JERUSALEM: Rabbinical court can not order circumcison - High Court

IsraelandStuff.com
June 30, 2014

High Court relieved rabbinical courts of it's authority over circumcision decisions

Israel’s High Court decided that family courts will decide whether a baby gets a circumcision when divorcing parents disagree on the issue, and not the rabbinical court that’s dealing with the divorce.
by Yonah Jeremy Bob

In a dramatic decision on religion and democracy, the High Court of Justice on Sunday took away authority from the rabbinical court system over whether a divorcing couple had to circumcise their son.

The vote to move the issue into the family court system was 6-1 with Deputy Supreme Court Justice Miriam Naor, Justices Salim Jabraun, Esther Hayot, Hanan Meltzer, Yoram Danziger and Neal Hendel voting in the majority against Justice Elyakim Rubsinstein voting in the minority.

In March, Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein told the High Court of Justice that the family courts, not the rabbinical courts, should decide whether a baby gets a circumcision when divorcing parents disagree on the issue.

He explained that the issue of circumcision did not fall under the heading of “divorce issues” in the rabbinical courts’ jurisdiction, since it was not directly related to severing relations between a couple – the legal test for that jurisdiction. Weinstein added that the family court certainly could, and in some cases likely would, order a circumcision if it found it to be in the best interests of the child.

The court’s majority ultimately accepted those arguments.

Rubinstein agreed that the rabbinical courts had mishandled the issue and disregarded a full analysis of what was in the child’s best interests, but preferred to send the case back to the rabbinical courts for a second evaluation.

On February 26, a seven-justice panel of the High Court heard the dispute in which the Rabbinical High Court had ordered the mother of a one-year-old boy to circumcise her son in keeping with the wishes of the boy’s father. At the end of the hearing, the High Court requested Weinstein’s opinion on the broader issue of whether family courts or rabbinical courts should rule on this issue.

Weinstein had already written the High Court on February 11, saying the rabbinical courts had exceeded their authority by intervening on the circumcision issue, noting that anesthesia and a special surgical procedure would be required, removing the issue from the rabbinical courts’ authority.

Weinstein reiterated this position in his response to the High Court’s question about what the general rule should be if no special medical issues were involved.

The mother and father are in divorce proceedings before the Netanya Rabbinical Court, which intervened in the parents’ dispute over whether to circumcise their son, ruling that it was in the boy’s best interests to be circumcised. That court even fined the mother NIS 500 per day until she had her son circumcised.

The Rabbinical High Court confirmed the Netanya Rabbinical Court’s order.

The identity of all the family members is under a court-ordered gag order.

Following the initial court order, the mother petitioned through the Justice Ministry’s Legal Assistance Division to the High Court of Justice on December 18, 2013, to intervene on the grounds that the Netanya Rabbinical Court did not have authority over whether parents circumcise their children.

Justice Yoram Danziger froze the rabbinical court’s ruling the same day the petition was filed.

In its February 26 order The High Court said it was focusing on three questions: does any judicial body have authority to intervene on the issue, do the rabbinical courts specifically have authority and if the rabbinical courts have some degree of authority, is there a basis for the High Court to give the rabbinical courts directives in using that authority?

The mother’s lawyer, Avigdor Feldman, told the High Court she opposed the practice of circumcision and rejected the rabbinical courts’ claim of authority based on the best interests of the boy. Feldman said the rabbinical courts’ claim was based on an incorrect interpretation that circumcision was in the boy’s best interests. Rather, he said, there was no medical necessity, and the issue was merely an ideological dispute between the parents. Feldman added that the question of circumcision was between an individual and God, and beyond any human court’s right to interfere.

The justices’ questions varied widely during the hearing, with some appearing to agree that stepping into this issue could lead to family courts ruling whether children must eat matza on Passover. Others implied that failing to intervene and order the child’s circumcision now could hurt him socially later in life.

Lawyer Shimon Yakobi, representing the rabbinical courts, said it was crucial to uphold their authority in recognizing them as equal and valid courts within the judicial system.

Following the hearing, the mother said, “Social pressure is no reason to force cutting my son’s body as nature, the universe naturally created him.”

All of the parties involved now have seven days to respond to Weinstein’s position before the court reconvenes on the issue.

