Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau Monsieur le président de la république
89 rue d'Hauteville Palais de l'Elysée
75010 Paris 75008 Paris
Paris, 11 June 2014,
When one of the highest ethical authorities of the state does not dare holding her word because of some faction, then, democracy is in danger. Now, on June 14 2013, at the founder meeting of "Excision, parlons-en" (Excision, let's talk about it) in La Sorbonne, Madame the president of the National consultative commission for human rights declared that she was going, in her report for your intention, mention that feminine and masculine sexual mutilation are discriminatory. But 1st October 2013, through pronouncing at a strong majority for the respect of the right of the child to physical integrity in the following terms:
"The Parliamentary assembly is particularly worried about a category of violation of the physical integrity of children, that proponents of these procedures have a tendency to present as beneficial for the child themselves in spite of obvious proofs of the contrary. This includes, between other things, feminine genital mutilation, circumcision of young boys for religious reasons,…",
the Parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe provoked an outcry from religious of all nationalities. Consequently, the report of the NCCHM did not dare speaking of discrimination.
But already, 27 March 2013, the Ombudsman and the children Ombudswoman had rejected my request concerning sexual mutilation of both sex children for the motive that it would not deal with one of the following fields:
"First, establishing an unfavourable treatment or a difference of treatment between persons placed in a comparable situation is necessary.
This differentiated of unfavourable treatment must then occur in a field forecast by law. These fields are essentially: professional life..., or the access to a good or a service...
At last it must be possible to explain this differentiated or unfavourable treatment by taking into account one of the criteria equally prohibited by law such as origin, sex, health status or handicap, age, sexual orientation, family situation, physical appearance, union activity, beliefs...
Consequently, without discussing either the reality of the facts that you describe, or the prejudice that you think these children endure,..., the situations you are referring to do not seem to constitute a discrimination in the sense of the law.
However, feminine genital mutilations, among which excision, are the source of great physical and psychological suffering for the children who endure them.
So, particularly sensitive to that problematic and to the consequences that such an action may generate, the Ombudsman is presently leading works referring to it, from the point of view of protection of childhood."
You will notice that Mrs Derain, in her last two paragraphs, seems discriminating the masculine sex through seeming to imply that masculine sexual mutilation, which regularly provokes deaths, would not be likely to entail great sufferings, psychological notably, but here again, this discrimination is not one "in the sense of the law".
This is why I am asking you to make that legislation would permit to get out of such a discourse and draw all the consequences in law of Principle 10 of the Universal declaration of the rights of the child of the United Nations organization:
"The child must be protected against practices that... may foster racial, religious of any other form of discrimination..."
whereas these practices not only push to discrimination but also are discriminatory in themselves. In this aim, considering on the one hand that a poll made in Germany resulted in 70% of the population in favour of the 7 May 2012 decision of the court of Cologne that condemned circumcision, on the other hand that it would be dubious that the members of Parliament would take the risk to alienate Muslim of Jewish votes, it seems desirable to ask the question by referendum. After the favourable opinion given by Mrs the ex-minister of the rights of women about my article "Sexual mutilation and the moral order", Mrs the minister of justice might usefully pronounce publicly about the one you will find here-joined. It shows to which point circumcision is an odiously discriminatory practice, with dramatic planetary consequences.
- letter of Mrs the Ombudsman for children (for the Ombudsman)
- my article "Between barbarity and exclusion, ritual circumcision, height of a racism masked behind religion, tradition, culture and folklore (the dramatic psycho-sociological outcomes of circumcision make it the worst of racisms and the greatest crime against humanity, catalyst of fanaticism, terrorism, genocide and feminicide)"