Article content continued

But this debate isn’t simply about the universal rights of adults, or their religious expectations. It is also about the rights of people in no position to give consent.

Should an infant be subjected to a medical procedure simply because the parents’ religion demands it, especially when that procedure could be an option when that child becomes a young adult?

The pros and cons of male circumcision are debatable and the religious prescription is clear. The problems around FGM are much more obvious. It is an extremely harmful practice that ought to be banned outright in every country in the world.

This Icelandic bill is about protecting those who cannot speak up for themselves. In this debate it is the rights of both boys and girls, not the religious rights of adults or other human rights, that need to be upheld.

The idea of children’s autonomy over their bodies has come into vogue in the context of child sexual abuse, and rightly so. Nothing can be a greater intrusion on their rights than mutilation of their genitalia.

Canada and Iceland have been avid supporters of the rights of children and have ratified many treaties pertaining to the rights of the child. Under these, it is imperative that children be treated with dignity.

According to the Conventions on the Rights of the Child, children have the right to be protected from exploitation and humiliation.

The special cruelty of female circumcision means the case against it can be more easily made. However, when the health benefits of male circumcision also do not necessarily outweigh its disadvantages, it then stands to reason that even male children should not be subjected to such a procedure.