MEDICAL FRAUD and the criminal assault of boys
"If we cannot distinguish what is lasting and significant from what is ephemeral and trivial, then we banalize the experience of those who truly suffer in this world". - Barbara Kay
So this is what passes for 'abuse'?: Circumcision is considered a time-honoured religious tradition
Barbara Kay
National Post
Tuesday, February 13, 2001
Page: A18
Section: Comment
A group called the Association for Genital Integrity has added its voice to the anti-circumcision chorus. It wants to have the circumcision of boys banned on the grounds that the practice
violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Doubtless, the group was encouraged by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which two weeks ago amended its policy with regard to
circumcision at the urging of organizations Intact and the Circumcision Information Resource
Centre. The commission once correctly held that circumcision caused no damage to the penis and presented minimal danger. But in a gesture of knee-jerk obeisance to political correctness, the body now includes a statement flagging concern over the routine surgery.
To the commission's credit, it refused to link male circumcision with the abominable practice of female genital mutilation as the anti-circumcisionists, including the Association for Genital Integrity, would have liked. There can be no comparison between the two surgeries. Female circumcision, which is practised on adolescents, is a traumatic and medically dangerous
procedure rooted in the primitive belief that women should not enjoy sex.
Male circumcision, by contrast, is not, on balance, medically dangerous; does not reduce male sexual sensation; and induces no trauma beyond that which abuse groups invent.
Still, anti-circumcisionists are rejoicing at their partial victory and so, perhaps, is McGill University bioethicist Margot Somerville who not too long ago pronounced circumcision a form of "criminal assault." All anti-circumcision proponents would like to see legislation passed banning the practice.
What is it about the snippage of these few crepey millimetres of skin that makes circumcision the magnet for such a shower of ideological filings? In my own culturally formative years, circumcision was hailed as man's best prophylactic bet against infection, a sine qua non for priapic hygiene, and a sexual perk, the tonsured penis supposedly offering more sensual
pleasure to its host and more aesthetic charm to its guests than any bacteria-ridden rivalpossibly could. The Queen of England's sons, in fact, were circumcised by London's chief
mohel.
What distinguishes circumcision from the cornucopia of social issues currently tumbling along the conveyor belt of public debate is, clearly, the religious - that is to say -- the Jewish
question. Historically, circumcision has been practised widely in Africa, South
America and the Middle East. But in the Jewish faith, it is also a non-negotiable rite of initiation. It represents in the flesh the Jews' covenant with God, and as a symbol carries massive psychological freight. This is not a secret fraternity handshake we are talking about, but the passing of the cultural torch from one generation to the next.
Unless and until scientists discover -- God forbid -- a causal link between circumcision and cancer, you will not find many Jewish parents comparison shopping for other opinions on the matter.
In a democracy, no social topic is too trivial to discuss privately or publicly, it goes without saying. But let us focus for a moment on what is fit for a discussion in the public forum with a view to legislative change. In these cases, we are revisiting the entrenched rights and liberties of citizens.
The cost/benefit of pitting the state against a 4,000-year-old religious tradition
should weigh heavily with any public figure or organization advocating its
abolition Organizations such as Intact, the Circumcision Information Resource Centre and -- how can I type this without smirking -- the Association for Genital Integrity fecklessly conflate the "abuse" of male circumcision with female genital mutilation. We should not pay them the compliment of serious attention.
It seems to me that once upon a time public debate around "abuse" sprang from horror stories of children being beaten, starved or caged in a cellar. Now public ire is aroused when a parent spanks his own child. Humiliation used to mean African-Americans being denied entry to white schools. Now it is applied to 15-year old girls with small breasts.
Pain used to be broken limbs and floggings; now it is circumcision. If we cannot distinguish what is lasting and significant from what is ephemeral and trivial, then we banalize the experience of those who truly suffer in this world.
Anti-circumcision groups' main concern seems to be the procedure occurring to the penis "without the consent of its owner," as one anti-circ Web site puts it. What can we expect to see next in the mini-kingdom of kvetch where the anti-circumcisionists presently have the spotlight? The humiliation and shock of baptism without the baby's consent? Perhaps baptism is not mutilation, but surely it can be called psychic pain of a sort to leave a lasting impression? Some
of those Catholic babies look and sound mighty unhappy to me with the holy water dribbling over their tiny unprotected heads. Infant ear-piercing? The trauma of the first haircut?
If Intact and CIRC and the Association for Genital Integrity wish to peddle their psychic anguish over their lost foreskins in the public forum, let them do so with vigour on their Web sites, in
op-eds, or even, or especially, on Oprah. But unless they have irrefutable proof that circumcision is a physical hazard, they have no business harassing human rights commissions
or taking this issue to the courts. To paraphrase a famous Shalom Aleichem saying, I would say to Intact and CIRC and the Association for Genital Integrity, 'So if you have manhood issues, why should the Jews feel guilty?'
