Appeal to open a public debate on the conditions for consent to circumcision
jean-christophe Lurenbaum
jean-christophe Lurenbaum
In 2019, Droit au Corps (DaC) tested the strategy of the Appeal to open a public debate on the conditions for consent to circumcision on a small scale, only on the French government. But the intention was to extend this Appeal to the whole planet through the international coalition, if the test was successful (which it was).
What are the objectives of this Appeal To Debate strategy?
First and foremost, it is a communication tool to gather supporters, the idea being to gather in 1 document ALL the important information about circumcision. It is more of a long-term advocacy platform than a short, one-off "open letter". As a communication tool, the Appeal To Debate has an unlimited lifespan, it is not a one-off operation but a permanent platform aiming to rally more and more supporters over the years, until the public debate really takes place.
The Appeal targets "the conditions of consent" in a way that encompasses ALL issues of circumcision, not just ritual circumcision, neonatal circumcision made in the US or circumcision-phimosis made in Europe. Talking about the "conditions" of consent makes it possible to bring a particularly crucial parameter into the debate: the age of consent. Leaving a margin of manoeuvre on the age of consent is the adjustment variable that allows us to go down the road of abandonment, the lever that allows us to bypass the blockages. If we obtain a compromise on an age from the ritualists, this allows us to have a very solid basis for future evolution, through a ratchet effect.
In order for the Appeal to contain ALL the important information but remain readable, it has been divided into two levels of reading: the main text of the Appeal, as synthetic as possible, and the press kit, which details each point of the Appeal.
This Appeal is designed in such a way that no one can criticize or oppose it, including the most orthodox of the circumcision. The interest of not meeting any resistance is to use this tool to communicate very widely about circumcision, in as many media channels as possible. This explains why the only frame of reference for discussion is "suffering" (and not "rights" for example). Communicating widely is the priority to put an end to circumcision, because we are only at the first phase of this cultural change, the stage of "awakening consciences": the main weapon of this stage is Communication.
The first target of this Appeal is therefore not its official addressees, contrary to what one might think. It is first of all a question of constituting the largest possible international network of sympathizers, on the one hand with public signatures from opinion leaders (organizations or personalities), and on the other hand with a maximum of private signatories in a maximum of countries whose political weight is easily visible on the world map of signatories. Given the contemporary balance of power on circumcision, the aim is to progressively reverse this balance of power in our favour, by infiltrating civil society from all sides thanks to the progressive extension of this network of supporters.
As a by-product, this Appeal allows us to build up a colossal database of sympathisers, highly qualified thanks to their email address and their IP allowing them to be geolocated. This database can then be used for multiple initiatives: marching in the streets during the WWDOGA, launching fundraising campaigns, mobilising in front of the premises of this or that institution in any country, etc. If all members of the coalition promote this Appeal, the number of signatures could easily exceed ten million within a few years, or even a few months.
For this strategy to be optimal, the plan for inviting public signatures must be managed intelligently, starting with strong supporters and building on them to expand subsequent circles. To begin with, the base of signatories to the 2019 Appeal can be remobilised, so as not to start with a ‘blank page'. Second, the content of the Appeal is designed in the form of 'side projects', with each paragraph corresponding to a specific target of side allies (secularists, feminists, kiddists, etc).
jean-christophe Lurenbaum
Why does DaC situate this Appeal exclusively on the discussion frame of reference of "suffering", and not for example on the legal frame of reference? There are many reasons for this:
The fundamental reason is that the frame of reference of suffering is the most universal there is, no one can say that he wishes to burden the world with suffering. Moreover, unlike dolorous Christianity (and especially Catholicism, which considers suffering to be "salvific"), Islam (and Judaism) are religions that consider that suffering should be lightened. With the reference frame of suffering, it is therefore possible to establish a perfectly consensual basis for discussion (see Jürgen Habermas Discourse ethics), and it is the only reference frame that allows such a consensus. On the other hand, if we talk about 'rights', then we enter into controversies about the relative value of rights, such as parental rights or religious freedom. No one can object to an "Appeal To Debate" based on the frame of reference of suffering, whereas it is easy to object to an Appeal referring to this or that contemporary right.
At this stage of the international power relations on male circumcision, the "force of law" approach poses different problems (quickly presented in DaC's global strategy). First, to refer to "rights" is to close the debate, to choose the path of confrontation and power struggle, rather than a logic based on the best arguments from a public debate. Law and its application is always "the law of the strongest" and not a social sphere independent of power relations. It so happens that at the moment, the awakening of consciousness on the planet is not sufficient for the balance of power to be in our favour. The life cycle of major social changes follows typical phases: awareness raising, debate, and at the end only the implementation of the law to formalise the new common culture (and to put the recalcitrant minorities on the right path). Putting the law first is putting the cart before the horse, with the risk of counter-productivity: should we have demanded a ban on smoking within 10 metres of building doors in the 1960s, or was it better to wait a few decades for awareness to develop? To mention rights immediately, given the contemporary balance of power, is to expose oneself to the boomerang of laws explicitly legalising the forced circumcision of children, as in Sweden in 2001, in Germany in 2012, or in Norway in 2015 (essentially "Nordic" countries renowned for their cultural modernity).
On the other hand, contemporary rights are extremely controversial, whether it is the UDHR of 1948 (characterised by the post-war Judeo-Christian hold-up on fundamental rights, which increased in the following decades by giving more and more rights to religions) or even the CRC (which continues to give illegitimate power to parents over "their" children). See for example DaC's criticism of the "right to physical integrity" or "absolute right to self-determination". Rights' approach should therefore be used with caution. It is quite possible to use rights as a 'tool' (e.g. to win cases against circumcisers, or to sue WHO for its VMMC campaign) but it is tricky to use rights in terms of 'advocacy' (this can be done but later, when the life cycle of social change on circumcision is more advanced).
Rather than 'blindly' promoting contemporary fundamental rights, one can take every opportunity to question these rights, to show their flaws, and to invite their evolution. Saying, for example, that the UDHR should be rewritten (as the Algosphere Alliance proposes in this open letter to the UN) and that the solution of kiddism (putting an end to the legal minority of the youngest) should be preferred to the solution of the CRC. Of course, if intactivists try to rewrite contemporary rights on their own, it will never happen: hence the interest in joining a vast Alliance of all forces that aim at the alleviation of suffering on the planet to achieve such strategic goals in solidarity that will benefit all allies. As long as the "legal minority" exists, the youngest will remain under the domination of adults, be it in terms of mutilation, spanking or any other form of oppression.