Our thanks to Ian for this (Spectator, £). Extracts:
“The Green party is considering a new policy to ban circumcision, The Spectator can reveal. The party’s Health Policy Working Group (HPWG) has launched a consultation seeking views on whether parents should only be allowed to consent ‘to an irreversible surgical procedure on a child if that procedure is medically necessary’. The HPWG is also requesting opinions on whether ‘non-therapeutic male circumcision should only be performed on children who are old enough to make an informed choice’. [J4MB emphasis. Children cannot be ‘old enough’ to make an ‘informed choice’.]
The policy proposal, launched ahead of the Greens’ Autumn Conference, is likely to provoke significant division within Zack Polanski’s party. Circumcision is an integral part of Judaism, with Jewish boys traditionally undergoing a ‘brit milah’ on the eighth day after birth. It is also a common procedure in the Muslim faith. Russell Langer, Director of Public Affairs at the Jewish Leadership Council, said: ‘Circumcision is a vital part of Jewish life and an essential link to our religion and heritage. This is also a practice shared with many of the Muslim faith. Any suggestion of a ban on circumcision will have a significant impact on our communities and the future of the UK as a tolerant society which respects freedom of religion and belief.’…
Responding to this year’s health consultation, the official Green Party Women group decried the proposal as ‘controversial and goes completely against stated need for cultural sensitivities’. [J4MB emphasis. Needless to say, the women wouldn’t take the same view on ‘cultural sensitivities’ in relation to FGM.]”
If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.
We shall shortly be posting this piece on our X channel.
Our YouTube channel is here.
Justice for Men & Boys 
So the Jewish leader of the Greens openly courts the sectarian Muslim voting block. When the Party is the most feminist and anti family, indeed seeks to drastically reduce the world’s population. What a tragedy that this incoherent mess is to consider MGM. Of course it’ll go nowhere. However it is indeed telling that the Women’s group think cultural sensitivity is so important when it’s boys being mutilated but absolutely irrelevant when it’s girls. Two tiers indeed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agreed but at least it led to some publicity in the MSM about MGM.
LikeLike
Yes indeed. And if the Greens were their usual selves it may have got a good airing as an issue. Paradoxically in the past in Northern Europe and Scandinavia it has often been “left” politicians or organisations that have tried policies to ban infant circumcision. In a way because their usual stance is that cultural rituals are from the past and not “progressive” so they are not wedded to tradition. Of course usually these have been derailed by accusations of “racism” “islamophobia” and anti semitism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’d say that the age should match that for tattoos. Seems reasonable for any non medically necessary body modifications that carry significant risks if not done by a licenced professional.
LikeLike
MGM is always very damaging regardless of whether or not the butcher in question has a licence. 90%+ of the soft touch nerve cells which give men pleasure during sex are in the foreskin.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The foreskin is also a natural roller bearing, allowing young men to easily pleasure themselves without recourse to a woman. Remove the foreskin, he is more likely to stick it in crazy, and find himself bemusedly standing before the altar with a wife already in the family way. That’s how it used to work. The system got another indentured slave, working for his wife & family, the religion got more followers: “Go forth and multiply..!!”
The Greens, being Malthusian and anti-family, would rather young men practice Onanism, ‘spilling their seed on the ground’ like Onan in the Old Testament. Seen as wasteful and sinful in the New Testament (Matthew 13, Mark 4, Luke 8), if it stops children being born, it’s fine with the Greens.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But if an 18 year old decides on it I’m happy for him (or indeed her) to have a procedure done at their expense. My point is if the much lesser risks in having tattoos means it is prohibited till 18 there is no case for a much more risky (in its doing and consequences) being routinely done on babies or boys. If Jewish or Muslim men decide they wish it for themselves, well that’s up to them.
LikeLiked by 1 person