© 2004 CanWest Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
|
"STRAIGHT TALK COMMENTARY" THE DEHUMANIZATION OF MALES AT ITS WORST "This is something you could anticipate under a dictatorship or a fascist regime where there is little respect for human rights and the dignity of individuals - but nothing you would expect from a columnist in a Canadian national paper. " Although it has been several years since the article by Barbara Kay appeared in the National Post, the nature of the article in which Barbara Kay trivialized and vilified the concerns of males has left an indelible effect upon the minds of many people who read it. They were horrified at the callousness and ignorance displayed by the author. It is incredible that in a society where tolerance towards others, and respect for their rights is the norm, that anyone would have the audacity to write such a demeaning article, and more incredible, that any paper would publish it. I challenge the National Post, to likewise print an article which is equally offensive and demeaning to females. Even such a notion would not be entertained, and if such an article did manage to get into print, both the author and the editor would soon be seeking employment elsewhere. In addition to the offensiveness of the article, the information Barbara Kay provides regarding benefits and the harm of circumcision is false. The neurological and physiological functions of the foreskin are well known and documented in medical information. Intact males know well the protective function of the foreskin and the erogenous pleasure it provides. Tens of thousands of males who have undergone foreskin restoration were shocked to discover the great increase in penile sensitivity which they regained. The American Academy of Pediatrics, in its brochure, stated that the foreskin is essential for the life of the male. It is not just a few "crepey millimeters of skin" as Ms. Kay alludes. As the male matures the foreskin loss is enormous. Even if the foreskin had no functional value, there still would be no moral or ethical reason to amputate it. The foreskin belongs to the male who should be entitled to retain it if he wishes - and not have it amputated merely to satiate the perverted desires of Ms. Kay and others like her. Who is Barbara Kay to dictate to males what is, or isn't, essential to them? Does she really believe that her example of bigotry will contribute to an improved relationship and understanding between males and females? It is hard to have respect for those who have no respect for you. Barbara Kay has generated a lot of anger among males who read her article. Even females were shocked by the fact that anyone would have the temerity to write such an article. One woman who sent me a copy of Barbara Kay's article stated that the National Post and Barbara Kay both owe an apology to all males for publishing such an insensitive and demeaning article. How can Barbara Kay, a female, and who has never undergone circumcision, claim to understand how circumcised males feel to be violated? How does she know how it feels to have a very sensitive and delicate part of one's body exposed for life? How does she know what it is like to have too much foreskin amputated with results in painful erections and discomfort for many males? How does Barbara Kay know what it is life to live with skin tags, skin bridges- keloid tissue - frequent painful and bleeding corona around the glans - pubic hair growing near the glans - or a glans which is pitted as a result of the severing of the foreskin which was once fused to it , or the partial loss of the glans which was accidentally severed during circumcision - or any number of iatrogenic problems which many circumcised males endure all their lives? Since the launching of this web site, we have received a number of horror stories where males have suffered severe physical and emotional harm throughout their lives as a result of infant circumcision. More recently we heard about the tragic death of an infant in British Columbia who was circumcised for no medical reason - but just because the parents requested it. Is this what surgery is all about? One male recently told me that he lost most of his glans during infant circumcision. He has a black blister where part of the glans should be. When he decided to get intimate with his girl friend, she just screamed at him and told him to get away from her. He was subjected to ridicule and shame as a result of his misfortune. He has never again tried to get intimate with anyone. The young man has very little trust in anyone since then. His father stated that a whole group of boys (probably 100 or more) suffered a similar fate in a hospital (in British Columbia) where they were circumcised. It would be interesting to know if advocates of circumcision like Barbara Kay had their lives ruined by a useless mutilation would ridicule anti circumcisionists and remain silent because it was not politically correct to speak out against it? Or would they understand the meaning of genital mutilation and how it affects victims who have had their lives devastated as a result of it? To hundreds and thousands of males, circumcison is a form of sexual abuse in its worst form. To be subjected to further ridicule by some callous writer is the ultimate form of dehumanization. What about other young boys who during their adolescent years have had to have repeated surgeries to correct the consequences of circumcision? Her article suggests that circumcision is a simple inoffensive procedure which produces no serious consequences - which provides males solely with benefits which they should somehow enjoy. It is easy to dismiss the effects of circumcison when you are female and do not have to live with the results of the mutilation. I would suggest that Ms. Kay read the "Statements By Victims of the Merchants of Mutilation" and other statements by circumcised males posted on this and other web sites. These men know and understand the harm done to them and hardly need to be dehumanized any further for speaking out against their circumcision and trying to prevent future males from experiencing such horrors. Perhaps Barbara Kay should understand that male victims of sexual abuse have the same emotional feelings towards their own bodies as females. Most males have sufficient intelligence to make their own decision and are capable of deciding what is in their own best interests. Males hardly need some female chauvinist telling them what is best for them by ridiculing their objections with statements such as : "So this is what passes as abuse? " No male should be subjected to any unwanted sexual abuse - whatever it is - regardless of severity. Why should any male undergo a useless and mutilating surgery in order that Jews not be offended? This makes no sense whatsoever. Many Jewish males have also expressed their unequivocal opposition to a practice which demands the mutilation of non consenting individuals - to satisfy the religious requirement of others. While this practice may have continued for hundreds of years, it has no place in a civilized and a democratic society. We should not condone any barbaric and cruel practice performed on children for any reason - much less to satisfy some religious requirement. No religious group has the right to impose its beliefs upon another, and neither do Jews have the right to impose it upon their children. