Forced circumcision of older minors practiced in many Asian, African and Muslim countries is a crime

You are talking about societal pressure for circumcision, societal and cultural significance of circumcision. You are talking about "why is circumcision done", you are talking about "whether parents should continue circumcising their sons or not". But this debate is not about "why is circumcision done". And this debate is not about "whether parents should continue circumcising their sons or not". The debate is about a legal issue. The debate is about "whether forced circumcision is a crime under existing law or not". The debate is about "though no person is filing a charge against his parents for forcibly circumcising him in his childhood, will the parents and offenders of a forced circumcision case be jailed under existing penal code if a person files a charge against his parents and the offenders for forcibly circumcising him in his childhood and proves in court that his parents and the offenders forcibly circumcised him?". Forced circumcision, forced marriage, forced breast ironing, forced female circumcision, child marriage everything is done for social, religious and cultural reasons. But this social, cultural or religious significance will not make harmful traditions like "forced circumcision", "forced marriage", "forced breast ironing", "forced female circumcision", "child marriage" legal. Even though almost no victim of "forced marriage", "forced breast ironing", "forced female circumcision", "child marriage" is filing a case against her parents and the offenders, what will happen if a girl/woman files a "forced marriage", "forced breast ironing", "forced female circumcision" or "child marriage" charge against her parents and the offenders? Will the court sentence in favour of the offenders as these are some socially established crimes and no victim files a case for these offences? The short answer is no. Even though these are socially established crimes and almost no victim files a case against her parents and the offenders for committing these crimes, if a victim files a charge against her parents and the offenders for committing this crimes and can prove her claims in the court, her parents and the offenders will have to go to jail. Similarly, law has granted parents the authority for medical care for their children. Law has not granted parents the authority to injure their children. Parents are legally authorized to consent to a medical procedure for their children that has an immediate medical necessity. For example, parents can even get their child"s foot cut off if the foot is severely damaged from an accident and there"s any medical necessity to cut off the foot. But parents cannot get their child"s foot cut off so that the child can earn money begging. If parents do so, it will be a "grievous hurt" (damage to healthy functional organ) crime under existing penal code. Law has not given parents the authorization to commit a "grievous hurt" crime against their children. Damaging anyone"s healthy functional organ is a "grievous hurt" crime under existing penal code regardless of the relationship of the offenders with the person and regardless of the age or gender of the person. Parents cannot legally cut off any part of their child"s body. Parents can not cut off their child"s earlobes, toe, clitoral hood or labia minora. If parents cut off healthy functional organs like toe, clitoral hood (female prepuce - the skin that covers the clitoris), labia minora from their child"s body, it will be a "grievous hurt" crime. Since foreskin is a healthy functional and highly specialized organ and not a birth defect, foreskin is not an exception here. So, therefore, cutting off someone"s foreskin is a "grievous hurt" (damaging functions of healthy functional organ) crime, a crime as serious as cutting off someone"s toe under existing penal code regardless of the relationship of the victim with the offenders. If an adult man is forcibly circumcised, isn"t it a crime? The answer is yes. But what type of crime is it? It"s a "grievous hurt" crime since it involves removal of the victim"s healthy functional genital organ. If a Hindu boy is forcibly circumcised by some Muslim men, isn"t it a crime? The answer is yes. But what type of crime is it? It"s a grievous hurt crime since it involves removal of the victim"s healthy functional organ. Now if parents forcibly circumciose their older minor child, the case is not an exception since law has not given parents the authorization to commit a grievous hurt crime against their children, law has not given parents the authorization to injure their children, law has not given parents the authorization to cut off a body part of their children, law has not given parents the authorization to remove a "healthy functional organ" from their child"s body. Parents can legally get their child"s foreskin cut off if there"s any medical necessity to do so. Not only foreskin, parents can get any body part such as a toe of their child cut off if there"s any medical necessity to do so. But parents cannot legally get a healthy functional organ of their healthy child cut off without any medical necessity. Otherwise it will be an "organ damage" and will be a serious crime. Foreskin is a healthy functional and highly specialized organ like toe and is not a birth defect. By legal definition, cutting off foreskin from a healthy child"s body without any medical necessity is no different than cutting off a toe from a healthy child"s body without any medical necessity regardless of the relationship of the offenders with the victim. For example, by legal definition, if a Hindu boy is forcibly circumcised by some Muslim men, it"s a crime equivalent to "a Hindu boy got one of his toes forcibly cut off by Muslim men". Since law has not given parents the authorization to cut off any healthy functional organ from their child"s body and foreskin is a healthy, functional and highly specialized organ like toe and not a birth defect, by legal definition, if a healthy child is forcibly circumcised by his parents without any medical necessity, it"s a crime equivalent to "a healthy child got one of his toes forcibly cut off by his parents without any medical necessity". In fact if a child is forcibly circumcised by his parents, it"s an even more serious crime than "an adult is forcibly circumcised by someone else" since the child is in the legal custody of the parents and the offence amounts to "violence against children" and "custodial violence". If a person commits a crime against someone who is in his/her legal custody, the crime is referred as "custodial violence" in criminal law and the punishment for these crimes are more severe. For example, if a prison guard commits a crime against a prisoner, it"s a custodial violence and is a serious form of crime. And penalty for this crime will be comparatively severe as well. Also law specially protects the women and children who are unable to defend themselves. There are special laws for the protection of women and children only. If a crime is committed against a child, it"s considered a more serious crime in criminal law and punishment for this crime is more severe. Forced circumcision also violates the convention of the rights of the child. Law should protect children from all harmful traditions under the "convention of the rights of the child". So countries who are members of "convention of the rights of the child" should consider "forced circumcision of older minor boys" a more serious form of crime and should consider more severe punishment for the offenders. So, therefore, if parents forcibly circumcise their healthy child without any medical necessity, it"s a "grievous hurt" (damage to healthy functional organ) crime under existing penal code, no matter how established circumcision is in the society. Though almost no victim of forced circumcision is filing a lawsuit against his parents and the offenders, if a victim of forced circumcision files lawsuit against his parents and the offenders and can prove his claims in the court, the parents and the offenders have to go to jail under existing penal code. The reason I am debating on this legal issue here is that my Muslim parents forcibly circumcised me when I was 11 without any medical necessity. I was circumcised by an illiterate traditional circumciser. I am 19 now and am going to file a court case against my parents and the offenders. I have definitely a case here as my parents have no right to do this with me. Furthermore, since I am circumcised by a traditional circumciser, my parents cannot claim the offence a medical procedure. Since they cannot claim it a medical procedure, I can claim it a "grievous hurt" and an "organ damage" for obvious reasons. Most of the boys in our country (Bangladesh) are still circumcised by illiterate traditional circumcisers. Many boys in many Asian and African countries and in countries like Philippines are circumcised by illiterate traditional circumcisers. Here"s the references: https://www.hindawi.com... https://en.wikipedia.org...(rite) http://www.filipinosabroad.com... https://en.wikipedia.org... Here"s some videos of forced circumcision performed by illiterate traditional circumcisers: Asian video: African video: From these videos, you will be able to understand exactly what happened to me. Possibly I am going to the first boy to get the parents and the offenders jailed in a forced circumcision case. But I am not the only boy who regret their forced circumcision. Once I get my parents and the offenders jailed for forcibly circumcising me, other victims of forced circumcision will be encouraged to file court cases against their parents and the offenders for forcibly circumcising them in their childhood.