Thursday, June 18, 2009

Mandatory Circumcision for Zambia Police Recruits

The Zambia National Broadcasting Company is reporting a new policy in that country: the mandatory circumcision of all male police recruits. Congratulations! I wonder if all policemen in America are circumcised? How ironic that American government officials are pushing for male circumcision in Africa but are strangely quiet here at home. Shouldn't we have a policy that all police and, frankly, U.S. military be circumcised? What's good in Africa is good at home.

"Recruits to be circumcised"

"The Zambia Police Service says plans are underway to introduce a mandatory circumcision policy for all male recruits. Kamfinsa Police training school commanding Officer, Malcom Mulenga, says male circumcision will help prevent HIV and AIDS cases in the Police service.
Mr. Mulenga, says the Zambia Police Service has continued to lose qualified manpower as a result HIV/AIDS. "

"He was speaking when the American government handed over a Voluntary Counselling and Testing centre to the Zambia Police Service. At the same function, Home Affairs deputy Minister, Misheck Bonshe, welcomed plans by the Zambia Police Service to circumcise male recruits. And the United States Charge d' Affairs for Zambia, Michael Koplovsky, said his government has set aside K1.5 billion for the construction of health centres for police officers."


  1. Imposing a practice not supported by any medical association in the world on another person without their informed consent on the anatomy of the body part being removed. What a travesty.

  2. The resulting decline in police recruitment will enable a crime wave...

    There is also something very peculiar about this: basically they are doing it because they have to power to do it. It's part of the peculiar nature of circumcision.

  3. by 'informed consent' linda acctualy means 'no-circ hasnt been given the oppourtunity to manipulate them'

    this is classic no-circ behaviour, they are desperate to create some/any function for the foreskin, they are ramping this side of their tired void argument because SCIENCE has proved circumcison to be of great benefit to the man and his partners.

    essentially they have lost the game and are scarping the bottom of the barrel un utter desparation.

  4. UNAIDs themselves have said, "mandatory or coerced male circumcision breaches a range of human rights including the rights to dignity, bodily integrity and personal autonomy."

  5. Mike please don't assume to tell others what I mean because you obviously don't. I have used informed consent in the legal sense. It is a common term used to determine whether a physician is telling someone of all the possible outcomes of surgery. As this procedure is being forced on recruits to ensable their employment then it is coerced as vikinggirl says a breach of both the persons human rights and right to be fully informed. As a result they will be able to take legal action against their employers for any of the known complications which can and do result from male circumcision.

  6. hahaha, but linda we all know what you mean by 'informed consent', that the man to be circumcised is 'informed' of what you and no-circ wants them to hear.

    no-circ is an organisation that is set up to stop circumcision at any cost, this means you linda and your cronies will do anything to prevent circumcision happening, this can range from lying to people about assumed functions, desensitisation and complications etc etc etc. these are all bogus claims no-circ fanatics like to site when they manipulate people about circumcision.

    any surgical procedure has risks and everyone knows that, but thats one of the few risks, there is no change in sensitivity at all and this has been proved in *REAL* studies recently published. the foreskin has no function and is a redundant part of mens bodies when we used to roam in the bushes, it has now been proved again and again, that the foreskin is harmful to our health and partners health and is better removed.

    no-circ will sopt at ANYTHING to push their ill concieved views on people who are vunerable and they should all be stopped, but thankfully they do a good enough job of rendering themselves totally irrelevant to the majority of people, so im happy knowing that.

  7. The vast majority of them will probably be pleased to be circumcised, as are most circumcised males. Foreskins cause many more problems than circumcision.

  8. RS Foreskins do not cause problems otherwise males in uncircumcised cultures woud be having them removed as would females they are not. I have a certificate from Uk social Volunteers to give advice in this area to vunerable people. My oganisation also is a legal charity which organisation do you represent which has charitable status? I can provide you with copies of both my charitable status and the certificate to work with vunerable people in ths area can you provide me with the same?

  9. Actually RS, most polls of males find that only about HALF the circumcised males are happy about it, compared with more like 4/5 of the intact males. Only a tiny proportion of intact males ever CHOOSE to be circumcised.

