August 12 2002 MEDIA RELEASE Charges Dropped For Father Who Forced Circumcision On Sons A committal hearing for

charges of grievous bodily harm and unlawful wounding was scheduled in Bundaberg yesterday against a father who forced his two sons to undergo circumcision during an access visit to his family home last year. The father, of Muslim faith, arranged for his sons aged 5 and 9 to be circumcised for nonmedical reasons. This was against the expressed wishes of their mother; "Being of indigenous Australian descent I understand the importance of freedom of personal beliefs in a multicultural society." "I believe my sons have a right to grow into adult men with intact bodies and choose their own religious and other beliefs; I am devastated that the father has stolen that opportunity away from my boys" The charges were dropped yesterday as documents from 1998 needed as evidence for the case could not be located. Prosecutor Senior Constable Wayne Puxty explained to the court that the prosecution could not proceed without certified Family Law Court documents that were supposed to be supplied by the mother, and requested an adjournment to receive them. But defence barrister Tim Ryan said the request was "simply outrageous'' given the case had been scheduled for a hearing since May and claimed the documents wanted by the prosecution had been in existence since August 2000. He added his client had not seen his two sons since the charges were laid on October 3 last year as part of his bail conditions and said any further delaying of the case would be a "misuse of the criminal justice system''. Acting Magistrate Neil Lavaring rejected the application for an adjournment, which forced Snr Const. Puxty to offer no evidence against the father. Outside court, arresting officer Detective Senior Constable Peter Cormack, from the Gold Coast child abuse investigation unit, said police would still be pursuing the case, and charges could still be laid. By arranging circumcision of the boys, the father was in breach of orders by the Family Court, Brisbane. After a long documented history of physical abuse by the father to the mother, the Family Court ruled that the boys would reside with their mother, and she would have the day to day care and control of their welfare and development. Despite the Court's rulings and the issue of protection orders, on a number of occasions the father threatened to abduct the children, force them to undergo circumcision, and accompany him to Turkey. The father tried to fulfill the first part of his threats by applying to the family court for the boys to be circumcised. "The father has a history of substance abuse and psychiatric illness, and the court justly dismissed his application for my boys to be forcibly circumcised." The mother feared for her family's safety and moved from Bundaberg to an anonymous address

in the Gold Coast to escape the father's continued threats and harassment. For her boys' well-being, she preferred that they have no contact with their father. "I only allowed my boys to stay with their father during the recent access visit as his sister agreed she would be responsible for their care and well-being." It seems the mother's trust was misplaced as the boy's aunt did not prevent the circumcision that went ahead. The mother believes this was due to the family's Muslim faith. "The father always used his Muslim religion as an excuse for his violence". "He treated us as though we were less than human; he saw us as objects or property for him to do with as he pleased." "And now he has assaulted and mutilated my two boys in the worst possible way, by cutting off part of their sexual organs and depriving them of future sexual pleasure". The boys are reluctant to speak of their experience, but have expressed that their father misled them to believe they were going to the doctor for an examination. They are very upset that part of their bodies was removed and do not want any contact with their father. Despite the obvious trauma and breach of court orders, the father's barrister argues that the circumcision should be treated as a moral rather than a criminal issue. This has outraged the mother, who is adamant that her sons have been assaulted; "If I had been in this current situation with two daughters who were circumcised by their Muslim father, the Australian public would be outraged. Because it is my two sons who have been harmed, few people seem to care". A spokesman for Circumcision Information Australia, Mr Shane Peterson, said that the case highlights the lack of implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child by Australian law. "In European countries the written permission of both parents is necessary before a doctor can legally perform a circumcision on boys. This rule should be implemented in Australia to prevent such tragedies." Mr Peterson also said that the case illustrated the double standard by which female circumcision is condemned as mutilation, yet male circumcision is viewed as a trivial or even beneficial adjustment. "Amnesty International defines genital mutilation as the removal of any part of the genital organs. By this definition, these boys are victims of genital mutilation." Duality of Male and Female Circumcision Global Practices of Male and Female Circumcision Around the world approximately 13 million males and 2 million females are circumcised annually. Most people in Western societies appear unaware that male and female circumcision have similar cultural origins and a number of societies still maintain both of these practices.

Although most countries permit male circumcision only, many societies which perform female circumcision require both men and women to be circumcised. This is the case in 28 African and Arab nations, including Egypt, Sudan, Somalia and Eritrea. These communities practice male and female circumcision for Islamic and tribal beliefs, where both men and women can be seen as unfit for marriage and be discharged from the community or even killed if they do not undergo circumcision. Although all men and women who undergo circumcision experience a reduction in sexual functionality, many such men and women adamantly deny they have suffered any loss. The procedure also has many other detrimental effects on male and female sexual health, including; 1. Haemorrhage 2. Urinary retention 3. Meatitis, meatal ulcer and meatal stenosis 4. Adhesions or skin bridges 5. Infection: including HIV, hepatitis, gangrene, septicemia and meningitis 6. Chordee or bent erections in men 7. Cysts 8. Urethral injury and fistula 9. Hypospadias and epispadias in men 10. Impotence 11. Pain, tearing and haemorrhage during intercourse 12. Psychosocial issues, such as schizophrenia 13. Amputation or necrosis of the glans, penis or clitoris 15. Death within days or weeks of circumcision due to haemorrhage and/or infection 16. Complications with pregnancy and childbirth, including haemorrhage and death during labour. History of Male and Female Circumcision in English Speaking Countries The main reason why forcible circumcision of male minors is not seen as a serious assault in Australia is because of the long history of routine male circumcision in English-speaking countries. Male and female circumcision was adopted and practised by physicians in Britain and the USA during the 19Th century to treat infantile phimosis (then misunderstood as an abnormality), provide protection against syphilis and an ever-growing list of incurable diseases, and to discourage masturbation in childhood and adolescence. Doctors believed that masturbation was responsible for a range of illnesses, including, tuberculosis, epilepsy, bed-wetting, night terrors, precocious sexual unrest and even homosexuality. Some doctors also treated masturbation in girls and women by clitoridectomy. Many articles were published in the British and US medical journals from the mid-1850s to describe the miraculous benefits of circumcision for both males and females. However, Britain abolished the practice of female circumcision in the 1860s, when doctors decided that even if the procedure had benefits for mental and physical health, it was unethical to amputate part of a lady's sexual organs without her express and informed consent. Sadly, boys were not given the same ethical consideration as girls, and were increasingly subject to genital surgery as the 19Th century drew to a close. These events established the current double standard on male and female circumcision. Britain's leading champion of routine infant circumcision was (Sir) Jonathan Hutchinson, who published a series of articles in the 1890s urging universal male circumcision as a preventive of masturbation, syphilis and cancer of the penis. In the USA Dr J.H. Kellogg identified a list of 39 signs by which masturbators could be detected and prescribed a set of remedies, including bandaging and caging the genitals; tying the hands to prevent touching; sewing up the foreskin with silver wire to prevent erection, and finally circumcision, which was to be performed;

"...without administering an anaesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment." Circumcision and Australian Law Female circumcision is legally prohibited in Australia, yet the practise of male circumcision continues to be unregulated. In 1993 the Queensland Law Reform Commission concluded in their research paper on Circumcision of Male Infants; "On a strict interpretation of the assault provisions of the Queensland Criminal Code, routine circumcision of a male infant could be regarded as a criminal act. Further, consent by parents to the procedure being performed may be invalid in light of the common law's restrictions on the ability of parents to consent to the non-therapeutic treatment of children."