Ombudsman under Fire from Muslims

French press about slovenian ombudswoman:
http://ame.enfant.org.free.fr/ame50.html

This is good news for Slovenian travel agencies as religious tourists from even older-time religions jet off to the Yemen to keep up with the Joneses. Two weeks bed and breakfast including circumcision (family deals available) - a snip at 299 euros.

@Hugh7
You appear both narrow-minded and self-centered towards life. I feel sorry for you, sort of, because you are only giving out the falsity you have been fed from childhood. You do realise that it was extreme intolerance and lack of respect for other peoples and their cultures on the side of certain Europeans that led to slave trade, colonisation, racism as we know it today, first world war, second world war, and above all - the killing of 6 million innocent Jews? Mentioned are the worst atrocities ever committed by man. I urge you to do a little soul searching. Muslims and Jews in Europe (Slovenia included) should be allowed to circumcise their children if that's part of their way of life. Note that Europeans in other peoples' lands are ALLOWED to decide against taking that step. Live and let live is what the world needs. Jews and Muslims are peoples with own histories and cultures. Learn to respect the other man's ways and expect him to respect yours. Good luck!

Well done to the Ombudsman for having the balls (and foreskin) to spell out the truth on this matter

@Rome "If you, as parents, are allowed to decide to pierce your babygirl's ears,"
- well, maybe you shouldn't be allowed to. But earpiercing removes no tissue and will reverse itself if the holes are left empty.
"why shouldn't you be allowed to decide to circumcise your babyboy's phallus?"
For all the excellent reasons the Ombudsman has given. Read the article.

"Doesn't every woman prefer making love to a circumcised phallus as opposed to its opposite?"
No, they do not. And even if they did, that would be no excuse for doing it to babies. Do we cut parts of baby girls off (or aughment their breasts) to suit what men might prefer?
"Circumcision is very good for a man."
So let a man have it done to himself if he thinks so.
"He feels clean, is loved by females as a young man, plus has a healthy phallus as an old man."
Nonsense, nonsense and nonsense. People only think like that where males are already having (the best) part cut off. In most of the developed world, they don't. The English-speaking world tried it and (except in the US) realised it does no good, and gave it up - with no ill-effects.

@MD: Your concise and well-reasoned argument will be given the attention it merits.

All religions (and religious individuals) pick-and-choose which parts of thier holy book are relevant in these modern times and which ones are not.

Religions also evolve over time and it is way past time that these two religions urgently find a way to move on from inflicting barbaric blood rituals on vulnerable children (and animals).

The Human Rights Ombudsman is to be congratulated for taking a principled stand in support of children.

If you, as parents, are allowed to decide to pierce your babygirl's ears, why shouldn't you be allowed to decide to circumcise your babyboy's phallus? Doesn't every woman prefer making love to a circumcised phallus as opposed to its opposite? Snap out of it, folks! What is good is good! Circumcision is very good for a man. He feels clean, is loved by females as a young man, plus has a healthy phallus as an old man.

There is no medical proof that non-circumcised men are any more prone than circumcised one's to HIV. It's not the foreskin that's the problem in contracting HIV or Sexually Transmitted diseases but the partners. So it's a ridiculous argument that it's for medical reasons. It's a religious custom in Jewish, some African and Muslim countries and as such does not warrant any country to blindly allow that to happen to babies who have no choice. I'd like to remind those religious communities of the injustices done by blindly following a religious edict, like vaginal circumcisions, child brides, burkas, stonings or beheadings of adulterers, forced marriages of women to men who have raped them, forbidding girls to get an education etc. Need I go on? Just because you label it religious rights or cultural customs does not make it morally right. However, circumcision should be a choice later when a man comes of age, not forced upon them. It's not a criminal act and to label it so is a bit over the top. I think that a balanced approach should be applied here not anger nor prejudice. It's important in a civilzed society to engage in a respectful dialogue on this issue rather than some hysterical dramatic response, it's stupid and incindiary.

Let an adult decide what to do with his or her body as far as mutilating it to follow their beliefs or desires. Let no adult mutilate an infant or child based on the beliefs, values or desires they wish to uphold or enjoy. Simple. Arguements that oppose the protection of a vulnerable person unable to defend themselves from such harm or incapable of chosing for themselves, such as referring to abortion or protection from disease are misplaced and misinterpret the basic points inherent in the debate.

Congratulation to the ombdsman for speaking the plain truth.

Whoever is speaking against the ombudsman needs to get his/her acts straight. NOT ONE national medical association on earth endorses circumcision of healthy normal children.

I congratulate the ombudsman for speaking hard truths that need to be heard: circumcision, despite being a cherished tradition, violates the rights of the child (who has not yet chosen their own religion as an adult). The damage caused by circumcision is well known, and one cannot forever hide behind what one considers holy to do something that is most unholy.

Shut the F... up

Maybe the Muslims should take a moment to realize that circumcision is not a requirement of their faith and more importantly they should take time to educate themselves on the harms of circumcision rather than blindly spitting discrimination venom. Freedom of religion ends where someone else's body begins!

Circumcision of healthy infants is NOT "endorsed as a health measure" in any country in the world. The Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) says unequivocally:

"There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene. Partly in the light of the complications which can arise during or after circumcision, circumcision is not justifiable except on medical/therapeutic grounds. Insofar as there are medical benefits, such as a possibly reduced risk of HIV infection, it is reasonable to put off circumcision until the age at which such a risk is relevant and the boy himself can decide about the intervention, or can opt for any available alternatives."

Neither the UN nor the WHO have conducted any surveys. A closed-door, invitation-only meeting of unknown people endorsed VOLUNTARY ADULT circumcision in areas of high HIV risk, based on some flawed, curtailed studies in Africa.

Neither community has given any argument why cutting a normal, healthy, integral, functional, non-renewable part off a child's body is not a breach of his (or her) human rights - except that they feel compelled to do it.

As a man who was subjected, as an infant, to the crime of forced genital cutting I support any and all measures to end this barbaric practice. If it were not for the demands of religions for "tolerance" for this crime, circumcision of children would never be allowed.

I have deep and abiding respect for those who speak out against this atrocity. To the Slovenian ombudsman, thank you.

Human Rights must be done without seeing what ever Religion as their background.