Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T17:57:58.669Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Criminalizing male circumcision? Case Note: Landgericht Cologne, Judgment of 7 May 2012 – No. 151 Ns 169/11

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Bijan Fateh-Moghadam

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

On Thursday 19th of July 2012, just prior to the parliamentary summer holidays, the Deutscher Bundestag (German Parliament) passed a resolution based on a rather irritating motivation. The parliament intended to guarantee that “Jewish and Muslim religious life will be further possible in Germany.” The resolution itself consisted in only one sentence: The German Government is requested to provide until fall 2012 – in due consideration of the constitutionally protected legal positions of the well-being of the child, the right to bodily integrity, the right to religious freedom and the parental rights in education – draft legislation in order to safeguard that professionally performed male circumcision, without unnecessary pain, is generally lawful under German law. What had happened to provoke such extraordinary political action in defense of religious freedom? The resolution responds directly to a decision of the Landgericht (Court of Appeal) Cologne from 7 May 2012 which declared that male circumcision in children amounts to criminal battery, even if performed lege artis and with the consent of the parents unless there is a medical indication for the procedure. In doing so, the court followed a restrictive position within the German criminal law literature that has been advocating the criminalization of male

Type
Developments
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 13 , Issue 9: What is Terrorism? , 01 September 2012 , pp. 1131 - 1145
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Deutscher Bundestag Drucksache 17/10332.Google Scholar

2 Deutscher Bundestag Drucksache 17/10332.Google Scholar

3 Köln, LG, Beschneidung, Judgement of Monday, 7 May 2012, No. 151 Ns 169/11, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW), 2128 = LG Köln, Beschneidung, Urteil of Monday, 7 May 2012, No. 151 Ns 169/11, Juristenzeitung (JZ), 805. Cf. comments by Werner Beulke & Annika Dießner, “(…) ein kleiner Schnitt für einen Menschen, aber ein großes Thema für die Menschheit.” (“A small cut on a man, but a big issue for humanity”). Warum das Urteil des LG Köln zur religiös motivierten Beschneidung von Knaben nicht überzeugt (Why the judgment of the Court of Cologne for religiously motivated circumcision of boys was not convincing), 7 Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik (ZIS) 338 (2012) and Barbara Rox, Anmerkung zu LG Köln, Urteil v. 7.5.2012 – 151 Ns 169/11, 67 JZ 806 (2012). An English translation of the judgment is provided by the ILM-Website of Durham University, available at: http://www.dur.ac.uk/ilm/news/?itemno=14984 (last accessed: 31 August 2012).Google Scholar

4 Initially Holm Putzke, Die strafrechtliche Relevanz der Beschneidung von Knaben. Zugleich ein Beitrag über die Grenzen der Einwilligung in Fällen der Personenfürsorge (a contribution on the boundaries of consent with regard to the right to care and custody of the child), in Strafrecht zwischen System und Telos. Festschrift für Rolf Dietrich Herzberg zum 70. Geburtstag am 669 (Holm Putzke, Bernhard Hardtung, Tatjana Hörnle, et. al. eds., 2008); Rolf Dietrich Herzberg, Rechtliche Probleme der rituellen Beschneidung (Legal problems of ritual circumcision) JZ 332 (2009). Meanwhile adopted by parts of the commentary literature Theodor Lenckner & Detlev Sternberg-Lieben, Vor §§ 32 ff. StGB, in Strafgesetzbuch. Kommentar (Adolf Schönke & Horst Schröder eds., 28th ed., 2010), 554, Vorbem. §§ 32 ff., margin number 41.; Horst Schlehofer, Vor §§ 32 ff., in Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch. §§ 1-37 StGB (Bernd von Heintschel-Heinegg ed., 2nd ed., 2011), at margin number 143.Google Scholar

5 Due to the (preliminary) findings of the Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law in Freiburg i. Br., Germany, answering an urgent request of the Federal Department of Justice, no country could be identified that legally prohibits male circumcision of children.Google Scholar

6 For a more detailed exposition of the lawfulness of male circumcision cf. Bijan Fateh-Moghadam, Religiöse Rechtfertigung? Die Beschneidung von Knaben zwischen Strafrecht, Religionsfreiheit und elterlichem Sorgerecht (Religious justification? Circumcision of boys between criminal law, freedom of religion and parental custody), 1 Rechtswissenschaft Zeitschrift für rechtswissenschaftliche Forschung 115 (2010); farther with variant reasoning: Edward Schramm, Ehe und Familie im Strafrecht. 114 Eine strafrechtsdogmatische Untersuchung (A doctrinal investigation of the criminal law) 226 ff. (2011); Brian Valerius, Kultur und Strafrecht. Die Berücksichtigung kultureller Wertvorstellungen in der deutschen Strafrechtsdogmatik, vol. 230 152 ff. (2011), and the critical comments on the Cologne Judgment of Beulke & Dießner, supra note 3, and Rox, supra note 3.Google Scholar

