In a case which has garnered some attention over the last few days, President of the Family Division James Munby clarifies the position on Female Genital Mutilation in Re B and G [2014], but fails entirely to address an equally pressing form of abuse -MGM.
MGM is a procedure which involves partial removal of the external male genitalia, or other injury to the male genital organs for non-medical reasons, and is practiced as a form of religious ritual mainly within Jewish and Muslim communities. The practice has spread across the globe, largely through misinformation and myth, so much so that MGM is now carried out world-wide as a defence against life-threatening disease, though no medical evidence exists to back up the claim that it saves lives.
We are of course, talking about male circumcision, but doesn’t it sound vile when a different label is slapped on it? And that’s the problem with labels. In calling Male Genital Mutilation, because that’s what it is, male circumcision, we circumvent the reality of this practice entirely.
That though, was not something the President of the Family Division was prepared to do in handing down his judgment last week, whilst comparing MGM to FGM in the later stages of his reasoning. To make matters worse, he took it upon himself to misquote medical data on MGM and even suggest that MGM was acceptable because it was based in religious practice, reasoning we find absurd and unacceptable in a figure-head charged with overseeing the nation’s family matters. This is what Munby says:
“There are…. at least two important distinctions between the two [FGM and MGM]. FGM has no basis in any religion; male circumcision is often performed for religious reasons. FGM has no medical justification and confers no health benefits; male circumcision is seen by some (although opinions are divided) as providing hygienic or prophylactic benefits. Be that as it may, “reasonable” parenting is treated as permitting male circumcision.”
Munby also backs up his stance on MGM by hiding behind precedent – he tells us that there’s nothing in the current case law to suggest that male circumcision justifies care proceedings. This makes for an awkward knot to untangle as it confuses two principles: the ethical practice of MGM and the consequences of that practice. Setting aside the consequences for a moment, we can look more closely at the President’s reasoning for avoiding the discussion around MGM which he does by being very careful with his wording. He chooses, consciously, to avoid committing to one theory or doctrine about the benefits of MGM and at the same time he highlights the dangerous dilemma he faces in criticising the practice by saying of the debate on MGM, “These are deep waters which I hesitate to enter.”
Of course he does. For to enter those waters would be to incite anger amongst communities and the general public at large who have been conditioned to view MGM as natural and even necessary for various reasons. It would also highlight the legal chasm between the two abuses – FGM is currently illegal, whilst MGM is not. Munby is conveniently able to side step this minefield, because the case itself does not focus upon MGM, but FGM. And Munby uses his restricted remit as judicial arbiter of the facts before him to do this.
But not before leaving a string of glaring contradictions trailing behind him in his judgment. Munby openly acknowledges that some types of FGM, which are illegal here in the UK share the same criteria as MGM:
“Given the comparison between what is involved in male circumcision and FGM WHO Type IV, to dispute that the more invasive procedure involves the significant harm involved in the less invasive procedure would seem almost irrational. In my judgment, if FGM Type IV amounts to significant harm, as in my judgment it does, then the same must be so of male circumcision.”
And he also says:
“In NS v MI [2006] EWHC 1646 (Fam), [2007] 1 FLR 444. a forced marriage case, I said this…
“Forced marriages … are utterly unacceptable…..
‘Forced marriage is a gross abuse of human rights. It is a form of domestic violence that dehumanises people by denying them their right to choose how to live their lives. It is an appalling practice. …No social or cultural imperative can extenuate and no pretended recourse to religious belief
can possibly justify forced marriage.’
…Forced marriage is intolerable. It is an abomination. … the court must bend all its powers to preventing it happening. The court must not hesitate to use every weapon in its protective arsenal if faced with what is, or appears to be, a case of forced marriage.”
In my judgment, every word that I there used in relation to forced marriage applies with equal force to FGM.”
So why shouldn’t it apply to MGM too? Given all that we know about MGM, its similarities to FGM, the lack of consent involved, the evident non-existent health benefits, surely it also falls under Munby’s purview as a ““barbarous” practice which is “beyond the pale.””? We know now too that MGM causes emotional trauma in babies, and that it reduces sexual pleasure in adult males, all without offering any up side to the individual, so why do we insist on viewing Female Genital Mutilation as a crime, and Male Genital Mutilation as a health benefit?
One other thought did occur to us as we read this judgment. Could Munby be trying, indirectly, to incite a debate on MGM away from the judicial bench, away from the courts, and into the political sphere? If that was his intention, we’re not sure he succeeded. No one is talking about MGM this week. No one but us. But we hope that will change.
Labels have a nasty habit of tacitly condoning abuse and ensuring it looks acceptable from the outside. MGM is not acceptable, and using religion as an excuse to look away, is inexcusable.
