Yes we need more laws to control us. Please make more laws to control our lives and save us from having to make decisions for ourselves. We don't have enough laws yet, we need many more before we can sleep comfortably, knowing Big Brother is watching over us.

[Satire - 1. The use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc. 2. A literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule. 3. A literary genre comprising such compositions.]

I don't get it: since when should "entrenched acceptance" and "ardent support" for something (paragraph 12) justify explicit legal cover for performing a procedure on a non-consenting subject that is "invasive, involving blood loss, pain and the removal of genital tissue" and that "has an inherent risk of harmful complications" (paragraph 12) when that procedure offers "no real" health benefit (paragraph 14)? Legal reformers in the past have ben braver than the authors of this report in speaking up for the rights of weak members of society against the entrenched views of those who exercise power over them.

The complexity of ethics aside, one of the complications for potential regulation is this:

The two major religions that require circumcision in its male followers have different approaches to who should perform it.

In orthodox Judaism, ritual circumcision is performed by a religious official - the mohel. it is done with traditional tools and methods. In this context, it is not a "medical" procedure.

In Islam, (as I understand it) there is less of a ritual in circumcision practice. At least in Australia, most circumcisions amongst Moslem boys are carried out by doctors - often in general practice. AFAIK, there is no Moslem equivalent of the Jewish Mohel.

It would be relatively easy to ban circumcision as a medical procedure, as doctors are regulated and subject to registration requirements. A medical sanction, therefore, would impact the Moslem community much more than the orthodox Jewish community.

Would Moslems therefore seek out Mohels? WOuld it be possible to outlaw the practice amongst religious officials? This is a much more complex undertaking than banning the procedure being done by doctors.

What do others think?

I am strongly opposed to the proposal that you and the TLRI have put forward Warwick. I think that alleged medical/health ‘reasons’ are the only ones that should possibly carry any legal weight. Allowing religious or ‘cultural’ exemptions is contrary to the ‘rule of law’ and is also impossible to quantify and to police. This approach basically gives a ‘green light’ for infant circumcision to any parent who claims that their own belief system justifies such a decision. If I claim that I have converted to Judaism today, does that provide enough evidence to sustain a claim that I have legal grounds to circumcise my son? What ‘state’ authority would have the power to rule in such cases? I have no doubt that, if asked to do so, the High Court of Australia would rule that any legislation based on the recommendations of the TLRI would be unconstitutional. In fact, I believe that any legislation which allows the non-therapeutic circumcision of minors would be struck down by the High Court. In my opinion, although the TLRI document is well intentioned, it badly misses the mark and, sadly, I think that Tasmania needs to go ‘back to the drawing board’ on this issue.

We have the same people , doctors , recommending adults in Africa have circumcisions to reduce disease risk , but they are going to deny it to the kids BECAUSE of religion ?
A Jewish person wants a circumcision is going to be disallowed simply because it is their religion?
Sounds like the atheists are at it again in medicine.
Who says the Jewish circumcision isn't based on ageold medical knowledge which just so happens to PREDATE the Jewish religion completely ?
Seeing now those with HIV , hepatitis and the like are allowed to practice medicine , is my kid going to catch something from a disease ridden medical professional during a checkup ?
I'm sure they'd allow the circumcision if one were to tell them that you are afraid some disease ridden medical professional is going to spread their disease to your kid through his annual checkup IF you DON'T have him circumcised.

"Circumcision lies at the crossroads of religion, custom, human rights, health, commerce, harm, and ethics."

And sex.

For what it's worth I think this report is a step in the right direction. I would argue that every child has a right to retain their genitals intact, whether or not their parents want to allow that. But this issue aside...

At least at last there is a thorough legal report on this practice - it's certainly better than the de facto status of 'implied legality' since everyone's allowed to do it and no one faces court when they do. Although I'd argue the recommendations don't go far enough, cultural change won't happen overnight, and small steps in the right direction are certainly better than none.

The report will of course still leave some nasty loop-holes open, such as the issue of sexual or religious discrimination since the joint declaration on female genital mutilation states:

"Female genital mutilation deprives girls and women from making an independent decision about an intervention that has a lasting effect on their bodies and infringes on their autonomy and control over their lives." which is the exact case for a young male infant, and..

"The right to participate in cultural life and freedom of religion are protected by international law. However, international law stipulates that freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs might be subject to limitations necessary to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. Therefore, social and cultural claims cannot be evoked to justify female genital mutilation"...which means the Tasmanian report, if placed into law, would therefore also place a double standard on male vs female genital alteration.

These issues will no doubt raise their head at some future time, but I guess at least the report is a start.

Quotes are from page 10 of: Eliminating female genital mutilation: an interagency statement UNAIDS, UNDP, UNECA, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCHR, UNHCR, UNICEF, UNIFEM, WHO. 2008. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2008/9789241596442_eng.pdf