“Yes!”

That is according to a regional court ruling in Cologne, Germany, last spring. This case arose after the circumcision of a four-year-old Muslim boy led to medical complications. The doctor who had performed the operation was taken to court and the court ruled that the boy’s “fundamental right to bodily integrity” had been violated. This ruling caused a lot of hue and cry among Muslims and Jews since they viewed it as an affront to their religious freedom. Although German lawmakers eventually passed a legislation that ensures that parents have a right to have their boys circumcised, this controversy touches on a lot of raw nerves. It is clear that while activists against female circumcision in most countries easily get their arguments across to the targeted societies, intactivistshave a hard time getting theirs across.

I find this particular case to be very interesting for many reasons. Beyond its medical benefits, circumcision means many things to different societies. For Jews and Muslims, circumcision is of great religious significance and has been practiced by these societies since time immemorial. For those African societies that practice it, circumcision is an important rite of passage that signifies a transition from childhood to adulthood. Some American and European societies also practice circumcision; and they too have their own reasons for doing so.

When social/religious practices conflict with personal rights/state laws, which one should take precedence? Does a boy born into a Jewish family have a right not to be circumcised? Obviously, an eight-day old boy cannot exercise such a right, so someone, usually the parent, assumes the responsibility. What happens then when the said boy later decides to renounce their religious beliefs? Or when he decides that the slight loss of sexual sensitivity as a result of circumcision is a big deal for him? Obviously, he cannot reverse the procedure. Could he then possibly sue the parents and the hospital for doing that to him? Or the state for allowing the parents to do ‘such grievous harm’ to his body?

Another twist to the circumcision issue is when national laws or beliefs conflict with the practices of one particular society within the country. Do the majority get to decide for the minority whether they get to keep a distinct part of their culture? While there exists grounds for arguing whether the German court was right in some sense, it is doubtful whether we can say the same about the guys who did this!

The German case has another dimension to it beyond that of the merits/demerits or circumcision and religious/personal rights. The fact that Germany has a long and tragic history of anti-Semitism immediately throws the other arguments out the window. While it is true that in Germany, circumcision is “unfamiliar to the general public, even to most lawmakers”, it is very important to think about the message such a ruling sent to the world about how Germans (or their judiciary) feel about minority groups in their society. To the court, it might have been a straightforward case of what the law allows and doesn’t, but it sure did appear otherwise to the world.

scotthorvath/Flickr

“Shifts ran 24 hours a day, and the factory was always bright. At any moment, there were thousands of workers standing on assembly lines or sitting in backless chairs, crouching next to large machinery, or jogging between loading bays. Some workers’ legs swelled so much they waddled.  “It’s hard to stand all day,” said Zhao Sheng, a plant worker.”

Reading this excerpt, save for the word ‘bright’, one would think that they were reading about the horrible working conditions that existed in factories in Western Europe during the Industrial Revolution. But lo and behold, this is an excerpt from the article “In China, Human Costs Are Built Into an iPad” that ran in the New York Times on January 25^th 2012 detailing the horrible working conditions in a Foxconn factory in Chengdu, China. Foxconn is one of Apple’s largest suppliers, assembling iPads and other electronics. Like its 18^th century predecessors, Apple has mastered the art of capitalism, milking every last bit of value out of labor in the pursuit of higher profits.

However, unlike its predecessors, Apple doesn’t run its own factories. It leverages its returns by exploiting its global manufacturing system; a system that has allowed it to achieve large returns, great innovations at very cheap prices and at astounding rates. Just in the last quarter, Apple was able to post a profit of $13.06 billion and sales of $46.3 billion.

These are impressive figures, but the cost at which they are achieved is pretty depressing too. Globalization has enabled Apple to exploit the existing global market imbalances. Although much that goes into the making of Apple products is done in the US, assembling of these products is outsourced to China which has a large technologically capable population that is ready to work at much lower wages compared to workers in the US. Given the amounts involved in the contracts, winning or losing an Apple contract can often mean the survival or the demise of a supplier firm. This upper hand enables Apple to give very little margins to its suppliers. As a result, the suppliers are forced to engage in very unethical work practices in order to stay afloat. They cut down on worker’s wages, safety standards, force workers to work overtime and employ underage workers.

Although Apple has a supplier code of conduct whose violation is supposed to be met by severe punishments for the violating suppliers, past trends show that this has not really been followed. Apple has done several audits on its Chinese suppliers but that is as far as it goes. Violating firms are still in Apple’s supply roll. This is because the system still works for Apple. These firms still manufacture quality products on time and at decreasing costs. Discontinuing the relationship would mean looking for other suppliers, a process that takes a long time and slows down the churning out of much demanded iPads, iPods, and iPhones.

How do we, as lovers of Apple’s products, possibly justify this injustice meted on foreign workers? Does an overworked or underage worker have to polish the iPhone to perfection in a sweatshop so that we can enjoy swiping it to read our emails? Many proponents of outsourcing posit that such outsourced jobs lead to not only cheaper products back home, but also create much needed jobs for the citizens of the countries where the factories are located. Additionally, outsourcing is supposed to create more competition between firms in the same industry and hence lead to innovation.

However, in Apple’s case, these supposed facts do not measure up. First of all, making a net income of $13 billion in one quarter at the expense of the workers who make this possible is just obscene. Secondly, Apple’s products are not in any way cheaper as a result of workers having to tighten up. They are way pricier than those of its competitors. Thirdly, even though by local standards the workers employed in outsourced jobs earn more than the average worker in such countries; it is still unfair if such wages are earned in dehumanizing conditions. Ethical business conduct demands that the pursuit of higher returns should not eclipse the fair treatment of workers. It is still very possible for Apple and its suppliers to make very decent profits while also paying their workers well. Sadly, this will only happen through public pressure and not as a result of internal initiative by the most innovative company.

A sketch of MacD’s cell, drawn by his lawyer

MacD must duck to enter the cell and sleep on his side at night. Showers and using the bathroom are extremely complicated for MacD. He is also unable to complete his prison work requirement due to the problems with his size. Prison officials have already tried to help MacD by adding a plank and extra mattress to his bed, but MacD claims he barely even has room to turn in his cell. MacD was arrested for fraud and sentenced to jail for 2 years, but he requested to complete his sentence which ends April 12, 2012 under house arrest.
This story raises many questions about whether or not we should provide special treatment for the obese, especially if they are prisoners. The purpose of a jail sentence, some might argue, is to provide some level of discomfort or inconvenience as retribution or a way to punish a criminal for the crime he committed. Others might think that this is unnecessary, and that we should be focused on rehabilitating prisoners rather than confining them to spaces in which it is difficult for them to even breathe. And with limited resources, exactly how much money are we willing to spend to ensure that prisoner’s are comfortable?
This seems like a special case where the prisoner is physically limited by his size, and I do not think that he should be punished for his height and weight (factors which are not always in our individual control such as genetics and the environment).
Although MacD certainly doesn’t deserve a life of luxury, I think that we can expect the prison system, if at all financially feasible, to adjust its facilities in this case to accommodate MacD so that he is able to live in decent conditions.