You can access an article we wrote on MGM, its health benefits and why it’s time to stamp it out, by clicking here.
Roger Crawford said:
I’m really, really not sure about this. The people most ‘affected’ by circumcision must be the Jewish population, but I’ve never heard a complaint about it from any of them. It has always been done as a religious requirement. I can’t see why it would affect sexual pleasure, unlike F.G.M. which removes the clitoris (I understand). There was some debate in ‘Forum’ magazine years ago about it (and may have been again recently, but I’m long past reading that!). Every time a reader wrote in about ‘de-sensitisation’ or something like that, it was rebuffed by the editors who weren’t exactly illiberal. Munby is Jewish. That may affect his outlook on the subject. Personally, I think there are far more important things to worry about.
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Hi Roger, the facts in the piece are correct (check out the link to my article at the bottom of the post which goes into detail about the procedure, its benefits and its impact). This process occurs in Islam too (the photo below is of children who have been cut by Muslim adults) and many more men from differing walks of life are cut, too, due to perceived health benefits.
FGM is more complex than just the removal of the clitoris. There are different types of FGM, and different procedures used. You can read up on this online, there’s lots of material to read.
Is Munby Jewish? Either way, I myself am Jewish and my son has a Muslim father, so I had to do a lot research before convincing both sides of the family, not altogether successfully, that this was a dubious practice.
I think it’s a very important thing to worry about. The pain babies endure causes many to go into shock and it leaves scarring and often, health problems later on in life. My piece on the ritual explains all of that.
It might seem like a small bit of skin to you, but to a baby, it’s a large chunk of flesh and the pain of the ordeal is much greater than we adults imagine.
LikeLike
Roger Crawford said:
Hi Natasha,
I think I’m correct in saying that Munby is Jewish but not entirely sure.
I bow to your much greater knowledge of this subject, and confess I just haven’t time to read all the facts about it. We can’t cover everything.
Perhaps it’s a question of perception. FGM is widely abhorred but circumcision is accepted as a religious requirement. I can’t imagine those very fundamental Jewish communities, such as those in Stamford Hill, ever considering not having their boys circumcised, a practice that has been going on for well over two thousand years. That doesn’t make it right, of course, but it’s a tradition originally based on health and cleanliness and, I understand, an integral part of the faith. Any attempt by outsiders to forbid it surely would be met with cries of ‘anti-Semitism’, particularly now there is a worrying increase in that. I think even many liberal Jews would baulk at it.
I personally would accept your argument about pain, but I think the one about ‘de-sensitisation’ is a red herring. Maybe. . . .
I think the lack of response from other regular contributors may indicate both an ignorance of the subject (like me) and a feeling it’s not top of their list of priorities. You may think it should be, it’s just that those of us who write about Family Courts mostly do it from experience – and there are so many of us! It would be interesting, especially as you are Jewish, to know if any mature Jewish men have complained about it or mentioned it to you, or indeed Muslim men, or anyone who has had it done to them.
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Hi Roger, thanks for your thoughts. I’m aware that a lot of the lovely readers and contributors here focus mostly on family court process and adoption, but as you know the blog covers a range of family matters 🙂 That said, I don’t mind at all if no one comments, it’s just good to be able to put those thoughts out there. I know they’re being read at least (I can see from my stats; this has been one of those posts that appears to have piqued interest, controversial ones like this one usually do), and that I’m grateful for.
Interestingly, after I posted this article, I did get people writing to me to say their partners or they, had been circumcised and many now suffer with pain and discomfort, because these things are often not done terribly well. That has a lot to do with the procedure being treated as a ‘ritual’ and so less likely for many to be medically sound in terms of its being carried out painlessly/ professionally or in an environment which is clinical.
As a Jew and a Muslim, (I’m half and half) I have no hesitation in saying the practice is wrong. The founder of Israel himself refused to circumcise his own son, so what does that tell us? I think it tells us that it’s important to think carefully about these customs and really consider whether or not they are ‘right.
LikeLike
Mike Buchanan said:
@ Roger Crawford
“I can’t see why it would affect sexual pleasure, unlike F.G.M. which removes the clitoris (I understand).”
The express purpose of MGM is to reduce sexual pleasure in adult males, by excising a substantial amount of healthy skin which has a very large number of nerve endings. More on this and FGM (you appear not to understand the four different forms of FGM, one at least of which is less injurious than MGM) in William Collins’s important blog piece:
http://mra-uk.co.uk/?p=519
Non-therapeutic MGM of minors leads to physical and mental health problems for many males – sometimes death – and is clearly illegal under both UK and EU law, but the state doesn’t prosecute for it. It’s currently our #1 campaigning issue.