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was ratified by almost every country of the world except the USA and Somalia, safeguards the child's right to autonomy and bodily integrity - rights violated by neonatal circumcision. Article 24(3) urges "abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children." This includes religious practices such as circumcision. Why is there only a concern about Jewish (and possibly Muslim) rites and traditions? Are those of other religions less important? I have yet to read one article demanding that Jews be forced to participate in Christian traditions because their failure to do so may jeopardize Christian traditions and values. The double standard is obvious, and as such does nothing to promote harmony and understanding among people who resent undergoing body mutilations in deference to Jewish traditions, and on the other hand, are forced to give up their traditions and religious practices ( e.g. Christmas carols , the Lord's Prayer) because they are offensive to Jews. It is well known that the Jews have had their rights violated and that millions were sent to death camps. One would believe that as a result of these horrible atrocities that Jews would be the first to acknowledge the importance of respecting the rights of individuals and the dignity of all individuals. The rights of all individuals are important not just the rights of Jews and Muslims. In Canada, who has set up clinics in order to mutilate the genitals of baby boys? Who has largely been responsible for the ridicule of males in the media trying to intimidate males into silence? How is this indicative of their respect for the rights of others? Furthermore, why should males be ridiculed into submission because they resent the imposition of ritual surgery for which there is no medical necessity, and which clearly violates their rights under the Criminal Code? These rights are guaranteed to every individual, male and female, of any age under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Does Barbara Kay not understand the principles of democracy, equality, human rights, justice and human dignity? We (according to Barbara Kay) must not use the Human Rights Commissions in situations which might jeopardize a Jewish ritual, but at the same time Jews do not hesitate to use Human Rights Commissions (such as a Saskatchewan Human Rights appeal by a rabbi) to remove Christian practices from schools. In Saskatchewan we may no longer sing Christmas carols and say the Lord's Prayer in schools or public places. These are offensive to Jews and supposedly to other minorities. Does Barbara Kay suggest that appeals to commissions should only be made by Jews? The views of (ignorant) males should be confined to internet - as she states? Most Christmas cards are now basically generic holiday greeting cards. Instead of Christmas carols on the radio - we have non religious festive songs - no longer must oaths in courts be sworn on the Bible, and it is no longer proper to say the Lord's prayer in the legislative assembly. Has Barbara Kay ever addressed anyone of these changes and suggested that Jews be more tolerant of these harmless and important traditional customs which have been practiced by Christians for hundreds of years? Ms. Kay in her justification of male circumcision stated that the Queen of England's sons were circumcised by London's chief mohel. Is Ms Kay not aware of the fact the Princess Diane refused to permit her son's from becoming victims of a painful genital mutilation. Or does she only quote examples which support her point of view? Unfortunately, her Majesty the Queen believed all the deceptive reasons provided for circumcision at that time - and thought that she was doing her sons a favour. Princess Diane knowing the facts, spared her sons the indignity of a painful and a mutilating experience. The National Post obviously supported Ms. Kay's chauvinism which was certainly evident by the post response to her article. The editorial staff of the National Post printed a number of articles by rabbis, by Riad Saloojee of the Council of the American-Islamic Relations - Canada, and Keith Landry of the Canadian Jewish Council. The only input to the contrary was a short letter by Dr. Arif Bhimji, a member of the Association for Genital Integrity, and a letter by a man, whose letter had little relevance to Kay's article, but rather made light of a man who dropped his pants to show his status. Letters with angry objections were not printed. This is what is called freedom of speech and freedom of the press to perennially suppress conscientious objectors including male victims of circumcision. Several days later, as usual, there was prominent coverage of the joyous event of a Jewish circumcision with a large photo and an extensive write up explaining the significance of the event. This was to mitigate any harm which may have been done by a letter from Dr. Bhimji who opposed circumcision. Is this what The National Post considers to be fair discussion and responsible journalism? It is only now with the advent of internet that we are finally able to express our views publicly because the National Post did everything possible to ignore and excuse the publication of letters by males who objected to the vilification of their rights and concerns. Democracy and freedom of the press does not entitle individuals the right to ridicule others as was done by Barbara Kay. If such an unfortunate article should by be printed , the objections of those who were demeaned were certainly entitled to be heard. An apology should have been printed - and those responsible for such articles be disciplined. While anti Semitism cannot be tolerated, neither should views and comments which fuel anger and hatred be permitted. Respect and tolerance is a "two way street". Perhaps there are reasons why anti-Semitism exists, Barbara Kay's article ridiculing males is an example which breeds anger and resentment. We do not add fuel to the fire when we try to extinguish it. If we want to foster tolerance and understanding, then we must respect and understand the rights of others. We don't dehumanize our victims and then accuse them of being anti-Semitic when they display their resentment. Ms. Kay stated: "The commission once correctly held that circumcision caused no damage to the penis and presented minimal danger. But in a gesture of knee-jerk obeissance to political correctness, the body now includes a statement flagging concerns over routine surgery". Does Ms. Kay imply that because the commission once correctly held that circumcision caused no damage to the penis and presented minimal damage - that their beliefs were correct? If so - what information does Ms. Kay have to indicate that the beliefs of the commission at the time were correct? Medical evidence did not support circumcision then, nor does it now. If the commission upon receiving medical facts realized that their position was unfounded, are they not entitled to change their opinions accordingly? They were presented with well researched factual medical evidence on which to base their decisions, and not the type of deceptive information which is usually provided in order to coerce parents into circumcising their sons. Would we not agree that commissions