THERE IS a high probability that religious denominations or groups affiliated with religious denominations would oppose our case. The grounds for opposition would likely be that banning infant male circumcision would infringe on the right to practise religion guaranteed under section 2 of the Charter.

It is uncertain what the government will say in this particular case. The government could take the position that section 268 is not discriminatory since it seeks only to clarify that non-therapeutic interference with female genitalia is considered to be a crime. The government may argue that the descriptive nature of paragraphs (3) and (4) of section 268 does not preclude infant male circumcision being covered under the same section. Alternatively, the government may argue that infant male circumcision is a minor harm and not worthy of the same status, in law, as FGM. Additional possibilities include the government identifying with the position of interveners who base themselves on religious belief, as noted above.