Showing posts with label blood libel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label blood libel. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

NEW YORK: Metzitzah: Scofflaw mohel will do it regardless

The Jewish Daily Forward
March 27, 2014

Rabbi Performs Controversial Metzitzah B'Peh Circumcision Rite - Law or No

by Paul Berger
After cutting off the infant’s foreskin, Rabbi Avrohom Cohn leaned down toward the baby boy who was cradled on a white pillow atop his grandfather’s knee.

Standing fully over the child, with his back to the dozens of immaculately dressed guests at the Syrian Jewish gathering in Brooklyn, it was impossible to see what Cohn did next.

Asked after the ceremony whether he performed the controversial rite metzitzah b’peh, also known as MBP, in which a ritual circumciser places his mouth on the baby’s genitals to suction blood from the circumcision wound, Cohn smiled and said, “I did what I had to do.”

If Cohn performed MBP without getting written consent from the infant’s parents, he broke the law.

It’s something he has done many times before.

For more than a year, ritual circumcisers, known as mohels, have been required to obtain written consent from parents before performing MBP.

The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene instituted the regulation in the fall of 2012 after a number of babies contracted herpes following MBP.

The department says that 14 infants have been infected in New York City since 2000. Two of those babies died, and at least two others suffered brain damage.

But Cohn, who performs MBP regularly, says he has never obtained consent from a parent, and he never will. “I don’t believe in it,” Cohn said of the consent form.

Cohn, 85, is no ordinary mohel — he is chairman of the American Board of Ritual Circumcision, and widely considered one of the top mohels in a very Jewish city.

In an earlier telephone conversation, Cohn told the Forward that MBP must be performed to fulfill the commandment of circumcision. He said that the only exception is if the rite puts an infant’s health at risk.

By this, Cohn did not mean the health of the infant in front of him at a bris. Cohn said the risk he feared was that the infant of a couple who are “not strictly observant” might transmit a disease to him via MBP — and that he could then transmit that disease to another infant.

“They could be drug users, they could be going to prostitutes and who knows what, and are infected with all kinds of diseases,” Cohn said, referring to nonobservant parents.
...

When a reporter from the Forward called the infant’s father after the circumcision, the father said that he was aware of the risks of MBP and that he had instructed Cohn not to perform it. “I didn’t allow him to do that,” the father said.

So what did Cohn actually do when he “did what I had to do”? Confronted with the father’s testimony, Cohn said that he had not, after all, performed MBP. But the reason, he said, had nothing to do with the father’s request; it was because the father did not seem observant enough. “That young man is out to have a good time,” Cohn said. “I don’t think he’s so careful who he has a good time with.”

This was not the only time that Cohn followed his own rules regarding MBP, at times even contradicting the expressed wishes of the parents.

Shortly before the Syrian circumcision ceremony began in Brooklyn, one guest remarked to another that he was at a circumcision recently where Cohn was asked not to perform MBP, but the rabbi refused to comply.
...

Meanwhile, the health department has issued two warnings since January 2013, related to two infants being infected with herpes following MBP.

Despite the two recent cases, the city has never sanctioned or warned a mohel for failing to comply with the consent form regulation.

Mohels are required to keep a copy of the signed forms for one year. But the city will not say whether it has ever enforced the law by asking a mohel to provide a signed copy of such forms.

The Forward recently filed a freedom of information request asking the health department whether it had ever requested signed forms from a mohel. The request also asked for copies of any such forms submitted with the names of family members redacted.

The health department denied both parts of the request. ...

But Cohn said that the city’s claims that MBP causes herpes are a “blood libel” and that he will never obtain written consent before performing MBP.
...

“Now I am here in America all these years, and I am terribly disappointed religion is being interfered with,” he said. “If they want me to go to jail, I will go to jail.”

Earlier story

Friday, May 31, 2013

OSLO: Outrage over anti-cutting cartoon

Dagbladet (Norway, Bing translation)
May 29, 2013

Dagbladet comic strip aroused international attention


Artist Thomas Drefvelin says that the drawing is not directed towards a particular religion or particular peoples.

By Trude Ringheim

A comic strip printed in yesterday's Edition of Dagbladet, [drew attention from] several foreign media. Artist Thomas Drefvelin has drawn the [satirical strip].