established to make important decisions should certainly base their decisions on facts and not old wive's tales, myths, religious or cultural beliefs? So why shouldn't they change their minds? Furthermore, how can Ms. Kay ridicule the commission by suggesting that they made a 'knee-jerk" obeissance to political correctness, or "now includes a statement flagging concerns over routine surgery". Should not accurate medical information regarding the ethics of circumcision be used in reaching a decision? Is Ms. Kay suggesting that infants should undergo routine surgery even though there is no medical indication for it? Is she suggesting that appropriate and ethical medical practices need not be adhered to when the issue is male circumcision because it may not be "politically" expedient to do so? What has political correctness to do with any decision which involves the genital mutilation of males? Since when has political correctness ever been a factor in deciding whether surgery is necessary or not? Medical ethics indicates "medical necessity" with the principle "first do no harm" to be taken into consideration - not "political correctness." Even if her assertion that circumcision caused no harm (which all medical knowledge thoroughly refutes) was true, would this still justify circumcision? Do fondling and touching cause physical harm? As a result do we permit these? The fact is that most males have the right to be left intact as they were born and the right to retain every part of their body - whether there is harm or not - and whether Barbara Kay agrees or not. Is this not so? Who is she to tell males what they must accept or not accept? We live in a democracy - not under fascism, not under communism, not in Iraq, or some other country where they do not understand the principles of democracy, human rights and human dignity? What about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, what does "equality" without regards to "sex" and "age" mean to Ms. Kay? Why did not Ms. Kay indicate why funding for an appeal by the Association for Genital Integrity was finally declined. The AGI was denied funding because the commission informed them that the Criminal Code in Canada already applies equally to males as well as females. As a result male circumcision for which there is no medical indication was already a criminal offense in Canada. Is Barbara Kay suggesting that males should be denied equality under the law? If so perhaps, she should write another article explaining her concept of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to whom the guarantees apply. What is her interpretation of equality guaranteed regardless of sex or age of the individual? Does this not include infant males? "In my own culturally formative years, circumcision was hailed as man's best prophylactic bet against infection, a sine qua non forpriapic hygiene, and a sexual perk, the tonsured penis supposedly offering more sensual pleasure to its host and more aethetic harm to its guests than any bacterial-ridden rival possibly could." It was once believed that the earth was flat - and we have progressed beyond the flat earth theory. Educated individuals have learned to distinguish facts from fiction. Barbara Kay still believes that circumcision, and as long as the victims are male, should be permitted to continue without question. Perhaps, Barbara Kay should realize that we no longer live in the cave days where people had no access to information. We live in an age where accurate and current information is readily available. Intelligent and informed people no longer believe and accept the myths which Kay ignorantly espouses. Her elaborate verbosity and flatulent style does nothing to enhance her questionable flamboyant statements. Barbara Kay suggest that circumcision is necessary for male hygiene. Where under any code of medical code of ethics a mandate to amputate body parts of facilitate hygiene? Why would this be necessary? Are males less intelligent and capable than females to care for their bodies? What about males who care less about their physical appearance, cleanliness in general, are unshaven, filthy hair, grubby in appearance, smelly etc. and just want to live that way? What does she plan to do about them? What if males suggested the females remove the foreskin of their clitoral hoods to make them more sanitary and pleasing. Would females accept this type of chauvinism and routinely alter their genitals and that of their daughters to make them more acceptable to males? What medical code of ethics permit surgery on non consenting individuals for which there is no medical indication? Is Barbara Kay suggesting that members of the medical profession do not practice within their code of ethics which is to provide only necessary and appropriate medical treatment within the law? There has never been any mandate for surgery to amputate body parts of non consenting individuals even if there were established medical benefits. If so, how many body parts might we amputate? Where do we draw a line to this lunacy? "Historically , circumcison has been practiced widely in Africa, South America and the Middle East, But in the Jewish faith, it is also a non-negotiable rite of initiation". Female circumcision has been - and is still widely practiced around the world, and those who defend this practice also claim that it is a non negotiable rite. Are we to conclude that societies who equally defend the practice of female circumcision should be able to retain it? If any practice has been a "tradition" for hundreds and thousands of years, and is "non negotiable", is "severity" really a factor to consider? Or is it only traditions which involve the genital cutting of males which must be accepted? The fact is that many Jews also find circumcision cruel and barbaric and are demanding that it be replaced with humane rituals - rather than a painful amputation. The circumcision rite is negotiable and many Jews are demanding an end to the cruel practice. Female circumcision of minors has been outlawed in both the USA and Canada (all female circumcision). It cannot be carried out for any reason including religious or cultural reasons. Why is male circumcision non-negotiable and yet female circumcision is negotiable and criminalized? Is it because of gender bias? Furthermore, why should males undergo routine surgery in hospitals merely because it is a traditional practice of some religion? Since when are doctors obligated to perform circumcisions on males because it is a religious rite? The fact that male circumcison has been practiced for 4, 000 or four million years does not excuse any barbaric or unnecessary medical practice. There are hundreds of archaic and painful practices which could be legitimized in Canada or the USA if this reason had any validity. What about other body mutilations which have been practiced for hundreds or thousands of years? Would we really condone any parent who engaged in stretching body parts of children, piercing , scaring, beating children, or inserting objects in body parts of their children because it was a practice in the country from which they or their ancestors originated? If laws have prohibited religious practice which would permit cruelty to animals, stoning of adulterers, and many other practices which were once acceptable, including female circumcison which