http://blog.balder.org/?p=1528
During a debate about religiously motivated genital mutilation organized by the anti Islamic Free Speech Society [Trykkefrihedsselskabet], most recently in the news because of the attempted murder of the organizations president, Lars Hedegaard, Mrs. Marie Krarup, MP for the Danish People’s Party [Dansk Folkeparti] followed in the footsteps of now former member of the Free Speech Society the Lutheran Priest Katrine Lilleoer, MP for the DPP the Lutheran Priest Jesper Langballe, and Marie Krarup’s sister, the Lutheran theologian Katrine Winkel Holm, and argued that circumcision; amputation of part of the male foreskin is a minor procedure with positive effects, and that the freedom of parents to raise their children in some religious tradition is more important than the right of the individual to bodily integrity.
But Marie Krarup went even further than the preceding line of traitors to secular Occidental and Christian ideas, and suggested opening up for some ‘mild’ circumcision of girls!
This caused an immediate reaction from Dr. Morten Frisch:
The debate about foreskin amputation, which goes under the misleading term ‘circumcision’, has gone into a new phase.
Hard pressed by almost nation wide public opposition to the legality of the practice as well as strong and almost unanimous opposition from Danish medical practitioners, panic is spreading among the ranks of the foreskin amputation ritual advocates.
New marked arguments are being launched in an attempt to prevent boys in Denmark from attaining the right to bodily and sexual integrity.
According to Dr. Morten Frisch, Marie Krarup suggested that we end this sexist imbalance by opening up for ‘a mild form’ of genital mutilation for girls, if a good and painless method can be found. Equality for the law so to speak.
Dr. Morten Frisch about the debate on february 7:
The panel was made up of Chief Rabbi Bent Lexner, columnist Leo Milgrom (Jewish), economist Torben Mark Pedersen and me. Marie Krarup spoke as a suppliant for her sister theologian Katrine Winkel Holm, who rose from her sick bed and took part in the discussion anyway, seated among the audience.
I was the first to speak and went through the anatomical, health related and sexual consequences of foreskin amputation, and pointed at the need to secure boys the right to their own bodies, the same way we have installed paragraph 245a of the Danish Penal Code to protect girls from genital mutilation.
Chief Rabbi Bent Lexner talked about the reason why Jews practice foreskin amputation when the boys are eight days old.
Leo Milgrom, a Jewish man gave us his personal story of violence, loss and being let down, something many foreskin amputated men experience, while he also used the occasion to ask Chief Rabbi Bent Lexner once more, as he did in his article in the newspaper Politiken on July 28; ‘Can you give me my foreskin back?’.
MP Marie Krarup thought that there were important health benefits to be got from foreskin amputation, that the pain during and after the procedure were limited, that assault is too strong a word, and that the family deserves to be prioritized before the individual.
Torben Mark Pedersen (member of the Free Speech Society and a member of the ultra liberal, [financially the European meaning of the wordliberal] party, Ny Alliance (New Alliance) closed the presentation round focusing on the rights of the individual and the protection of children against religiously motivated assault.
Thereby the stage had been set for a confrontation between two badly agreeing points of view: that a child’s right to bodily and sexual integrity trumps parents possible urge to cut into their bodies. Or that we for historical reasons and respect for Judaism should accept that some parents violate the UN Children’s Convention, and mutilate their boys because religion is more important for them than basic human rights.
Allowing female genital mutilation in the name of equality
During the following debate, Marie Krarup was asked why some minorities living in Denmark should be allowed to cut into their boys’ genitals, while other groups for cultural reasons just as legitimate, risk several years in jail, if they have genital mutilation performed on their girls.
Marie Krarup suggested that we do away with this sexist imbalance by opening up for a ‘mild’ form of genital mutilation for girls, if a good and painless method can be found. Equality before the law so to speak.
The fact that this Member of Parliament can get it over her lips to legitimate female sexual mutilation in order to preserve the right to mutilate boy’s penisses, is logical enough in all its horror. When one has a world view which accepts that boys should pay with pain and life long loss of sexual sensitivity, because of their parents’ religious ideas, well I guess the same fate may befall girls.
The fact that it is possible to completely spare boys and girls for this madness by banning all none medically necessary chirurgy on children’s genitals obviously hasn’t occurred to Marie Krarup as a viable possibility.
Circumcision advocacy not official position of DPP
Many members of the Danish People’s Party are probably happy that she spoke as a private person, and not on behalf of the party.
[Mr. Frisch is sure right about that one too!]
[..]
Leo Milgrom (the Jewish man) asked a question to Katrine Winkel Holm which sounded about like this: ‘Is it ok if a new religious movement would want to amputate the tip of the little finger of their kids, in order to give them a sign of their belonging to a group, when after all it is legal to remove something far more valuable from a boy’s sex organ?
Theologian Katrine Winkel Holm thought not, because that would be violence against the child. When fingertip amputation is violence, while foreskin amputation isn’t, that is because there are historical reasons to cut into boys penisses, we were made to understand.
Or in other words, when a religiously motivated assault has been going on for so long that we have repressed the notion that it is an act of violence, nobody from the outside should come and interfere.
[..]
Foreskin amputation is costly. For the defenseless boys as well as for the young and adult men they will become later on. Sexually, emotionally, identity wise and economically.
That fact that this practice in the US is a golden egg worth hundreds of millions for doctors and other ‘circumcizers’ is a delicate matter which was not brought up at the meeting.
But it is thought provoking, that American Pediatricians and Obstetricians, who perform most of the foreskin amputations on newly born American boys, are the only doctors in the world, who can find arguments in the scientific literature in favor of the foreskin amputation practice.
[..]
People in the Western world prioritize to an ever higher degree the emphasis on the rights of children and abstain from the practice.
Even in the US where prognoses say that 2014 or 2015 will be the first year since WWII in which more than half of all newly born boys will have intact sex organs when they leave the maternity ward.
Western doctors argue against the amputation practice, except those who make good money out of it. [And those who support it for tribal reasons – Balder]
Marie Krarup doesn’t think that we should protect Danish boys from genital mutilation.
But a solid majority of the Danish public wants Denmark to lead the way and stop this assault on underage boys which is illegal under the UN Convention.
The Danish Medical Society advices against medically unnecessary foreskin amputation. The Sex & Society Organization is against it, as well as the Children’s Council.
What do you say?
Morten Frisch is Chief Medical Doctor, ph.d., and professor of Sexual Health Epidemiology
Comment: White Nationalists who complain that Muslim men should have more fun when they have sex with non-Muslim women resemble Muslims who think non-Muslims should have large non-Muslim families instead of being sluts and faggots. Disingenous, transparent hypocrisy is never cool or even effective.
oogenhand 