Mike Buchanan
JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
(and the women who love them)
http://j4mb.org.uk
LikeLike
Roger Crawford said:
Thanks Natasha. I can see that the practice, if it really has to be done, must be done professionally and absolutely to very strict standards. I presumed it was. You must be in a very small minority, being half Jewish and half Muslim, or am I being very ignorant again? If the founder of Israel himself refused to have his son circumcised, then that’s a good enough argument against it for me. I had no idea.
Did you watch the ‘Eichmann show’ last night? I was thirteen at the time and remember it quite well. An excellent programme, sensitively and accurately done. We must never, never forget what people are capable of. And remember we have the power to do good as well as evil. May we all have the grace and the wisdom to know the difference.
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Yes, not many of us around 🙂 It causes a range of reactions; anger, confusion, and sometimes curiosity. My favourite ‘label’ was given to me by some Israeli and Palestinian journalists one evening; they called me a walking peace process, and I liked that so much it stayed with me 🙂
My mother says this show is excellent – I haven’t seen it and in my ignorance I have no idea what it’s about.
LikeLike
padrestevie said:
Hi Natasha
Thanks for writing this article. I did not realise that you had resisted pressure for your own boy to be circumcised and I respect you very much for having done something that must have been difficult.
*hat tip*x2!
I think that Sir James did not need to stray into the area of MGM to make his judgment. However, having read it a few times, he does seem to be behaving provocatively and I am pleased that he has highlighted a barbaric practice which is anomalous with most people’s parental instincts. The picture at the foot of your article is sickening.
I’m grateful to Roger Crawford for highlighting the levels of ignorance, apathy and indifference that appear to exist around MGM. I cannot explain why there has been such a small response to this piece because it does impact heavily upon child protection issues and family law matters. I hate to admit that an un-codified right not to be offended and irrational fear of offending appear to over-rule our actual and legal right to freedom of expression.
Firstly, in the case before Sir James, he draws attention to the fact that the brother of the little girl had been, or would shortly be, circumcised. In this case, he found that the mutilation suffered by the little boy would have been more significantly harmful than the type IV fgm allegedly carried out on his sister. Yet, inflicting fgm on the girl would have been considered unreasonable whilst inflicting mgm on the boy would be considered reasonable. Is it right that children can be lawfully harmed? Why should boys be treated any worse than girls? If children want to mutilate themselves when they are older that’s up to them but when they are little children that is simply not a parents job.
Secondly, I’m sure that some people reading this blog will have experienced allegations of harming or of smacking children. If a parent causes so much as a temporary mark then it can become a child protection matter. I am also certain that some dads will have been prevented from seeing their children following such allegations. I find it hard to explain why it is considered, “reasonable parenting”, to take a blade to a new-born infant and cause it, pain, distress, permanent and “significant harm”, by hacking off pieces of flesh, on the one hand whilst, on the other hand, children could be removed from their parents or prevented from contact with a parent when considerably less harm has been inflicted. I abhor corporal punishment and merely wish to highlight a dissonance here.
Thirdly, when a court determines any question with regards to the upbringing of a child, the welfare of the child is supposed to be the court’s paramount consideration. This is the paramountcy principle and it was used to avoid making changes to the law, that would have given rights to absent parents, because, it was feared that children’s welfare would no longer be paramount. However, in cases of MGM it would appear that a parent’s will to impose their beliefs upon their male offspring usurps the fundamental principle in children’s law that the welfare of the child is Paramount. Why is a parent’s religious choice ever more important than a child’s welfare?
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Hi Stevie, thank you for your comment. Yes, I agree, Munby does appear to be trying the broach the subject, as you quite rightly point out, there is no immediate need in this case to mention MGM. I also think his own personal view on it is made clear, but I still felt that if he was going to attempt a political judgment, something that has become a calling card for him, he could have been a little less bashful.
Thanks for yourthoughts. I did have to research this area in much depth a few years ago and I came to the conclusion that MGM is a senseless practice. But so much of ritual today, is.
LikeLike
Dana said:
Hi Natasha, the photo depicting male circumcision on babies is quite horrific. I can’t quite comprehend why the babies would have been left like that! Surely they would have been cleaned immediately for hygienic purposes alone, especially if this was done in a hot country or environment! However, I can understand them being left without a nappy as anything against the skin would be very painful until the wound healed.
What are the babies clutching in the hands? It’s obviously something given to them after the procedure.
