J's father is a Turkish Muslim, his mother is British. The father wanted him brought up as a Moslen and circumcised, the mother took the father to court to prevent that, and won on both issues. Here are some significant quotes from the judgement of Wall J, delivered in England on May 6, 1999.

• Where there was disagreement between those who had parental responsibility for the child, including a local authority exercising parental responsibility under a care order, circumcision was not to be carried out without the leave of the court....
  
  
• The question of the father taking J to Turkey on holiday is, however, linked with the question of his circumcision. If I decide that J should not be circumcised, the question arises as to whether or not the father’s family and/or a Turkish court would accept that decision and feel themselves bound by it. The father assured me in evidence that he would respect the English court’s decision, however much he might disagree with it, and would not seek to have J circumcised in Turkey. The father also recognised that if J returned from Turkey circumcised that would constitute a clear contempt of the English court.
  
  
• It is, therefore, clear to me that in Islamic law, J is to be regarded as a Muslim.
  
  
• [On circumcision in Islam] According to Dr Hinchcliffe, circumcision is not mentioned in the text of the Koran, but in the Sunna (the practice of the Prophet Mohammed), which is the second recognised source of law, it is strongly recommended, and sayings from the Prophet himself are cited in support of the practice.
  
  
• The only judicial reference which counsel were able to find in relation to male circumcision is a dictum of Lord Templeman in R v Brown (Anthony) [1994] 1 AC 212 at 231,[1993] 2 All ER 75 at 78-79, which is clearly obiter [not binding].
  
  
• J is plainly not in a position to give an informed consent to his circumcision...
  
  
• There is also...a body of medical opinion which regards both male and female circumcision as invasive procedures involving unnecessary mutilation of the genitals, and which calls for male circumcision to be criminalised, except in the rare cases where it is medically called for.
  
  
• A case can be made for describing ritual male circumcision without any medical need for it as an assault on the bodily integrity of the child; indeed, that is the case which is made in much of the medical literature to which I was referred.
  
  
• ...if J were to be circumcised this could be carried out as a day case. J would be likely to be unconscious for about 20 to 30 minutes. It would be a painful procedure...
  
  
• The medical benefits arising from circumcision (apart from the three conditions identified by Dr S for which surgery is indicated) are highly contentious.
  
  
• There is a powerful body of medical opinion which puts strongly in issue any suggestion that male circumcision prevents or reduces the risk of urinary tract infection, penile cancer, or sexually transmitted disease. Equally contentious is the suggestion that it reduces the incidence of cervical cancer in women.
  
  
• There is evidence that tissue loss during circumcision removes or destroys the function of tissue which plays an important part in the overall sensory mechanism of the penis, and that there is a consequential loss of sexual sensory pleasure during sexual intercourse.
  
  
• Dr S’s view, as a paediatrician, was that circumcision should only be carried out if medically indicated.
  
  
• I should add, in parenthesis, that amongst the documents shown to me was material from an organisation called Norm UK, the aims of which are to provide education about (1) the need to avoid circumcision and (inter alia) (2) about foreskin restoration. Within this material was an article on foreskin restoration which indicates that it is possible, although restoration cannot give back the erotogenic nerves amputated at circumcision. Equally, there was nothing in the medical evidence I read and heard which indicated that J could not be circumcised as an adult.
  
  
• The father simply could not understand the objections to circumcision. It was a means of demonstrating and reinforcing J’s relationship with him: they had to be the same.
  
  
• The procedure for a child of J’s age carries small but identifiable physical and psychological risks. It is an invasive procedure, which therefore carries with it risks shared by all surgical interventions: pain, bleeding, infection, surgical mishap and complications of anaesthesia.
  
  
• The father did not accept the risks, either physical or psychological, outlined in the medical evidence by Dr S and I have to say that, despite his obvious sincerity, there was an element of exaggeration in the father’s account of his own circumcision (no doubt as a result of the passage of time), and in my judgment he minimises its painful aspects and underestimates the likely effect of the procedure on J.
  
  
• In my judgment, and with all due respect to the skilful presentation of his case by his legal team, the father was his own best advocate on this issue.
  
  
• In my judgment, the strained relationship between the parents, and the fact that as a circumcised child J would be unlike most of his peers, increases the risk that J will suffer adverse psychological effects from being circumcised.
  
  
• The disadvantages are that despite the father’s passionate defence of the procedure, J may be traumatised by it...
  
  
• Thus, contrary to the father’s perception, circumcision may in fact weaken rather than strengthen his relationship with J.
  
  
• Circumcision carries with it the small but definite risks of both physical and psychological harm to which I have referred. Furthermore J, as a circumcised child, would undoubtedly be different from the majority of his peer group. The consequential possibility that he may be picked on or teased by his peers cannot be excluded as a risk.
  
  
• I think that, because of his strong feelings and the passage of time, the father minimises the pain and discomfort likely to be suffered by J if the operation is performed.
  
  
• Circumcision is an effectively irreversible surgical intervention which has no medical basis in J’s case. It is likely to be painful and carries with it small but definable physical and psychological risks.
  
  
• Under art 9 [of the Human Rights Act 1999], the father says that his right to manifest his religion in practice includes the right to arrange for the circumcision of his son in accordance with the tenets of his religion. That seems to me plainly correct. It follows that any limitations on that freedom imposed by a court must be (1) as are prescribed by law; and (2) as are necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others - in this case, the rights and freedoms of both the mother and J himself...I therefore see nothing inconsistent with the proper operation of arts 8 and 9 of the Convention in a decision of the court which, on the particular facts of this case and in the exercise of a judicial discretion, refuses to make a specific issue order permitting J’s circumcision, alternatively prohibits the father from causing J to be circumcised...Equally, given the balance which the court has to strike between the competing rights of the mother, the father, and the child, it does not seem to me that an order prohibiting circumcision in the circumstances of this case could properly be described as discriminatory under art 14.
  
  
• In my judgment, the argument put forward by the Official Solicitor on this point is sound. Circumcision is an irrevocable step in a child’s life...Changes of surname, which require applications to the court in cases of disagreement are reversible: circumcision is not. In my judgment, therefore, where there is a dispute between parents or other persons having parental responsibility for a child over the child’s circumcision, that dispute should be referred to the court...
  
  

Re J (child's religious upbringing and circumcision)
FAMILY DIVISION, Judge WALL J,
2, 3, 4 MARCH, 6 MAY 1999

Related pages:

Back to the Intactivism index page.