On behalf of the Honourable David Tsubouchi, Solicitor General, thank you for your letter of July 6, 2000 regarding the transplantation of human tissue.

The concerns you have raised in your correspondence appropriately fall under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. I note your letter was also addressed to the Honourable Elizabeth Witmer. I trust Minister Witmer will respond to your concerns.

Again, thank you for writing to bring your concerns to the Minister's attention.

Sincerely,
 
[signed]
 
David Fraser
Correspondence Unit
Ministry of the Solicitor General
 

cc:	The Honourable Elizabeth Witmer, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care
	The Honourable James Flaherty, Attorney General

---

August 12, 2000

Dear Minister,

On the evening of August 4, 2000, I went into the Halton Regional Police Services building, on Locust Street in Burlington, to report that I had been a victim of an aggravated assault. I am very displeased to inform you that no action was taken by the police. I demand that you investigate the police, specifically Staff Sergeants Eakins and Douglas.

In order to prove that Eakins' and Douglas' inaction is a violation of my civil rights, I must prove to you that I have indeed been a victim of a crime and then explain that Eakins and Douglas did nothing to bring the perpetrator to justice.

The crime in question occurred at Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital in Burlington on Oct. 19, 1978. When I was only four days old, I was taken into a room where I was strapped to a table in a manner that prevented any movement. Then Dr. B.S. Chiu, without administering any anaesthetic, amputated part of my anatomy. This barbaric procedure was performed without any compelling medical need. The deformity caused by this procedure, known as circumcision, continues to be a source of emotional trauma.

Circumcision has been performed on human males for millennia. The first documented circumcisions were performed in ancient Egypt. The ancient Egyptians saw that snakes could seemingly live forever by shedding their skin. In an effort to prolong their own lives, Egyptians emulated the snake by offering up a piece of their own flesh to the gods. Since the penis reared up like a snake, the choice of which body part to amputate was obvious. Since then, many cultures have adopted this horrific practice, all with different myths surrounding the act such as religious rites, anti-masturbation remedies, "hygienic" reasons, etc. However, all of these justifications for needlessly amputating part of their sons' bodies are rooted in the Egyptian attempt to prolong life. (Desmond Morris' The Human Sexes).

In modern-day Canada, the barbaric ritual of circumcision is promoted for the following reasons: to encourage good hygiene, to prevent penile cancer, to prevent cervical cancer in the boy's future sexual partners, to prevent urinary tract infections and as part of religious ceremonies. Frankly, all of these reasons are pure rubbish. An intact (uncircumcised) penis requires no more care than a circumcised penis during infancy. When an intact male reaches puberty, the only sanitary difference is that during a shower, he must retract his foreskin and rinse off his glans. Although there appears to be a small difference in the rate of urinary tract infection (UTI) in the first year of life between boys who are circumcised and those who are intact, complications from circumcision occur at a rate far greater than that of UTIs. This is before considering the permanent loss of function entailed by the amputation of normal male genital tissue. Frankly, I find the "prevention of cancer" arguments rather ridiculous. If it could be proven that a foreskin leads to higher incidence of penile and cervical cancer (which it cannot), the remedy is not to remove the foreskin. Breast tissue is far more susceptible to developing cancer, but we, as a society, do not needlessly perform mastectomies on newborn females—it is not until cancer develops in a woman's breast(s) that we treat the cancer. The same must be true for the penis.

We cannot amputate boys' foreskins because a few of them may at some point develop cancer. As for the religious argument for circumcision, the Canadian government must provide religious freedom of expression as outlined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, the government has a duty to restrict these freedoms. Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms clearly states that

[t]he Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

In a free and democratic society, we cannot force our religious views upon others. Parents cannot and must not be allowed to perform a religious ritual on their children, especially one that will leave the child permanently disfigured, against the will of the child. If the child's will cannot be legally ascertained, then the ritual must not be performed. The rights of the child must be weighed as the predominant factor in the equation. Once the child reaches the age of eighteen, he/she may choose to embrace the rituals of the religion on his/her own. Simply put, parents cannot be granted the right to have their sons circumcised in the name of any God.

In addition, circumcision of neonates is particularly horrifying for several reasons. The glans of a newborn's penis is not fully developed. The foreskin is attached to the glans by a membrane called the synechia. Once the glans have fully developed and the synechia has been broken down, usually by early adolescence, the frenar band loosens to allow the larger glans to freely pass through the opening of the foreskin. During routine infant male circumcision, the circumciser must tear the prepuce away from the glans, on which it is fused. This causes the boy tremendous amounts of pain. (http://www.cirp.org/library/procedure/plastibell/)

I find it appalling that routine male infant circumcision is still performed in present day Canada. Circumcision is obviously a violation of present Canadian and international law. Canada has ratified the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. In article 19 paragraph 1, this document states that

States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.

