants because the benefits and harms were balanced. A similar position was expressed by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in 1999 and reiterated in 2005. [2] Recent evidence on the positive role of male circumcision in preventing urinary tract infections (UTIs) in infancy and some sexually transmitted diseases (STIs) in adulthood has led the CPS to review current medical evidence on male circumcision. The AAP updated its own policy statement in 2012. [3] The purpose of this statement is to provide health care providers with up-to-date advice and information for parents of newborn boys to help them make informed decisions about circumcision. In February 2018, the Progress Party proposed a bill that would replace the words “girl” with “child” and “her sexual organs” with “[her] sexual organs,”[121] making Iceland the first European country to ban male circumcision for non-medical reasons. The bill, which was debated in Iceland`s parliament in Alþing, claimed that the practice harmed the physical integrity of young boys, was often performed without anesthesia and in an unhygienic manner by religious leaders instead of medical experts. These facts were found to be incompatible with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1990). Critics argued that the law violated religious freedom or constituted anti-Semitism or anti-Muslim bigotry, making it difficult for Muslims and Jews to live there. Silja Dögg Gunnarsdóttir, who proposed the ban, replied that Iceland had already banned female circumcision in 2005 and that “if we have laws that prohibit circumcision for girls, then we should do the same for boys.” [75] On April 29, the bill was sent back to Parliament for revision. [122] On March 25, 2018, Jewish members spoke out against circumcision in Alþing, expressing support for the proposed ban and rejecting allegations that it was motivated by anti-Semitism, anti-Muslim bigotry, xenophobia, or anti-immigration sentiment.

[123] The law was suspended in 2018 under pressure from the United States, Israel, and various lobby groups. [124] [125] Section 268 prohibits genital procedures for non-medical reasons, but only on the female genitalia. Male anatomy is not mentioned. Although it has been argued that non-therapeutic male circumcision falls within the scope of this article, although it is not specifically mentioned, the question arises as to why female body parts are specifically mentioned and what level of protection is afforded to men. Sections 15 and 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter)[20] state that rights are guaranteed equally for both sexes. Anti-circumcision activists in Denmark are circulating a petition to force their government to consider a similar law. They have reportedly collected nearly half of the 50,000 signatures they need to draft a bill that would set 18 as the minimum age for the procedure. The Royal Netherlands Medical Association (KNMG) notes that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is contrary to children`s right to autonomy and physical integrity and that there are good reasons for its legal prohibition, as there are for female genital mutilation: German Ambassador to Israel Andreas Michaelis told Israeli lawmakers that Germany is working to: It is important to solve the problem and that it does not apply at national level. but only to the territorial jurisdiction of the court of Cologne.

[98] The Coordination Council of Muslims in Germany condemned the verdict, declaring it “a serious attack on religious freedom.” Ali Kizilkaya, a spokesman for the council, said: “The decision does not take everything into account, the religious practice of circumcision of young Muslims and Jews has been carried out globally over the millennia.” The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Aachen, Heinrich Mussinghoff, said the verdict was “very surprising” and that the contradiction between “the fundamental rights to religious freedom and the welfare of the child raised by the judges is not convincing in this case.” Hans Ulrich Anke, head of the Evangelical Church in Germany, said the decision should be appealed because it did not take into account the religious significance of the rite. [99] A spokesman, Steffen Seibert, for Chancellor Angela Merkel says that Jewish and Muslim communities will be free to practice circumcision responsibly and that the government will find a way around the local ban in Cologne. The spokesman said: “It is absolutely clear to everyone in the government that we want a Jewish and Muslim religious life in Germany. Responsibly circumcision must be possible with impunity in this country. [100] [101] Male circumcision of newborns has become less common in Canada in recent decades. This change was greatly influenced by previous recommendations from the Canadian Paediatric Society and the American Academy of Pediatrics, both of which confirmed that the procedure was not medically indicated. Recent evidence suggesting the potential benefits of circumcision in preventing urinary tract infections and some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, has prompted the Canadian Paediatric Society to review the current medical literature in this regard. Although it may be beneficial for some boys in high-risk populations and in circumstances where the intervention could be considered to reduce or treat the disease, the Canadian Paediatric Society does not recommend routine circumcision of all male infants. Circumcision of adults who give informed personal consent for surgery is legal. The Deputy Ombudsman considered that the circumcision of boys who cannot give their consent without medical reason is highly questionable from a legal point of view.

On March 31, 2016, the Supreme Court issued two decisions, complementing a precedent in which the Court had found that non-medical circumcision of boys was an offence of bodily harm, but was not punishable if it was considered to be in the best interests of the child. In 2013, the Nordic Ombudsmen for Children adopted a joint statement stating that boys should have the opportunity to decide for themselves whether they want to be cut or not. In 2015, Finnish Children`s Ombudsman Tuomas Kurttila suggested that Finland pass a law banning non-medical circumcision of boys. There is no known medical benefit for the procedure (circumcision) in children. Therefore, there are good reasons to expect with the intervention until the person who is the subject of the measure has reached such an age and maturity that he or she can give informed consent.