|
Home > Correspondence > Human Rights Commissions
Correspondent: ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION April 16, 1998 Mr. Keith Norton
Dear Mr. Norton: I am writing to request that the Commission provide an interpretation of the Code as it pertains to male genital mutilation including circumcision. I recently noted that the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) had issued a position on female genital mutilation; however, no position has been articulated regarding males. Supervisory staff at one of the Commission's branch offices has advised me that a request to your office would result in the development of a position paper. If there are specific processes that must be followed or documents filed, I would appreciate your assistance in identifying them. I would be pleased to assist the Commission to secure any information it may require in order to issue a position. I look forward to your response at your earliest convenience. Please contact me at the number provided above if you require further information. Sincerely yours,
April 24, 1998 Dear Dr. Bhimji: This will acknowledge receipt of your correspondence to the Chief Commissioner, received on April 22, 1998. I should indicate to you that the Chief Commissioner is a potential decision-maker in all cases which may be presented to the Commission and, as a result, he is unable to comment or intervene directly in the investigative process. Consequently, this matter has been referred to the Executive Director’s office with a request that your concerns be addressed by the appropriate staff person, who will then respond to you directly. Yours truly,
c.c. Executive Director’s Office
July 14, 1998 Dr. Bhimji: I am responding to your letter and our subsequent telephone conversations where you have raised concern that the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Policy on Female Genital Mutilation does not deem male genital mutilation including circumcision as discriminatory and that the Commission should develop a policy position on this matter. Furthermore, you challenge research that supports the practice of male circumcision and contend that there is no medical reason to carry out this procedure. First let me explain that it is part of the mandate of the Commission to foster understanding of and voluntary compliance with the principles of the Ontario Human Rights Code (the “Code”). The Commission develops policy documents on a range of poignant human rights issues that are current in society today. However, I would like to stress that the absence of any particular policy or guideline in no way diminishes any rights afforded to individuals under Ontario’s Human Rights Code. The Commission chose to develop a policy on FGM for a combination of reasons:
As such, it is the Commission’s view that FGM-related discrimination can constitute a violation of women’s rights under the Code, and would most likely fall under the prohibited ground of “sex”. More specifically, FGM is gender-specific discrimination, that is, girls and women are treated differently because they are female. And, the effect of this differential treatment has resulted in a form of social control over women. The Commission’s policy on Sexual Harassment states that: ...(U)nequal treatment based on gender typically involves the abuse of male power and authority over women, resulting in the reinforcement of a woman’s subordinate status in relation to the dominant male group As such, the Commission believes that arguments in favour of FGM based on a defence of cultural or religious values should not be accepted as justification for a practice that reinforces a subordinate status of women. To the best of our knowledge, male circumcision has not been subject to international condemnation in the sense that it has not resulted in gender-specific discrimination leading to social control over men. At the same time, the Commission’s policy on FGM does not per se exclude the possibility of a complaint with respect to “male genital mutilation” on the ground of sex. Such a practice would have to be shown to be discriminatory within the meaning of the Code. Whether male circumcision is an appropriate medical practice, whether it violates the physical integrity of the male or the rights of the child, or whether it can be considered assault within the meaning of the Criminal Code, are issues that more appropriately fall under other jurisdictions including the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, federal and provincial ministries of health and/or federal and provincial justice ministers. Please note that the above comments are a staff opinion only and will not preclude the Commission from inquiring into any matter that might be brought to its attention under the Code. I trust that the above will be of assistance to you. Sincerely,
July 22, 1998 Dear Dr. Bhimji: As per our telephone conversation, I am enclosing the following materials for your information:
Sincerely,
December 16, 1999 Mr. Keith Norton
