Introduction
The following statement was written in response to a public blog post written by former Mayor of Neyland Town Council, Andrew Lye. The content of which, was challenged by a fellow councillor, and contributed towards the resignation of Lye following pressure from his peers.
We (15 Square) are a Charitable Incorporated Organisation based in Staffordshire, England, working internationally on behalf of our members worldwide. Accompanying this public statement, you will find our mission statement as well as supplementary links to other cited documents.
Context
Recently, a 2008 blog post emerged written by Neyland’s former Mayor, Andrew Lye. Within this blog post, Lye expressed his own personal perspective, critical of circumcision from a Christian theological position. This blog post questioned whether those that perform circumcision were doing so against Lye’s interpretation of god’s law.
Based on the content within this blog post, Lye was accused of spreading anti-semitic and anti-muslim propaganda. These serious allegations seem to be based exclusively on the criticism of the practice of circumcision. 15 Square requested further context from councillors within Neyland Town Council in order to explore these allegations thoroughly, however the current context seems to indicate that these accusations derive exclusively from the fact that Lye is a critic of circumcision.
Our interest in this case is exclusively related to the issues contained within this statement as pertaining to freedom of expression, the issue of circumcision, and the accusations made against Lye regarding his 2008 blog post. 15 Square are strictly non-partisan and have no affiliation with any current or ex members of Neyland Town Council.
Our Concerns
When expressing criticism or engaging in debate, we believe that it is important to do so in a respectful and responsible manner, without inciting hatred or discrimination towards any specific group, including religious or ethnic communities. It is always advisable to promote understanding, tolerance, and respect while discussing cultural practices or engaging in debates about sensitive topics. With this in mind we believe that criticism is incredibly important for social progress and that it is important to avoid general censorship of ideas in the areas that we disagree.
A major area of concern for 15 Square is encouraging meaningful discussion surrounding the issue of male circumcision. This is important to us and our members as we support and represent men that have been negatively affected by ritual, cultural, and medical circumcision. Whilst the practice does not impact all men in this way, we believe that those who do feel harmed deserve a voice. Whilst we support open discussion, we fervently stand against bigotry and discrimination. Details of 15 Square’s public outreach standards can be found in our Outreach Policy.
Anecdotally, we would like to draw attention to a small sample of criticisms against cultural traditions that have been widely accepted as progressive responses to outdated and harmful practices, namely;
- forced arranged marriages;
- child brides;
- foot-binding;
- female circumcision;
- producing foie gras;
- fox hunting.
Naturally, we recognise that individuals and groups of individuals ought to be protected, but that ideas, beliefs, and traditions are all fair and reasonable points of contention and discussion. This feature is the hallmark of modern society, and the suppression of debate and open discussion has no place in a democratic country.
UK Law – Discrimination, Freedom of Expression, and Defamation
15 Square are confident that discrimination laws in the UK are well legislated and clearly defined. Discrimination is the unfair treatment of an individual or group of people based on a protected characteristic (direct discrimination), or, less favourable treatment than an individual or group of people based on a defined protected characteristic (indirect discrimination), as described in the Equalities Act (2010).
According to the Human Rights Act (1998) it is generally considered valid to express opinions and engage in debate about cultural practices or traditions. Freedom of speech and expression are rights that are protected within the UK, as explicitly enshrined in Article 10. Whilst the right to free expression, freedom of thought, conscience and religion are protected, 15 Square recognise that this right is not absolute and is subject to certain limitations.
Exceptions arise in Article 10.2:
Human Rights Act 1998. Schedule 1, Part 1. Article 10.2 – Freedom of Expression:
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
As such, individuals have the right to hold and express their views, including criticising cultural practices providing they do not contravene Article 10.2. As such, 15 Square can find no evidence that Lye’s comments qualify as discrimination, because;
- There is no unfair or unfavourable treatment.
- There is no incitement to violence, hatred, ridicule, or contempt.
- There is no call to action encouraging others to discriminate against any protected characteristics.
- There are no threats relating to: national security, territorial integrity, public safety, public order, health, established morals, the reputation of others, the rights of others, disclosure of information received in confidence, or to any authority and impartiality of a judiciary body.
Conversely, to accuse an individual of propaganda, anti-semitism, and anti-islamic behaviour by exercising their rights as defined by the Human Right’s Act (1998) without just cause can be detrimental to the character and reputation of an individual.
15 Square feel that the serious nature of these allegations, (which did not appear to be expressed as opinion) may in fact constitute defamation as covered by the Defamation Act 2013, as befits the damaging nature that these accusations can have against someone’s character, and in the suppression of public debate.
A defamatory statement is one that harms the reputation of an individual by lowering them in the estimation of others, exposing them to hatred, ridicule, or contempt, or causing them to be shunned or avoided.
Conclusion
It is our hope that Neyland Town Council have discussed this issue in detail and have had the opportunity to ‘come to a proper conclusion’ as originally stated within their council meeting held on 5th of June 2023. This would provide an opportunity to examine these accusations fairly, and to cross examine the accusations as well as the content in question in order to ensure that no further unjust damage to reputation can arise (specifically with regards to the accusations of anti-semitism and anti-Islam). Whilst 15 Square predominantly address medical ethics and informed consent, 15 Square defend the right for individuals to challenge circumcision practices, especially in view of the physical, psychological, and sexual harms and complications that can arise from the practice.
We are issue orientated as opposed to ideologically driven, and we are proud to represent men from many religions and cultures, including practicing and non-practicing Jewish and Islamic backgrounds and proudly support the work of other organisations working in this space.
Finally, we recognise that the general public are often uninformed, and we do not pass judgement on those that are unaware of the complications and issues associated with circumcision. We hope that this statement has given some insight and understanding into why we feel it is critically important to champion freedom of expression, and to challenge harmful traditions.
We wish a healthy resolution in light of the recent turbulence, and for all parties involved to find amity once more.
Appendix
Comments made by Andrew Lye in an introduction to his blog ‘Uncut’ – 2008:
Why “Uncut” …. and Foreskins …
I have a blog dealing with a campaign I was organizing and then moved onto a blog with my local newspaper.
As I have always, generally, tried to maintain an air of respectability, I thought it was time to do one that could be a bit more risque at times.
So whilst you can have programmes with the smut, swearing and sexual content removed, the UNCUT version is where anything (almost) is shown.
If you thought by calling it uncut, it was a blog all about my foreskin, you are now disappointed and have moved to something a bit smuttier.
For the record, I am uncut. I was born with it and cannot understand why any religion should require its removal (I can understand it if there is a medical need) because if God didn’t mean us to have one, he’d have created us without one. Doesn’t the Bible say, in any case, that he made man in his own image, therefore we must assume God has a foreskin.
So do we therefore say that those who have their boy’s foreskin removed are contravening God’s laws?
Be the first to comment