Criminalizing Male Circumcision?Google Scholar

7 AG Köln, Knabenbeschneidung, Judgement of Wednesday, 21 September 2011, No. 528 Ds 30/11; 34 Js 468/10.Google Scholar

8 Cf. LG Köln (note 3), 2128 ff. Google Scholar

9 Exner supposes that male circumcision – albeit being lawful qua social adequacy – is contrary to the self-determination interests of children and might even be violating their dignity (Thomas Exner, Sozialadäquanz im Strafrecht. Zur Knabenbeschneidung (Social adequacy in criminal law), vol. 216 55 ff. (2011)).Google Scholar

10 LG Köln, supra note 3, at 2129.Google Scholar

11 Id. Google Scholar

12 Id. Google Scholar

13 Id., following an argument introduced by Herzberg, supra note 4, at 337.Google Scholar

14 Cf. for more details Fateh-Moghadam, supra note 6, at 131 ff. Google Scholar

15 Cf. Christian Walter, Beschnitten. Der Staat muss sein Wächteramt ernst nehmen. Aber religiöse Gefahrenabwehr darf nicht in Religionsabwehr umschlagen (Circumcised: The state must take its role on guardian seriously; but defense of religious dangers must not turn into defense of religion), Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung (FAZ) 6 (2012); Rox, supra note 3, at 808.Google Scholar

16 Claus Roxin, Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil. Grundlagen. Der Aufbau der Verbrechenslehre, vol. 1 §13, margin number 92 ff.; margin number 16 (2006).Google Scholar

17 Cf. Matthias Jestaedt, Art. 6 Abs. 2 und 3, in Bonner Kommentar zum Grundgesetz (Rudolf Dolzer, Christian Waldhoff & Karin Graßhof eds., 139th ed., Dezember 1995-1996), 1, margin number 42.; Walter, supra note 15; Rox, supra note 3, at 808.Google Scholar

18 Jestaed, supra note 17, at margin number 44.Google Scholar

19 Cf. Beulke & Dießner, supra note 3, at 344, emphasizing that the parents are entitled to exercise the right to freedom of religion by proxy of the child.Google Scholar

20 Cf. Fateh-Moghadam, supra note 6, at 133 ff. A quite similar test is proposed for the English common law principle of the best interest of the child, Sir James Munby, Consent to Treatment: Patients Lacking Capacity and Children, in Principles of Medical Law 491, 556 at paras. 10.177 (Andrew Grubb, Judith Laing, Jean McHale & Ian Kennedy eds., 2010).Google Scholar

21 Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), Male Circumcision. Global Trends and Determinants of Prevalence, Safety and Acceptability 17 ff., available at: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241596169_eng.pdf (last accessed: 31 August 2012): “Neonatal male circumcision is a relatively simple, quick and safe procedure when performed in a clinical setting under aseptic conditions by trained professionals. Complications rates are between 1 in 500 and 2 in 100 and are usually minor.”Google Scholar

22 Cf. Tobian, Aaron A. R. & Gray, Ronald H., The Medical benefits of Male Circumcision, 306 Journal of the American Medical Association 1479 (2011); Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), supra note 21, 15 ff. with further references.Google Scholar

23 Cf. Bertran Auvert, Dirk Taljaard, Emmanuel Lagarde et. al., Randomized, Controlled Intervention Trial of Male Circumcision for Reduction of HIV Infection Risk: The ANRS 1265 Trial, 2 Public Library of Science Medicine 1112 (2005); Ronald Gray, Godfrey Kigozi, David Serwadda et. al., Male Circumcision for HIV Prevention in Men in Rakai, Uganda: A Randomised Trial, 369 The Lancet 657 (2007); Robert Bailey, Stephen Moses, Corette Parker et. al., Male Circumcision for HIV Prevention in Young Men in Kismu, Kenya: A Randomised Controlled Trial, 369 The Lancet 643 (2007); Centers For Disease Control And Prevention, CDC HIV/AIDS Science Facts: Male Circumcision and Risk for HIV Transmission and Other Health Conditions: Implications for the United States.Google Scholar