Dear Mr. Norton: Further to our meeting of earlier this summer, please find enclosed a paper entitled "Infant Male Circumcision: A Violation of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms." The paper outlines the most relevant issues surrounding infant male circumcision. Additional supporting evidence and references have been provided within the accompanying documentation including a diskette of hyperlinks which will provide access to articles, posted to a special location on the Internet, specifically as a reading list for the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC). As discussed earlier, I believe that the OHRC has an obligation to clarify its position with respect to the practice of infant male circumcision. There are two key points to be considered. The first is that having a policy on female genital mutilation (FGM) without providing a policy addressing male genital mutilation (including infant male circumcision) is discriminatory. The failure to provide both sexes with equal protection under the policy is discriminatory, since extending the same protection to males would not harm females. The second issue is that the practice of infant male circumcision is a violation of basic human rights and should be addressed by the Commission. In 1996 the Commission developed a policy on FGM. Within the text of that document the Commission wrongly suggests that there is a medically sound reason for performing infant male circumcision. The policy on FGM attempts to legitimize infant male circumcision by making reference to outdated information and ignores the recommendations of Canadian authorities such as the Canadian Paediatric Society. Furthermore, the OHRC undermines its own credibility by quoting well-known circumcision advocates who defend circumcision on religious as well as medical grounds. Within the policy, the OHRC neglects to address the issue of a male infant's rights with respect to security of his own person. It is my understanding that the mission of the Ontario Human Rights Commission includes the elimination of discrimination in society through the promotion and advancement of human rights. As such my request of the Commission is as follows:
I believe that the practice of infant male circumcision unequivocally violates the rights of males and contravenes provincial and international human rights legislation. I trust that the Commission will attempt to rectify this situation by investigating the issue and developing the appropriate policies required to stop this gender specific discriminatory practice. I can be reached at the address and telephone number provided should you require clarification or further information. Sincerely yours,
January 10, 2000 Mr. Keith C. Norton
Dear Mr. Norton: On a recent visit to the OHRC Web site I came across surprising statements pertaining to male circumcision. I am writing to express my concerns in regard to these statements, found in the Policy on Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). In an apparent effort to dissociate FGM from male circumcision, the policy on FGM portrays male circumcision as an innocuous procedure known to confer health benefits. It says that "the degree of excision and trauma involved in female genital mutilation is much more extensive." This view of male circumcision is highly problematic. Contrary to the OHRC policy statement, the degree of excision and trauma involved in FGM is not necessarily more extensive than that involved in male circumcision. FGM covers a wide spectrum of practices, some of which are less intrusive than male circumcision. In any event, the latter is not a trivial procedure. Medical studies conducted at the Hospital for Sick Children and Women's College Hospital have shown that even when anaesthetic cream is applied, male circumcision is traumatic enough to induce heightened pain responses in infants months later.1 Valid conclusions about the relative severity of FGM and male circumcision cannot be drawn by comparing third world FGM to first world male circumcision. When performed under third world conditions, male circumcision has a high rate of morbidity and mortality. As evidence of this, I enclose a copy of a news report entitled "Unsafe circumcisions kill four, injure 100," published recently in The Globe and Mail. In any case, even when done with sterilized instruments in first world hospitals, male circumcision carries a significant rate of complications.2,3 These complications have included total loss of the penis and death. The idea that routine infant circumcision pays health dividends is inconsistent with policy statements on neonatal circumcision issued in 1996 by the Canadian Paediatric Society and in 1999 by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Neither of these professional organizations could find sufficient evidence of medical benefit to recommend infant male circumcision as a routine procedure. In other words, the consensus of medical opinion today is that there is no medical justification for performing infant male circumcision. The only citation on male circumcision to be found in the OHRC policy on genital mutilation comes from Gerald N. Weiss, an eccentric American octogenarian who describes the normal human penis as "a cesspool for infectious agents."4 Dr. Weiss claims to have found that circumcision prevents "the ravages of schistosomal infectious symptomatology" and believes that in the absence of circumcision, "the weakened, shrunken penis needs intense care and cleaning to avoid irritation."5 Dr. Weiss's writings include many references to religious texts. The decision by the OHRC to disregard policy statements on circumcision issued by mainstream medical organizations in favour of sentiments expressed by Dr. Weiss is odd, to say the least. Medical research has now shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the prepuce, an anatomical structure found in both males and females, is comprised of specialized sexual tissue.6,7 In light of this research, I would like to ask the following question: Is it a violation of human rights to remove the prepuce of a healthy newborn, infant, or child?I would appreciate an answer at your earliest convenience. Sincerely,
References:
January 14, 2000 Dear Dr. Bhimji: This letter will acknowledge our receipt of your letter and attached documents requesting the Commission's position with respect to the practice of infant male circumcision. Please note that your letter and documents have been passed on to the appropriate staff member for information purposes. Be assured that we will carefully review this valuable information. Yours truly,
February 1, 2000 Dear Mr. H arrison: Thank you for your letter of January 10th, 2000 and for the time and initiative you took to provide the articles from the medical literature regarding male circumcision. Female genital mutilation (FGM) has been condemned as a harmful practice by the international human rights community and is proscribed under the Convention on the Rights of the Child as a traditional practice that is discriminatory and harmful to girl children. Canadian criminal law and the College of Physicians and Surgeons have clearly stated that FGM constitutes a form of child abuse and will subject the practitioner to disciplinary measures. Although male circumcision is not (to the best of my knowledge) a medically indicated routine procedure, it has not entered into the realm of criminal assault or human rights violations that characterize the practice of FGM. I am not aware of any international human rights obligations flowing from any treaties or conventions signed by Canada or indeed existing under any other area that similarly proscribe male circumcision. While I do not mean to diminish the potential medical issues that you have raised, it is essential to understand that the Commission's position is linked to the practice of FGM as a procedure that suppresses the sexuality of women in several societies and cultures throughout the world. This has unique human rights implications related to the historical subjugation of women that are not present with respect to male children in societies that practise male circumcision. Your assistance in providing detailed information on this issue and your interest in the Ontario Human Rights Commission is greatly appreciated. Yours truly,
February 24, 2000 Mr. Keith C. Norton QC
Dear Mr. Norton: I have become aware of a factual error in the OHRC 'Policy on Female Genital Mutilation (FGM)'. The policy statement implies that female circumcision is a mutilating procedure in no way comparable with male circumcision. In fact, male circumcision is a mutilating procedure that, like FGM, removes a large amount of highly specialized sexual tissue. We have precisely documented the type and amount of tissue removed by male circumcision (The prepuce: Specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision. British Journal of Urology 1996;77:291-5). From this and more recent studies we conclude that male neonatal and childhood circumcision adversely affects adult sexual performance. In short, male circumcision is not the benign and trivial procedure suggested by the policy statement on FGM. Others have confirmed that routine male circumcision offers few if any tangible benefits to Canadian males. The stance of OHRC on FGM is widely recognized as decent and humane. The only question is whether OHRC needs to bolster its case by unfortunate comparisons between male and female circumcisions. As it stands, the policy statement supports those practitioners who claim, never with supporting evidence, that they are only removing a 'little piece of skin'. I do not need to add that all arguments in favour of routine male circumcision have been soundly rejected by the Canadian Paediatric Society and many other organisations concerned with child care and development. The concerns of adults who feel they have been unjustly treated as babies must also be considered. As a published investigator of human anatomy I should be very happy to advise OHRC on revisions to its FGM policy statement. With respect, however, I hope that OHRC takes a major step forward and writes a matching statement on male circumcision performed for cosmetic reasons. Yours sincerely,
February 28, 2000 Dear Mr. Norton: Thank you for your letter of February 1st in response to my concerns about infant male circumcision. You write that "female genital mutilation (FGM) ... is proscribed under the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) as a traditional practice that is discriminatory and harmful to girl children." However, the CRC does not mention FGM specifically. Article 24(3) of the CRC reads as follows: States Parties shall take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children. I find it difficult to imagine how the forcible amputation of normal, well-formed body parts could be prejudicial to the health of girls without also being prejudicial to the health of boys. The possibility that circumcision of boys for non-medical reasons violates the Convention on the Rights of the Child has been raised in a report prepared for the Swedish National Board of Health (see enclosure). Sadly, human beings have shown extraordinary ingenuity in finding ways to make their own children suffer. Mutilating practices have run the gamut from head deformation to foot binding, with the sex organs, as the main seat of pleasure, coming under particularly heavy attack. These diverse mutilations have had one thing in common: all have been viewed as beneficial by the societies that have practised them. Female genital mutilation, for instance, has a base of support today in the Egyptian medical community. As evidence of this, I enclose a copy of an article from the British Medical Journal 1996 referring to Dr. Saed Thabet, a professor of gynaecology at a prestigious Cairo university who claims female circumcision is necessary. Despite the manifest inability of societies to see their own childhood mutilations for what