    But in the case of the Zambian police, happy or not, informed or not, they're being FORCED to be circumcised. They do have the option of not joining (but that may be not much of an option in Zambia if you're otherwise qualified). At least they're not, so far, making it a condition of continued employment for existing policemen.

    Mike continues to flail around, speaking with bogus authority on what he knows nothing about, and (predictibly) repeating what the 1900 lung doctor Remondino made up about running through the bushes. If "it has now been proved again and again, that the foreskin is harmful to our health and partners health and is better removed" then why does circumcision remain virtually unknown in countries far healthier than the United States? Perhaps because men with foreskin value them and wouldn't part with them without coercion or duress?

  10. most men are happy being circumcised! hugh got those figures from one of his no-circ studies, which he loves to reference because funnily enough theres always one to suit every argument! thats how no circ work! they set up studies to suit their arguments.

    theres nothing legal or ethical about no-circ, it is a harmful organisation that does not seek the truth and is constantly telling people lies about circumcision, i.e. that men who have been circumcised have been harmed and cannot enjoy their sex life, an abhorrent, egregious lie to anyone circumcised as an adult and who would know how good it is to be circumcised.

    and i bet linda LOVES working with 'vulnerable' people in fact i bet shes been doing this for a while! linda likes vulnerable people because they are easier to manipulate! they are more readily effected by her string of lies!

    funny how she even admits that, how very transparent.

    linda massie, you are pure evil.

  11. Mike, even though you and I are in perfect agreement about the danger and worthlessness of the filthy foreskin, it's unfair to call Linda "pure evil." She is the perfect embodiment of the foreskin lover, but to suggest that she is evil is not appropriate. I really believe she is sincere in her passion for the male foreskin. Linda, you are always welcome to post on here because I think it's important that all sides be heard. Mike, you are always entitled to your opinion, but I would prefer that all of us refrain from personal attacks.

  12. i use the term to describe linda because i think it is evil to lie and manipulate vunerable people into beleiveing utter mistruths especially under the guise of 'social volenteer' and 'charity'.

    i will not use the term to describe linda personally but i will continue to use it to describe her actions, which i believe are egregious and evil.

    is that an appropriate compromise?

  13. I must admit no one has ever called me evil I have however been described as a human rights activist and carer for those who are traumatised by circumcision. I am not personally atacking you Mike and neither do I seek to. I am simply informing you of the facts inherent in the promotion of the prinicples of reproductive rights and sexual health of the United Nations International Conference on Population and Development, Cairo 1994.

    Why you are getting so angry with somne you do not know because ou do not agree with them is beyond my comprehension

  14. Linda, when you attack men like Mike and me who happen to be circumcised solely because of our circumcisions, no wonder we react personally. Whether you intend to or not, you are making a deeply personal attack, suggesting that circumcised males are somehow not whole, or psychologically scarred, or traumatized, or some other anti-circ psycho babble bullshit. The whole anti-circ movement rests on claims that circumcised males are "inferior" to foreskin-afflicted males -- our penis is deformed, insensitive, not sexually worthy, etc., etc. The fact that most American women dismiss this psycho babble as pure crap and continue to circumcise 1.4 million baby boys every year has led some in the anti-circ movement to get increasingly shrill in their attacks on the circumcised male. That probably explains Mike's reaction to you.

    The anti-circ movement should give up on this line of attack, but along with denying the health benefits of circumcision and the parental responsibility to circumcise every boy, you have too many loonies out there to do that.

    Linda, as I said earlier, you are certainly not evil (in my mind), just misguided. And I suspect some of that comes from not growing up in a circumcised country like ours. My hope is that if you continue to study this topic, some day you will join us because I do admire your passion.