Dagbladet cartoon - cutting off toes is OK if its tradition
 Abuse? No, this
is tradition! An
important aspect of our
faith!
Faith? Oh, then that
is all right!
Sorry for the
interruption

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz cites the Simon Wiesenthal Center that they perceive the drawing as anti-Semitic.
[The Wiesenthal Center denounced “the blood libel cartoon published in Dagbladet.”
Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center... demanded that the Norwegian government condemn the cartoon.
“We call upon Norway’s leaders to denounce this incitement to hate and especially urge the ombudsman for children’s rights to denounce this outrageous denigration of a core Jewish rite dating back to the biblical times of Abraham,” Cooper said.
“This cartoon has crossed all lines of decency and is dripping with hate and anti-Semitism,” said Dr. Moshe Kantor, president of the European Jewish Congress, in a statement. “We are now studying the possibility that this legally constitutes incitement and even a hate-crime and will therefore require legal action.”
The European Jewish Congress said it was “carefully considering” the option of legal action over the cartoon.
The Times of Israel, May 29, 2013]

...

Defending the drawing
Chief Editor of Dagbladet, John Arne Markussen, is aware that the drawing is of such a nature that it can be printed in Dagbladet.

-There is no doubt that the remedies here are powerful. But it is clearly an utterance that can pass in our columns, and in the public at large, "said Markussen and continues:

-We understand [the] drawing [and] suggest it is not about a specific faith or not. I also can't read from the drawing [whether] it's a boy or a girl we see here. But the way I see the drawing, there is an attempt by cartoonist to illustrate what he conceives of the practice of genital cutting, but it's not that he points to particular peoples or religions in [his] drawing, said Markussen.

[The woman is wearing a hat. Jewish women at religious services do not.
The man is spearing the baby's forehead with a carving fork (not a "devil's pitchfork") reminscent of the Shi'ite custom during the festival of Ashura.
The book is unidentifiable, not (as some critics have said) a Torah or a Bible.
The baby's genitals remain covered, and its sex is unknown.
It is the toes that are being cut off.
It is being held down in a device reminiscent of a Circumstraint (TM) used for American traditional (pseudo-medical) circumcisions.
]

Frames no[t] special
Designer Tomas Drefvelin, who is the guest [cartoonist] of Today magazine stated abo[ut] criticism.

-Some reading things into the drawing that I did not have the character or expressed, he said.

-What is your intention?

- I was trying to make a parody of religion-but it is not a particular or a specific religion or a specific people I drew, it is neither a boy or a girl baby, just a child. The drawing has a serious topic.

General criticism of religion
-So what do you see?

-The whole point is [w]hat the first police officer says. Police officer says: "faith? Oh, Yes, but then it's okay. " Therein lies my point that draw. Religion gets away with the worst thing just using that quote. One says only that "this is tradition" and "this is religion" and so should it somehow be okay.

-What do you say to critics?

-I have no anti-Semitic attitudes. It can be seen by my overall production, that at the base of everything I do, [is] humanism and the defence of the individual human being. Under all the rough humour, there is a defense for man, individuals and especially for defenseless children.

-You take no criticism for [the cartoon]?

-I'd maybe parodied shapes in your drawing even more than I do, to emphasize that this is not specific to a particular religion.

-So this is not an attack on Jews?

-No. Jew hatred is reprehensible. This would never occur to me to draw a strip to create hatred against a people or against individuals. Let me repeat. My criticism of religions are generic, nothing else, "said [artist] Tomas Drefvelin.

Point to the cop
Also Chief Editor of Dagbladet, John Arne Markussen points to the policeman as the Central.

-The point in the drawing as we see it, the police officer and his statements, that if one of the actions refers to religion or tradition, so one can get away with a lot.

Markussen emphasizes:

-I perceive as the cartoonist said not intend going to the attack on any particular religion or special people. That's a key point here.

-Then the drawing is not anti-Semitic?

-No, it's not. Dagbladet is a liberal newspaper, our attitudes are so far from being anti-Semitic as it is possible. Anti-Semitism is absolutely reprehensible for Dagbladet, as also for the cartoonist, Markussen [said].