Earlier story

JERUSALEM: Attorney General disputes Rabbinical Court's right to rule on circumcision

Jerusalem Post
March 6, 2014

AG: Family court, not rabbinical court, should decide on circumcision

Weinstein says family court would order circumcision if found to be in the best interest of the child.
by Yonah Jeremy Bob

Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein on Thursday wrote to the High Court of Justice that the family courts, and not the rabbinical courts, should decide whether a baby gets a circumcision where the parents disagree on the issue and are in divorce proceedings.

He explained that the issue of circumcision did not fall under the heading of "divorce issues" in the rabbinical courts' jurisdiction since it was not directly related to severing relations between a couple – the legal test for that jurisdiction.

Despite his view that the family courts should decide, Weinstein added that the family court certainly could, and in some cases likely would, order a circumcision if it found that to be in the best interest of the child.
On February 26, a seven justice panel of the High Court heard the dispute in which the Rabbinical High Court had ordered the mother of a one-year-old boy to circumcise her son in keeping with the wishes of the boy's father.

At the end of the hearing, the High Court had requested Weinstein's opinion on the broader issue of whether family courts or rabbinical courts should decide the issue in general.

On February 11, Weinstein had already written the High Court that he believed that in this particular case, the rabbinical courts had exceeded its authority in intervening on the circumcision issue, noting that anesthesia and a special surgical procedure would be required which removed the issue from the rabbinical courts' authority.

Weinstein reiterated this position about the specific case at hand in his response to the High Court's question about what the general rule should be if no special medical issues were involved.

...

The High Court began the February 26 hearing saying that it centered around three questions: does any judicial body have authority to intervene on the issue, do the rabbinical courts specifically have authority and if the rabbinical courts have some degree of authority, is there a basis for the High Court to give the rabbinical courts directives in using that authority?

The mother's lawyer Avigdor Feldman told the High Court that she opposed the practice of circumcision and rejected the rabbinical courts' claim of authority based on the best interests of the boy.

Feldman said that the rabbinical courts' claim was based on an incorrect interpretation that circumcision was a medical procedure in the boy's best interests, whereas Feldman said that there was no medical necessity, and that the issue was merely an ideological dispute between the parents.

He added that the question of whether to do a circumcision was between an individual and god, and was beyond any human court's right to interfere.

...

Lawyer Shimon Yakobi, representing the rabbinical courts said that it was crucial to uphold their authority in recognizing them as equal and valid courts within the judicial system.

Following the hearing, the mother said, "'Social pressure is no reason to force cutting my son's body as nature, the universe naturally created him."

All of the parties involved now have seven days to respond to Weinstein's position before the court reconvenes on the issue.

Earlier story

JERUSALEM: High Court considering Rabbinical Court circumcision order

Jerusalem Post
Febraury 26, 2014

Mother petitions court decision ordering her to follow father's request to circumcise son

by Yonah Jeremy Bob
Following a Tuesday hearing before a seven justice panel of the High Court of Justice over whether the Rabbinical High Court can order the mother of a one-year-old boy to circumcise her son in keeping with the wishes of the boy's father, the mother said, "'Social pressure is no reason to force cutting my son's body as nature and the universe naturally created him."

The mother and the father are in divorce proceedings before the Netanya Rabbinical Court which intervened in the parents' dispute over whether to circumcise their son, ruling that it was in the boy's best interests to be circumcised.

The Netanya Rabbinical Court even went a step further, fining the mother NIS 500 per day until she had her son circumcised.

Next, the Rabbinical High Court confirmed the Netanya Rabbinical Court's order.
The identity of all of the family members is under a court gag-order.

Following the Netanya Rabbinical Court's order, the mother on December 18, 2013, petitioned through the Justice Ministry's Legal Assistance Division to the High Court of Justice to intervene on the grounds that the Netanya Rabbinical Court did not have authority over whether parents circumcise their children.

Justice Yoram Danziger froze the Rabbinical Court's ruling the same day the petition was filed.

The High Court then requested Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein's opinion who wrote on February 11 that he also believed that the Rabbinical Court had exceeded its authority in intervening on the circumcision issue.

