Correspondent:

SASKATCHEWAN
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Thank you for your letter asking for information about the position of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission on genital mutilation, both male and female. I apologize for the delay in responding.

The Saskatchewan commission has not adopted a policy on genital mutilation. Other commissions have adopted policies on this topic, however, and I am enclosing the policy of the Ontario commission for your information. As well, the Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights Agencies (CASHRA), of which the Saskatchewan commission is a member, unanimously passed the following resolution on female genital mutilation:

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN

WHEREAS Canada is a party to international instruments that provide for the respect and protection of the fundamental human rights of women and children; and

WHEREAS Canada is participating in an international initiative to eradicate the practice of genital mutilation; and

WHEREAS Canadians are concerned that women and girls who are ordinarily resident in Canada are being subjected to the practice of female genital mutilation;

BE IT RESOLVED that CASHRA recommend to the Minister of Employment and Immigration that all prospective immigrants must be provided with information setting out Canada's commitment to upholding international human rights instruments; emphasizing that the protection and respect of human rights is a cornerstone of Canadian society and extends to the protection of women and children against any acts which would cause grave interference with the personal inviolability, including female genital mutilation; and advising that practices such as female genital mutilation are deemed to be a criminal activiety under the Canadian Criminal Code.

I understand your concern is that male circumcision is not viewed as discrimination on the basis of sex in the same way that female genital mutilation is. The policy of the Ontario Human Rights Commission does address this issue, at page 28 of their policy.

It takes the position that the two are not the same because the degree of excision and trauma involved in female genital mutilation is much more extensive.

The Saskatchewan commission may, at some point in the future, develop its own policy on genital mutilation. If it does, at that time we will consider the information you have brought to our attention.

Thank you for your interest.

Sincerely,
 
[signed]
 
Donna Scott
Chief Commissioner/Director
 

---

March 26, 2003

Donna Scott
Chief Commissioner
Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission

Dear Chief Commissioner:

I'm writing in connection with an issue that has come under increased public scrutiny in recent years—namely, infant male circumcision. I've been studying this issue for some time, and my letters on the subject have been published in a number of academic journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine, the Lancet, and the Journal of Law and Medicine.

I should probably explain why my interest in this issue is prompting me to write to the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission. The reason is that two significant memos on infant male circumcision were issued last year by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan. As you know, the College is the statutory body responsible for regulating provincial medical practice. In its memos, the College advises physicians that there is no medical justification for routine infant circumcision. The College states further that performing surgery which has no medical justification would generally be considered "imprudent if not improper," and could expose the attending physician to legal risk. Copies of these memos are enclosed for your reference.

To my mind, the College's new stance on routine infant circumcision raises questions as to how this operation fits into the framework of human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the cornerstone of the human rights system, protects the right to security of the person—a right which is of direct relevance to a practice such as circumcision.

Medical organizations in other parts of the world have expressed the view that infant circumcision may raise human rights issues. For example, in its position statement on circumcision published last year, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians states:

The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit.

Debates over the acceptability of medically unnecessary childhood circumcisions are underway in all the Nordic countries. In Norway, the Council for Medical Ethics has informed the board of the Norwegian Medical Association that non-therapeutic circumcision of children is inconsistent with fundamental principles of medical ethics.

The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission is the recognized authority on human rights in Saskatchewan. The Commission's goals include promoting the understanding of human rights issues, and formulating strategies to advance the principle of equality. Accordingly, I would be interested in hearing the Commission's general opinion of the above-mentioned memos from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan. I would also be grateful for answers to the following specific questions:

1. In light of the advice now coming from the medical profession, does the Commission believe there is a possibility that routine infant circumcision might impact an infant's right to security of the person?
    
2. Since the Criminal Code prohibits medically unnecessary surgery on girls' genitals, does the acceptance of medically unnecessary surgery on boys' genitals raise questions of equality?

Thank you in advance for taking the time to consider the above issues. As evidence that circumcision is not a trivial operation, I enclose a copy of a news report describing the death of a five-week-old B.C. baby from circumcision complications last August.

Sincerely,
 
[signed]
 
D ennis H arrison