March 20, 2018<\/p>\n
\u00c1g\u00e6ta Al\u00feingi \/ Dear Members of the Parliament:<\/span><\/p>\n The Children\u2019s Health & Human Rights Partnership (CHHRP) is a dedicated not-for-profit partnership of Canadian medical, legal, and ethics professionals working collaboratively towards ending forced non-therapeutic genital cutting of children in Canada. Our work is in accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and international human rights law.<\/span><\/p>\n We write today to respectfully request your support for the proposed restrictions on non-therapeutic male infant circumcision in Iceland. Our hope is that you will take a strong stand in favour of allowing males\u2014when there is otherwise no immediate medical need\u2014to decide upon and consent to circumcision at an age when they can fully understand the consequences. Such a stand would be consistent with the international movement of child protection advocates, especially paediatric and medical societies and children\u2019s ombudspersons in Nordic countries, who recognize this issue as an important human rights concern.<\/span><\/p>\n Child Rights International Network have noted in their recent 2018 report \u201cWhat Lies Beneath\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n With the exception of female genital mutilation, which is rightly one of the most widely recognised and challenged harmful traditional practices, there are a number of other procedures that involve irreversibly altering children\u2019s genitals through surgery for no justifiable medical reason. These are: sex assignment of intersex children, forced sterilisation of children with learning disabilities, and routine male\u00a0<\/span>circumcision, all three of which remain legal in most countries around the world when performed on children. (p. 21-22) <\/span><\/p>\n Full Document<\/span><\/p>\n https:\/\/www.crin.org\/sites\/default\/files\/crin_report_2018_edition.pdf<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n We wish to refer you to the 2012 report from the International NGO Council on Violence against Children. This groundbreaking report identifies numerous harmful practices based on tradition, culture, religion or superstition that violate the rights of children and the Council explicitly includes male circumcision as one of these practices. <\/span><\/p>\n It is difficult to argue that circumcision of otherwise healthy children is not a medical, cultural or religious tradition and that many parental motivations for requesting infant or child circumcision can be considered superstitious or based on fear of the unknown. The International NGO Council on Violence against Children (2012) explained that these practices are \u201cperpetrated through false beliefs about child development and the cause and treatment of ill-health. These may stem from religious edict or belief, or from tradition or superstition or in some cases be promoted by health practitioners\u201d (p. 7). The latter is certainly the case in North America, where paediatric societies take ambiguous stands and fail to firmly reject any medical justification for newborn circumcision and who issue statements that ignore the functions, benefits, and natural development of the foreskin, while failing to identify the newborn\u2019s inherent right to bodily integrity. <\/span><\/p>\n In specifically identifying male circumcision as a traditional practice that violates the rights of male children, the International NGO Council on Violence against Children (2012) stated that \u201cnon-consensual, non-therapeutic circumcision of boys, whatever the circumstances, constitutes a gross violation of their rights, including the right to physical integrity, to freedom of thought and religion and to protection from physical and mental violence\u201d (p. 22). <\/span><\/p>\n The International NGO Council on Violence against Children advised that circumcision and the other identified harmful practices<\/span><\/p>\n …should be effectively prohibited, when necessary explicitly, with particular attention to ensuring there are no provisions enabling parents or others to consent to\/authorise such harmful practices; that prohibition is upheld explicitly in states with multiple legal systems including customary and\/or religious law; that prohibition extends effectively not only to direct perpetrators but to those facilitating, arranging or offering the child for these practices. (2012, p. 46)<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n