Canadian Children’s Rights Council
The Canadian Children’s Rights Council considers circumcision to be genital mutilation of children.
The position of the Canadian Children’s Rights Council
The Canadian Children’s Rights Council position is that there is no medical benefit to the routine genital mutilation (circumcision) of any children (defined by U.N. as those under 18 years of age). Further, all Canadian children, both male and female, should be protected by the criminal laws of Canada with regards to this aggravated assault. Currently, the protection provided by the Criminal Code of Canada includes only genital mutilation (circumcision) of female children.
Our position is that all children should be protected from all forms of genital mutilation (circumcision of all types) including but not limited to, circumcision that doesn’t affect sexual function or that may be viewed by others as sexual enhancement surgery. Male circumcision does affect sexual function.
Canada and many other countries have responded positively to the U.N. initiatives to stop female genital mutilation (FGM), so female genital mutilation in Canada is all but non existent and is by law considered to be aggravated assault, an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada.
It is unfortunate that the women’s groups which sought the protection of female children did not seek protection of of male children. Their lack of concern and effort to protect male children has been viewed by some as a control and misandry issue of the western radical women’s groups.
There is much evidence in the various articles and documents on this website and elsewhere that suggests that the radical western feminists’ groups have unfairly blamed the female circumcision (genital mutilation) issue as being some form of male dominance or control over women in countries that previously practiced female genital mutilation. The evidence is substantially to the contrary.
A tragedy is occurring in Canada right now. Canada’s health services have recognized that they shouldn’t be paying for circumcision. It has no value as a health measure. Parents, out of medical ignorance, or who wrongly believe their religious obligations necessitate genital mutilation of their male children are asking that it be done.
If “medical necessity” is claimed, we suggest that such a claim is invariably fraudulent. Since in Finland, the risk of getting a circumcision at birth is zero, and the risk of needing one later is one in sixteen thousand, six hundred and sixtyseven (1/16,667), every claim for “medical necessity” should be fully investigated, and denied.