BattleMoose wrote:It argues that forced male infant circumcision is illegal based on Australian law as well as being inconsistent with human rights.
So far you've been very careful that to say that it argues that it may
be illegal. There's a rather important distinction there. As is being specific about which set of human rights you're talking about. Which is why the bit about UDHR would be so crucial, except that my reading on the review (REF, in case there are others or additions)
looks like it doesn't talk about human rights at all
. So your mistake becomes significantly more like inflating an argument.
To be considered illegal, it would first have to be declared so by a court or a law passed specifically making it so. Seeing as it has not yet been challenged in Court it cannot be said to be illegal but a court may rule that it is so, if it were to be challenged in court.
Firstly, a direct copy/paste from the beginning of the conclusion.
The common law operating in Queensland appears to be that if the young person is unable, through lack of maturity or other disability, to give effective consent to a proposed procedure and if the nature of the proposed treatment is invasive, ir- reversible and major surgery and for non-therapeutic purposes, then court approval is required before such treatment can pro- ceed. The court will not approve the treatment unless it is necessary and in the young person's best interests.132 The basis of this attitude is the respect which must be paid to an individual's bodily integrity.
And if you do in fact what an explicit comment relating to a right to bodily integrity.
Consent is intended to ensure protection for the patient against unauthorised interference with his or her right to bodily integrity
The overriding qualification to a parent or guardian's ability to consent to any medical procedure being performed on their child is that the procedure has to be in the child's best interests.
But I certainly do appreciate your claim that I errored in this regard. You could have politely asked, hey BattleMoose, I don't see any references in the publication relating to the rights of the child?
Moving on again, I'll ask it a third time, because the point is just that damn important: How does the QLR's paper effect law anywhere else?
This is an issue relating to International Law, Human Rights and of course domestic law as well. If we are going to discuss the legality of forced infant male circumcision domestic law has to be included. That requires picking a place whose law to discuss.
Which is what is happening now, we are discussing the legality of infant male circumcision in Queensland. The premises that are being used to argue the issue, rights to bodily integrity, best interests of the child are common in many countries. Also laws regarding assault, wounding and surgery as I understand are reasonably consistent within the British commonwealth and probably also in other Western Countries as well. If the starting premises are reasonably similar the conclusions found may also be similar. If it is found to be illegal within Queensland it would at least warrant examination of the legality elsewhere in the world. Its also worth noting that an entirely separate jurisdiction ruled in a court (Germany, Cologne), a judgment consistent with the views of the QLR and ebing based on the same premises. And if you feel that the publication is too, dated to be relevant I refer you to the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute, Non-Therapeutic Male Circumcision which is only 3 years old. http://www.law.utas.edu.au/reform/docum ... oPrint.pdf
You might particularly enjoy the section, Human Rights Law, subsection, The Applicable Human Rights.
It is actually a very similar document to that relating to Queensland.
But let's just cut to the punch line: It doesn't. Which is the fundamental flaw in arguing about what's right (moral) based on a 20 year old research paper of what might be legal in one country, with a heavy influence on the effect of common law (the invocation of which causes all sorts of issues in other jurisdictions).
In the pedantic sense that Queensland law is only relevant in Queensland, then thats absolutely right. Sure things may have changed in 20 years but then again we have a much more recent and very similar document for a different Jurisdiction. If you would rather talk about the legality in Tasmania rather than Queensland fine, but if we are talking about the legality of forced male circumcision we have to pick a place whose domestic law would apply. Queensland and Tasmania are fantastic places to pick because we have these publications produced by their government body established to advise them on their law.
Hell, just for kicks, let's quote the review's final section:
10. POSSIBLE REFORMS
It may be reasonable to require, either by law or by a
professional Code of Practice, medical practitioners to inform
parents of all arguments for and against circumcision before,
and possibly at least a number of days before, undertaking the
procedure. A statutory consent form containing information on
arguments for and against circumcision could be drafted. The
form should be regularly updated with new information.
It might be reasonable to require that all circumcisions be
performed by medical practitioners or other experienced and
skilled people in circumstances which reduce to a minimum any
Wow, yeah. Look at them suggest it's illegal.
I call complete and utter bullshit
You went to their possible reform section without referencing their chapter on the legality of male circumcision when trying to address the question of whether or not they suggest it may be illegal.
In the absence of `real' consent, circumcision of male infants
would fall within the definition of assault under section 245 of
the Queensland Criminal Code. It might also be an offence
endangering life or health. A number of criminal offences may
be committed depending on the circumstances of the case, such
* It could be seen as intended to cause grievous bodily
harm42 and be punishable under section 317 of the Criminal
I am certainly not going paste the whole chapter here. But I would recommend reading the chapter titled "The legality of Circumcision" if you want to know their position on the legality of male circumcision. Further, their first sentence in the chapter titled "Conclusions" state that they are of the opinion that court approval is required.