Verfasstheit und ein Stückchen Haut (extemp.)

Nachdem in den vergangenen Tagen auf den Seite von der Freitag mehrfach der Verdacht geäußert worden war, der Verfasser dieser Zeilen hätte einen Eintrag bei Wikipedia manipuliert, um so seinen Argumenten Legitimation zu verschaffen, erlaube ich mir die Veröffentlichung des anonymisierten Schriftwechsels mit dem Informationsbüro der Schwedischen Regierung. Meine Anfrage datiert vom 30.06.2012 und wurde über den Regierungsserver bei http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2070 unter „senior registry clerk“ eingegeben. Der Wortlaut:

„Madam:
Sir:

As a consequence of a ruling by a regional court in Köln, criminating the circumcision of boys without their own consent and by other than medical reasons, even when the operation is carried out lege artis by a physician and with approval by the parents of the child, I started a research on different legal opinions expressed by courts and/or national Parliaments on the matter.

Concerning the Swedish situation, it occurred me to remark, that on-line encyclopedic information differs substantially. The remarks on Wikipedia in it’s German version states, that “by a new law”, passed on the 1st of October 2001, “circumcisions concerning boys of more than 2 months of age are generally prohibited without medical indication. Circumcisions on younger babies may be permitted solely attendant to anaesthetization and medical assistance. Sweden is therefore the first country in the world, which has expressly restricted by law ritual circumcision without personal consent of the concerned.”

It must be noticed, that this interpretation has been taken up by one of the largest daily newspapers in Germany, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, online-version as of 27^th of June, http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/urteil-zur-beschneidung-von-jungen-schnitt-und-schmerz-11801177.html, retrieved on June 30^th, under the subtitle “In Israel as usual, in Sweden as a rule”.

On the other hand the English version of Wikipedia, which only differs on presentation and slight grammatical issues from the French, reports that in “2001, the Parliament of Sweden enacted a law allowing only persons certified by the National Board of Health to circumcise infants. It requires a medical doctor or an anesthesia nurse to accompany the circumciser and for anaesthetic to be applied beforehand. After the first two months of life circumcisions can only be performed by a physician. The stated purpose of the law was to increase the safety of the procedure.”

My own researches, led on your on-line services, gave the result, that the subject is regulated by the Lag (2001:499) om omskärelse av pojkar (integrated by law 2008:357 and law 2010:671 and other decrees). Unfortunately not disposing of any knowledge of your language, I have been able to understand law 2001:499 in it’s integrated version only through the extremely rough google-translate service. By that meaning it seems to me, that only the English (and the French) version of Wikipedia would correctly report about the legal situation in Sweden. Understanding therefore, that circumcision is generally allowed and also for other than medical reasons (i.e. religious and cultural), but must always be carried out under surgery or comparable conditions.

I would appreciate if, in one way or the other, it would be possible to comprehend the legal conditions in Sweden about circumcision, first and foremost on a colloquial basis as encyclopedic entries are, understood that I would welcome, if your service could enlighten me directly on the subject.

Yours truly,

(Name)”

Nachdem die Antwort auf sich warten ließ, habe ich die entsprechende Diskussion bei wikipedia am 30.06. in Gang gesetzt. Die Abfolge ist mittlerweile archiviert und unter http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Zirkumzision/Archiv/2012#Rechtslage_Schweden_.28Erg.C3.A4nzung:_und_Italien.29 abruf- und einsehbar. Auf der Grundlage einer Übersetzung des Gesetzestextes, die ich auf eigene Kosten habe fertigen lassen, habe ich sodann mithilfe eines SysOps am 12.07.2012 die Version bei Wikipedia eingebracht, die dort unter http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zirkumzision#Rechtslage_in_Schweden nachgelesen werden kann (der letzte Satz in der jetzigen Version stammt nicht von mir, sondern ist ein späterer, weiterer Eintrag, der inhaltlich korrekt ist).

Am 06.07.2012 habe ich gegenüber dem Senior Registry Clerk erinnert.

Das löst nicht die Interpretationsfrage, d.h. ob ich das Gesetz richtig ausgelegt habe. Heute Vormittag habe ich doch noch eine Antwort aus Stockholm erhalten, die ich hiermit im Wortlaut abbilde:

„Dear Mr (Name),

Thank you for your e-mails to the Swedish Government. I have been directed to answer your e-mails.

In 2001 a law concerning the circumcision of boys was introduced in Sweden. The law concerns operations that are, for some reason, not called for by strictly medical purposes. The law was implemented in order to ensure guarantees that circumcision will be conducted in a safe way and that the patients wellbeing is ensured.

Circumcision has been proven to be an important part of many boys and men in their religious and cultural identity as well as their social belonging. To prevent these possibilities of peoples customs would be deeply problematic. At the same time, however, it is of utmost importance that the circumcision is carried out in a safe, hygienic and painless way.

In 2009 the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting (SKL)) decided on a recommendation concerning circumcision on religious or cultural grounds. The recommendation states that all local government hospitals shall offer circumcisions on non-medical grounds.

For more reading on the matter I recommend the following web pages (in Swedish):

Manlig omskärelse - Integrationsministern i DN Debatt den 18/11 2011

http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/14224/a/182221

Omskärelse av pojkar - Rapport av ett regeringsuppdrag (S2005/7490/SK)

http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/publikationer2007/2007-107-7

Stockholm in August 2012

Regards,

(Name),

Correspondence Officer”

Meine insoweit abschließende Bemerkung: Vor Rufmord, der taktisch und strategisch angelegt ist, ist niemand gefeit, vor shit-storms erst recht nicht. Die einzige Möglichkeit, diesbezüglich einen Kontrapunkt zu setzen, ist Transparenz. e2m