Canadian Court Says Botched Ritual Circumcision Was Aggravated Assault

In Regina v. D.J.W., (B.C. Ct. App., Dec. 22, 2011), the British Columbia Court of Appeal held that a father who botched an attempt at home to perform a religious circumcision on his 4-year old son should have been convicted of assault with a weapon and aggravated assault instead of "criminal negligence causing bodily harm".   (See prior posting.) Defendant performed the circumcision after doctors refused on the ground that a general anesthesia would be necessary and could not be justified for a 4-year old. Defendant raised a religious freedom defense, but the court responded:

The religious views of the accused are not impeded by the provisions of the Criminal Code in issue in this case. The accused’s religion did not demand that the circumcision be performed by the accused himself, nor did the trial judge find that religious necessity dictated that the circumcision be performed immediately so that the accused was left with no alternative but to perform the operation himself. Thus, it is not the accused’s religious beliefs that are at issue, but the rights and best interests of D.J. with respect to whether he should have been subjected to an attempted circumcision by his father in the circumstances and conditions under which it was attempted.

Canadian Press reports on the decision.