Father convicted of "criminal neglience" for circumcising his son at home

The link.

Quote :

A Vancouver-area man has been convicted of criminal negligence
causing bodily harm for a botched amateur circumcision he attempted on
his four-year-old son.

However, Justice Marion Allan acquitted the man, who along with
his family can’t be identified under a publication ban, of aggravated
assault and assault with a weapon.

If the victim had been a girl, do you think that the charges would have been worse for the father?

Quote :

The child, now aged six, was treated in hospital for what
doctors said was an incomplete circumcision and has since made a full
recovery.

The boy’s father, who subscribes to a religious philosophy that
incorporates Hebrew elements, previously tried to circumcise himself
and also had to seek medical help.

Hmm... maybe if he sliced up his own dick and had to go to the hospital for it, that should have been a big-ass clue that trying it again -- this time on a helpless, trusting child -- is, y'know, stupid?

Quote :

Court heard he put his son on the floor on some clean garbage
bags and towels, with Band-Aids and a veterinary powder used to stop
bleeding standing by.

The man tried to drug his young son with wine and told him lie
still, but he apparently jerked during the procedure, causing the man’s
hand to slip while cutting the foreskin.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Quote :

Surgery was required to remove hardened layers of the
veterinary blood-stopping material caked on the boy’s penis and repair
damage from the botched circumcision to prevent permanent
disfigurement.

Unfortunately, the child has already been permanently affected emotionally and psychologically from this.

Quote :

But the judge said the father’s actions did not rise to the
level of aggravated assault, nor could the razor instrument he used be
considered a weapon that could cause death or injury.

Oh, for fuck's sake, the father KNEW this was a risky procedure, having already mangled his own sausage at home, and given that routine hospital circumcisions performed on babies can produce such varied results as brain damage from infections, massive loss of skin from gangrene, and loss of more than just the foreskin if whatever's cutting the foreskin 'slips', I'd say that this botch-job certainly qualifies as assault, and that the razor he was using qualifies as a weapon that could have caused death. It certainly caused a fuckin' injury.

Quote :

The man’s lawyer, Doug Christie, told Allan at the outset that
he would try to have the case tossed out on constitutional grounds,
saying his religious motive negated any criminal intent.

Okay, say that this guy's religious beliefs forbade any hospital treatment, so that if his son contracted a massive infection that threatened his life, or if he started bleeding uncontrollably, he refused to take the boy to the hospital and just let him die? Would his religious beliefs have negated criminal intent there?

Or what if he beat the child regularly as part of discipline, causing injuries, and defended that on the grounds of religion?

Or, what if the child he'd circumcised had been his daughter, would a 'religious' motivation for female circumcision be enough to prevent him from being slapped with criminal assault charges?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Quote :

If the victim had been a girl, do you think that the charges would have been worse for the father?

...What.

I think it would have been a much stronger punishment if he'd circumcised a daughter, seeing as how female genital cutting has become one of the hot-button topics for women's rights. I also think it's utter bullshit for him to claim his religion as an excuse. If doctors are not allowed to do the procedure then why the hell are they allowed to treat the botched job he did on himself, and later his son?

Frankly, this sounds like someone who has no business raising a child. He's fucking batshit.

rae wrote:

I think it would have been a much stronger punishment if he'd circumcised a daughter, seeing as how female genital cutting has become one of the hot-button topics for women's rights.

And also because the procedures are so incomparably different. If the father's aim were to lop off the entire glans of his sons penis so he couldn't enjoy sex ever, ever again, I'm sure the judge would have given him a harsher punishment.

Bamshalam wrote:

rae wrote:

I think it would have been a much stronger punishment if he'd circumcised a daughter, seeing as how female genital cutting has become one of the hot-button topics for women's rights.

And also because the procedures are so incomparably different. If the father's aim were to lop off the entire glans of his sons penis so he couldn't enjoy sex ever, ever again, I'm sure the judge would have given him a harsher punishment.

Female "circumcision" varies in severity from cutting off the clitoral hood (which is analogous to the foreskin in males), to infibulations where everything external is cut off and the vagina is sewn up to the diameter of a matchstick head.

And yeah, he could have cut off his son's glans. Granted, it would be an accident, but it's happened by accident in hospital circumcisions performed by trained doctors or mohels. And sometimes circumcisions are performed where they are so tight, or so much skin is removed, that the boy cannot fully enjoy sex when he grows up, and sometimes can't even have an erection without pain. There's always that risk, and it happened to Shane Peterson.

