In the latest news regarding the circumcision court battle in Florida, we learned that the mother has failed to appear in court to surrender her son, so that he may undergo a court-ordered circumcision at the wishes of the boy's father.
The judge, angry that the mother simply does not bend to his will and hand over the child for non-therapeutic genital surgery as the father wishes, has signed a warrant for her arrest, and the mother is now on the run.
Legal Paralysis Through Financial Disability
As if it weren't enough that the judge gag-ordered the mother from the very beginning and forbade her to go to anyone for help, it has been learned that the father is trying to legally paralyze the mother by disabling her financially.
In a desperate attempt, the father's attorney entered a motion on March 24th, to deny Chase's mother the use of any funds collected for her by others, and by making her bear sole responsibility for all legal fees.
Given the chain of events that have already transpired, it wouldn't be surprising if the judge grants the father this motion.
Can he DO that?
It's hard for me to believe that this case has made it this far, that it's come down to a judge ruling that a four-year-old child should be circumcised to appease his father's wishes, and that the mother, whose wishes obviously do not matter, should acquiescence and relinquish her son, whose wishes should be the first to matter, for non-therapeutic surgery.
To begin with, is it actually legally possible for a judge to disable one party by prohibiting it from seeking help from others in that party's defense? To merely sit there silently while a judge and his favored party simply tell the defendant how things are going to be?
Is it legally possible that a judge with a clear bias can be allowed to preside in such a case? Where it is clear that the judge has picked a side and is doing everything within his power to grant that side's wishes? To the point of completely ignoring anything the other side has to say in his/her defense?
The judge has made it clear that he is simply not going to listen to anyone speaking in the mother's defense. No amicus curiae from anyone, and designating someone to actually speak for the child, the boy whose genitals are in question, to convey his wishes is right out.
Is it legally possible that a judge can issue an order that a healthy, non-consenting individual has to undergo elective, non-medical, non-therapeutic surgery for no other reason than to appease an insistent father?
Can a judge rule that a defendant cannot defend himself, and deny him the right to seek help, even receive help, financial or otherwise, from others?
What kind of court is this where one party can ask the court for an advantage by curtailing the other's legal defenses?
Even if...
My question is, even in the event the judge does grant this motion for the father, how exactly does he plan to enforce it?
How exactly will he know which funds the mother is using were raised by human rights activists, and which ones were not?
The fact that this case has gone on as far as it has is completely insane.
The judge should have taken a good look at the fact that the subject in this case is a grown, healthy 4-year old, and told the father it's simply too late.
When is a higher authority going to step in and halt this judge's mad quest to enforce what is essentially court-ordered child abuse?
Sensible authorities need to step in, declare the agreement invalid, and vindicate this mother so that she and this poor child could go back to living their lives in peace.
Previous Posts:
The judge should have taken a good look at the fact that the subject in this case is a grown, healthy 4-year old, and told the father it's simply too late.
ReplyDeleteOf course, that implies that it might not be too late at some younger age. Obviously, the point is that a 4-year old is more sentient than, say, an infant. But, then, how barbaric does that make the argument for cutting infants? Get them "fixed" while they're still your playthings!
I'm reminded of this article about the first "ritual" circumcision carried out by a hospital in Norway under new rules whose purpose is to move such rituals under the auspices of modern medicine. The hospital makes this caveat:
Dr Tysland said that Sørlandet was only offering ritual circumcision to boys under four weeks old, as otherwise the child would require an expensive general anaesthetic.
What is magical about 4 weeks? Why is it suitable to use just a local aneasthetic on a 3-week-old infant, but not a 4-week-old infant?
The magic is that it's dangerous to use a general anaesthetic on an infant, so modern Norwegian medicine has identified that when surgery is indicated for an infant, that surgery should only take place at least at the 4th week, when the infant's physiology has presumably been shown to have a much better chance of coping with the general anaesthetic.
That is, Norwegian medicine has clearly identified circumcision as a surgery requiring a general anaesthetic.
So, let's follow the twisted logic:
"Under modern Norwegian medicine, the hospital should require ritual circumcisions be performed under a general anaesthetic at least 4 weeks after birth."
"The Muslims will agree, but... the Jews require circumcision on the 8th day!"
"Well..... shit...... I guess the Americans only use a local anaesthetic—or even nothing at all, if you can believe it! So, we'll just do that for the Jews, but require more humane general anaesthesia for the less... problematic.... communities."
"But, that will make Muslim circumcisions far more expensive than Jewish circumcisions, because the general anaesthetic costs so much!"
"You know what? FUCK IT! Nobody gets modern medicine. They won't fucking remember it any way, right? It's no skin off my knob."
Me, personally, I don't think circumcision is "right" at any age, unless it's medically indicated, or unless a grown person wants it, given all the facts.
ReplyDeleteI think the Norwegians are stuck between wanting to adhere to modern medicine, medical ethics, human rights, AND not appear "anti-Semitic" given the history of the Holocaust.
Given these things, this is probably the best solution they could come up with.
Let's hope Denmark has more balls to do what's right.
Back to Chase, I'm trying to come at it from the point of view of most Americans.
Right now, the situation is such that almost nobody sees a problem with cutting off part of the genitals of a healthy, non-consenting *male* newborn, almost everyone sees a problem with forcing a sentient toddler (Chase is a bit older than this stage IMO) to have elective, non-medical surgery. Gather from what I've read in news comments sections, online forums and Facebook posts, most people think it's "too late" at this stage.
Quite possibly the most common quip used to justify mutilating an infant newborn is that "he won't remember." Well, at 4, yes he will. (Actually, even a newborn can't remember, he will always be reminded that something is missing every time he goes to the restroom, masturbates or has sex, but let's move on.)
Of COURSE it's idiotic to think it "might not be too late" at an earlier age, but I think things need to be taken step by step.
First off, the child is old enough to have his own thoughts now about his own body. He is fully aware and conscious of his own body. The judge appears to simply refuse to acknowledge this fact.
Perhaps he has convictions that will not allow him for a single moment to consider the idea that forcibly cutting a healthy, non-consenting minor is ever wrong.
Precisely "It wasn't too late then, and it's not too late NOW" must be the logic in his head right now.
Parents must have the power to forcibly have their children circumcised anywhere between the ages of 0 and 18, and there must never be any precedent that challenges this.
This idea that "It's my child, I can cut him if and whenever I want" must be challenged.
In America, it's hard to challenge this when the child is 0, and will actually most likely never remember.
4 is a little different, and the challenge needs to be made.
Once this is challenged, America will probably be able to move on to newborn circumcision.
Don't get me wrong, newborn circumcision ought to be challenged; it is our main cause, but I think Chase's case is not the avenue.
Right now, I think the most important thing saving Chase.