News Release

For Immediate Release

TORONTO (Tuesday, January 16, 2000) – The Ontario Human Rights Commission has changed its policy on female genital mutilation after a complaint from a Toronto-area physician, a change that for the first time recognizes the harm of male circumcision

Dr. Arif Bhimji complained that, under the heading “FGM and Male Circumcision,” the old statement wrongly claimed male circumcision was “done without damaging the organ itself, and that there is minimal danger of short- or long-term infection as a result of the procedure, let alone loss of life. Also, there is no observable negative impact on male sexual activity.”

These statements have been removed as a result of Dr. Bhimji’s complaint and his submission of evidence to the contrary. “I think it illustrates that they recognize that this is an important issue. They recognize that their information was wrong and they have taken the first step toward rectifying that,” says Bhimji. “It moves them into a position where they accept and acknowledge that the whole issue of male circumcision is one that fits within the purview of the OHRC.”

The policy now says only that “the degree of excision and trauma involved in FGM is generally much more extensive, including the actual removal of genital organs.”

The new policy also quotes from the Canadian Paediatric Society, saying that the benefits of circumcision have not been shown to outweigh the risks and costs, and that “circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed.”

John Antonopoulos, president of the Circumcision Information Resource Centre, has reviewed the policy change. “Their removal of these inaccuracies implies that male infant circumcision is damaging in itself, has complications, and does impact on male sexuality. They are saying that the difference between male circumcision and FGM is only a matter of degree,” he says. “This sharpens the whole debate on male infant circumcision.”

The new policy also removes a quote from Dr. Gerald Weiss, who supports infant circumcision. “This is the very least they could do,” says Lawrence Barichello, Executive Director of Intact, an activist organization that has set out to end the practice. “Quoting Weiss on infant circumcision is like quoting the tobacco companies on cigarettes. They’re making money from it—they’re not going to tell you about the cancer,” he says.

Dr. Bhimji first became interested in male infant circumcision about two years ago. “What got me started was recognizing the inequities that currently exist with respect to genital mutilation in our society. I felt that if women could be afforded this safety in our society that there should be no reason that men should not be afforded a similar safety for a similar procedure with similar consequences,” he says.

He wrote the Human Rights Commission a letter and after some correspondence with them met with chief commissioner Keith Norton, who invited him to make a submission outlining his perspective. Their policy change is in part a result of that submission.

Bhimji practices emergency medicine, and has seen cases of circumcision complications in the ER. “Mostly, there’s bleeding or infection—both primary complications of circumcision. On occasion there’s also urinary retention which is very painful and can cause permanent damage to the kidneys,” he adds.

The policy change has been met with quiet approval. For Antonopoulos, the policy change does not go far enough. “This is a step in the right direction, but I'd like to see them develop a policy on male circumcision that reflects what is now known about the foreskin. They need to look at the human rights

implications of cutting off a normal, healthy, functioning part of a person’s body without their consent,” he says.

Bhimji also thinks the change is a positive intermediate step, but agrees that it does not go far enough. “Male infant circumcision is a practice that should be banned in Canada. It is clearly a violation of the infant’s rights. I believe that as a non-essential medical intervention, the decision to have it whether it be for religious reasons, cosmetic reasons or personal reasons should be left up to adult men to make that choice in an informed manner.”

--30--