LEGISLATION ON CIRCUMCISION IN NORWAY FACES VIGOROUS OPPOSITION

 

Female and male circumcision is considered by progressive thinkers as a vestige of primitive and archaic customs and one that should be done away with. 

While female circumcision is an entirely different matter, male circumcision is a much lesser version of the same procedure, and if done surgically in a medical office or structure, one that comports minimal discomfort and consequence.  

In Norway, where a minority of Muslims and Jews circumcise their boys, the government is proposing legislation that would allow boys to obtain the procedure and after care from hospital structures and be legal in all effects. 

The proposal is important, even though only a handful of boys in that country undergo the procedure.  And that is because for both religions, circumcision is a matter of faith and identity.  

Many studies have also extolled the benefits of male circumcision as beneficial to both man and women.  In fact, studies have shown that Jewish women have a lower incidence of cervical and uterine cancer, a factor in large part attributed to male circumcision.

Why then are the Norse so adamant about not legalizing the procedure?  To many Norse, and Germans too, circumcision is seen as a barbaric habit, one that should be discontinued. But to the Jewish faithful, circumcision is symbolic of the faith to such an extent that it cannot be discarded.  

The Norse should know that to Jews and Muslim the procedure is essential, just like the sacraments to Christian believers, and that for this reason alone it should be carried out in a safe and hygienic setting. 

Yet the furore rages on.  The Norse would rather see Jews and Muslim carry out circumcision in synagogues and other non medical setting than to see it legalized.  And that's because to the Scandinavian citizens, the procedure is akin to violence and child abuse, so that legalization translates into abetting the perceived abuse. 

But carrying out the procedure in non medical structures has resulted in some children having post-procedural complications that required medical attention and hospitalization. One Muslim child died after a botched operation in Oslo.  Others have been maimed or experienced post-procedural pain and side effects. 

To the Norse, however, civilized behavior and progressive thinking trumps religion.  To them, the children should be protected from circumcision, not helped to undergo the procedure.  

But to Jews, for example, circumcision is a pillar of religious observance, one that symbolizes and renews the pact between Abraham and God, and it is do be done specifically on every male child by the age of 8.  If circumcision was banned, they insist, the Jewish faith would cease to exist.

What the Norse want to do in the alternative of banning it altogether, is to allow the child to choose for himself.  That would mean that the procedure would have to be postponed until the child is close to being a major, something that would negate the religious tradition, at least in the Jewish faith.  The minimum age, the Norse medical community insists, should be 16.  The Medical association in Norway has also made clear that it opposes male circumcision on the whole. 

As in most of Europe, a backlash is washing over what once were tolerant and progressive communities.  The fracture between legislators and the medical community reflect fully the same divisions that are showing up in the population.  There is a strong resistance to adapting what are old constitutionals status quo into new and revamped bodies of law to accommodate religious needs.

In most Scandinavian countries however, the identity of the child and the rights of the minor are to be protected at all costs, religion notwithstanding.  There is a sense however, that this has to do more with the discontent building up in the population at the needs of religious observers than the issue of circumcision itself.  To many in Europe, the effort to accommodate religious beliefs to the extent that new legislation is needed is seen as a regression to previous times and eras, to medieval taboos and rituals that, in their mind, have no place in modern times.    

Op-Ed

Source: DW-DE: 4.30.14

IRAQ'S VIOLENT ELECTIONS: IS IT DEMOCRACY OR A SANCTIONED DICTATORSHIP? AL-MALIKI STILL THE PERCEIVED WINNER OF THE ELECTION PROCESS

 

Springtime this year is marked by important elections throughout Asia, from Iraq to India.  One of the countries that will see the most violence during the elections is Iraq.  The constant bombings that have racked Iraq have now shifted to the polling stations.

Daily reports from the situation in Iraq point to a meaningful escalation of the violence, as Islamist groups try to disrupt the voting process.  Just this weekend 46 people died in several bombings aimed squarely at voters in key districts.  

The current elections in Iraq are of fundamental importance, in that they signify both the fist true election since the US occupation and troop withdrawal, and the transition from a government led by principals that had western affiliation to one that may better reflect the voter's choice.