they are, the OHRC appears to have taken our own society's positive perception of male circumcision at face value. By citing Dr. Gerald N. Weiss as an authority on male circumcision, the OHRC has done the equivalent of citing Dr. Saed Thabet as an authority on FGM. You describe FGM as a procedure "that suppresses the sexuality of women" but offer no explanation as to why removing specialized sexual tissue does not suppress sexuality when performed on men. The use of circumcision by physicians to suppress male sexuality is a matter of record. You associate FGM with the historical subjugation of women, but ignore the fact that male circumcision was used to brand slaves from the earliest times. It seems to me that from the standpoint of a neutral observer, there can be little difference—in terms of human rights implications—between forcible amputation of healthy sexual tissue from girls on the one hand, and forcible amputation of healthy sexual tissue from boys on the other. If the OHRC fails to adopt the perspective of a neutral observer on this issue, will it still have the right to call itself a human rights organization? Sincerely,
April 22, 2000 Re: infant male circumcision I enclose a copy of an article that may be of interest to you. Entitled "Stronger campaign needed to end female genital mutilation," the article suggests not only that female genital mutilation and male circumcision are comparable practices, but also that tolerance of male circumcision hinders progress towards ending female genital mutilation. The authors are five French medical professionals, three of whom are women. The arcticle has been published in the April 22, 2000 issue of the British Medical Journal. Note the following paragraph: The women we interviewed considered their daughters' mutilation and their sons' circumcision to be similar. Male circumcision is also a form of genital mutilation since it involves removing a healthy part of an organ. How can we convince mothers that they should not mutilate their daughters while they could continue to have their sons circumcised? The dilemma is that male circumcision is widely spread, has a religious significance, has a low morbidity in developed countries, and is practised even in countries where female genital mutilation is unknown. Because of the fear of compromising the eradication of female genital mutilation, male circumcision is tolerated as doing less harm. Sincerely,
May 12, 2000 Dear Mr. H arrison: Thank you for your letter of April 22, 2000 regarding an article in the British Medical Journal of the same date entitled, "Stronger campaign needed to end female genital mutilation." More specifically, the article contends, as you state in your letter, that "tolerance of male circumcision hinders progress towards ending female genital mutilation." In 1996, the Commissioners chose to release a policy document on FGM because FGM had become a local, national and international issue. Male circumcision as a human rights issue, to the best of our knowledge at that time, had not. Moreover, because FGM is practised for the purpose and/or has the result of suppression and subjugation of women, it is the Commission's belief that it is discriminatory on the ground of sex and that a policy position is warranted. At the same time, the Commission is advocating neither for or against male circumcision as an appropriate medical practice. Appropriateness of a medical practice would appear to be within the realm of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, other professional medical associations, ministries of health and the Criminal Code, and outside the Commission's jurisdiction unless it can be linked to "discrimination" under the Ontario Human Rights Code. The Commission is reviewing information on male circumcision cited in its FGM policy in light of the current position of the Canadian Paediatric Society, which states that circumcision of male newborns should not be routinely performed. We plan to bring the matter to the Commissioners for a decision. The Commission monitors a variety of topics on an ongoing basis. We have opened a file on the issue of male circumcision, and have included your letter and referenced article. Please note that the above comments are a staff opinion only and will not preclude the Commission from reading an unfettered decision, or from inquiring into any matter that may be brought to its attention under the Human Rights Code. Your assistance in providing information on this issue is greatly appreciated. Sincerely,
May 12, 2000 Dr. Bhimji: Further to your letter and recommended reading list of December 16, 1999 and our subsequent telephone conversation on the issue of male circumcision, the Office of the Chief Commissioner has asked the Policy and Education Branch to prepare a reply. I apologize for the delay in this reply. In your letter you contend that it is discriminatory for the Commission to have a policy on female genital mutilation (FGM) without having a policy on male genital mutilation (including infant male circumcision), that male circumcision is a violation of basic human rights, and that information on male circumcision cited in the Commission's policy is incorrect and not in keeping with the position of the Canadian Paediatric Society. As you know, FGM has been condemned as a harmful practice by the international human rights community and has been described in the Platform for Action (Report of the Fourth World Conference on Women, Beijing, 1995) as discriminatory and harmful to girl children. Canadian criminal law and the College of Physicians and Surgeons have clearly stated that FGM constitutes a form of assault and child abuse and