was also practiced for centuries, they why shouldn't laws likewise protect boys against painful and unnecessary mutilations? We live in a country where we do not have the right to mutilate or harm our children for any reason, medical or religious. The criminal code applies equally to individuals of both sexes - of any age. Every individual receives equal protection under the law. The fact that female circumcision is more severe than male circumcison has nothing to do with whether an act is permitted. It is the right of each individual to protection against all unwanted body intrusions - whether it be harmless and unwanted fondling - or the dehumanizing practice of circumcision. Even a child would understand that there is is a difference between circumcision and water baptism and hair cuts. Water baptisms and haircuts (regenerative) result in no physical harm to the individual. The physical harm and emotional trauma of circumcision is obvious. Those who have witnessed actual circumcisions are appalled with the pain and torture that the child is forced to undergo. They would hardly compare it to a hair cut or water baptism. How can Barbara Kay make such a preposterous comparison? "But in the Jewish faith, it is also a non-negotiable rite of initiation." Many of the greatest opponents of male circumcison are Jews, Jewish doctors, Jewish nurses, Jewish writers, Jewish academics, Rabbis as well as Jews who as individuals believe that physical cruelty has no place in a civilized and democratic society. Ronald Goldman Ph D has done comprehensive research on the trauma of male circumcison documented in "Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma". Ronald Goldman indicates that it is not true that all Jews believe in circumcision. In his book "Questioning Circumcision.....A Jewish Perspective" which is endorsed by many Jewish religious leaders certainly indicates that many Jews are adopting non mutilating and non harmful practices instead of circumcision. They do not believe that circumcision is a non-negotiable rite of initiation. Barbara Kay concluded her article by stating " "If Intact or CIRC and the Association for Genital Integrity wish to peddle their pyschic anguish over their lost foreskins in the public forum, let them do so with vigour on their Web sites, in op-eds, or even, or especially, on Oprah, But unless they have irrefutable proof that circumcison is a physical hazard, they have no business harassing human rights commissions or taking this issue to courts. ....So if you have manhood issues, why should the Jews feel guilty" Kay wants irrefutable proof that circumcision is a physical hazard. The medical literature is filled with example of medical atrocities caused by circumcision. The physical harm done by circumcision has been well documented over the years. Males are now speaking out and revealing the harm which they suffered as a result of circumcision. Medical organizations clearly state that the harm done exceeds any benefits of circumcision - and NOT ONE medical organization in the world recommends circumcision. Are we to take the word of a fanatic pro-circumcision zealot over the advice of medical organizations and ethical doctors all over the world who do not circumcise? In a survey by NOHARMM (National Organization to Halt the Mutilation of Males) of over 300 circumcised males , over 70% stated that they suffered from minor to severe iatrogenic problems which required medical attention as adults. Many of these problems have never been corrected. This survey clearly indicates that harm done as a result of infant circumcision (which is seldom reported and probably never included in statistical claims of complications due to circumcision ) is manifested in the majority of adult males? Why should any male have to endure the complication as a result of an unnecessary surgery for the rest of his life? Intact males never have any of these problems. Why shouldn't these facts be made known? Jewish nurses who refused to assist with circumcisions stated that every circumcision is botched. The argument that males require irrefutable proof that circumcision is a physical hazard is incredible. With the advent of internet, it is not difficult to find statements by circumcised males on web sites (blogs) etc. in which they express their anger and resentment of the sexual predators who raped and mutilated their bodies. Finally, those of us who have respect for the human rights and the bodily integrity of individuals everywhere are demanding a public apology from Ms. Kay. Any respectable publication would at least have the decency to permit some rebuttal to such a demeaning article. The National Post has the obligation to present facts and certainly both sides of the debate. Freedom of speech does not mean the liberty to ridicule and abuse its readers. Nor should it permit the publication of offensive and insensitive articles such as that by Barbara Kay. It the National Post (or any other publication permits the publication of abusive and degrading commentary) the internet will have to become the chief source of communication to expose this type of journalism - as well as the publications which publish them. And whether Barbara Kay is aware or not - the internet is now becoming the chief vehicle of communication - where individuals are able to expose deceptive and fraudulent claims as well as publicize journalism which is demeaning to others. Unlike the National Post and other national publications, the internet has world wide coverage accessible by millions of people. If the media refuses to acknowledge and publish our response - thankfully we have internet at our disposal and can soon expose unethical medical practices as well as unethical journalists. It is true that the media has in the past been responsible for perpetuating and promoting the circumcision fraud. However; now that the truth exposing the circumcision hoax has surfaced, the media is very reluctant to admit its involvement in this fraud. Barbara Kay's attempt to silence males into submission through ridicule is unacceptable. As a male, I hope that we are never subjected to this type of dehumanization - ever again - by the National Post or by any other publication. We demand the right to be treated with respect and dignity - and not subjected to vilification through articles as that by Barbara Kay. Barbara Kay's article (and this commentary) is posted on the web site as a warning to other individuals who may contemplate such insensitive and demeaning articles. We will no longer accept or tolerate this type of abuse and will certainly expose it - whenever it happens . The media needs to be informed that MALES HAVE RIGHTS TOO! We have asked Barbara Kay to provide a response to this commentary. We also challenge her to prove that male circumcision on non consenting males is an ethical medical procedure or that it is legal. Unlike the National Post, we would be happy to publish an apology or comments by Barbara Kay. Comments from visitors to this site are also welcome. REFERENCES Vice President - Doctors Opposing Circumcision
|
|||
|
RESPONSE BY BARBARA KAY - Feb. 1 2005 Well, John, first of all, let me say that it would be a great help to me and I am sure many of your readers if you would learn to express your views more concisely. This was more like a book than an article.
