Search

This article analyses the approach of key international actors to the circumcision of children, seeking, first, to understand why the policy towards the circumcision or genital cutting of girls is so different from that towards boys. As part of this project, the article considers the literature on the situation in international law, concluding that the legal position is unclear and debatable. The article notes, however, that the policy difference is justified not by key actors by reference to international law but instead by reference to their theoretical understanding of how dynamics of gender and power infuse the genital cutting of girls. The article suggests that this approach is deficient because it can only compute inter-gender harm and not intra-gender harm, with the consequence that it fails to protect boy children from harms, which a better crafted theoretical model of gender and sexuality would capture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many countries around the globe, including liberal democracies, have forbidden ritual female circumcision, better known as female genital mutilation in all its variants, while ritual circumcision of young boys and female genital modifications for esthetic reasons are allowed. This difference in the legal treatment of comparable practices, such as male circumcision, the least invasive version of female circumcision and female genital cosmetic surgeries, receives criticism for the "double standards" that favors religious believers and the cosmetic surgery industry. To address properly the "double standards" criticism, this article focuses mainly on the legality of ritual male and female circumcision. It adopts a health law perspective to put the legality of both types of circumcision under critical scrutiny. This is a fruitful approach to explain why ritual male circumcision is generally allowed as an exception in law. That is not because of its religious narratives, but, because it has been considered a medical intervention that seems in the best interest of the child. The health law perspective also posits why female circumcision in its most severe variants should remain a crime. These variants of female circumcision have no health benefits and harm young female bodies significantly. The final part of this article reiterates that the health law perspective rejects convincingly exemptions for female circumcision and allows ritual male circumcision conditionally and temporarily. This conclusion gives an unsatisfactory feeling as the ban on male circumcision hangs like a Damocles sword above this traditional practice. To face the "Damocles sword" criticism and to develop an argumentation pattern that would fit a broader sense of justice concerning the legality of male circumcision, this article introduces two novel pragmatic arguments that explain the "double standards" regime beyond the health law perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human rights claim universal validity, which implies that bias in their applicability as well as in their application should be avoided. From this perspective it is rather remarkable that female circumcision is a major cause for human rights concerns, whereas male circumcision is rarely addressed in the context of human rights. This raises the question whether practices of female circumcision are really that different from forms of male circumcision. There is at least some evidence that there are more similarities between male and female circumcision than commonly perceived. Taking this as a starting point, on the basis of facts, figures and rationales, we distinguish three types of circumcision: the 'African', the 'American' and the 'Abrahamic' type. Whereas male circumcision may fulfil the characteristics of any of these three types, female circumcision seems to fit only the African type. The typology allows for an analysis of the frames used in the debate to justify or delegitimise male and female circumcision. Frames that feature in the debates on male circumcision area 'medical/health frame'and a 'cultural/religious frame', both with an 'accessory human rights frame'. The debate on female circumcision (mostly referred to as female genital mutilation or FGM), on the other hand, is predominantly a 'women's rights frame'. The differences in normative framing as well as the consequences thereof for the human rights protection of men and women do not seem entirely justified by the differences between the practices of male and female circumcision. We discuss three forms of bias - related to culture, religion and to gender - that may help explain the diverging normative framings. Irrespective of one's normative assessment of the compatibility of circumcision practices with human rights norms, the universality claim of human rights requires the application of the same standards to similar practices, regardless of sex. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper engages with a changing politics of male circumcision. It suggests that various shifts which have occurred in how the issue is debated challenge legal constructions of the practice as a private familial issue. Although circumcision rates have declined in those Western nations which have traditionally practised it, the procedure is now being promoted as a medicalised response to the HIV/AIDS pandemic in sub-Saharan Africa. Such initiatives propose a new biomedical rationale for the practice and have been difficult to confine to the African context or to adult bodies, prompting a resurgence of enthusiasm for neonatal male circumcision on the part of professional bodies in the USA and elsewhere. Although we have reservations about such public health policies, which we suggest downplay risks inherent in the procedure both for the individual and for the advancement of public health, we argue that such strategies have the potential to move debates about circumcision beyond the parameters of traditional 'medical law', with its focus on the doctor-patient nexus and the issue of who can validly consent to medical procedures. We suggest that, as with female genital cutting, male circumcision ought to be debated within a paradigm of social justice which gives adequate weighting to the interests of all affected parties (including women whose health may actually be compromised by the procedure) and which renders visible the socio-economic dimensions of the issue. In line with a social justice approach, we argue that public health initiatives must comply with international ethico-legal standards and be attentive to the emergence of an international human right to health. The shift in analytical frame that we propose has the potential not only to make us re-think our approach to the ethics and legality of male circumcision by challenging its construction as a familial decision but also to impact on the need for a broader conceptualisation of health law as rooted in social justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines a 2008 judgement of the Finnish Supreme Court on the legal permissibility of male circumcision, setting the judgement in its social context and examining its consequences for public policy. The court ruled that (medically unnecessary) circumcision of a Muslim boy, when ‘appropriately’ performed, does not fulfil the criteria for the criminal offence of assault causing harm, unlike female circumcision, which always constitutes a criminal offence. The legal tolerance shown to male (as opposed to female) circumcision was justified through physical differences and cultural assumptions that allegedly distinguish between the two practices. While the outcome in some ways recognises the increasing diversity of cultural practices that are transforming a traditionally homogenous society, some of the assumptions made by the court are questionable and the outcome of the case leaves public policy in a state of uncertainty, requiring legislative action by the government. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objectives This study describes a female genital cutting (FGC) elimination communication programme in Enugu State and assesses its impact in changing relevant knowledge, attitudes and behavioural intentions. Methods The FGC programme combined a community mobilization component with targeted advocacy and mass media activities. Data for assessing the impact of the programme derived from baseline and follow-up surveys in three intervention local government areas (LGA) in Enugu State and three comparison LGAs in Ebonyi State. An ideation model of behaviour change guided the analyses of the impact of the programme on personal advocacy for FGC, perceived self-efficacy to refuse pressure to perform FGC, perceived social support for FGC discontinuation, perceived benefits of FGC, perceived health complications of FGC and intention not to perform FGC on daughters. The analytical methods include comparing change in pertinent outcome variables from baseline to follow-up in the two study states and using logistic regression on follow-up data for the intervention state to assess the link between programme exposure and the relevant outcome indicators. Results The data show that while the pertinent ideational factors and the intention not to perform FGC either worsened or remained stagnant in Ebonyi State, they improved significantly in Enugu State. The logistic regression results show that programme exposure is associated with the expected improvements in all the pertinent indicators. Conclusion The multimedia communication programme has been effective in changing FGC-related attitudes and promoting the intention not to perform FGC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]