San Franciscans set to vote on circumcision ban


Ex-Governor Arnie

Nazi-like policies and state nannying appear to be on the increase all over the “civilised” world and California seems to be at the forefront. I don’t think that the Nazi sympathiser and Governor for seven years, Arnold Schwarzenegger, is totally to blame, although he has said that, “Ninety-five percent of the people in the world need to be told what to do and how to behave.”

A proposition to ban circumcision for boys younger than 18 has, um, made the cut in San Francisco and will be put to the voters in November.

City election officials today certified that enough valid petition signatures were received to qualify the measure for the ballot, the San Francisco Chronicle  reports.

If it’s approved, it would make it a misdemeanor “to circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the foreskin, testicle or penis of another person who has not attained the age of 18,” the San Francisco Examiner notes. There are no religious exemptions. Violators could face up to a year in jail and a fine of up to $1,000.

Advocates refer to themselves as “intactivists” and sport Star Wars-inspired buttons that read, “May the foreskin be with you.”

I imagine they would.

The Chronicle sums up the pro-and-con thusly: “Supporters of a ban say it’s a cruel, unnecessary practice akin to cutting off a baby’s ear or nose. Opponents say the ban, even if passed by voters, would never hold up in court.”

Ah, the old tactic of making unrealistic comparisons. Why not be completely ridiculous and say it is akin to amputating the child’s legs?

In addition to choosing a mayor, voters are likely to vote on pension changes for city workers.

But not a Jewish mayor, presumably?

I don’t agree with circumcision, but it is not my place to call for its banning.

The really crazy thing about this is that there are around 800,000 abortions per year in the USA – and the rate in California is well above the national average.

All these unborn infants lose a lot more than their foreskin, yet killing the child outright is a “woman’s right” but just removing a piece of skin (which can be argued, will improve the child’s health) may soon not be anyone’s right.

There is a California Holocaust Memorial Week.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Are people remembering and not understanding?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to San Franciscans set to vote on circumcision ban

  1. English Viking says:

    This is the problem when a society elevates law to the position of religion, whilst at the same time treating all religions as equal to each other, but inferior to the law.

    I don’t really care if Jews want to chop bits off their children’s peckers. As far as I know, it has no detrimental effect on the sexual function or the pleasure of sex itself, some ‘unhooded’ men I know claim that the lack of a foreskin has actually slightly de-sensitized their old man, thus allowing them a few minutes more than some others. Their is some scientific evidence that a missing foreskin reduces the risk of penile cancer.

    What is a problem is the mutilation of females babies by savage cultures following savage religions. That should be banned, and the sad, sick perverts that carry out such sexual abuse should be severely punished. But the law will allow no distinction between Jew and Muslim (unless to benefit the muslim, usually), so to ban the one involves a ban on the other. The two are not the same, but the law must treat them so, in the name of ‘equality’ and ‘non-discrimination’.

    Coming soon, to a town near you. Unless you live in Bradford, then you’ve already got it.

    Surely the easier way of doing it is just to ban islam and deport all the moon-worshippers that refuse to recant or convert?

  2. robbo says:

    E.V. and Stewart,
    this is another thing we disagree on I’m afraid, you should care about this. Cutting things of children’s peckers is an awful thing to do. Ritual genital mutilation has no place in our society and should be banned forthwith. Perhaps you should make some enquiries and find out about the harm it does before formulating your opinion.
    Out of interest, how do you feel about female genital mutilation? If you are opposed to it, why should girls be deserving of protection from the law but boys should not?

  3. robbo says:

    Of course, if E.V. or any responsible adult wishes to have his foreskin removed for sexual (although how desensitising one’s penis can be beneficial to one’s sexual pleasure is beyond me) or for health (although removing one’s foreskin to prevent penis cancer seems akin to removing one’s fingers to prevent hand cancer to me) reasons I have no objections. Any takers? But to impose it upon a child is unconscionable.