The problem, as it has been for the last few years, that Sunni islamists are unwilling to be ruled by a Shi'a administration.  The dream the Islamists dream is to have a wide swath of land from Iran to the Mediterranean under Sunni fundamentalist rule, i.e., an Islamic caliphate of sorts from which to overturn the fate of the world.  For this reason, the militants have targeted specifically those government installations and institutions that best represent, in their mind, the symbols of a power that has been usurped.

The problem of sectarian violence, one of the most pressing and persistent in Muslim countries, is one that cannot be wished away.  What is interesting however, is that in Iraq, the majority of people vote along clear sectarian lines,  and yet, there is no expressed wish by the population to return to an exclusive Sunni rule.

There are areas of Iraq however, where voting will not take place, such as Anbar province, where Al Qaeda affiliated groups have almost total control. To add to the uncertainties of the voting process are the large numbers of Iraqi expatriates who are voting from abroad.  

The government in Iraq has all but declared martial law until Wednesday, to include a no flight period until the polling is over Wednesday night.  A three day period of national holiday has been extended for the elections to allow troops and police better transit in the streets during the voting process. In addition, a ban on vehicles and cell phone use will be put in place during the day of voting.  

The atmosphere is tense to say the least.  Policemen come to vote in civilian clothing to avoid attracting attention.  Polling stations are peppered with police contingents and bomb sniffing dogs. 

The slew of bombings in the pre-election period aimed at discouraging voters seems to have not had the desired effect.  However, the level of killings has become the highest since before the last elections, held in 2010.  More than 2,500 people have already been killed since the beginning of the year.

The question in everyone's mind however is what will happen to Iraq once the voting is tallied and the new government seated?

One of the things that many people believe has increased violence and unrest in Iraq was that the last elections left the time they found.  Because there were no real political changes and there was not a true representation of the people's political and religious beliefs, the last elections may have exacerbated those problems instead of ameliorating them. 

The greatest obstacle, in fact, could be the continuity of the political makeup of the Iraqi government.  As long as Nouri al Maliki remains in power, and many believe he will be the victor again, true change is not going to come.  However, the overall makeup of the administration will be more representative of the people, since more parties will be included.  

One of the things that might make a difference in terms of reducing violence, is the continued American presence in Iraq, to listen to some.  Voices differ on the US military presence, although greatly reduced.  Many, on the other hand, think that presence promotes violence as Islamists pound the table that there should be no US encroachment on Iraqi soil, while just as many fear that the absence of the US military ma embolden Islamists to even greater acts of violence. 

One of the things that is not immediately visible when news of violence in Iraq reach the rest of the world, is that there is violence on both sides.  In addition, the Sunni side has been emboldened by the sense of mission acquired from their incursions in Syria.  ISIL, the major Islamist group now on the ground in Syria, is trying to create a state within a state in Iraq, by annexing both parts of Syria and later, Iraq.  This scenario leads to unprecedented efforts to divvy up territory and concentrate in certain areas, thereby destabilizing the fragile unity of the country.  

Although Iraqis are resigned to violence and the presence of terrorist groups in their country, there is an overwhelming sense that stability and peace, and the democracy much vaunted by the US invaders, are still not within grasp, and might not be for a very long time to come, elections or not.

Some however are very disenchanted with the government, believing that a degree of cronyism has solidified the Council and the political picture, thereby being an impediment to the democratic process. 

Since some parts of Iraq are so marred with violence that the locals cannot vote, many question the legitimacy of the results, even before they are tallied.  Such disillusionment does little to help create the kind of optimism and forward thinking necessary for democracy to survive.  

The mere fact that al-Maliki is considered to be the front runner, sends a message to the Iraqi citizens that a dynasty of sort has already been sanctioned by greater forces.  To many, al-Maliki's continued tenor is akin to dictatorship and therefore anathema to a people that has had to endure war and destruction in the name of deposing another tyrant.  But to others, Maliki is continuity, and the hope, however tenuous, that his re-election will save the country from falling into greater turmoil, and violence.

Some are just thankful of the democratic process unfolding as it has for almost a decade  Others are not so sure.  Sectarian beliefs undermine the very concept of unity and collaboration, but if the new administration and government that will rise from these latest election can manage to be inclusive and to allow each sect or ethnic group to voice their opinion and their requests, the democratic process will at least have been seen further along. 



Op-Ed

Partial Sources: NPR/BBC/The HINDU/DAWN:   4.29.14