It is true that bringing FGM into the debate tends to raise the decibel level (and tempers) and anyway, like I said a few posts up, I think the wrongness of one doesn’t HAVE to be tied to the wrongness of the other.
But that still leaves us with the problem of unequal treatment for boys and girls re: the legal protection of their bodily tissues. Performing a “ritual nick” on a girl is illegal and widely opposed in the West on the grounds that 1) it’s wrong to concede any grounds to pro-FGM cultures, many of which won’t be satisfied with nicking; and 2) the procedure is still non-consensual and not done for reasons of strict medical necessity. It doesn’t seem likely that a ritual nick would alter one’s capacity for sexual response, but arguing in favor of it will get you in hot water: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/health/policy/07cuts.html
On the other hand, cutting off all or part of the male foreskin surely has more sexual impact than ritual nicking, yet it isn’t criminalized anywhere that I know of. Part of it may be because anti-FGM activism is part of the overall campaign for greater women’s rights in many parts of the world, while on the other hand men who have undergone circumcision usually aren’t powerless within their own societies.
Although of course, they were fairly powerless as children or youths when their penises were sliced into.
BTW, the argument about “health benefits” for infant male excision* is immaterial to me–even if such benefits exist, it’s up to the individual to make a conscientious choice to accept or ignore them as an adult. Like I argued earlier, non-consensual removal of a child’s body parts (anywhere) can be ethical only in cases of absolute medical necessity.
*I can’t bring myself to use the acronym “MGM”–too much irony.
The reason people oppose “nicking” is, as posted in your link, because they view it as a “slippery slope”: allow that, and you are more likely to allow the really bad stuff. Whatever its merits, it is not an argument that pertains to male circumcision. No-one is seriously claiming that if you allow male circumcision, you will have to allow castration.
You are certainly within your rights to take the position that medical benefits are immaterial to the argument. However, I do not think that this is persuasive as a matter of general policy, which really ought to be based on costs versus benefits. For example, parents ought to be able to have infants vaccinated without their consent, even though there is no “absolute medical necessity” for it - it simply has health benefits.
The interpretation of the Landgericht is a minority one, both nationally and internationally (as it seems to have been the first decision to that effect in Convention member states). It would have been best if the case had been appealed and settled by the highest court (the Bundesgerichtshof) but that had not been possible as it was an acquittal. IMO at least the court’s argument that circumcision violates a child’s right to choose it religion freely later is flawed (or is there a notable religion that bars the circumcised from joining its fold?).
If there is a statute regulating (and by implication allowing) religious circumcision the question of that statute violating the European human rights convention would need someone with standing to take it to the European Court of Human Rights, i.e. the statute would stand for the foreseeable future.