The High Court began the hearing saying that it centered around three questions: does any judicial body have authority to intervene on the issue, do the rabbinical courts specifically have authority and if the rabbinical courts have some degree of authority, is there a basis for the High Court to give the rabbinical courts directives in using that authority? The mother's lawyer Avigdor Feldman told the High Court that she opposed the practice of circumcision and rejected the rabbinical courts' claim of authority based on the best interests of the boy.

Feldman said that the rabbinical courts' claim was based on an incorrect interpretation that circumcision was a medical procedure in the boy's best interests, whereas Feldman said that there was no medical necessity, and that the issue was merely an ideological dispute between the parents.

He added that the question of whether to do a circumcision was between an individual and god, and was beyond any human court's right to interfere.

The justices questions varied widely with some appearing to agree that stepping into this issue could lead to courts deciding between parents whether their children eat Matza on Passover and some implying that failing to circumcise the boy now could hurt him socially later in life.

Lawyer Shimon Yakobi, representing the rabbinical courts said that it was crucial to uphold their authority in recognizing them as equal and valid courts within the judicial system.

The High Court ordered Weinstein to address certain specific legal issues in greater detail within seven days with the other involved parties responding to Weinstein's final opinion within an additional seven days.

Earlier story

ISRAEL: "Psychological damage" from not being circumcised - rabbi

New levels of sophistry here!

Haaretz
January 9, 2014

Rabbis to court: Uncircumcised boy will suffer 'serious psychological damage'

by Yair Ettinger
The legal adviser to the rabbinical court submitted Thursday its ruling on the appeal by a mother who is opposed to having her son circumcised. “On the altar of the petitioner’s right to freedom of religion, she is suggesting that she will ignore the irreversible psychological damage that is liable to be caused to the child due to his being an exception in the society of the children around him - and that must not be done!” the ruling stated.

The adviser, attorney Rabbi Shimon Yaakobi, is asking the High Court of Justice to reject the petition of the mother - who petitioned the High Court after the rabbinical court ordered her to pay 500 shekels a day ($143) until she agrees to have her son circumcised - and to cancel the interim injunction postponing the implementation of the Supreme Rabbinical Court ruling.

The baby’s parents are in the midst of divorce proceedings, and disagree on performing the circumcision. The rabbinical court accepted the husband’s viewpoint and ruled that the baby must be circumcised by a doctor in a hospital. But three weeks ago the High Court issued an interim injunction postponing implementation of the ruling.

Yaakobi replied to the petition on behalf of the rabbinical courts, and is basing his position on a case from 1998 in which the High Court rejected a petition filed against the health minister by the Ben Shalem association, which lobbies against circumcision. The High Court rejected the petition in a brief ruling, but Yaakobi cites at length from the reply of the state, which says, among other things, that “the point of view is that the welfare of the child requires performing a circumcision, both for religious reasons and due to the social perspective and the social consensus regarding the essence of circumcision.”

Yaakobi also quotes from another High Court decision several years earlier, which addressed whether a Jewish woman who had joined a messianic Christian group could raise her children in that spirit, contrary to the opinion of her husband, from whom she was getting divorced. According to Yaakobi, High Court President Meir Shamgar distinguished between “physical custody,” which would be given to the mother, and “spiritual custody,” which would remain with the Jewish father.

“Differences of opinion between parents on matters of their world view, including their religious world view, do not meant that the dispute is not justiciable, as the petitioner suggests - neither in terms of the welfare of the child nor in terms of the child’s rights,” wrote Yaakobi. “Children have a right not to have their religion changed without their knowledge. Since they are still incapable of forming an opinion, it is the role of the state to protect their right not to have their religion changed, and to protect them from attempts of this kind. This above-mentioned role of the state is reinforced when it comes to a family in crisis, in other words, when the parents are not of the same opinion. In that case, the children were born and brought up as Jews. In their family and their natural environment they are surrounded by Jews. The children did not express any desire to join the mother’s sect.”

So they admit that children have rights. The rabbis seem to think that children are born with religion but no knowledge or opinions. Strange.

Yaakobi also supports his reply with a survey cited on the Ynet website in 2007, according to which 97 percent of Jews in Israel will circumcise their sons. [So this one can be like the 3% who aren't.]
“The minor child who is the object of this affair was born to a normal Jewish-Israeli family,” he wrote. “In their natural surroundings the couple and their children are surrounded by Jews who perform circumcisions on their sons. In a year or two the minor will attend a nursery school where he will be surrounded by children who were circumcised, and it is no secret that toddlers are capable of noticing anything unusual, and enough said.

