Just published. An extract:
Ahead of the parliament discussion about the bill, Iceland’s Bishop Agnes M. Sigurðardóttir criticized the proposal for criminalizing religious practices. “On the one hand, there’s an irreversible intervention in a child’s body, but on the other hand, it’s the right of the child to grow up in the religious and cultural practices of his parents, practices that mold the identity of every person,” she explained.
She believes it’s the “right” of boys (she uses the word “child” but later refers to “his” parents) to have their genitals mutilated on religious or cultural grounds. Would she deny female minors be denied this “right”? Of course:
The bill equates male circumcision to female genital mutilation, which has been outlawed in Iceland since 2005. Sigurðardóttir stressed, however, that male circumcision is different from the banned practice for females and that the parliament should “provide room to discuss this sensitive matter.”
Justice for Men & Boys 
They’re going to one right thing, then.
LikeLike
If they don’t want to live there, they don’t have to. Jews can move to Israel. And I’m sure the muslims can find somewhere else to live, though circumcision is not mandatory in Islam anyway.
LikeLike
The Nordic Jewish Communities have published a breathtakingly despicable joint statement which compares the protection of children from mutilation with Nazism. It makes no attempt to justify the practice and no attempt to explain why Iceland might be wrong.
https://eurojewcong.org/news/news-and-views/joint-statement-nordic-jewish-communities-concerning-proposed-anti-circumcision-legislation-iceland/
LikeLike
“On the one hand … but on the other hand …”. The bishop should keep her hands (metaphorical or otherwise) off boys’ genitals. Any man who countenanced FGM would be vilified so why is that women advocating MGM are tolerated?
LikeLike