It was suggested that I contact PIAC (The Public Interest Advocacy Centre) by Paul Mason, the former Tasmanian Childrens Commissioner.
As is their policy, I contacted PIAC by phone on the 5th February 2012. I followed up the matter on the 19th of that month and was advised that they were unable (or unwilling) to assist.
I sent a letter on the 15th March 2012 to find out why PIAC did not see worth in pursuing this case. If PIAC's mission statement is to be believed, I would have thought that my son's and my situation would be a fight worth fighting for the following reasons:
1. An infant has a birth right to enjoy the care, protection and authority of both parents. Even if society is to allow bits to be excised from infants without medical need, a male infant is AT THE VERY LEAST entitled to the protection of both parents.
2. Parents have a birth right to protect their sons from surgery that is devoid of any therapeutic benefits.
3. Two senior Family Court Judges have handed down Judgments that appear to contradict the universally held view that non-medically indicated circumcision should be viewed (and enjoy the legitimacy) of being termed a 'medical procedure'.
My letter to Camilla Pandolsini (snr solicitor at PIAC) has so far been ignored.