AFP via www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=765342&vId=
So many useful repercussions vis-a-vis islamania. Mainly that it will annoy them <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
But also:
Possibly in terms of head count (demographics) and discouraging islamic immigration*, a chance for teens of islamic parents to decide they don't want to be islamaniacs and thus having *less* fear of getting done in by The Global Brotherhood for being "apostates" (because they weren't circumcised in the first place). Of course, such teens might get done in by the ummah for being kafirs instead, but... separate problem same threat.
* It still leaves it open for islamaniacs in Germany to choose to mutilate their poor babies in some 3rd world islamaniac country by flying back and forth, but that last does offer extra hassle which means more annoyance.
The free world should follow suit. Wish India could do too: ban religious circumcisions. "Look, Germany did it. So it's clearly Da sensible thing to do." Teesta and tag-alongs will throw their typical tantrums. To be expected. But the tantrum along with Teesta's hideous face can be telecast in Germany, which may make her quite famous - for all the reasons she doesn't want to be famous for...
Then again, Germany may be in for what Belgium got to see recently: some islamaniac from France invaded Belgium to kill police officers at random, because Belgium had banned the burka or something (see post 610 somewhere above). Who's to say the same can't happen to Germany? Although Germany has a sufficient number of islamaniacs internal to the country who may try the same first.
Still, the decision is the right one - when considering the poor infants - and can have useful consequences for Germany besides.
Quote:German court bans religious circumcision
Updated: 07:33, Wednesday June 27, 2012
[color="#0000FF"]Circumcisions of young boys on religious grounds should be considered as grievous bodily harm, a German court has said, in a landmark ruling that clears up a grey area for doctors.[/color]
[color="#800080"](:Thunderous laughter[/color]
The regional court in Cologne, western Germany, ruled that the 'fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighed the fundamental rights of the parents.'
'The religious freedom of the parents and their right to educate their child would not be unacceptably compromised, if they were obliged to wait until the child could himself decide to be circumcised,' the court added.
The case was brought against a doctor in Cologne, who had circumcised a four-year-old Muslim boy on his parents' wishes.
The doctor was later charged with grievous bodily harm but acquitted by a lower court which judged he had acted within the law as the parents had given their consent.
On appeal, the regional court also acquitted the doctor but for different reasons.
The regional court upheld the original charge of grievous bodily harm but ruled also that the doctor was innocent as there was too much confusion on the legal situation.
'The body of the child is irreparably and permanently changed by a circumcision,' the court said. 'This change contravenes the interests of the child to decide later on his religious beliefs.'
[color="#0000FF"]Holm Putzke, a criminal law expert at the University of Passau, told the Financial Times Deutschland[/color] that the ruling was 'enormously important for doctors because for the first time they have legal certainty.'
[color="#0000FF"]'Unlike many politicians, the court has not allowed itself to be scared off by charges of[/color] anti-Semitism or [color="#0000FF"]religious intolerance,' added Putzke.[/color]
The World Health Organisation has estimated that nearly one in three males under 15 is circumcised. In the United States, the operation is often performed for hygiene reasons on infants.
Thousands of young boys are circumcised every year in Germany, especially in the country's large Jewish and Muslim communities.
So many useful repercussions vis-a-vis islamania. Mainly that it will annoy them <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />But also:
Possibly in terms of head count (demographics) and discouraging islamic immigration*, a chance for teens of islamic parents to decide they don't want to be islamaniacs and thus having *less* fear of getting done in by The Global Brotherhood for being "apostates" (because they weren't circumcised in the first place). Of course, such teens might get done in by the ummah for being kafirs instead, but... separate problem same threat.
* It still leaves it open for islamaniacs in Germany to choose to mutilate their poor babies in some 3rd world islamaniac country by flying back and forth, but that last does offer extra hassle which means more annoyance.
The free world should follow suit. Wish India could do too: ban religious circumcisions. "Look, Germany did it. So it's clearly Da sensible thing to do." Teesta and tag-alongs will throw their typical tantrums. To be expected. But the tantrum along with Teesta's hideous face can be telecast in Germany, which may make her quite famous - for all the reasons she doesn't want to be famous for...
Then again, Germany may be in for what Belgium got to see recently: some islamaniac from France invaded Belgium to kill police officers at random, because Belgium had banned the burka or something (see post 610 somewhere above). Who's to say the same can't happen to Germany? Although Germany has a sufficient number of islamaniacs internal to the country who may try the same first.
Still, the decision is the right one - when considering the poor infants - and can have useful consequences for Germany besides.