To whom it may concern: Male circumcision in Germany

I had been looking forward to attending the World Congress
in Psychiatric Genetics later this year. I had been looking forward to
presenting the results of my research investigating genetic factors
contributing to mental illness and to explaining the new methodologies I have been
developing which could assist others in the study of mental illness, dementia
and physical illnesses with a genetic basis. I had been looking forward to
hearing at first hand the latest advances in the field, which with recent
technological advances is entering a particularly exciting phase.

Today, I'm wondering whether I should be going at all.

I'm wondering how I can even consider setting foot in a
country which has just decided to ban the circumcision of male children for
religious reasons. And then to have what we would call the chutzpah to claim that this is not antisemitic.

It is absolutely antisemitic to fail to acknowledge the
significance of circumcision as having a central place in Jewish identity and
being a core religious practice and then to go on to connote it as a simple act
of physical violence against a child leading to permanent physical deformity.
I'm sure that it's also anti-islamic but I'll mostly stick with what I know.

What is being promoted is a simple, indeed simplistic,
liberal argument that a child should not be subjected to a medical procedure
having permanent consequences when they are too young to consent. It is not
hard to see the superficial appeal of this argument and it seems to have been
persuasive for the court in question. However it can be challenged on a number
of levels.

Firstly, it needs to be accepted that male circumcision is
not a physically harmful act. The least that can be said for it is that it is
neutral and there are good arguments for saying that it confers physical
benefits, for example in reducing the susceptibility to acquiring and spreading
HIV infection. The fact that it may be harmful to a small minority of people or
that some may resent having had it performed on them does not negate the fact
that it bestows overall benefit. (And where there are significant medical risks,
such as for haemophiliacs, the religious obligation is removed.) Identical
arguments could be made about immunisation, which undoubtedly causes severe and
permanent harm to a small number of children but which provides individual
benefit to the vast majority and which is overall hugely beneficial for society
as a whole.

Next, we can say that circumcision is not the only thing which we allow parents to do their children which has long-term
physical consequences. Alongside immunisation, we allow parents to arrange for
their children to have tattoos and piercings. Up to the age of 24 weeks or so
we allow them to terminate their existence. We allow them to encourage their
children to participate in athletic activities which are risky and dangerous as
well as those which are safe. And we allow them to provide their children with
large quantities of unhealthy food and drink which bestow on them lifelong
health problems.

As a psychiatrist I am especially aware that intellectual
and emotional consequences can be as important as physical ones. We allow
parents to indoctrinate their children in Judaism, Catholicism, Islam, humanism,
atheism, liberalism, Hinduism and Buddhism. We allow parents to force their
children to attend cheder, Sunday school and madrasas. We allow them to make
their children undergo christenings, baptisms, bar mitzvahs and confirmations. We
allow parents to teach their children Creationism and Darwinism. We allow
parents to teach their children what is morally right. Or not. We allow parents
to have their children watch too much television and to grow up with unsuitable
role models. In short, we allow children to be raised by their parents, not by
the state. Quite broad limits are set around how parents may treat their
children and we allow parents to do many things which we might not really
approve of.

Withholding circumcision from a Jewish boy is not a
neutral act. It is not adequate to simply say that he can decide for himself
when he is an adult. This is like saying that we should not provide him with
religious education because he can decide when he is an adult what religion to
pursue. Or we can hold off forcing him to learn to read or write because he can
decide when he is a grown up whether these are skills he would like to acquire.
A Jewish boy who is not circumcised will feel themselves to be deficient in their
identity and to be failing to fulfill what is expected of them. Of course there
are adults who will resent having been circumcised when they were younger but
this is a consideration which needs to be taken account of, not an overwhelming
and incontrovertible argument against the practice. An adult who abandons
Judaism is forced to bear a permanent reminder of their history. But each of us
has an awareness of our histories, some of which we may not be happy about,
whether or not we have a physical reminder. (Incidentally, it may need
clarifying here that it's not the circumcision which makes somebody Jewish,
it's the being Jewish which requires that one be circumcised.)

It will sound strange to hear, but from a Jewish point of
view the failure to perform circumcision would actually be a form of child
neglect.

It is difficult to convey to a non-Jew the absolutely
central place that circumcision has in religion, history and identity. I think
probably I shouldn't even try. I understand that there are people who think
that all religious belief and practice is primitive, irrational, harmful
nonsense. I have a good deal of sympathy with that position. But for those who have
the view that religion is something which should at least be tolerated then I
say that if they wish to pay more than lip service to this idea then they need
to hear Jews and Muslims when they say that this practice is key to their
religion and that parents need to be allowed to bring up their children in
accord with what their religion demands.

As I write this, I am sitting on a London underground
train. The man on my right is reading an article highlighting the worrying rise
in the number of violent children arriving at primary school. The man on my
left is looking at a Bible and making notes. He is studying the book of Maccabees.
Nowadays, we celebrate their rebellion against an occupying power which sought
to stifle religious expression with the festival of Chanucah. What every Jewish
child learns is how they won back the temple and relit the light which
symbolizes God's eternal presence and which is now seen in every synagogue.
Less well-known is that a key factor of the religious oppression which
triggered their revolt was the attempt to ban circumcision. 

I am shamefully ignorant of Jewish history and I may be
mistaken here but I know of no other time or place when a government has sought
to ban Jews from performing circumcision. Of course there have been plenty of
times when Judaism has been banned or Jews have been banned or Jews have been
killed. But never before have I heard of a society which tries to say,
"Yes, we accept Jews. But they must not circumcise their children."

I understand that liberal non-Jews probably feel a bit ambivalent
about this, as they do about the ritual methods used for animal slaughter and
the whole notion of animal sacrifice. However, they need to make a stand.
Either they truly defend the freedom to practice religion and they need to
vigorously contest this. Or they don't.

So, what now?

To the Jews of Germany, who would in some ways ironically
be better treated in Iran or Syria than where they are now, I say that travel
and employment in Europe is unrestricted and that although the weather in
Britain is not all that great it's probably not much worse than what you have
there. And that the social, political and cultural climate certainly seems far
more accommodating. I extend the same invitation to Muslims of Germany and France.

To the organisers of the Congress I say, what actions are
you taking to protest this decision? To the doctors of Germany I say, what
actions are you taking to defend the rights of your patients to be able to have
this procedure performed legally by somebody who is medically qualified rather
than for it to be driven underground? To the politicians, lawyers and citizens
of Germany I say, where do you stand on this issue? Please make your thoughts
known. The world is watching you.