Master-Thesis

MASTER-THESIS The Accused Foreskin “The Question of Anti-Semitic Arguments within the Frame of Religious Freedom and of the Integrity of Children as Seen from the Perspective against Religious Circumcision of Underage Boys in the 2012 Circumcision Debate in Germany” Verfasserin Esther Jelinek, BA angestrebter akademischer Grad Master of Arts (MA) Wien, 2015 Universitätslehrgang: Master of Arts in Human Rights Studienkennzahl lt. Studienblatt: A 992 884 Betreuer: Em. Univ. Prof. Dr. Martin Jäggle Abstract This thesis deals with the so-called “circumcision debate” in Germany, which reached its peak in the summer of 2012. The decisive event was the Cologne Regional Court ruling of May 7, 2012, which criminalized the religious circumcision of underage boys. From a human rights perspective, one was faced with the dilemma of having to balance two human rights against each other: the right to religious freedom and the right of the child to physical and mental integrity. However, this work does not analyze this conflict rather, it exemplifies the lines of argumentation against religiously motivated circumcision. The ruling was followed by numerous debates, which were conducted in an emotional manner by those who were in favor of permission and those who were against it. This work focuses on the question of to what extent positions assumed by the opponents might possibly be identified as anti-Semitic. The interest in the research question is rooted in the general rejection of the accusation of anti- Semitism. Anti-Semitism constitutes a human rights violation and must, therefore, when uncovered, be paid attention to so that it can be countered. Vorliegende Arbeit beschäftigt sich mit der sogenannten „Beschneidungsdebatte“ in Deutschland, die ihren Höhepunkt im Sommer des Jahres 2012 fand. Ausschlaggebendes Ereignis bot das Urteil des Landgerichts Köln vom 07. Mai 2012, welches die religiöse Beschneidung an minderjährigen Jungen kriminalisierte. Aus einer menschenrechtlichen Perspektive sah man sich dem Dilemma ausgesetzt, zwei Menschenrechte abwägen zu müssen, nämlich das der Religionsfreiheit und das des Rechtes des Kindes auf körperliche und seelische Unversehrtheit. Es gilt in dieser Arbeit jedoch nicht, dieses Spannungsfeld zu beleuchten, sondern vielmehr ihre Argumentationen gegen die religiös motivierte Beschneidung zu veranschaulichen. So folgten dem Urteil zahlreiche Debatten, die von Seiten der Befürworter_innen der Zulassung und von Seiten der Gegenposition emotional geführt wurden. Die Arbeit fokussiert auf die Frage, inwiefern Gegenpositionen in ihren Argumentationen eventuell als antisemitisch ausgewiesen werden können. Das Interesse der vorangegangenen Fragestellung sieht sich in der generellen Zurückweisung des Antisemitismusvorwurfs begründet. Antisemitismus stellt eine Menschenrechtsverletzung dar und muss daher in ihrer Aufdeckung Beachtung finden, um im Weiteren dagegen vorgehen zu können. ii Abbreviations and Acronyms AG Amtsgericht (Local Court) Art. Article BMI Bundesministerium für Inneres (Federal Ministry for the Interior) BRD/FRG Bundesrepublik Deutschland / Federal Republic of Germany CERD Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Civ. Code/BGB Civil Code / Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch CRC Convention on the Rights of the Child EC European Council ECRI European Commission against Racism and Intolerance EUMC European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia FGM Female Genital Mutilation FRA Fundamental Rights Agency GG Grundgesetz (Constitution) ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ICERD International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination ICESCR International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights NAP National Action Plan OLG Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) PACE Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Res. Resolution StGB Strafgesetzbuch (Criminal Code) UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights UN United Nations UNGA United Nations General Assembly WHO World Health Organization iii Table of content 1. Introduction ___________________________________________________________ 1 2. Context _______________________________________________________________ 5 2.1. The Cologne Regional Court Ruling _________________________________________ 5 2.2. A dilemma: Weighting human rights in a democratic state ______________________ 8 2.3. When scientific reasoning is not tenable: pro or contra circumcision? ____________ 11 2.4. Brit milah ______________________________________________________________ 12 2.5. Circumcision ___________________________________________________________ 14 2.5.1. Circumcision: origins and evidences ____________________________________________ 14 2.5.2. Origins of circumcision