24 American Academy of Pediatrics, TASK FORCE ON CIRCUMCISION, Circumcision Policy Statement, PEDIATRICS Volume 130, Number 3, September 2012, 585-586, originally published online August 27, 2012, available at: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/08/22/peds.2012-1989 2012 (last accessed: 31 August 2012).Google Scholar

25 American Academy of Pediatrics, TASK FORCE ON CIRCUMCISION, Technical Report, Male Circumcision, 130(3) PEDIATRICS 756-758, originally published online on August 27, 2012, available at: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/08/22/peds.2012-1990 (last accessed: 31 August 2012).Google Scholar

26 American Academy of Pediatrics, TASK FORCE ON CIRCUMCISION, Circumcision Policy Statement, supra note 24).Google Scholar

27 Id. at 585 ff. Google Scholar

28 Cf. Beulke & Dießner, supra note 3, at 344.Google Scholar

29 Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), supra note 21, 7 ff. reports 75%.Google Scholar

30 Sir Munby, supra note 20, 492 ff. (para 10.02 ff).Google Scholar

31 (CA (Civ Div)) Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Re J (A Minor), Specific Issue Order of Thursday, 25 November 1999; Family Division, Re J (A Minor), Specific Issue Order of Thursday, 6 May 1999, No. [1999] 2 F.L.R. 678; (CA (Civ Div)) Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Re S (Children) Specific Issue Orders of Friday, 30 July 2004, No. [2004] EWCA Civ 1257, Westlaw.Google Scholar

32 Sir Munby (note 20), 556 (para 10.178).Google Scholar

33 (CA (Civ. Div.)) Court of Appeal (Civil Division), supra note 30; Family Division, supra note 30.Google Scholar

34 Family Division supra note 30.Google Scholar

35 Sir Munby, supra note 20, at 555 (para. 10.173 a.10.174).Google Scholar

36 John Rawls, Political Liberalism xix, xxiv, 4, 36, 37 (1993).Google Scholar

37 Schiratzki, Johanna, Banning God's Law in the Name of the Holy Body – The Nordic Position on Ritual Male Circumcision, 5 The Family in Law 35 (2011).Google Scholar

38 Cf. Stefan Huster, 90 Die ethische Neutralität des Staates. Eine liberale Interpretation der Verfassung (The ethical neutrality of the state. A liberal interpretation of the constitution, 2002).Google Scholar

39 Jürgen Habermas, Polyfonie der Meinungen. Wie viel Religion verträgt der liberale Staat? (Polyphony of opinions. How much religion is compatible with the liberal state?), available at: http://www.nzz.ch/aktuell/startseite/wie-viel-religion-vertraegt-der-liberale-staat-1.17432314 (last accessed: 31 August 2012).Google Scholar

40 Jocelyn Maclure & Charles Taylor, Secularism and freedom of conscience 65 ff. (2011).Google Scholar

41 Cf. draft statute on the rights of patients, available at: http://www.bmj.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/pdfs/RegE Gesetz zur Verbesserung der Rechte von Patientinnen und Patienten.pdf? blob=publicationFile (last accessed: 31 August 2012).Google Scholar

42 Cf. Schwarz, Kyrill-A, Verfassungsrechtliche Aspekte der religiösen Beschneidung (Constitutional aspects of religious circumcision), 63 JZ 1125 (2008); Kai Zähle, Religionsfreiheit und fremdschädigende Praktiken. Zu den Grenzen des forum externum (Freedom of religion and practices that do harm to others), 134 Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts (AöR) 434 (2009); Michael Germann, Der menschliche Körper als Gegenstand der Religionsfreiheit (The human body as an object of religious freedom), in Jurisprudenz zwischen Medizin und Kultur. Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von Gerfried Fischer, 35 (Bernd-Rüdiger Kern & Hans Lilie eds., 2010); Schiratzki, supra note 36.Google Scholar

43 Whereas the occasionally reported warning, a statute that allows for male circumcision might on his part be unconstitutional, is rather unconvincing. The BVerfG grants the legislator a comprehensive discretionary authority in deciding how to fulfill its duty to protect the basic rights of children. A constitutional duty to prohibit male circumcision by the criminal law is therefore highly implausible. There are good reasons to believe that the right to bodily integrity of the child might be better protected by way of providing the possibility of lawful circumcision in medical settings; see Schiratzki, supra note 36, at 50 ff. Google Scholar

44 Cf. Schramm, supra note 6, at 229 ff. Google Scholar