The goal(s)

This petition is primary about banning male genital mutilation (MGM) in the EU by law and spreading awareness about the topic. Female genital mutilation (FGM) is as bad as MGM, but is banned all European countries and the awareness about the topic is wide in both institutions, news etc. In fact, the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence criminalized all FGM in Europe on 1 August 2014 in Article 38. We still recognize that FGM is a problem in Europe with an estimated 180,000 females at risk of mutilation.

This petition is about giving all children the equal right to not be mutilated. This petition is furthermore my hope that we - after achieving equal rights - will fight against mutilation in general (both in Europe and all over the world), instead of dividing the problem into female and male. We are strong together, separated we lose!

Limits of freedom of religion

Religious freedom is a great good in modern society. But religion is a private belief and it shouldn't give you the right to whatever you want - and it should never give you the ability to decide over the future of other individuals.

Equality

The Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence criminalized all FGM in Europe on 1 August 2014 in Article 38. While it was clearly right to ban FGM, the council should have banned all genital mutilation. This petition is trying to establish gender equality and protection of children; two fundamental human rights on thee the European Union is based.

FGM/MGM compared

"When people speak of “FGM” they are (apparently) thinking of the most severe forms of female genital cutting, done in the least sterile environments, with the most drastic consequences likeliest to follow. This is so, notwithstanding the fact that such forms are the exception rather than the rule. When people speak of “male circumcision” (by contrast) they are (apparently) thinking of the least severe forms of male genital cutting, done in the most sterile environments, with the least drastic consequences likeliest to follow–because this is the form with which they are culturally familiar. This then leads to the impression that “FGM” and “male circumcision” are “totally different” with the first being barbaric and crippling, and the latter being benign or even health-conferring (on which more in just a moment)."

Source: University of Oxford: Practical Ethics

You can read about the different female genital mutilations here and about the different types of male genital mutilation here. In addition a blog about similar Attitudes & Misconceptions of genital mutilation.

I hope you understand the problem. There are different types of genital mutilation. Newspapers and female interest groups point the worst situations of female abuse out, while they only tell you about the most "harmless" method of male genital abuse. The most used circumcisions for both genders are the most "harmless". And we can actually compare both, at least doctors do it. And taken the fact that 1/3 of the entire male population is genital mutilated.

You don't have to agree with medical facts. We won't hate you for that. You don't have to agree with this comparison to be against both female and male genital mutilation!

There are no health benefits

There are no proven health benefits. There are interest groups who are trying to create the idea that MGM has health benefits to create a public acceptance. The problem is that there is not any health benefits. You can get more infomration on the website of DOCTORS OPPOSING CIRCUMCISION (D.O.C.). The WHO claim that circumcision reduces the AIDS risk has been debunked. Scientists figured out that the WHO claim was implemented by network of persons who didn't allowed caution or debate. Furthermore, the assertion is based on three studies made in Africa between 2005 and 2007. The studies were biased and not reliable, since the circumcised group (CG) weren't allowed to have sex in 6 weeks during the experiment (because the circumcision surgery would increase the risk of AIDS (irony)) and were taught how to use condoms. The not CG weren't taught to use condoms (or how) and they weren't banned to have sex for 6 weeks. The absolute result was a decrease of 1.31% - which could be routed in biased methods, luck and not paying attention to other risks like dentists and needles.

You can read more about this topic at Oxford University Blog and at Huffington Post (my main sources). As they concluded: the risk of AIDS is higher by circumcised because the WHO claimed that it would protect you from AIDS - so people stop using condoms. Not to mention that people in Africa die of the operation. And why should you both use condoms and circumcision? Condoms reduce AIDS effectively and at a much lower cost. MGM doesn't, it kills people (because of bad doctors) and is costly.

Money

As The Huffington Post write, it cost 2,000,000,000$ each year to circumcise people in America. The bills are paid partly - or fully - by the government. Guess how much that costs in Europe - where we have public health care.

Disadvantages