YouGov poll: With Iceland considering making it illegal to circumcise boys for non-medical reasons, 62% of British people would support introducing such a law in the UK – only 13% would oppose
4 thoughts on “YouGov poll: With Iceland considering making it illegal to circumcise boys for non-medical reasons, 62% of British people would support introducing such a law in the UK – only 13% would oppose”
With 25% “don’t know” there is still much to play for. But good news that the vast majority with an opinion would support the ending infant circumcision. I do think the Icelandic debate, simply to end genital mutilation for “children” has legs. Not only does it stop an appearance of “competition” between FGM and MGM but also leaves it open for “adults” (remembering that this varies in country to country) to decide for themselves (if for instance they are persuaded on American “health” reasoning, cosmetic reasons or religious reasons). This then leaves the cultural and health lobby to explain why it has to be done to infants and children and cannot wait for the young person to decide for themselves. As is the case for other “body modifications” such as tattoos and piercings etc. which arguably carry much less risk.
Thanks. You make good points, but there’s a nuance here. I agree that FGM v MGM isn’t generally a productive argument. But some people oppose FGM but have no issue with MGM because they’ve swallowed the feminist lies that the former is extremely damaging, and the latter isn’t (and may even bring health benefits). Faced with that, what can we do but point out the fact that all MGM is more injurious than most FGM?
The details of the case in Bristol are worth a look as the “damage” is so slight that the expert witnesses can’t agree whether FGM has even occurred (which is why I suspect the case may founder). It was an education to me on the different levels. I certainly would not presume to lecture those who know far more than me. My comments are to reflect my “man on the Clapham Omnibus” amateur status. If they were honest I suspect most have no clue what FGM actually means they just know its all about “protecting Girls” which feminists merely use rather than invented. I think it will be interesting to see if the Icelandic approach based on principle and rights rather than measures of harm; works to get a law passed.
An interesting (Rare) case prosecuting FGM. Like previous cases it looks pretty weak as “experts” appear unsure if anything has actually happened. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-43131465
Interesting in the context of MGM where it is pretty evident what has happened.
Justice for Men & Boys 
With 25% “don’t know” there is still much to play for. But good news that the vast majority with an opinion would support the ending infant circumcision. I do think the Icelandic debate, simply to end genital mutilation for “children” has legs. Not only does it stop an appearance of “competition” between FGM and MGM but also leaves it open for “adults” (remembering that this varies in country to country) to decide for themselves (if for instance they are persuaded on American “health” reasoning, cosmetic reasons or religious reasons). This then leaves the cultural and health lobby to explain why it has to be done to infants and children and cannot wait for the young person to decide for themselves. As is the case for other “body modifications” such as tattoos and piercings etc. which arguably carry much less risk.
LikeLike
Thanks. You make good points, but there’s a nuance here. I agree that FGM v MGM isn’t generally a productive argument. But some people oppose FGM but have no issue with MGM because they’ve swallowed the feminist lies that the former is extremely damaging, and the latter isn’t (and may even bring health benefits). Faced with that, what can we do but point out the fact that all MGM is more injurious than most FGM?
LikeLike
The details of the case in Bristol are worth a look as the “damage” is so slight that the expert witnesses can’t agree whether FGM has even occurred (which is why I suspect the case may founder). It was an education to me on the different levels. I certainly would not presume to lecture those who know far more than me. My comments are to reflect my “man on the Clapham Omnibus” amateur status. If they were honest I suspect most have no clue what FGM actually means they just know its all about “protecting Girls” which feminists merely use rather than invented. I think it will be interesting to see if the Icelandic approach based on principle and rights rather than measures of harm; works to get a law passed.
LikeLike
An interesting (Rare) case prosecuting FGM. Like previous cases it looks pretty weak as “experts” appear unsure if anything has actually happened. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-43131465
Interesting in the context of MGM where it is pretty evident what has happened.
LikeLike