could subject the practitioner to criminal charges and disciplinary measures. Although male circumcision is not, to the best of our knowledge, a medically indicated practice, it has not entered into the realm of human rights violations that characterize the practice of FGM. In 1996, the Commissioners chose to release a policy document on FGM because FGM had become a local, national and international issue. Male circumcision as a human rights issue, to the best of our knowledge at that time, had not. FGM is discriminatory because it results in the suppression and subjugation of women. In the case of Nancy Law v. Canada [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497, the Supreme Court of Canada referred to "discrimination" as violating the human dignity or freedom of a person. The court went on to examine a number of contextual factors to be considered in assessing whether differential treatment is discriminatory. The court emphasized that pre-existing disadvantage is probably "the most compelling factor," since for a person already subject to vulnerability, stereotyping or prejudice, further differential treatment will likely contribute to the perpetuation or promotion of their unfair social characterization. Moreover, I am not aware of any international human rights obligations flowing from any treaties or conventions signed by Canada or indeed existing under any other area that similarly proscribe male circumcision. While I do not diminish the potential medical, ethical and human rights issues that you raise, it is essential to understand that the Commission's position is linked primarily to the practice of FGM as a procedure that suppresses the sexuality of women in various societies and cultures throughout the world. This has unique human rights implications related to the historical subjugation of women that are not present with respect to male children in societies that practise male circumcision. The evidence that women are subjected to stereotyping or prejudice and experience pre-existing disadvantage in a way that men do not is not only compelling, but is utterly overwhelming. The Platform for Action Report of the Fourth World Conference in general, and Article 39 in particular, describes a number of harmful attitudes and practices that promote the subjugation of women: ...there exists world-wide evidence that discrimination and violence against girls begin at the earliest stages of life and continue unabated throughout their lives. They often have less access to nutrition, physical and mental health care and education and enjoy fewer rights, opportunities and benefits of childhood and adolescence than do boys. They are often subjected to various forms of sexual and economic exploitation, paedophilia, forced prostitution and possibly the sale of their organs and tissues, violence and harmful practices such as female infanticide and prenatal sex selection, incest, female genital mutilation and early marriage, including child marriage. [Emphasis added]Furthermore, the Code does not provide for a right to cultural self-determination. It does not expressly address the rights of the child or the right to health. Although the right to physical integrity is not an explicit right under the Code, it can be addressed as it relates to an enumerated ground of discrimination. Precisely because FGM is practised for the purpose and/or has the result of suppression and subjugation of women it is the Commission's belief that it is discriminatory on the ground of sex and that a policy position is warranted. At the same time, the Commission is not advocating for or against male circumcision as an appropriate medical practice. Appropriateness of a medical practice would appear to be within the realm of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, other professional medical associations, ministries of health and the Criminal Code, and outside the Commission's jurisdiction unless it can be linked to "discrimination" under the Code. However, with respect to your contention that information on male circumcision cited in the Commission's FGM policy is outdated, we agree that the Canadian Paediatric Society would be a more appropriate reference for comment on male circumcision. We are therefore prepared to review this section of the FGM policy in light of the position of the Canadian Paediatric Society and bring the matter to the attention of the Commissioners for a decision. The Commission monitors a variety of topics on an ongoing basis. We have opened a file on the issue of male circumcision, and have included your submissions and related articles as enclosed. And, the Commission would welcome any further information that you could contribute in the future. Please note that the above comments are a staff opinion only and will not preclude the Commission from reading an unfettered decision, or from inquiring into any matter that may be brought to its attention under the Code. Your assistance in providing detailed information on this issue is greatly appreciated. Sincerely,
October 16, 2000 Dear Mr. Poirier: This letter is further to previous correspondence we have had on the subject of infant male circumcision. You indicated in your letter of May 12, 2000 that the Commission planned to update the references to male circumcision in the Policy on Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). Can you tell me if the changes have been decided upon yet? If not, when is the decision-making process expected to be complete? When will the policy be changed? The Commission's stance on genital mutilation relies on the premise that FGM suppresses female sexuality whereas male circumcision has no adverse effect on the sexuality of males. This argument is difficult to sustain for the following reasons:
The Commission notes that circumcision of healthy boys has not been widely regarded as a human rights violation by the international human rights community. But who is the supreme arbiter of human rights? Is there some universally recognized human rights authority to which the Commission is accountable? Has this authority decided on the basis of a comprehensive ethical and legal analysis that non-therapeutic circumcision of male children is fundamentally different from FGM? In any event, the Commission's mission statement emphasizes the need to provide strong leadership, not the need to follow in the footsteps of other organizations. It states: The Ontario Human Rights Commission is committed to...providing the people of Ontario with strong leadership and quality service...In a position statement issued in 1975,2 the Canadian Paediatric Society characterized circumcision of male infants as a "mutilative operation of questionable benefit" whose prevalence "must be ascribed to social rather than medical reasons." Does this characterization of infant male circumcision not bear a striking resemblance to the Commission's view of FGM? Female genital mutilation is...permanently mutilating the sexual organs...for non-medical reasons.3In summary, I do not think the Commission's policy on this issue is established on a firm foundation. You mention that when the Commission was formulating its policy on FGM, male circumcision was not an issue. But this does not prevent the Commission from showing leadership now. Quite a few of the human rights we take for granted today were "not an issue" twenty or thirty years ago. Canadians have a good reputation in the field of human rights. We have topped the United Nations Human Development Index for seven years in a row, an achievement unmatched by any other nation. I hope the Ontario Human Rights Commission will weigh the facts and start showing some leadership on the emerging issue of male circumcision. The least the Commission can do, in light of the information it has gathered, is to set up a panel to examine the issue. Sincerely,
October 30, 2000 Dear Mr. Poirier: I am writing to provide further information on the subject of female genital mutilation (FGM) and male circumcision. I enclose a piece of correspondence entitled Students' Knowledge of and Attitudes about Female Circumcision in Egypt, which appeared in the November 11, 1999 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine. The authors found that most of the female university students who participated in the survey did not know FGM could cause hemorrhage or infection. Nor were most female university students aware that FGM could cause future sexual problems. Even among medical students, only a minority recognized that FGM could cause hemorrhage or infection. Nearly a quarter of medical students disagreed with the idea that FGM should be abolished. The reason I think this survey is important is that it illustrates the amazing extent to which a society can suppress the truth about its own harmful practices. It should be noted that probably most of the women in the survey had themselves undergone genital mutilation. If Canadian university students were surveyed on male circumcision, the majority would probably regard it as a benign operation that caused no sexual problems. Yet there is incontrovertible scientific evidence that male circumcision cuts off a unique structure having specific sexual functions. There is also irrefutable evidence that control of sexuality has been one of the main justifications for male circumcision. Are Canadians more rational than Egyptians? Sincerely,
November 8, 2000 Dear Mr. H arrison: I am responding on behalf of Mr. Jeff Poirier to your letter of October 16, 2000, which enclosed a book review by Dr. Hanoch Ben-Yami on circumcision. With respect to your questions regarding the Commission's Policy on Female Genital Mutilation, the Commission has been working on updating and revising the policy to reflect more recent medical information on male circumcision. Thanks to your efforts and those of others, the Commission has noted the new reports on recent medical developments and international discussions on FGM and male circumcision related to health and human rights issues. In addition, the Commission will keep the door open to developing policies consistent with the emerging issues in human rights. As you know, without the support and efforts from people such as yourself from different communities, the Commission cannot successfully provide the people of Ontario with strong leadership and quality service regarding human rights. Therefore, comments by people with different perspectives are welcome and appreciated. Since the revised FGM policy is now in the development process, I cannot comment further at this time, other than to say that we are aware of your issues and concerns. Please keep checking our Web site at http://www.ohrc.on.ca for the news release and the revised policy. Again, your assistance in providing information on this issue and your interest in the Ontario Human Rights Commission is appreciated. Sincerely,