“The petitioner, who wants her young toddler to experience a feeling of superfluous exceptionalism that is liable to lead to feelings of inferiority and a serious psychological harm, is not doing the right thing. The petitioner does not have the good of the child at heart. The child has a right not to be different from his friends who were circumcised. The good of the child and his right to be circumcised like every Jewish child in Israel cannot be a sacrifice - in contradiction of the wishes of the child’s father - on the altar of the petitioner’s right to freedom from religion.” [No mention of the child's freedom of and from religion.]

KENYA: Boy circumcised without mother's consent / ISRAEL: Plea from mother

November 28, 2013

Circumcision without consent - two heartfelt complaints

From Kenya:
"I'm a very irritated man today.
"I've been away from home for some time now.I went home today,and was shocked to find that my 10-year old nephew was circumcised last Friday. I was infuriated, boarded a vehicle to the clinic to seek clarification from the doctor who took him from school together with other young boys for the cut. My mother did not sign the consent form, his mother did not sign the consent,and I was away. The child is now in pain, and could not even answer the questions I asked him today when I went home. I'm really saddened by this,because my conversation with the mutilator did not yield any fruitful outcome.My mother says there's nothing we can do about it!...

While in the clinic yard, I saw them ferry boys into the compound using their pickup trucks. Some had just undergone the operation. I couldn't help being their. I had my camera, but couldn't take any picture. The clinic is Ober Health Centre. Really, I'm lost for words to describe my anger. I talked to two of the doctors, one could not stay longer during the conversation because I could see my facts were a bu[r]den to him so he walked away into one of the pickups and drove away. The one who carried on the conversation, later offered to give me a job with the Nyanza Reproductive Society saying that I should report to their offices tomorrow. He gave me his phone number!... "

- from a Kenyan Intactivist on Facebook.

The Secretary of the Board of the "Nyanza Reproductive Health Society" is Dr Robert Bailey, who led one of the three trials claiming to show circumcision protects against HIV. Also connected is Prof Kawango Agot, whose name appears on several papers promoting circumcision. It's basically a front for circumcisionism, and a job with it would not be at all secure.

---

From Israel:
Elinor Daniel, the mother of a boy ordered to be circumcised by a rabbinic court, writes:
"Help!!! I'm asking for the help of the public!!! I am a mother to a baby. The Rabbinical Court is forcing me to cut my year old son against my will (circumcise him) while subjecting me to heavy financial sanctions daily!!!

After my exposure to the information regarding circumcision, I refuse to mutilate my baby. I don't have the right and I do not agree! He was born whole and he will stay whole! His integrity is his full right! The Religious Court has no right to do that! No one in the whole world is authorized to force me to mutilate my son, to cut his penis!

What kind of a state is this?!!! What is this??? Where do we live??? Could the Religious Court force upon me anything during the divorce? In particular, religious oppression, unnecessary cutting of the penis of an helpless baby??? A non-reversible surgical operation!!! A foreskin does not renew itself! The baby can not express his own will. The right to decide is his alone. It is his body!! The right, is not mine, nor anyone else's in the entire world, but his own only!!!

I am pleading for help!!! I love my son very much!!! I do not want to hurt him!!! Please pass this message on to anyone possible so it won't be a precedent for future divorce cases in the Rabbinical Court which authorizes itself to force religious oppression upon a nonreligious divorcing person! Why does the religious court take advantage of its monopoly on marriage???!! It's a degrading abuse of power, used for religious oppression!!! Religion has to be voluntary from the heart, not by force and financial penalties!

Where do we live??? Where is the supervision??? Where is the government???!!! I am crying for help!!! Unfortunately, here, in the state of Israel!!! Mother"

- Elinor Daniel

Donate to support Elinor
Israeli women demonstrate in support of Elinor:

"Find alternative requirements" "Rights of the man over his body!" "Iran [theocracy] Is Here and Now!" "[Hands off the] penis of my boy!"

Toronto Star

Haaretz: No to forced circumcision: Civil courts need to send an important message that individual rights take precedence over religious customs, however widespread they are....

An interview with Elinor

Earlier story