What the hell who are you into?
– In may for my sake believe what you will, but you must not deprive me my right to think that it to cut in the foreskin or other parts of the body is so grotesque, that it must be prohibited.
– Is the mon allowed to be completely and I mean completely, indifferent, with regard to people’s religious inclinations, and at the same time relate to the absurdity that adults cuts off functional parts of their newborns, because their gods orders them to, and he allows himself the audacity to accuse the indifferent in order to contribute to racial hatred.
How to write an irate Johnny W in a very popular comment (42 likes) on the Politiken.dk – a comment that is addressed to a doctor, a specialist, a religionshistoriker, a school teacher and a biochemist, who in the community has written an op-ed on female genital mutilation.
In the post pleasures of the five authors themselves, namely that government and parliament denounces anti-semitism and has taken the initiative for an action plan with a view to informing about and combating anti-semitism in Denmark. But the five believe that there’s something missing action from the politicians:
– ….At one point missing Danish politicians stepping in to say stop to the harassment of Danish minorities: in omskæringsdebatten.
– The debate has for many years been characterized by narratives that drengeomskæring is dangerous and harmful, and that the Danish citizens who practice drengeomskæring, therefore, commits a clock against their sons, it sounds in the post, referring to a memo from the Committee for Patient safety (STPS), which came 20. February.
1849 – 23. may. 2018 – at. 12:39 a Large majority of the law against drengeomskæring among all parties ‘ voters
the Authors call the memorandum (which has been debated in the nation!-post: Helene can’t forget about the two penis-death), a ‘very thorough investigation, which in detail examines and analyses all the aspects, among other things, in a so-called systematic review, which is a review and analysis of the existing scientific literature in the field’. And they write that the memo (be)shows that:
– It (not) fit, that are many and serious complications associated with the procedure, when this is carried out in patientsikre framework.
– It (not) fit, to ikkemedicinsk drengeomskæring results in sexual functional problems.
– It (not) fit, to drengeomskæring resulted in a significant increase in health problems later in life, at some points quite the opposite in fact.
The five writers write to connect, to it definitely is in its place to take the debate on drengeomskæring, just as we debate many other topics. But they do not think it is in order that the debate insists on ‘minority groups in a vice of groundless sygeliggørelse, udskamning and political uafklarethed for years’. And they think the politicians must take the responsibility on themselves:
– Everyone has the right to its position, but when the top health authority has spoken, it is the politicians ‘ duty to enter into character and to protect the Danish minorities from long-standing utryghedsskabende and stigmatizing harassment.
– Otherwise the blades, the well-intentioned words on the fight against anti-semitism, unfortunately, hollow, writes the five, but what are you thinking?