I would argue that circumcision is a form of physical and mental violence, injury and abuse, negligent treatment and maltreatment. Even if the circumcision is performed with the consent of the parent(s) (i.e. while in the care of the parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child), the governments of Canada and Ontario must act to protect the human rights of the child.

If this is not compelling enough, the Convention further states in section 24 paragraph 3 that

States Parties shall take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practises prejudicial to the health of children.

Clearly, since there is no medical reason for circumcision to be performed on neonates, routine infant circumcision is a traditional practice that is prejudicial to the health of children because it results in the needless amputation of a body part. Thus, it is obvious that routine neonatal circumcision is illegal.

Also, section 15 subsection 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms clearly states that

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Again, one can see that the state is violating present law. Since the government has banned female circumcision (they have even made the threat of female circumcision a reason to become a refugee in Canada— see Annan v. Canada), they are violating section 15 by continuing to allow male circumcision. Certainly if the Canadian government allows women subject to circumcision to migrate to Canada on a refugee basis, then they must perceive circumcision as a violation of international human rights. Yet the Canadian government has, and continues, to sanction the circumcision of infant males against their will. This is one of the most blatant forms of discrimination based on sex I have ever seen in my life.

Unfortunately, the mutilation that left me disfigured predates these pieces of legislation. However, in 1960 the Canadian parliament passed the Bill of Rights. This law states in section 1 subsection (a) that the Canadian government must protect "the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law." Clearly, being circumcised without my consent resulted in a violation of my right to security of the person.

Also, by denying me the opportunity to file my complaint, Officer Eakins violated section 2 subsection (e) which states that no law of Canada shall "deprive a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations." By not filing my complaint, Officer Eakins has deprived me of my fundamental right to have a hearing to determine if circumcision violated any of my rights.

Officer Eakins informed me that he would not file my complaint for several reasons, which I will address in this letter. First, he informed me that because I was only four days old, I could not serve as witness to the crime. This is simply a preposterous statement. Since this crime occurred in a hospital, it was well documented. I presented several documents to Officer Eakins, but he did not even examine them (the aforementioned documents are included with this letter). Also, an examination of my penis would certainly prove that a circumcision had been performed. The hospital records and the current state of my penis prove that a circumcision did occur and was performed by Dr. B.S. Chiu. In fact, no party in this affair could possibly argue otherwise.

Secondly, Officer Eakins stated that he would not file my complaint because my mother had signed the consent form. Indeed my mother, Rachel Bender, did sign the consent form, however, she was not properly briefed with regards to the operation. My mother was asked on Oct. 18, 1978, if she wanted me to be circumcised. She told the nurse that both my father and older brother were circumcised. The nurse then responded, "Well, you should have him done too." Possible risks resulting from circumcision were not discussed, the procedure itself was not explained, the functions of the foreskin were never discussed, etc. Based on this obviously flawed piece of "medical" advice, I was butchered the following day. Officer Eakins told me that my case centred on a civil matter (the misinformation and lack of information presented to my mother to gain her consent). At this point, I told him that I did not wish to pursue civil action against Dr. Chiu at this time. I informed Officer Eakins that in 1975 the Canadian Paediatric Society published a report that advised doctors against performing routine infant circumcision. As such, Dr. Chiu knew that he was performing a procedure, which his own governing body advised against. Thus, Dr. Chiu's actions were criminal. I do plan on pursuing a civil suit against the parties that participated in the violation of my civil rights; after all criminal cases are settled.

Officer Eakins then asked me what I wanted to achieve by filing this report. Frankly, I feel that the answer to this question is self-evident. When a citizen has been wronged and wishes to file a report with the police, they seek justice. I told Officer Eakins that I wanted to establish laws that would forbid routine infant circumcision in Canada. He then told me that I should consult parliament. I responded that laws could also be challenged through the courts and that is what I plan to do with my case.

Eakins again denied my request to file the report. At this point I informed him that I would contact the office of Minister Tsubouchi and requested his name. He went to find a business card to give me and took the time to consult with the Staff Sergeant in Oakville, Officer Douglas. Upon his return, Officer Eakins informed me that he contacted Officer Douglas and asked me to include his name in this letter.

