Circumcision banned in Germany

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail....k-Jews-Holocaust.html

So Germany's Chancelleor Merkel has promised Jewish and Muslim communities that they will be free to carry out circumcision on young boys despite a court ban, I wonder how she plans to overthrow the courts ruling?

If Merkel is successful then perhaps our Home Secretary Theresa May could take a few lessons from her, and find a way to overthrow the European Court of Human Rights when it grants foreign undesirables the right to remain in Britain.

[woofgang]

If I was in the middle of the euro crisis I would be looking to deflect people's interest from it too.

[starone]

There is always a loophole somewhere and trust a politician to find it. Nevertheless, it is very interesting aog and as you say why can't our politicians find a loophole in the Human Rights ruling.

[penelope2]

The germans and french just ignore EU rulings if it doesn't suit them it seems.

[RATTER15]

its no skin off my nose!

[woofgang]

....and RATTER will be here every night this week folks.......

[keyplus90]

////....and RATTER will be here every night this week folks.......////

Because Naomi is on holidays and someone has to do the night shift.

[Gromit]

The Council of Europe was Winston Churchill's idea, and they set up the ECHR of which the UK was a founder member along with the other 46 countries in Europe. We have been members for over 50 years.

But we can leave whenever we want to. But most agree that it is a good idea.

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

You seem to have brushed up on your knowledge of the ECHR since the time you told me that such a court didn't exist.

/// But we can leave whenever we want to. But most agree that it is a good idea. ///

Have you any figures that supports this statement?

[Gromit]

AOG

We can leave any organisation we have voluntary signed up to. No membership agreement can last for ever.

We could leave NATO. We could leave the UN. We could leave the EU. But usually, our reasons for joining in the first place do not change, and opting out would be aginst the national interest.

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

I was referring to the last part of your statement.

/// But most agree that it is a good idea. ///

And I can now also add your latest statement, that being.

/// and opting out would be aginst the national interest. ///

[FredPuli43]

Angela Merkel won't have to overthrow the court's ruling. It was a lower court and the 'decision' was not a ruling but an an obiter dictum, a side observation not directly affecting the judgment in the case but intended , at best, as guidance to lawyers. The judges of the Court of Appeal sometimes gives them in discussing the law in question more widely than the instant case before the court requires. But obiter dicta are never more than persuasive and don't stand as better than, or equal to, judgments on the point as an authority, since they are not judgments themselves.

Often obiter dicta are no more than a judge sounding off wholly irrelevantly with some personal opinion. As this was a minor judge in a minor court , the observation has no significance in law whatsoever, but it has given the judge the publicity for his views which he doubtless desired.

[Sir Alec]

I agree with her. I don't agree with circumcision unless it is on medical grounds. If you're born with it, keep it. Not gonna get sand under it unless you spend your life on a beach and that's the original reason it was removed.

[hc4361]

It appears you DON'T agree with Merkel, Sir Alec

[FredPuli43]

Tradition is the democracy of the dead; it is applying the votes of our ancestors , cast long ago and in different times, to our present circumstances. Circumcision is traditional.

Whichever Jew did the first circumcision must have been uncircumcised . Some committee of Jews or proto-Jews (Jew as religion rather than a people) or their appointed leader, decided that, henceforth,every boy was to be circumcised. Why? Did they circumcise themselves? It must have had some logic then. As sir.prize says health and hygiene seems the reason, just as the dietary laws were for health. Pork, shellfish and other forbidden foods are all risky to eat; they can still be.

The original reason is long forgotten and the practice becomes identified with the religion and then treated as an identifier and article of faith which unifies a 'nation' or religion and has non-observers treated as outcasts. It is as though we still followed archaic laws here, laws which were necessary when passed and had some logic behind them, instead of ignoring them and having a Commission which identifies them and has them removed from the statute book.

This is reminiscent of the docking of dogs' tails as a controversy. Those for were ardent in their opposition, citing tradition to justify docking the tails of pups of poodles, spaniels and other breeds. It was an article of faith for the breeders; itwas tradition, the dogs looked right. It had no logic, save, conceivably, to stop gundogs that were employed to go into thickets from being deterred by fear of injury to the tail or suffering such injury.

Circumcision is in the same category . It has no logical or practical purpose any more and should be prevented.But it won't be.