Furthermore,
I am not a big fan of hyperbole, far less so of the kind of bogus and
calumnous analogies "fascist regime") that seems to me to have
the intention of shutting down debate, not opening it up. Your histrionic
tone throughout and personal invective against me is really annoying and
doesn't speak to the possibility of civil and rational exchange.
I have
the following to say:
I
don't know much about the stats on genital mutilation. Everyone I know who
is circumcized is fine and healthy; most were done by a mohel and it is
almost unheard of for a fulltime mohel to make mistakes.
Far
from being insensitive to the pain issue, I am deeply involved as a
mother. My own son, after all, was of course circumcised and I felt very
nervous and anxious on his behalf before it was done.
Before
I forget, I am not one of those Jews who objects to Xmas cards and parades
and lights and crèches. Bring it on, I say, let everyone do as they please
for their holidays and let's not make a competition out of it. Live and
let live. And yes, I have addressed this issue in my Xmas column of 2003.
you can check it out on my website under Archives at www.liquidlewis.com/barb,
so we are on the same page there. I think it is scandalous that Xians have
had to retreat from their cultural traditions to pacify the
multiculturalists.
One
would think from the way you write that you actually remember the pain of
circumcision. Let's get real, John. Babies cry the same amount when they
get vaccinated as when they get circumcised and they don't know the
difference. If we can do vaccinations without their consent, we should
have the right - where our own children are concerned - to decide about
circumcision. No one is forcing you to circumcise your kids.
If you
persist in falsely equating male circumcision with female genital
mutilation, we really have nothing more to say to each other, as you are
not a person with enough intellectual rigor to be worth debating.
There
are about 3 million circumcised Jewish men in America, and I have yet to
hear from any credible source amongst them that their sex life is worse
than anyone else's, or have suffered any other emotional or psychological
deficit in their lives. Believe me, Jews are a vocal lot who are not into
masochism. When they hurt, the world knows. yet this subject never arises
amongst any of my Jewish male friends or relatives.
Sexual
abuse? See, here is the kind of language where you lose me. It's like
"fascist" when you mean conservative. Who wants to be compared to
Hitler for approving of circumcision, know what I'm saying? You keep
trivializing serious events like rape, and honestly it makes your case
more risible. if you would dump the histrionics, your message wouldn't be
obscured. As it is, you just keep saying things that really are a turn-off
to any intelligent reader.
Look,
I am not asking others to circumcise their kids, why should Jews have to
stop doing something they have done for - not hundreds - thousands of
years?
I have
no control over what the NP prints or not. Generally they print a fair
sample in proportion to those for and against. And by the way your view was
expressed in a very prominent article in the Montreal gazette by Margaret Somerville, McGill bio-ethicist who thinks circumcision is "criminal
assault". And I have seen other anti-circ articles. Don't make
yourself such a martyr, your point of view is heard and a lot less
mawkishly than on this website.
If
circumcision is already criminal under the law, it's news to me. How come
they didn't arrest the parents of the kid in the newspaper?
And
hello, here is news: a penis is not a clitoris. Your analogy sucks.
