Hannah Arendt developed the concept of the banality of evil: “Evil comes from a failure to think. It defies thought for as soon as thought tries to engage itself with evil and examine the premises and principles from which it originates, it is frustrated because it finds nothing there. That is the banality of evil.” I am reminded of this when I note the dismay of Intactivists when Facebook posts pop up where a newborn boy is subject to involuntary genital cutting for any reason or no reason. I also note the angry reactions of the parents who do not care for the criticism or condemnation for doing this to their newborn sons. Yes, there is no shortage of people who see nothing wrong with it and will tell you to mind your own business. That and they retort, “Don’t choose it for your son if that’s how you feel!” I watch with interest as Eric Clopper, Attorney at Law and Founder & President of Intact Global, mounts a constitutional challenge in Oregon for the protection of boys from involuntary genital cutting. I stand with him and hope for the best as he and his team of lawyers proceed with the challenge. The challenge is based on the constitutional guarantee of legal equal protection. As the involuntary genital cutting of girls is prohibited in US law (in several states, not federally), the reasoning is that boys deserve equal protection. Though I am neither a lawyer nor a legal scholar, as a well-informed layman, I expect the challenge will be an uphill battle.

Opponents of the challenge will assert that a blanket prohibition on involuntary male genital cutting would violate constitutional guarantees of religious liberty, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Two of the Abrahamic faiths, Judaism and Islam, claim involuntary male genital cutting as a divine mandate. To restrict male genital cutting on religious grounds until the boy is old enough to decide for himself if it is crucial to his faith would unduly deprive parents of their right to practice their faith, opponents will claim. The state has no business interfering in a private matter where parents only want what is best for their sons. They will add that there is a widely held belief that the amputation of the male prepuce is potentially beneficial and that the harm is minimal. In short, the issue is “de minimas non curat lex,” (“the law does not concern itself with trifles”) and that the challenge be dismissed.

If the challenge proceeds, Clopper’s legal team will submit arguments that male and female genital cutting are the same thing and that they are justified on religious and cultural grounds. Of course, girls are not cut in the Jewish religion and culture. Still, in some, not all, Islamic societies, boys and girls are cut–particularly across Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. Just as parents who cut their sons justify it on religious or cultural grounds, so do parents who choose it for their daughters. I will refrain from quarrels over the alleged severity of female genital cutting as opposed to male genital cutting. Boys and girls have the right to the security of their person and the integrity of their bodies. In both instances, boys and girls are cut because someone else wants it for the most specious reasons. Interestingly, the 1996 federal law criminalizing female genital cutting in the United States was declared unconstitutional in 2018. An appeal against the federal court’s ruling was dismissed in 2019–notably because the federal government refused to defend the 1996 law. While there is no federal ban on female genital cutting currently in the United States, several states have enacted bans.

Opponents may grudgingly agree that male and female genital cutting are the same in that they involve the amputation of tissue from a minor child’s private parts; they will insist that the intentions are different. I remember a comment from a regretful mother who genuinely acknowledged what she did to her son was wrong, but insisted that “It was not meant to hurt him.” I expect the court in Oregon will take the same view if it agrees to hear the case. Cutting boys is justifiable because, despite the harm caused, it was only done with the best of intentions–what was deemed in the boy’s best interest. Cutting girls, on the other hand, is done expressly to harm them, despite how well-intentioned the parents or caregivers claim it was done. It is a troubling and unwarranted double standard. It illustrates Arendt’s concept of the banality of evil in the involuntary genital cutting of boys in that it “becomes banal when ordinary people participate in it, build distance from it and justify it, in countless ways.”

Male genital cutting is viewed as a quaint and adorable religious custom that confers potential ancillary health benefits and is the butt of crude jokes. Men who were cut involuntarily and resent it are ridiculed and told it does not make any difference; they may not be any better off, but neither are they any worse off. Women who were cut as girls, on the other hand, who are unhappy about it, are free to mourn and seek redress against those who did it to them. No one sees any humour in it or waxes poetic on what a charming and archaic custom it is. Any claims that there are potential benefits to cutting girls are angrily dismissed. Beyond that, there is an international effort led by the United Nations to end the involuntary genital cutting of girls. At the same time, the welfare of boys is ignored at best and, at worst, hotly resisted. I am on board with Eric Clopper and Intact Global in his effort to establish equal protection for boys and girls in law for the integrity and security of their bodies, notably their private parts. The stark reality is that the only one with a stake in the outcome is the boy or girl whose body is permanently and irreversibly altered by genital cutting. It is their decision when they come of age, and they can determine for themselves what is in their best interest.

Posted by Geoffrey