I think: German Civil Code §1631d (BGB) is unconstitutional

(translated by google)
Thesis:

The protection of circumcisers by BGB §1631d, who carry out a medically unnecessary circumcision of wards, and parents who allow this, is contrary to the constitution with a view to Article 140 of the Basic Law.

Reason:

In order to prevent the circumcision from being carried out for lower motives or by amateurs, according to BGB §1631d the protection of the tailor does not apply "if the circumcision endangers the child's wellbeing, also taking into account its purpose." [BGB §1631d paragraph 1 sentence 2 ].

Conversely, this means that circumcision is always part of an ecclesiastical act or a celebration or a religious exercise or a comparable event in which the person concerned must take part as the main person, because after all, the penis of the person concerned is to be irrevocably circumcised .

Article 140 of the Basic Law expands the provisions of the Basic Law to include Articles 136, 137, 138, 139 and 141 of the German Constitution of August 11, 1919. Article 136 Paragraph 4 expressly says: “Nobody is allowed to participate in an ecclesiastical act or ceremony or for Participate in religious exercises or ... be forced. ”The 'nobody' includes all human beings. Nobody means all people, for example all adults, all mentally handicapped people. Nobody in particular also the "incapable of understanding and judgment male children" in the BGB §1631d named in the age of 0-18 years.

Since the law BGB §1631d allows the circumciser and the parents of the children to force the incapable of discerning and judgmental male children to participate in an injurious ceremony, BGB §1631d is in accordance with Article 140 of the Basic Law in unity with Article 136 out of the German constitution of 1919, as no one may be forced to such celebrations.

This aspect of the Basic Law was not discussed in the reasons given by the then federal government dserver.bundestag.de/btd/17/112/1711295.pdf.

Petition filed with the demand:

The Bundestag should decide to delete the BGB §1631d without replacement.


sources

 

My opinion: no re-election of Steinmeier and more

I think the circumcision of genitals is perverse - whether it is boys or girls. If someone wants to be perverted to themselves, then that someone should be allowed to decide for themselves as soon as they are mature enough to do so.

Everyone who has agreed to the German Civil Code §1631d has, in my opinion, degraded the boy-babies in order to protect the perverted perpetrators. Each of these politicians is, in my opinion, a friend of the perverts. Even my grandmothers would have known without legal training that unnecessary injuries from an animal that is incapable of understanding and judgment is animal cruelty. Cruelty to animals is a punishable offense. They would also have known that torturing babies is worse than torturing animals. Why did so many MPs vote for the protection of baby abusers on December 12th, 2012? Do we still live in a liberal democracy or has liberal democracy mutated under Merkel's chancellorship into the democracy of the friends of the perverts?

I consider such friends of the perverts to be unfit for office in government. Such friends of the perverts have proven with their voice that they either do not understand the Basic Law and human rights or that they do not have the strength to enforce human rights and the Basic Law against strong interest groups in the event of a conflict.

I count the current Federal President Dr. Frank-Walter Steinmeier to the friends of the perverts. I think this one damaged the office and the reputation of Germany in the world more than the short-term president Christian Wulff chased out of the office. The damage happened. In order to avoid further damage and to do better in the future, he should not be re-elected at the Federal Assembly in February. The same applies to at least five members in the current Scholz cabinet, which means that it can be considered a club of friends of perverts (irony). In my opinion, the friends of perverts are unsuitable for government offices. Chancellor Scholz should restructure his cabinet.

 

If I were Federal President ...

... then I'm probably in the middle of the night and dreaming.
And if it weren't a dream, I would only sign the laws that an ordinary mortal can understand and that protect and respect the freedom of the individual.