Sorry,
this is all the time I have for this. It isn't as if, even I wrote
for 20 pages, anyone on your website would actually listen with an
objective ear, and frankly the more I read of you, the more of a sap I
feel for getting sucked in. I feel bad for you that this is what absorbs
your time and energy. You are the first circumcised male I have ever met -
and I have met plenty, hundreds - for whom this is an issue. Seems to me
that people who have been sexually abused don't forget it. You should
maybe think about getting out more, Barbara
Later that day - I sent Barbara Kay a copy of this letter without any comments. "When I realized that Judaism cut me off from part of myself, I cut myself off from Judaism"
I began to sob. I bought the book, raced home and read it from cover to cover, then curled up in the fetal position and cried and grieved for three days. If my parents felt they had to MARK MY BODY in the name of Judaism, I would rather have been BRANDED ON MY BUTTOCKS WITH THE STAR OF DAVID or HAD A FINGER CUT OFF than to have had my penis butchered. Brit milah is a tradition that violates the most basic of all human rights, the right of every human being to his or her own intact body. When I realized that Judaism cut me off from part of myself, I cut myself off from Judaism. I reject and denounce Judaism -- and any other religion that mandates infant circumcision -- as sick, perverted and immoral. I would find it difficult to forgive anyone who had any role in permitting or carrying out my circumcision. Anyone who continues to circumcise babies today should be tried and imprisoned. No one -- no one -- should be allowed to get away with this. CUT A BOY, GO TO JAIL. PERIOD! I fantasize about revenge on the mohel who circumcised me and take comfort in knowing he has probably died of old age. One of the main reasons I'm active in the intact baby movement is to vent my rage in a positive way and not end up in prison. I've put a MOHEL=MENGELE sign across the back of my car, along with the six anti-circumcision bumper stickers there already. I make no apologies for what I've said. I'm not anti-Jewish. I'm anti-circumcision. Anyone who can't see that brit milah is wrong is blinded by history, tradition, and religious dogma." Brian Levitt, San Francisco Received this reply shortly after. John, it's the same problem as when I read your stuff. The tone is so histrionic and almost parodic, I know instantly I am dealing with someone whose real problem is not his foreskin but far deeper psychological baggage that is using this as an outlet. When you have something to show me that is sober, reasonable and persuasive on an intellectual level, send it. But not this pathetic stuff, please, it is awesomely embarrassing to read. WEB MASTER'S RESPONSE TO BARBARA KAY
I would like to
clarify a number of statements which you made regarding my rebuttal
published on the Medical Fraud web site.
It is not
difficult to write a short article or letter, if you make
unsubstantiated statements, and are not required to
prove them. Your method of dealing with those who question
the credibility of your statements is to subdue them through
the use of ridicule. Your demeaning attitude and insulting tone was
very evident in the article which was published in the National Post as
well as your response to me in your emails.
You have not offered
any proof to validate any of your accusations or allegations. If
your arguments are legitimate as you indicate, then why the inability to
substantiate or debate them? As a journalist, I would think that you
would do some research before you write and check the accuracy of your
information. I would also believe you should certainly be courteous to
your readers and sensitive to their feelings which was totally
lacking in the article. Again, is this your concept of professional
journalism?
You are the first person that I have contacted who is unable or unwilling to respond to very serious questions which I posed - without the use of ridicule and intimidation with such words as: columnous, bogus, histrionics, parodic etc. Why are you unable to support or debate arguments presented in your articles? Did you not expect this of students whom you taught? I challenged you to prove that male circumcision is a medically ethical procedure or legal in Canada. To this question there was no response. I am sure that you are aware that boys have been sexually abused in schools, - for decades - before legal action was taken against those who assaulted them. I believe that it is just a matter of time before male victims of circumcision will also be heard. I challenged you to indicate where under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms males are not entitled to equal protection under the Criminal Code of Canada regardless of "sex" and 'age". Again - no response. You also objected to the term fascism - but remember, under fascism people do as they are told and decisions are made for them; in a democracy, they are given freedom of choice. What freedom of choice have circumcised males been given? With regards to stats of circumcision, you indicated that everyone you knew was okay. Was this the extent of your research? A survey of over 300 adult males who were circumcised as infants indicated that more than 70% of these males suffered from minor to severe iatrogenic problems which required treatment during their lives. These males all provided statements of anger protesting their circumcision. This report if obviously multiplied on a larger scale would certainly indicate serious problems. You may visit the NOHARMM web site yourself for this information. I certainly did not equate male circumcision to female genital mutilation. I argued that genital mutilation was a mutilation - regardless of sex or severity. I challenged your statement of "non-negotiable" did I not? What has severity to do with the legality of genital mutilation? Your preposterous statement equating circumcision with a hair cut and baptism - would shock most medical doctors. I have yet to read of any individual being baptized going into a convulsion, having breathing difficulties, chocking, developing apnea, going into a neurogenic shock, and generating brain wave patterns indicating extreme pain. I have yet to hear of a child who is being baptized or having a hair cut , requiring a dorsal block and creams to deaden pain as is becoming the practice in circumcision. Medical studies and information regarding the trauma and pain of circumcision is abundant and available to anyone who has minimal time to search for it on internet. You indicated that males who write against their circumcision are "histrionic and almost parodic. Their real problem is not their foreskin and far deeper psychological baggage that is using this as an outlet." What evidence have you to support this? What statement could be more demeaning to victims of unwanted circumcision? I am sure that males have the same feelings towards their bodies and what is done to them as do females? Is this not so?
WHEN YOU HAVE
SOMETHING TO SHOW ME THAT IS SOBER, REASONABLE AND PERSUASIVE ON AN
INTELLECTUAL LEVEL, SEND IT BUT NOT THIS PATHETIC STUFF."
