割礼在德国

　　Incisive arguments

　　激烈的争辩

　　A row over a ruling that circumcision for non-medical reasons is a crime

　　法院对出于非医疗原因实行割礼构成犯罪的裁定引发争议

　　The parents, both Muslims, wanted their four-year-old son to be circumcised. They found a Muslim doctor to do the operation. But there were complications, and the boy ended up in hospital. A prosecutor accused the doctor of injuring the child, and the case went to court in Cologne. The court decided that, although the doctor was innocent, circumcising an infant fornon-medical reasons violates Germany’s constitutional protection of every person’s bodily integrity—and should thus be a crime.

　　一对穆斯林的父母想让他们四岁的儿子接受割礼，他们找来了一位穆斯林医生做手术。然而，男孩因手术后并发症最终被送往医院。检察官以伤害孩童罪指控医生，并将此案诉诸至科隆法院。法庭认为，尽管医生是清白无辜的，而其在非医疗原因情况下对婴幼儿实施环割术的行为，违反了德国宪法中对公民人身完整的保护，综上理由，法庭判断医生的行为构成犯罪。

　　Cue the sort of controversy Germany hates most, one that offends Jews as well as Muslims. As it happens, the movement against circumcision is spreading, from California, where “intactivists” have tried to ban it, to Israel, where some parents now optfor brit shalom (the “covenantof peace”) as a ritual alternative. But the Cologne verdict breaks new ground. Sweden has a law setting medical rules over who may conduct male circumcisions.

　　要知道，德国人最讨厌这种既冒犯犹太人，又得罪穆斯林的宗教争端。无独有偶，反割礼运动正从加利福尼亚蔓延至以色列——加利福尼亚是“反割礼分子”试图取缔割礼的活动阵地；在以色列，一些家长如今选择用“命名礼”（“和平契约”）来替代割礼仪式。然而科隆法庭的裁决却是别出心裁。瑞典已立法对男性割礼的实施人员制定了医疗准则。

　　The outrage over the Cologne ruling was immediate and immense. Dieter Graumann, president of Germany’s Central Council of Jews, asserted that the verdict, if it is upheld, would make Jewish life in Germany,just as it is blooming again, practically impossible.

　　科隆法庭的裁决随即引发了公众的强烈愤慨 。德国犹太人中央委员会主席迪特尔·高曼肯定的说，犹太人正试图重回德国，倘若法院维持原判，犹太人几乎不可能再在德国生活。

　　Both sides have arguments. One one hand, Germany’s constitution, written after the second world war to prevent any repeat of Nazi horrors, assures the rights of parents and of religious freedom. But on the other hand, it guarantees the physical inviolability of every person. The court felt that the boy’s right to inviolability trumped the religious and parental rights of his mother and father.

　　辩论双方都有理由。一方面，二战后制定的德国宪法旨在防止任何形式的纳粹复苏，确保父母的权利以及宗教自由的权利。而另一方面，宪法又保护每位公民的人身不受侵犯。法院认为，男孩人身不受侵犯权要高于宗教信仰，高于其父母享受的父母权利。

　　Holm Putzke, a law professor in Passau who wrote an essay on the topic in2008, says there would be no controversy if parents waited for their sons to come of age (14 years in religious matters) so that the young men could decide for themselves whether to be circumcised. But he adds that it is wrong to make an exception for involuntary male circumcision when female circumcision is seen as barbaric. And he maintains that arguments which lean on tradition alone are inadequate, for the same reason that tradition cannot, nowadays, justify polygamy or footbinding.

　　帕骚的法律教授霍尔木·普茨克曾在2008年就此话题撰文一篇，他在文中称，如果父母们能等到儿子们成年时（宗教规定为14岁）行割礼，那么年轻人便可以自行选择是否接受割礼，这自然不会引发任何争议。但他又补充道，在女性割礼被视作残暴行径的情况下，容许对男性实施非自愿割礼是错误的。他断言，在当今社会，人们无法以传统作为实行一夫多妻制或是裹小脚的理由，同理，那些仅仅靠传统为论据是论证是站不住脚的。

　　Muslim theology might, in theory, allow for some flexibility in the age of circumcision. The Jewish Torah, however, is inconveniently specific: God told Abraham to circumcise his heirs on the eighth day. That timing is non-negotiable, says Mr Graumann. He wants the German Bundestag to step in with a statute to clear up any doubts or anxieties.

　　理论上讲，伊斯兰教教义对受割礼年龄的调整上略为灵活。然而，犹太律法则明确规定：神吩咐亚伯拉罕，在其子嗣出生第八天时为他们行割礼。在这个时间上是没有商量的余地，高曼先生说。他希望德国众议院介入此事，通过法令来澄清对割礼的一切质疑或担忧。