hostility________________________________________________ 16 2.5.2.1. The 19th-century critique of circumcision _______________________________________ 17 2.5.3. The beginnings of circumcision hostility in Christianity _____________________________ 19 3. Theory _______________________________________________________________ 21 3.1. Human rights instruments to identify and trace anti-Semitism __________________ 21 3.1.1. International human rights instruments ___________________________________________ 21 3.1.2. The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance __________________________ 24 3.1.2.1. PACE: Resolution 1952 (2013) ______________________________________________ 25 3.1.3. The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights _______________________________ 28 3.2. Anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic Myths and their Formation ______________________ 31 3.2.1. Religious polemics in the early beginnings of Christianity ___________________________ 31 3.2.2. The Crusades_______________________________________________________________ 32 3.2.3. Blood, ritual murder, and host desecration ________________________________________ 34 3.2.4. Modern anti-Semitism _______________________________________________________ 37 3.3. Anti-Semitism by Definition _______________________________________________ 38 3.3.1. A possible definition of anti-Semitism by the expert group for anti-Semitism _____________ 38 3.3.2. Shedding light on different categories of anti-Semitism ______________________________ 41 4. Methodology __________________________________________________________ 45 5. Empirical evidence _____________________________________________________ 48 5.1. On the perception of physical integrity, physical injury and its (criminal) prosecution _______________________________________________________________________ 48 5.2. “Special rights and positions” of the Jewish population ________________________ 51 5.3. Children’s autonomy - “Parents do not have the right to make decisions for their children that are to their detriment.” _____________________________________________ 55 5.4. Placing children’s rights above religious freedom _____________________________ 59 5.5. Democracy, rule of law, and secularism _____________________________________ 62 5.6. Understanding of religion _________________________________________________ 65 5.7. Religious freedom – significance and limits __________________________________ 68 5.8. Religion at variance with Enlightenment ____________________________________ 71 5.9. Mutilation and abuse: a legacy of archaic rituals ______________________________ 74 iv 5.10. Christianity versus Judaism _____________________________________________ 76 5.11. Mental and physical consequences of ritual circumcision of underage boys ______ 79 5.12. Genital mutilations of girls versus religiously motivated circumcision of underage boys _____________________________________________________________________ 81 6. Conclusion ___________________________________________________________ 84 6.1. Conclusio 1 _____________________________________________________________ 84 6.2. Conclusio 2 _____________________________________________________________ 87 List of References ____________________________________________________________________ 91 Appendix _________________________________________________________________________ 100 v 1. Introduction In the wake of the Cologne Regional Court ruling of May 2012, which criminalized ritual circumcision as “simple physical injury,” there seemed to be hardly any topic in Germany more important than the foreskin. Almost everyone seemed to suddenly have an opinion on the religiously motivated circumcision of boys. The ruling brought about numerous debates that were held on a highly emotional level by all sides. The so-called “circumcision debate” took place in the summer of 2012. Numerous media reported on this issue. A “Financial Times Germany” article of June 26 probably constituted the first media source. (cf. Cetin/Wolter et al. 2012, p. 15f) The practice of religiously motivated circumcision of underage boys is thousands of years old. However, no particular attention was paid to this fact until the time of the ruling. Doesn’t the question suggest itself of why the foreskin attracts so much interest particularly these days? Statistics by the World Health organization (WHO) show that one third of the world’s male population has a circumcised penis. Motivations for this procedure differ greatly. Thus, from this third e.g., 70% of the world’s male Muslim population is circumcised for cultural reasons. In the USA alone, 60-70% of all newborn boys are circumcised, whereby here, hygienic- medical reasons prevail. Relevant is the fact that in European countries shaped by Christianity, the percentage of

Load more