2004
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Journal of Law, Religion and State
  4. Volume 4, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 4, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 2212-4810
  • E-ISSN: 2212-6465
file format pdf download PDF

Abstract

Male ritual circumcision is one of the most frequently conducted surgical procedures in the world, and constitutes an important aspect of the Jewish and Muslim religions. When in May 2012 a German court in Cologne allegedly “banned” the procedure, legal uncertainty in Germany set in and emotions worldwide ran high against the decision. In December 2012, the German parliament enacted a law explicitly granting parents the right to have their sons circumcised. This article revisits the complex and unique criminological, legal-dogmatic, and constitutional debates and processes that shaped both the earlier court decision and the later legislation. It presents the facts of the case, explains the arguments for and against the legality of the procedure that were raised in the legal debate that preceded and accompanied the court ruling, and analyzes the new law that now regulates the matter.

© 2015 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/22124810-00401001
2015-12-12
2025-12-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/22126465/4/1/22124810_004_01_S001_text.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1163/22124810-00401001&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1.  See also Fateh-Moghadam, supra n. 8, at 1133.
  2.  See also Fateh-Moghadam, supra n. 8, at 1133.
  3.  See Fateh-Moghadam, supra n. 44, at 127, who in his section on "Best interests versus substituted judgment" draws a comparison with established English law doctrines that explicitly do not limit the best interest of the child to medical concerns, but also include the social-cultural context of the child.
  4.  See, e.g., Schramm et al., supra n. 44, at 870; Fateh-Moghadam, supra n. 44, at 121; Schramm, supra n. 44, 225; Beulke, Dießner, supra n. 44, at 342; Brian Valerius, "Die Berücksichtigung kultureller Wertvorstellungen im Strafrecht," Juristische Arbeitsblätter 7 (2010); Barbara Rox, "Sekulärer Staat und Religiöses Recht: Anmerkungen zu LG Köln, Urteil v. 7. 5. 2012 – 151 Ns 169/11," JuristenZeitung 15–16 (2012), 806; also see Schwarz, supra n. 44, who also seems to accept the notion. A different opinion was presented by Exner, who denied that male circumcision constitutes criminal bodily harm. He deemed the procedure to be only a minor invasion of the integrity of the body, and given its widespread global practice, considered it to be "socially adequate." Goerlich and Zabel interpreted Section 223 in light of the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom, and therefore rejected the criminality of circumcision; see Thomas Exner, Sozialadäquanz im Strafrecht, Schriften zum Strafrecht 216 (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2011); Helmut Goerlich & Benno Zabel, "Säkulärer Staat und religiöses Recht: Erwiderung," JuristenZeitung 21 (2012), 1061. Cf. also Fateh-Moghadam, supra n. 8, at 1133–1134.
  5.  See Holm Putzke, supra n. 50, at 682; Jerouschek, supra n. 50, at 317; Herzberg, supra n. 50, at 332.
  6.  See Holm Putzke, supra n. 50, at 681–682. ("Bei einer Zirkumzision verwendete Werkzeuge sind damit ‘gefährliche’ im Sinne des §224 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 Alt. 2 StGB.").
  7.  See 151 Ns 169/11, supra n. 8, at 5, with reference to the case law established in bgh njw 1978, 1206; NStZ 1987, 174.
  8.  See Schramm, supra n. 44, 224; Fateh-Moghadam, supra n. 44, at 134; Schwarz, supra n. 44, at 1126.
  9.  See Holm Putzke, supra n. 50, at 682–687; Jerouschek, supra n. 50, at 317–318. For a description of this position in English and a critical commentary on it, see Fateh-Moghadam, supra n. 8, at 1135 et seq.
