A draft policy document issued by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) classifies male circumcision as a potential form of child abuse—placing a core Jewish mitzvah alongside practices such as exorcisms and forced marriage.
The guidance appears in a draft CPS framework addressing so-called “honour-based abuse and harmful practices.” While the document acknowledges that male circumcision is not explicitly illegal in England and Wales, it asserts that the procedure “may be a form of child abuse or an offence against the person” if deemed painful or harmful.
“This is not a technical clarification. It is a moral judgment,” said Jonathan Arkush, former president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and co-chair of Milah UK. Arkush called the draft wording “deeply misleading,” warning that it reframes a foundational mitzvah as an inherently abusive act.
“To suggest that circumcision itself is a harmful practice is pejorative and profoundly incorrect,” he said.
The CPS document was drafted amid renewed scrutiny following a small number of tragic cases in which infants died after improperly performed circumcisions. According to the UK Office for National Statistics, seven deaths since 2001 have listed circumcision as a contributing factor. Most involved severe bleeding after procedures carried out outside regulated settings.
Jewish leaders do not dispute that negligence or malpractice must be addressed. What they fiercely reject is the implication that the religious act itself is suspect.
“In the Jewish community, circumcision is performed under stringent standards by trained and experienced practitioners,” Arkush said, adding that complications are “vanishingly rare.” He emphasized that no Jewish man he has encountered considers himself harmed by the ritual.
Muslim organizations echoed the concern. The Muslim Council of Britain warned that while safeguards and accreditation are necessary, “male circumcision is a lawful practice with recognized religious and cultural foundations and should not be characterized in itself as child abuse.”
(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
2 Responses
Charles, who was circumcised by Rabbi Jacob Snowman) and left William and his brother Harry “intact” (uncircumcised), though Harry later revealed in his memoir Spare that both he and William are circumcised, ending the debate. The tradition of royal circumcisions by a mohel, like Snowman for Prince Charles, was common among the British upper classes for health reasons during that era, not strictly religious ones, according to some historians.
It is unlike that Britain would ban Milah since it would affect but Jews and Muslims, and that latter have a great deal of clout.