I move polls be shut down in News. They can only end HORRIBLY.

Or awesomely, depending on your viewpoint.

Mally is either totally oblivious to the unholy wank potential she keeps unleashing or is a TRULY epic troll.

Not incomparably. For the sake of this argument, I was assuming the least invasive procedure (the partial removal of the prepuce), which is relatively comparable to male circumcision. Though if he's batshit enough to try to circumcise himself and his son, he's probably batshit enough to attempt an infibulation on some poor child.

rae wrote:

Not incomparably. For the sake of this argument, I was assuming the least invasive procedure (the partial removal of the prepuce), which is relatively comparable to male circumcision. Though if he's batshit enough to try to circumcise himself and his son, he's probably batshit enough to attempt an infibulation on some poor child.

That kind of genital cutting isn't what's done for religious reasons, though. When people 'circumcise' girls, it's for the specific purpose of ensuring that they never enjoy sex.

He had no excuse for doing it himself. Circumcision is legal in Canada and can be performed by any qualified doctor. Yes, there's still a risk (all surgeries carry some risk), but it's a hell of a lot lower than the risk of permanent injury caused by being circumcised by someone who didn't have any training and had botched his own circumcision.

Moron.

Bamshalam wrote:

rae wrote:

Not incomparably. For the sake of this argument, I was assuming the least invasive procedure (the partial removal of the prepuce), which is relatively comparable to male circumcision. Though if he's batshit enough to try to circumcise himself and his son, he's probably batshit enough to attempt an infibulation on some poor child.

That kind of genital cutting isn't what's done for religious reasons, though. When people 'circumcise' girls, it's for the specific purpose of ensuring that they never enjoy sex.

Actually, religion is one of the reasons cited. Two wonderful articles on it are:

Gruenbaum, Ellen., "Female Genital Cutting: Culture and Controversy." Gender in a Cross-Cultural Perspective, 5th ed. Caroline B. Brettell & Carolyn F. Sargent, pp 491-504.

If your local university library has access to JSTOR, you can read this there:
Walley, Christine J., "Searching for 'Voices': Feminism, Anthropology, and the Global Debate of Female Genital Operations." Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 12, No. 3 (Aug 1997), pp 405-438.

IF you can find it, there's a video, Womanhood and Circumcision: Three Maasai Women Have Their Say. It's absolutely amazing; it's three women -- a woman and her two adult daughters -- discussing their own experiences with being circumcised. It puts a very new perspective on the whole practice.

Bamshalam wrote:

rae wrote:

Not incomparably. For the sake of this argument, I was assuming the least invasive procedure (the partial removal of the prepuce), which is relatively comparable to male circumcision. Though if he's batshit enough to try to circumcise himself and his son, he's probably batshit enough to attempt an infibulation on some poor child.

That kind of genital cutting isn't what's done for religious reasons, though. When people 'circumcise' girls, it's for the specific purpose of ensuring that they never enjoy sex.

Aside from what's been said about how it can be tied to religion, what does it matter? Is someone less likely to be traumatized if their genitals are messed around for religious reasons?

DeeDee wrote:

Bamshalam wrote:

rae wrote:

Not incomparably. For the sake of this argument, I was assuming the least invasive procedure (the partial removal of the prepuce), which is relatively comparable to male circumcision. Though if he's batshit enough to try to circumcise himself and his son, he's probably batshit enough to attempt an infibulation on some poor child.

That kind of genital cutting isn't what's done for religious reasons, though. When people 'circumcise' girls, it's for the specific purpose of ensuring that they never enjoy sex.

Aside from what's been said about how it can be tied to religion, what does it matter? Is someone less likely to be traumatized if their genitals are messed around for religious reasons?

...I actually can't remember why I brought that up, to be honest.

rae wrote:

Bamshalam wrote:

rae wrote:

Not incomparably. For the sake of this argument, I was assuming the least invasive procedure (the partial removal of the prepuce), which is relatively comparable to male circumcision. Though if he's batshit enough to try to circumcise himself and his son, he's probably batshit enough to attempt an infibulation on some poor child.

That kind of genital cutting isn't what's done for religious reasons, though. When people 'circumcise' girls, it's for the specific purpose of ensuring that they never enjoy sex.

Actually, religion is one of the reasons cited.