  10.  See Holm Putzke, supra n. 50, at 687.
  11.  See Holm Putzke, supra n. 50, at 692, 709; Herzberg, supra n. 51, at 174; Jerouschek, supra n. 50, at 319.
  12.  See Fateh-Moghadam, supra n. 44, at 141.
  13.  See Edward Schramm, supra n. 8, at 140, note 33.
  14.  See Fateh-Moghadam, supra n. 44, at 135.
  15.  See Valerius, supra n. 53, at 485, note 47, Cf. Beulke & Dießner, supra n. 44, at 343.
  16.  See Valerius, supra n. 53, at 485.
  17.  See Holm Putzke, supra n. 50, at 702.
  18.  See Fateh-Moghadam, supra n. 44, at 138.
  19.  See Valerius, supra n. 53, at 485.
  20.  See Rox, supra n. 53, at 808; Beulke & Dießner, supra n. 44, at 345.
  21.  At its adoption, in1949, the term Basic Law was chosen. Because of the division of Germany into the three allied sectors in West Germany, controlled by the Americans, the British, and the French, and the Soviet sector in East Germany, the Basic Law would apply only to West Germany and not a unified country, therefore the drafters avoided using the German term Verfassung (constitution) to stress the provisional nature of the document. See Theodor Maunz, "Präambel," in T. Maunz & G. Dürig (eds.) Grundgesetz-Kommentar, vol. 29, 72nd ed. (München: C.H. Beck, 2014), 29:6. After reunification, the Germans retained the term Basic Law "to symbolize the success of the Basic Law in West Germany." See Eberle, supra n. 7, at 1, note 1.
  22.  See Pieroth & Schlink, supra n. 92, 263.
  23.  See Jerouschek, supra n. 50, at 318–319.
  24.  See Holm Putzke, supra n. 50, at 705.
  25.  See Jerouschek, supra n. 50, at 319; Holm Putzke, supra n. 50, at 708.
  26.  See Pieroth & Schlink, supra n. 92, 633–636. Thus, Article 6(2) gg is subject to Gesetzesvorbehaltsschranken (reservation of statutory powers), in this case a so called qualifizierter Gesetzesvorbehalt (qualified reservation of statutory power), because state power can intervene into the parental right only in order to protect the care and upbringing of the child. See also ibid., 652.
  27.  See, e.g., Fateh-Moghadam, supra n. 44, at 131; Beulke & Dießner, supra n. 44, at 344; Schramm et al., supra n. 44, at 872; Rox, supra n. 53, at 808.
  28.  See, e.g., Jerouschek, supra n. 50, at 319; Holm Putzke, supra n. 50, at 705–706.
  29.  See Pieroth & Schlink, supra n. 92, 506–508.
  30.  See, e.g., Jerouschek, supra n. 50, at 319; Holm Putzke, supra n. 50, at 705–706.
  31.  See Beulke & Dießner, supra n. 44, at 344.
  32.  See Stehr, supra n. 30.
  33.  See bt-Drucksache 17/11295, supra n. 10, at 18; Entwurf eines Gesetzes über den Umfang der Personensorge bei einer Beschneidung des männlichen Kindes, supra n. 15, at 4. ("Der Wille des betroffenen Jungen ist, sofern er schon gebildet werden kann, in die Entscheidung über die Vornahme einer Beschneidung einzubeziehen, insbesondere im Hinblick darauf, dass der Eingriff später nicht rückgängig gemacht werden kann.").
  34.  See bt-Drucksache 17/11295, supra n. 10, at 18; Entwurf eines Gesetzes über den Umfang der Personensorge bei einer Beschneidung des männlichen Kindes, supra n. 15, at 24, who point out the emphasis the German Ethics Council places on this problem. See Deutscher Ethikrat, "Ethikrat empfiehlt rechtliche und fachliche Standards für die Beschneidung."
  35.  See bt-Drucksache 17/11295, supra n. 10, at 18; Entwurf eines Gesetzes über den Umfang der Personensorge bei einer Beschneidung des männlichen Kindes, supra n. 15, at 24.
  36.  See, e.g., Herzberg, supra n. 168; Putzke, "Interview: Den Gesetzgeber hat der Teufel geritten."
/content/journals/10.1163/22124810-00401001
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): circumcision; comparative law; constitutional law; criminal law; German law

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error