December 15, 2000 Dear Dr. Bhimji: I am writing on behalf of Pearl Elladis, Director of the Policy and Education Branch, to inform you that the Ontario Human Rights Commission has approved a revised version of the Policy on Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). Please find attached a copy of the revised Policy. FGM is gender-specific discrimination related to the historical suppression and subjugation of women and female children. It is for these reasons, unique to women and female children, that the FGM policy was developed. This aspect of the policy remains unchanged. The 1996 policy on FGM has been revised primarily to respond to concerns about the use of outdated medical references and the protrayal of male circumcision as a beneficial practice. As you may know, the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) undertook a literature review on the subject of male circumcision. The 1996 report of the CPS concluded that the overall benefits and harms of male circumcision are so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns. This medical opinion is now reflected in the Policy. In addition, a new section entitled "FGM and the Duty to Report" has been added to reflect recent developments under the Ontario Child and Family Services Act. The changes include a duty to report information with respect to a child who is in need of protection. Furthermore, the revised policy includes references to amendments under the Criminal Code that define the performance of FGM as aggravated assault under section 268(3). Finally, the revised policy includes an amended table of contents and updated references. The Commission is aware of your concerns with regard to FGM and male circumcision. Your support and assistance in providing information on these issues is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your continued interest in the work of the Commission. Sincerely,
December 27, 2000 Dear Min Zhou, Thank you for your letter of December 15th and the copy of the revised Policy on Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). I am glad to see that the references to male circumcision in this policy have been changed to reflect the current position of the Canadian Paediatric Society. I have to tell you I still have difficulty with any policy statement that tries to legitimize distinctions based purely on sex. It seems to me that the right to bodily integrity is not one that can be granted only to members of historically disadvantaged groups. In a letter dated February 1, 2000, Mr. Keith Norton, Chief Commissioner, wrote that male circumcision "has not entered into the realm of criminal assault or human rights violations that characterize the practice of FGM." However, in a new book entitled The Ethical Canary: Science, Society, and the Human Spirit, Dr. Margaret Somerville, Director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University, describes the legal status of infant male circumcision as follows: Physicians who undertake infant male circumcision could be legally liable for medical malpractice (civil liability in battery or negligence), which can result in an award of damages simply for carrying out the circumcision even if it was competently performed. They could also, as explained, be charged with criminal liability for assault.1In 1991, a German court awarded political asylum to a Turkish man based on his fear of enforced circumcision. The court found: There may be...no doubt that a circumcision which has taken place against the will of the person affected shows...a violation of his physical and psychological integrity which is of significance to asylum.2In 1992, the Secretary General of the United Nations appointed a Commission of Experts to report on human rights violations on the territory of the former Yugoslavia. The final report of this Commission, published in 1994, refers to male circumcision in these terms: Men are also subject to sexual assault. They are forced to rape women and to perform sex acts on guards or each other. They have also been subjected to castration, circumcision or other sexual mutilation.3Another United Nations report describes forced circumcisions of Bosnian Serb soldiers by Muslim and Mujahedin irregular troops as "torture of prisoners."4 I look forward to the day the OHRC fulfils its mandate of providing strong leadership and develops a policy on Human Genital Mutilation. Sincerely,
cc: Keith Norton, QC, Chief Commissioner January 12, 2001 Dear Mr. H arrison, Thank you for your letter of December 27, 2000 regarding the revised Policy on Female Genital Mutilation. The Commission knows that FGM is significantly different from male circumcision and we are still open to monitoring research on this issue. The Commission is aware of your concerns about male circumcision. Thank you again for your continued interest in the work of the Commission. Sincerely,
January 29, 2001 Dear Min Zhou, The Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) reported on January 27th that hundreds of men, women and children were forcibly circumcised in the Maluku islands, a part of Indonesia racked by civil war between Muslims and Christians. A copy of this report is enclosed. I would be interested in knowing how the Ontario Human Rights Commission views these events. According to the OHRC's Policy on Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), female circumcision is a "gender-specific violation of the rights of girls and women to physical integrity." Does the OHRC believe that the forced circumcisions reported to have taken place in the Maluku islands violated only the rights of girls and women? Sincerely,
February 5, 2001 Dear Mr. H arrison, Thank you for your letter of January 29, 2001 regarding the report on forced circumcisions from Sydney Morning Herald (Australia). As you know, the Ontario Human Rights Commission monitors issues regarding FGM and male circumcision. We will certainly retain the information that you gave us that will be useful for the Commission in its work. Thank you again for the information you have provided to the Commission. Sincerely,
April 4, 2001 Keith Norton, Q.C.