In summary, Officer Eakins approached my request simply by examining my situation. My request is not about the specifics of my case, but rather the legality of the procedure of routine infant circumcision. Although Dr. Chiu performed the circumcision "competently," the procedure itself is criminal. This type of assault has left millions of Canadians, including myself, permanently disfigured. If Dr. Chiu had surgically amputated my eyelids, with a properly notarized consent form, I know I would not have to write this letter to you. In fact, criminal charges would have been laid the moment the hypothetical procedure was proposed. I implore you not to allow peoples' prejudice against the prepuce to cloud your decision. It is for the court to rule on the legality of the law. I also urge you to request that your government submit a reference to the court, in order to determine the legality of neonatal circumcision in the era of the legislation such as the Convention of the Rights of the Child and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since I am a Christian and Christianity does not demand circumcision, the question of restricting religious freedoms will not be addressed in my case. It is, therefore, imperative that at reference, this question be presented before the court. I beg you to provide me and, I am sure, numerous interveners, an opportunity to have our arguments heard before a court.

Best regards,
 
[signed]
 
Paul Bender

C.C. to:

The Professional Standards Bureau of the Halton Regional Police Service, Sgt. Eakins, Sgt. Douglas, Dr. B.S. Chiu, and Rachel Bender.
 

---

September 6, 2000

Dear Mr. Bender:

Your letter dated August 12, 2000 to Solicitor General David H. Tsubouchi outlining your concerns about the Halton Regional Police Service's refusal to press charges on your behalf has been forwarded to me. I am responding on behalf of the Minister.

As Solicitor General, Minister Tsubouchi's responsibilities include general authority over the delivery of police services in Ontario. Ministry staff monitor the activities of all police services in Ontario and, where appropriate, recommend improvements to relevant legislation, policies and procedures.

As Minister, he must not become directly involved in operational policing matters, attempt to influence a police investigation or take any action which could be perceived as jeopardizing the integrity of the justice system. For these reasons, he cannot comment on any matter that may be related to a police investigation or may be before the courts.

Your concerns relate to operational policing matters in Halton Region and, therefore, the Minister is unable to comment. However, your concerns may be addressed through the public complaints process provided for by the Police Services Act. In filing a complaint, you may go directly to a Halton Regional Police station; file a written complaint with the Halton Regional Police Service or police services board if the complaint is against the Chief or Deputy Chief; or file a written complaint with the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services.

For your information I have enclosed a brochure entitled "Resolving Complaints," published by the Commission, which outlines details of the procedure for filing complaints.

I trust that this is of assistance to you. Thank you for bringing your concerns to the Minister's attention.

Sincerely,
 
[signed]
 
Roger Hollingworth
Assistant Deputy Minister
Policing Services Division
 

---

October 26, 2000

Hon. David Tsubouchi
Solicitor General of Ontario

Dear Minister:

I am writing to obtain clarification of some points of law relating to female genital mutilation (FGM) and male circumcision.

I have obtained a copy of a memorandum to all Chiefs of Police issued on October 7, 1994, by Fred Peters, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policing Services Division. This memorandum advises among other things, that (a) "female genital mutilation is the removal of, or injury to, any part of the female genital organ," (b) "existing sections of the Criminal Code concerning sexual assault and wounding can be used to deal with the problem," and (c) "if the girl dies of her wounds, the person performing the procedure and the parents could be charged with criminal negligence causing death (up to life imprisonment)."

The points I would like clarified are as follows:

1. Is the removal of, or injury to, any part of the male genital organ considered to be male genital mutilation? If not, please explain why.
    
2. Could existing sections of the Criminal Code concerning sexual assault and wounding be used to stop infant male circumcision? If not, please explain why.
    
3. If a male infant dies from complications of circumcision, could the person performing the procedure and the parents be charged with criminal negligence causing death? If not, please explain why.

I would appreciate a response at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,
 
[signed]
 
D ennis H arrison
 

Enclosures:	1.	Memorandum from Fred Peters dated October 7, 1994
	2.	Background information sheet on infant male circumcision

---

November 22, 2000

Dear Mr. H arrison:

Thank you for your letter of October 26, 2000 requesting clarification relating to female genital mutilation and male circumcision.

The matters you raise in your letter come under the jurisdiction of the federal government, particularly as they relate to the application of existing Criminal Code provisions and/or the creation of new criminal offences.

Therefore, I have taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of your letter to the Honourable Anne McLellan, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, for her consideration. Should you with to contact her directly, Minister McLellan can be reached in writing at [address given].

I trust that this is of assistance to you. Again, thank you for writing.

Yours truly,
 
[signed]
 
David H. Tsubouchi
Solicitor General

cc: Honourable Anne McLellan, Minister of Justice and Attorney General