I don't believe that I can send you anything which will persuade you. You have made your views (unequivocally) known - basically, that you have made up your mind - and no other information will convince you. As Brian Levitt stated, in his statement, to which you vehemently objected: " Anyone who can't see that brit milah is wrong is blinded by history, tradition, and religious dogma." Most educated people are open minded and will listen to, and try to understand what others are saying, even if they disagree with them. Obviously your mind is made up. Several years ago, while principal of a high school, I had a delegation of senior students ( approximately 12) come to my office and ask if they could speak to me privately. We met in a large room where I was astounded with what they confronted me. They were angry and upset over their circumcision and asked me if I could do something to end this dehumanizing practice. Their rights were violated - and they perceived themselves as victims of something they resented. They didn't give a damn about all the reasons used to justify it. They argued that parents and doctors do not have the right to amputate a part of their body which was rightfully theirs. This meeting is initially what got me involved in the anti circumcision movement. At that time I had no idea that anyone spoke against circumcision. Over the years, the pleas from the high school boys never left me. I never realized that there was anything which was so dehumanizing as circumcision. Nor did I realize that it was so difficult to eradicate. Once I began, there was no turning back. In another school where I was principal, a male students was defiant towards female teachers and stated that he hated his mother. I was asked to speak to him and find out why the resentment. He screamed at me and told me that he hated his mother because she had him circumcised. She would never do that to his sister.
As for documented cases of angry males and the trauma as a result of circumcision - I suggest that you read the following books: CIRCUMCISION ; THE HIDDEN TRAUMA by Ronald Goldman Ph.D and CIRCUMCISION ; A JEWISH PERSPECTIVE also by Goldman. You will be shocked to learn that males even though they do not speak out against their circumcision - are traumatized by it. This book is filled with dozens of "histrionic" and "parodic" statements by males who resented their mutilation. Over 10 000 males have restored during the past few years, and thousands more are joining the restoration movement each month. (Poor misguided souls who want to regain the feeling or what it is like to be restored - and discover the increase in penile sensitivity) which they lost. Perhaps you would care to read: "The Joy of Uncircumcising!" by Jim Bigelow , Ph.D which is basically the manual for restoration. He has included hundreds of statements from angry and unhappy males . This book which is now out of print sells for a minimum of $145. Why would anyone want to pay so much to restore? "Say NO to Circumcision" by Thomas J. Ritter, M.D and George C. Denniston, M.D. also contains dozens of statements by circumcised males who were not happy to discover what they had lost and who had their right to an intact body violated. You will notice on the "Table of Contents" of Medical Fraud web site - a blog "Genital Terrorist" by a math Ph.D, who is also very angry and resentful. There are also several sections on the Medical Fraud web site - with statements from circumcised males. The doctors in Britain have also compiled many such letters See: NORM-UK. NOHARMM (National Organization to Halt the Mutilation of Males) also has published many such statements. These are just a few of the thousands of examples of "histrionics "- as you described them. Finally, I recently sent a letter to a prominent Canadian Jewish doctor (and mohel) who has performed hundreds or perhaps thousands of circumcisions over the years - and asked him similar questions which I had asked you. However, instead of ridicule and a demeaning reply, I was astonished with his reply. He stated that he agree with most of what I said - and is advising parents accordingly. As for parents making a choice about body amputations and vaccination, I fail to see any comparison. The amputation of normal, vital and healthy body parts permanently removes an important part of his body for ever. I CHALLENGE YOU TO INDICATE TO ME WHERE UNDER THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA OR WHERE UNDER ANY MEDICAL CODE OF ETHICS IS THERE A MANDATE TO REMOVE NORMAL BODY PARTS BECAUSE THE PARENT REQUESTS IT? OR WHERE UNDER THE CRIMINAL CODE IS THERE PROVISION FOR ANYONE ELSE TO DO SO? Providing necessary medication or vaccination is hardly a comparison to an amputation. No parent need ever make such a decision - and certainly no child should ever have a part of his/her body amputated for which there is no medical indication. The other night a Canadian member of parliament stated that when "Religious rights and individual rights conflict, individual rights triumph". I heartily agree with this statement. It is immoral and abhorrent to ridicule male victims of sexual abuse as you have done. Anyone with an ounce of moral conscience would respect their grievances without attributing them to "deeper psychological baggages that is using this as an outlet". What other form of abuse - other than sexual abuse has such a devastating effect upon any individual? What can be more demeaning or degrading? I don't know. Perhaps you can enlighten me. A lawyer, who is now actively campaigning to end circumcision in the USA and around the world, once stated that it is incredible that in a so called democratic nation we should have to deal with such a dehumanizing act. John Sawkey / Director of Medical Ethics Network
Circumcision
of Healthy Boys:
Gregory J Boyle BSc (Hons), M Ed, MA, PhD (Melb
and Delaware) |
|||
|
FEELINGS OF
DISSATISFACTION AND HAVING BEEN HARMED
Psychological impacts of male circumcisionThis menu page indexes and links articles relevant to an understanding of the psychological, neurological, and sociological sequelae and effects of male circumcision. The material within each category is arranged in order of publication also http://www.circumcision.org/saying.htm |
There was no further response from Barbara Kay. Perhaps you can tell us why not.
Please click on this email link and send us your response.
Your response should include a title, your message, your name, initials or a pseudonym if you wish. Indicate is you wish to remain anonymous or not have your email address included.