  4. robbo says:

    I have just read the rest of your comment and I have come to the conclusion that you are a complete bastard. An uncaring, unsympathetic, twisted arsehole. How do you respond, sir?

  5. Richard Borrett says:

    How is this “state Nannying”? The proposal has come about by the most democratic process possible: the automatic triggering of a referendum when a proposition can garner sufficient support from ordinary citizens…

    On the issue itself, I do think there are significant factual differences between circumcision and female genital mutilation and they do not fairly compare directly with one another (for one tihng female mutilation does much more significant physical damage).

    However the principle is in many ways the same and though I have never had any particularly strong feelings on it before, I would rather it didn’t happen. I would however also rather babies’ ears weren’t pierced, and children did not wear miniskirts and have botox – but legislating against things is often not the best way to stop them.

  6. Stewart Cowan says:

    English – I think you’ve nailed the problem that with the large influx of Muslims especially, religions get bundled up together in one package of nastiness (see Robbo’s posts).

  7. Stewart Cowan says:

    Robbo – is circumcision as bad as abortion? And I don’t agree with female genital mutilation. There are various recently imported practices I don’t approve of, but I don’t think that is comparing like with like.

  8. Stewart Cowan says:

    Richard – that’s “democracy” isn’t it? Two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner. If there was a majority vote to imprison everyone called Richard, I take it you would also approve? The USA isn’t a democracy, it is a republic and I would doubt that the state has the right to do this.

    I would rather circumcision didn’t happen either, but it’s one of those things I feel is none of my business. And yes, like you say, there are many wrong things parents do to their children which are legal.

  9. Richard Borrett says:

    I genuinely don’t understand what your issue is with this process. I am not a fan of majority democracy in many ways (Orwell said ‘if democracy worked, they would have abolished it years ago’).

    However, in reality it is the best system there is, provided it is underpinned and protected by some basic rules/constitution etc (whether religious or secular, or a combination, depending on the state).

    Clearly pure majority rule would be madness, and even this story points out that the proposed ban would be unenforceable (because it would almost certainly be unconstitutional. I have no idea what ‘devolved’ powers individual states have but i know there are huge differences in many areas of law between them.

  10. English Viking says:


    Your first 2 comments appear to have been made without reading/understanding my comment.

    With regard to your 3rd comment, I think you are entitled to your opinion and should be allowed to express it as loudly as you wish.

  11. Stewart Cowan says:

    Richard, the NWO-controlled Western governments are trying to spread “democracy” around the world because it suits the aims of bankers and industrialists. Anyway, we don’t even have democracy now, we have neo-feudalism: taxed till the pips squeak and tightly monitored and controlled.

    The globalists think that the world is their ‘estate’ and the rest of us are their tenants who only exist to provide for them, and in return we get to keep enough of our earnings to stave off homelessness and starvation.

  12. Stewart Cowan says:


    It looks like Robbo doesn’t bother to read things properly. This could be the reason he believes the bin Laden hoax.

  13. Vee says:



    What is it?

    An unusually tight foreskin that cannot be drawn back from the head of the penis.

    What are the main symptoms?

    •You cannot retract the foreskin to expose the head of your penis.
    •The foreskin is too tight.
    •Severe phimosis can make erections painful.

    What’s the risk?

    Only uncircumcised men are affected. Some have phimosis from childhood but it can develop later in life.

    The foreskin is stuck to the glans in small children but should begin to separate at around three years of age. As the child gets older the foreskin normally retracts to expose the glans but often the foreskin, although partially retractable, will remain attached to the glans until after puberty

    If you cannot fully retract your foreskin you won’t be able to wash it properly. This may lead to a build-up of smegma, which can become infected.

    What causes it?

    •Thrush infections, which make the foreskin scarred.
    •Balanitis xerotica obliterans, a condition which makes the foreskin stick to the penis.

    How can I prevent it?

    Approximately 12,500 men undergoe circumcision each year in the UK for the complaint of Phimosis.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>