Dear Mr. Norton, I'm writing to provide further background information on female genital mutilation (FGM) and to ask a question. The background information consists of:
Does the Commission believe that Type I FGM (removal of the clitoral hood) suppresses female sexuality and is related to the historical subjugation of women?I hope the background material is of value. I would appreciate a response at your earliest convenience. Sincerely,
April 9, 2001 Dear Mr. H arrison: Thank you for your letter of January 29th, 2001, to the Commission in which you shared information about events that appear to have been reported on by the Sydney Morning Herald of Australia. You have expressed an interest in the Commission's view of the reported events relating to hundreds of men, women and children having been forcibly circumcised in the Maluku Islands, in Indonesia. Events such as those you describe are obviously tragic and distressing violations of personal integrity. We have no indication that a comparable practice is occurring in Ontario, and as indicated to you in previous correspondence, the Commission has no plans at this time to develop a human rights policy on male circumcision. I apologize for the delay in responding. Your assistance in bringing these matters to the attention of the Commission is appreciated. Sincerely,
April 26, 2001 Dear Mr. H arrison, I am in receipt of your letter of April 4, 2001 and the articles that you have provided to the Commission on the subject of female genital mutilation. These will be kept on file. The Commission has no plans, at this time, to alter the position it has taken in its Policy on Female Genital Mutilation. Thank you for bringing these matters to the attention of the Commission. Sincerely,
December 3, 2002 Mr. Keith Norton
Dear Mr. Norton: I'm writing to request clarification of the Commission's policy on FGM (female genital mutilation). The Toronto Star recently published an article on FGM in Singapore. According to this article, FGM as practised in Singapore involves making a "small nick" on the clitoris. The operation is performed by female doctors on babies or young girls. Apparently those who have undergone this procedure report no subsequent discomfort or adverse effects on sexuality. Since I consider genital mutilation to be an important human rights issue, I would appreciate answers to the following questions:
Thank you for considering this matter. I would appreciate a response at your earliest convenience. Sincerely,
February 19, 2003 Dear Mr. Miller: RE: Female Genital Mutilation I am writing in response to your letter of December 3, 2002, and your fellow-up letter. I apologize for the delay of this response. You ask whether the Ontario Human Rights Commission considers "type 1 FGM" a human rights violation. As you have indicated in your letter, you also want to know the position of the Commission with respect to male circumcision, particularly when it is performed without "medical indication on the child." The following is a discussion of the Ontario Human Rights Code, Commission policies and some case law that may be relevant to your inquiry. The Commission has published a document that is relevant to your question, which is entitled Policy on Female Genital Mutilation. This document is on-line and you can obtain it from our Web site: www.ohrc.on.ca. According to the Commission's Policy, Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is the "collective term given to several different procedures that involve the cutting of female genitalia and permanently mutilating the sexual organs of young females for non-medical reasons." The Commission's policy makes no distinction in type or degree in its position that FGM is a violation of human rights. Government of Canada's Criminal Code, as amended in 1997, considers the performance of FGM an aggravated assault under section 268 (3) of the Criminal Code. In this section, "wounds" or "maims" includes to "excise, infibulate or mutilate, in whole or in part, the labia majora, labia minora or clitoris of a person." As the Commission's policy notes, "any person who commits an aggravated assault is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years. A parent who performs FGM on their child may be charged with aggravated assault. Where the parent does not commit the act but agrees to have it performed by another party, the parent can be convicted as a party to the offence under section 21 (1) of the Criminal Code." FGM has been condemned by numerous international and regional bodies including: the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, the United Nations International Children Emergency Fund (UNICEF), the Organization of African Unity and the World Medical Association. All these bodies recognize FGM as a gender-specific discrimination that is related to the historical suppression and subjugation of women that is unique to women and female children. In addition, the Commission's Policy on FGM notes that the definition of "violence against women" under the United Nation's Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women includes FGM. With respect to your question regarding male circumcision, the Commission's Policy on FGM refers to the findings of the Canadian Paediatric Society which concluded that "the overall evidence of the benefits and harms of male circumcision is so evenly balanced," that "the benefits have not been shown to clearly outweigh the risks and costs," and that "male circumcision for newborns should not be routinely performed." The Canadian Paediatric Society advises that when parents are making a decision about circumcision, "they should be informed with respect to the present state of medical knowledge about its reported benefits and risks." The Commission is neither advocating for or against male circumcision as an appropriate medical procedure. What is medically appropriate falls within the realm of the College of Physicians and Surgeons and other professional medical associations. For more information, please consult with the medical community. Please be advised that the information above is a policy staff opinion based on the Code, Commission policies and relevant case law. It should not be viewed as legal advice. If a complaint is received in relation to this matter, it will be processed in accordance with the Commission's regular procedures. This staff opinion will not bind the Commissioners in the consideration of any complaint. I hope this information has been helpful. Thanks
cc: Keith C. Norton, Chief Commissioner ^Top |