In this country it can of course be done for medical reasons. If there is no medical necessity the NHS can do it if the parents wish but they charge a fee of around £250 or more but this procedure would normally be done by a rabbi if Jewish, I’m not sure who does it if you’re Muslim and I don’t know if money exchanges hands for either.
On the face of it, it’s an abhorrent practice but men who have had it done, providing there have been no complications, like it. There is no desensitisation and they consider it to be cleaner. No doubt there are others who will disagree.
Mumby may know the following, which would make him reluctant to voice an opinion.
According to Avert.org, there has been official promotion of circumcision too by WHO & UNAIDS calling on men of no religious persuasion to prevent HIV. A device called a Prepex was approved by WHO in 2013 for use on adult males. Women in the main preferred the results too which would have further promoted this highly organised drive to get as many men as possible to voluntary undergo the procedure.
The circumcision of babies is thought to be a long term strategy in the prevention of HIV. Circumcision is considered to be only part of the stategy!
Since 2009 14 countries were targeted for at least 80% coverage (no pun intended)
Funding was provided by PEPFAR and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for pilot studies.
FGM was found not to prevent HIV, but rather increased the risk, so at least that practice would not be done for that reason.
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Hi Dana, thank you for your thoughts. Briefly, as it’s manic at RR today (!) I think Munby was voicing an opinion, in the only way he probably felt he could given that judges are not supposed to be political in that way, by saying that MGM did amount to serious harm and pointing out that it fit within one type of FGM which is illegal here in the UK, but his hands are tied by case law and convention, as well as his judicial remit. However, I think he could have been a little less sheepish about the whole thing.
Another issue with MGM is that it isn’t always carried out clinically, that is to say it is done like the photo shows – with often blunt rusty blades, unclean tools and environment and with very little after care. It’s also the case that there are no proven medical benefits to MGM, and those small health benefits people often cite can be acquired through a good hygiene routine. And that’s it. So as it stands, MGM doesn’t really fill any gap, anywhere.
LikeLike
Dana said:
Certainly circumcision does not prevent HIV! Why on earth would the World Health Organisation be promoting it as such?
I can understand that some men are dirty and would not bother to wash and as a result sexually transmitted diseases could be spread, but this is a programme that involves many countries. Removal of a foreskin is just that, no more no less and I can’t see it stopping anything! So why? What is the real agenda?
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Hi D, I think it depends. Religious ideology plays a part, resistance to change perhaps?
LikeLike
Kingsley said:
Dana said:
“Certainly circumcision does not prevent HIV! Why on earth would the World Health Organisation be promoting it as such? ”
The WHO’s “chief expert on circumcision” is David R. Tomlinson who is also the inventor of the AccuCirc device.
It’s all money, crony-ism and corruption.
http://www.circleaks.org/index.php?title=World_Health_Organization
LikeLiked by 1 person
cutupbymgm said:
Thanks for your forthright and refreshingly objective response to the recent comments made by James Munby. I wince when I read such ill-informed statements as those by one of the commenters above. More people ought to read some accounts by men who have been circumcised as adults that I have read, for an education in what effect circumcision has on a man’s sexuality. The fact that millions of men will never know what was stolen from them at birth by their own guardians is for me one of the greatest crimes against human dignity. Philip Larkin hit the nail on the head when he penned: “This be the Verse.” You may perhaps be interested to listen to James Chegwidden expounding on the subject of male circumcision in the UK: https://vimeo.com/78999394 Also, for what it’s worth, a precis of my circumcised life story: http://www.inside-man.co.uk/2014/07/15/male-genital-mutilation-one-mans-story/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Richard Duncker said:
Thank you for this article. There are a great many men who have been ridiculed into silence about the harm they feel they have suffered as a result of MGM. Thankfully the silence is being broken by your work and Munby’s judgement. Please search Men Do Complain. Thanks for your courage and compassion.
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Thank you Richard, for your comment and your kindness.
LikeLike
Bedfordshire Mens Forum said:
Hi Natasha,
Very good piece.
The Government is to introduce mandatory reporting of FGM
http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed143188
One wonders how difficult it would be to include MGM?
It’s what we have come to expect from the British Establishment though…
https://bedfordshiremensforum.wordpress.com/2015/02/16/male-circumcision-does-involve-harm-rules-president-of-the-family-courts/
Good link here for those who want a Freethinker’s view…
http://freethinker.co.uk/?s=circumcision
Well done.
Bedfordshire Men’s Forum
LikeLike
Pingback: “Male circumcision does involve harm” rules President of the Family Courts | Bedfordshire Men's Forum
Pingback: Facebook censors picture | Men Do Complain
Pingback: James Munby, President of the Family Division, shies away from controversial MGM debate | Justice for Men & Boys