DeeDee wrote:

Aside from what's been said about how it can be tied to religion, what does it matter? Is someone less likely to be traumatized if their genitals are messed around for religious reasons?

Both of you are missing the point. The "least invasive procedure" which falls under the heading female genital cutting, and which is comparable physically to the removal of the foreskin, is NOT the type that's comparable in terms of what's commonly done for religious reasons to the removal of the foreskin. There is a massive, massive difference in terms of damage done and reasons it's done between removing a boy's foreskin shortly after birth, and slicing off a little girl's vulva and then sewing it back up just before or during puberty. The comparable male procedure would be removing the glans of the penis and/or sewing up the foreskin so that only a trickle of urine can come out. And so it tears horribly when he gets his first erection to prove that he's "pure".

IOW if this douchebag was planning to circumcise his daughter rather than his son, it's more than likely he would be going for a more extreme form of circumcision.

But the point stands. Religious motivations do not lessen the damage or trauma of genital mutilation.

DeeDee wrote:

But the point stands. Religious motivations do not lessen the damage or trauma of genital mutilation.

Except that was never the actual point being debated.

You know, this is a perfect example of why if at first you don't succeed, try try again is horrible advice.

Cyberwulf wrote:

rae wrote:

Bamshalam wrote:

rae wrote:

Not incomparably. For the sake of this argument, I was assuming the least invasive procedure (the partial removal of the prepuce), which is relatively comparable to male circumcision. Though if he's batshit enough to try to circumcise himself and his son, he's probably batshit enough to attempt an infibulation on some poor child.

That kind of genital cutting isn't what's done for religious reasons, though. When people 'circumcise' girls, it's for the specific purpose of ensuring that they never enjoy sex.

Actually, religion is one of the reasons cited.

DeeDee wrote:

Aside from what's been said about how it can be tied to religion, what does it matter? Is someone less likely to be traumatized if their genitals are messed around for religious reasons?

Both of you are missing the point. The "least invasive procedure" which falls under the heading female genital cutting, and which is comparable physically to the removal of the foreskin, is NOT the type that's comparable in terms of what's commonly done for religious reasons to the removal of the foreskin. There is a massive, massive difference in terms of damage done and reasons it's done between removing a boy's foreskin shortly after birth, and slicing off a little girl's vulva and then sewing it back up just before or during puberty. The comparable male procedure would be removing the glans of the penis and/or sewing up the foreskin so that only a trickle of urine can come out. And so it tears horribly when he gets his first erection to prove that he's "pure".

IOW if this douchebag was planning to circumcise his daughter rather than his son, it's more than likely he would be going for a more extreme form of circumcision.

Ok, thank you. That's why I brought it up.

I think all circumcision should be illegal unless the actual subject is the one choosing it. If it's not something that's needed to immediately save a life, a permanently disfiguring operation like that should only be made by the person who's going to have to live with it, and even then, only as an adult. Let the kid decide when s/he turns 18.

I don't agree with circumcision anyway. Circumcising kids without their consent isn't right.

It may not be classified as 'permanently disfiguring' in my book, but it's still not something the kid CHOSE. It's something they had pushed upon them. Much less people would get circumcisions if they had the CHOICE as ADULTS.

Malganis wrote:

There's always that risk, and it happened to Shane Peterson.

I'm a girl and even I had to cross my legs and cringe reading that. Poor dude.

Quote :

The man tried to drug his young son with wine and told him lie still,
but he apparently jerked during the procedure, causing the man’s hand
to slip while cutting the foreskin.

Good God. Just...good God. That paints more of a mental picture than I wanted to have. I wonder if he'd had some himself...

Word to what Thanos and Harley said, above.

Delcat wrote:

Quote :

The man tried to drug his young son with wine and told him lie still, but he apparently jerked during the procedure, causing the man’s hand
to slip while cutting the foreskin.

Good God. Just...good God. That paints more of a mental picture than I wanted to have. I wonder if he'd had some himself...

What Delcat said. Also, I'm surprised that the dad giving the kid a drug like that didn't apparently figure into the sentence. How easy is it for a kid that young to take in so much alcohol that they suffer alcohol poisoning? Easier than it would be for an adult, I would think.

This is so far beyond criminal negligence it's not funny. Criminal negligence would be daddy turning his back and the kid lopping off a bit of his wang. Not getting a child drunk and mutilating its genitals.

But of course this shit is protected and I fully believe that this is mostly out of "religious respect".