  15. I do understand why those males who have been circumcised may not like to hear that they have been harmed from circumcision. Just as in Africa woman who have been circumcised do not believe they have been harmed and continue to perform the procedure on their daughters.
    I do not understand why you call people who work in ths area "anti circ" we are pro choice any individual who has reached the age of consent should be entitiled to do whatever they want to their own body. However children who are not sexually active should be left alone. If they then decide to be circumcised that's up to them. Most men in uncircumcisied cultures remain intact throughout life many have never heard of nocirc and when I tell them that in America and elsewhere they circumcise neonates they are totally shocked. I work with counsellors and psychiatrists to provide support to families where children have been traumatisied by genital surgeries whether they are male of female. You always seem to mention nocirc but you seem to forget about the all the others who are working in this area like Childrens Rights Commissioners, Councils, Lawyers and Doctors Opposing Circumcision.
    I am indeed a passionate women and I have been researching this for 13 years and I will always work to protect children from those who would circumcise them without their consent.

  16. the reason they shouldnt hear what you have to say is that, it is not fact, the 'information' you have is conveyed to lead people to think they have been damaged, when the overwhelming majority of men like being circumcised and most men love being cut.

    you people have been mixing the the same circles for so long you have not had the oppourtunity to have your opinions challenged from within creating this whacky culture where you just cant accept the benefits of being circumcised.

    what do dont seem to realise is that most men are very happy they were circumcised, the only people who arent happy being circumcsed are people who semm to have been in contact with no-circ who have subsequently manipulated them into thinking they have been harmed. i wonder if these men would be so 'traumatised' if they werent told how 'damaged' they were and how they have a great penis that they can have heaps of pleasure. also you 'research' has been very limited, ignoring research that will prove your theory wrong makes you an incompetent researcher and someone with an adgenda!


    dont tell me you are promoting choice linda, you are anti-circ, and a spade is a spade so dont try and squirm out of that one.

    im angry because you are not promoting human rights, you are pushing no-circs foolish adgenda and you are telling people lies and damaging them.

  17. Absolutely untrue. You must believe that people can everyone can be easily maniplated to agree ith you. THe BRitish Medical Association does not agree with you and neither do Europan Doctors who stopped this harmful practice on babies at birth long before the devlopment of nocirc.

    I received a prize or my independent rsearch from the University where I studied so I can hardly be described as incompetent.

    So you also belive that the CHildrens Commissioners , Lawyers, doctors and nurse who are all opposed to this practice has someone been manipulated by somone else. You are wrong they are educated and you quite cealry are not.

  18. oh linda, you consistently continue to ignore important pieces of evidence regarding the benefits of circumcision.

    this i understand because you have started your crusade a while ago, and because of the nature of no-circ, basing most of its policy on emotive rhetoric, it will be hard for you to accept the numerous scientific studies clearly showing the benefits of routine infant male circumcision.

    anyone who beleives circumcision is harmful is unaware of anesthetic and the raft of benefits of circumcison to the baby, child and man as well as his partners.

    the 'childrens commisioners, lawyers and doctors' few as they may be, are all in the tank with no-circ and probably formed their opinions long before the recent findings on how circ reduces the risk of contracting hiv and how there is no change in sensitivity etc etc. they will now have to change their opinions which for some will be hard to do because poeple like you and your cronies at no-circ are experts in emotional manipulation, but they can overcome it like many others have.

    many young doctors (in australia) like the 10 or so that i know personally are aware of the benefits of circumcision, so im confident in the next few years these old fashioned ideas that circumcision is harmdul will be ignored as pure emotive tripe.

  19. Mike this is what the Canadian Childrens Rights Council has to say on the circumcision/mutilation of minors

  20. Mike and the owner of this blog, I would like to know if you were circed as children or as adults?

    If you were circed as children then you are not in a position to say that circumcision causes no loss in sexual function and enjoyment.

    There is no doubt that circumcision makes it harder to masturbate. Teens can masturbate on their own; when they grow up, they can get their girlfriends do it (as my girlfriend does to me).

    Without the skin to move up and down , the penis is a single layered structure. It is basically taut skin - no movement. Now there may be variations in degree, depending on how much skin is removed. But still, it cannot be anything but a worsening in terms of ease of masturbation.

    I am a believer in God (albeit a non-personal, non-religious one). I get great confidence knowing that I am the way God intended me to be. I am natural. Those doctors that circumcised, and those parents who allowed it, played God with a newborn perfect boy. They thought they could improve on God's creation. That is wrong - you cannot improve on what is natural. You may counter this argument, stating there are genetic defects in some newborns - but this is irrelevant as these defects are not normal. The foreskin IS normal - it has evolved through evolution.

