[5] 1 Maccabees, 1:60–61 states that King Antiochus IV of Syria, the occupying power of Judea in 170 BCE, outlawed circumcision on penalty of death,[6] one of the grievances leading to the Maccabean Revolt.

[7] According to the Historia Augusta, the Roman emperor Hadrian issued a decree which banned circumcision in the empire,[8] and some modern scholars argue that this was a main cause of the Jewish Bar Kokhba revolt of 132 CE.

[9] The Roman historian Cassius Dio, however, made no mention of such a law, instead, he blamed the Jewish uprising on Hadrian's decision to rebuild Jerusalem and rename it Aelia Capitolina, a city dedicated to Jupiter.

Two days later, Jagland clarified that the resolution was non-binding and that "Nothing in the body of our legally binding standards would lead us to put on equal footing the issue of female genital mutilation and the circumcision of young boys for religious reasons.

"[33] A study commissioned by the European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs published in February 2013 stated that "Male circumcision for non-therapeutic reasons appears to be practiced with relative regularity and frequency throughout Europe," and said it was "the only scenario, among the topics discussed in the present chapter, in which the outcome of the balancing between the right to physical integrity and religious freedom is in favour of the latter."

By July 2017, the commission reportedly reached consensus on discontinuing the financial coverage of non-medical circumcision, but was still debating whether to advise the government to institute a total ban of the practice.

[75][65] Politicians are hesitant in supporting a ban, with protection of religious freedom, in particular the Jewish practice of circumcision, and potential foreign policy and national security ramifications mentioned as some of the reasons.

The case was appealed[82] and in October 2008 the Finnish Supreme Court ruled that the circumcision, "carried out for religious and social reasons and in a medical manner, did not have the earmarks of a criminal offence.

Parental rights and religious freedom end where the physical integrity of a child who is under the age of consent is not affected (Article 2 of the Basic Law) without a clear medical indication.In October 2006, a Turkish national who performed ritual circumcisions on seven boys was convicted of causing dangerous bodily harm by the state court in Düsseldorf.

[1][102][103] The German ambassador to Israel, Andreas Michaelis, told Israeli lawmakers that Germany was working to resolve the issue and that it does not apply at a national level, but instead only to the local jurisdiction of the court in Cologne.

Ali Kizilkaya, a spokesman of the council, stated that, "The ruling does not take everything into account, religious practice concerning circumcision of young Muslims and Jews has been carried out over the millennia on a global level."

The Roman Catholic archbishop of Aachen, Heinrich Mussinghoff, said that the ruling was "very surprising", and the contradiction between "basic rights on freedom of religion and the well-being of the child brought up by the judges is not convincing in this very case".

[105] A spokesman, Steffen Seibert, for German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated that Jewish and Muslim communities will be free to practice circumcision responsibly, and the government would find a way around the local ban in Cologne.

[110] On 19 July 2012, a joint resolution of the CDU/CSU, SPD and FDP factions in the Bundestag requesting the executive branch to draft a law permitting circumcision of boys to be performed without unnecessary pain in accordance with best medical practice[111] carried with a broad majority.

[112] The New York Times reported that the German Medical Association "condemned the ruling for potentially putting children at risk by taking the procedure out of the hands of doctors, but it also warned surgeons note to perform circumcisions for religious reasons until legal clarity was established".

In July, in Berlin, a criminal complaint was lodged against Rabbi Yitshak Ehrenberg for "causing bodily harm" by performing religious circumcision, and for vocal support of the continuation of the practice.

"[122] On 12 December 2012, following a series of hearings and consultations, the Bundestag adopted the proposed law explicitly permitting non-therapeutic circumcision to be performed under certain conditions; it is now §1631(d) in the German Civil Code.

[124] In May 2005, Iceland amended its General Penal Code to criminalise female genital mutilation[125][126] Any person who, in an assault, causes physical injury or damage to the health of a girl child or woman by removing her sexual organs, partly or in their entirety, shall be imprisoned for up to 6 years.

[132] Until the 1990s the practice was largely confined to the brit milah of the small Jewish community, generally performed by a mohel travelling from Great Britain and certified there by the Initiation Society, with no concern from law enforcement.

[141] At the 2005 trial, the prosecution argued that "the carrying out of a circumcision by a non-medical person was not an offence in Ireland",[137] but that the accused had failed to provide aftercare support and advice, so that the parents had waited too long (12 hours) before taking the infant to hospital.

[136] The Jewish Chronicle suggested the reason the case was singled out for prosecution was because it was a "non-religious circumcision";[136] The Times of Israel linked it to an alleged increase in Irish antisemitism due to the Israel–Hamas war.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that society's attitudes on genital cutting of boys had been gradually shifting over the course of years, and that "the increasing concern [in the medical world] about the harm and the risk of complications during a circumcision is indeed relevant", but that overall there were not enough reasons yet to proceed to criminalisation.

This law explicitly allows Jews to practice brit milah and obligates the Norwegian Health Care regions to offer the Muslim minority a safe and affordable procedure.

With NTMC there are associated medical and psychological risks … The BMA cannot envisage a situation in which it is ethically acceptable to circumcise a child or young person, either with or without competence, who refuses the procedure, irrespective of the parents' wishes.

In 2001 the General Medical Council had found a doctor who had botched circumcision operations guilty of abusing his professional position and that he had acted "inappropriately and irresponsibly",[199] and struck him off the register.

[42] The alleged victim was purportedly circumcised while in its Muslim father's care at his grandparents' in July 2013 without the consent of his mother (a non-religious white British woman who conceived the child after a casual affair with the man, whom she had separated from after the incident).

The police initially dismissed the complaint, but after the mother got help from the anti-circumcision group Men Do Complain and leading human rights lawyer Saimo Chahal QC, they reopened the case, and ended up arresting three suspects involved.

[205] Niall McCrae, mental health expert from King's College London, argued that this case could mean "the end of ritual male circumcision in the UK", drawing comparisons with earlier rulings against female genital mutilation.

Other disputes In September 2004 the North Dakota Supreme Court rejected a mother's attempt to prosecute her doctor for circumcising her child without fully informing her of the consequences of the procedure.

[224] In March 2009 a Fulton County, GA, State Court jury awarded $2.3 million in damages to a 4-year-old boy and his mother for a botched circumcision in which too much tissue was removed causing permanent disfigurement.