    The idea that results from a few studies, which like most are flawed in some way (and therefore an inadequate basis for true knowledge)is basis enough to KNOW that circumcision is overall beneficial to ALL newborn baby boys is, quite frankly, laughable.

  21. James T, I was circumcised on my first day, thankfully. The sooner the filthy foreskin is removed, the greater the protection a circumcised boy has. Your argument that docs "play God" when they removed an unnecessary and harmful piece of skin from the penis is "laughable." What doctors are doing is using their God-given skills to follow through on God-ordained evidence that the foreskin is harmful to both the male and his future partners. In my view, religiously, medical science is God's way of allowing humans to help humans.

  22. i was circumcised at 18 and i can tell you with all confidence there is no difference in pleasure and function. my experience has shown me that orgasm when circumcised is better and more intense. i can masturbate just like anyone else.

    as for the studies there are plenty of findings that have shown circumcision has real benefits you really have to just read them mate, and then ull see.

    i really dont know where u are coming from, i dont think you understand the whole situation, or dont want to understand the whole situation.

  23. provoking debate why do you insist on calling a normal body part filthy? I have never met a man with a filthy foreskin only men with beautiful ones which produces endless hours of fun and enjoyment for both. As a female I also have a foreskin does that make me filthy too?

  24. Linda, the foreskin is a filthy, disease-entrapping and useless body part. It's a portal for AIDS, STDs, HIV, and who knows what else. I'm a glad for you that the men you have engaged have "beautiful ones" that provided "endless hours of fun and enjoyment." But any woman who has sex with an uncircumcised dude is taking a great risk, as all the medical studies now prove. Without getting too personal, I hope these men use condoms (which circumcised men should use, too, unless they are in a faithful relationship). It is especially important for men with foreskins to use condoms to keep that piece of skin from infecting others. While washing the foreskin helps, the medical evidence is that the structure of that useless body part, no matter how scrubbed, is an entry point for disease. That's why it is always filthy.

  25. Provoking debate and what about my oreskin is that filthy too? Personally never had an STD in my life and don't know any men who have and have always been in faithful relationships with uncircumcised men.

  26. Linda,

    It's true that women have folds of skin and a foreskin too, and it can be pretty gros too if not kept clean. But women do tend to spend more time and energy on grooming, including using vaginal sprays and deodorants. Men, however, often don't have the luxury of pampering oneself, especially those with demanding physical jobs like those in the military. Circumcision of the penis provides the needed protection against infections and other diseases, and assures a penis that's cleaner and easier to keep clean. That's why the majority view, at least on this site, support routine circumcsion for all newborn boys.

  27. Pete I have never hear such a thing that boys are dirtier than girls and have never hear the oreskin in females described as gros that's a new one to me. Circumcised penis's are not cleaner and uncircumcised penis's are not dirtier. Personal hygeine is variable and why are you talking about deoderants and vaginal sprays in relation to children. Soap and water is the normal way of keeping the body clean amputation of tissue does not make a penis easier to clean as it is not difficult to wash.

  28. Why only circumcision? Total emasculation will surely work better...

  29. Mike wrote: "the reason they should not hear what you have to say is, it is not fact"

    Provoking promotes circumcision because it is "American", but freedom of speech is much more American than circumcision, and it is for the hearer, not someone else, to determine whether what anyone says is fact, after they have said it. Perhaps Mike should take the name "Suppressing Debate".

  30. All the males in the whole world should be forced to at least two years of hard military service and all conscripts should be circumcised. Being male soldiers, to save costs, everyone should be circumcised without anesthesia. Only the male flesh is a property of the State and has to be regarded as cannon fodder, suitable to the pain as well as to duty, instead the woman's body is untouchable, it is a precious thing, so no one can compare the male circumcision to the criminal circumcision of a woman. Mandatory circumcision for all male soldiers and policemen! Very good, Zambia, continue to mutilate your policemen, but extend this duty to your Army: they're just males, the main thing is to protect your women from AIDS!