Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Jewish ultra-Orthodox Circumcision Ceremony. Legit or Sick?

Discussion

  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#1 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 13 September 2012 - 06:39 PM

During circumcision ceremony the priest uses his mouth to suck blood off the baby's penis.

Why on earth would a parent do this to their child? After mutilating the sex organ of baby, priest sucks on infant's penis, in many cases causing Herpes and even death. In my view this practice should be banned and criminalised. IMHO there is no place for this type of ritual in a modern educated society. Respect for religious freedom is one thing but this is just nonsense. Where should society draw the line.



New York (CNN) -- New York City's Board of Health voted Thursday to require parents to sign a consent form before having their child undergo a controversial ultra-Orthodox Jewish circumcision ritual after two children died from the herpes virus contracted during the procedure, authorities said.
The parental consent form must include information regarding the possible fatal risks of the ritual, according to Chanel Caraway, a spokeswoman from the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. It's not clear if the form will absolve clergy from potential lawsuits.
The ritual, known as the metzitzah b'peh, is a type of circumcision in which the person performing the procedure, or mohel, directly places his mouth on and sucks the blood from the baby's newly circumcised penis.
The controversial ritual came under intense scrutiny earlier this year after health officials reported 11 babies had contracted herpes infections between 2000 and 2011.

Why I didn't circumcise my sons

The health department reported that an estimated 20,493 infants in New York City were exposed to direct oral suction in that period.
"There is no safe way to perform oral suction on any open wound in a newborn," said the health commissioner, Dr. Thomas Farley.
Baby boys who were reportedly circumcised "with confirmed or probable orogenital suction" between April 2006 and December 2011 had an estimated risk of contracting neonatal herpes (HSV-1) infection of 24.4 per 100,000 cases, 3.4 times greater than other infants, the health department said.
"The ethical duty to protect the interests of vulnerable infants and to support parents in making informed and responsible choices cannot be overridden," a group of doctors and bioethicists from the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics said in a letter to Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Yoram Unguru, a Jewish pediatrician, hailed the decision, saying authorities should protect children "from the consequences of unwise decisions."
"In my mind, the amendment doesn't go far enough -- getting parental consent for circumcision in general, that's appropriate and sufficient, but consent for the metzitzah b'peh should not be allowed," he said. It "should not be performed, period."

Members of the orthodox community blasted the decision, calling it an infringement of constitutional rights.
"By telling a mohel he is prohibited from performing a religious ritual unless he tells the parents that, by the way, the child might die in the process, you are forcing us to say something which we are convinced is wrong," said Rabbi David Niederman of the Brooklyn-based United Jewish Organization of Williamsburg.
Niederman and other community members say they plan to contest the regulation.
"We want to work, we have tried, and we are committed to work with the Department of Health to address their concerns in any way, shape or form that does not conflict with our religious and constitutional rights," he said. "The practice will continue."

Edited by SN -Admin, 13 September 2012 - 07:52 PM.

  • 0

#2 King Heffy

King Heffy

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,493 posts
  • Joined: 12-April 10

Posted 13 September 2012 - 06:43 PM

Well, I just lost my appetite.
  • 0

KcJJSvD.jpg

 

Put Gino in the ROH


#3 Jai604

Jai604

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,039 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 10

Posted 13 September 2012 - 06:55 PM

Yeah, that is pretty fracked up.
  • 2

RIP LB RR PD


#4 Jägermeister

Jägermeister

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,756 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 12

Posted 13 September 2012 - 07:24 PM

That's just disgusting :sick:
  • 0
Posted Image

#5 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,021 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 13 September 2012 - 07:25 PM

That's messed up even by religious standards...
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#6 Guest_BuckFoston_*

Guest_BuckFoston_*
  • Guests
  • Joined: --

Posted 13 September 2012 - 07:28 PM

Oh and after this we try to teach our kids that no one ever has the right to touch their private parts. Sick.
  • 0

#7 taxi

taxi

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,337 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06

Posted 13 September 2012 - 07:32 PM

Change the title. It's only a very small sect of Judaism that does this. Most Jews are also opposed.
  • 0

#8 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 13 September 2012 - 09:37 PM

Change the title. It's only a very small sect of Judaism that does this. Most Jews are also opposed.


Officials believes 3600 infant boys go thru this ritual every year in New York city alone.

Jewish population in the US is turning increasingly conservative.

http://www.haaretz.c...orhood-1.440337


Thirty-two percent of Jewish households in the New York region are now Orthodox. Three decades ago, in 1981, the figure was just 13 percent. In New York City itself, the epicenter of the organized American Jewish community, 40 percent of the population is Orthodox. Most of these are actually ultra-Orthodox Jews.
Not only do Orthodox Jews now constitute a large proportion of New York's Jewish population, but they are also likely to become a majority in the future, if current demographic trends continue. The startling fact that two out of three Jewish children living in the New York region are Orthodox (even more in the city ) already suggests that the future Jewish community of New York will be increasingly religious, if not Haredi.

Edited by WHL rocks, 13 September 2012 - 10:12 PM.

  • 0

#9 SkeeterHansen

SkeeterHansen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,140 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 11

Posted 13 September 2012 - 09:46 PM

Absoloutely sickening. Some parents need to be taught a lesson. Religious or not, this is just awful.
  • 0

/=S=/


#10 dajusta

dajusta

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,908 posts
  • Joined: 24-January 03

Posted 13 September 2012 - 11:10 PM

This is news to me, and I don't condone it at all.
  • 0
I'm Christian
I won't judge you
No one is perfect
Only through Jesus
Will we find Truth

#11 Squirrels.Gone.Wild

Squirrels.Gone.Wild

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 432 posts
  • Joined: 16-July 09

Posted 13 September 2012 - 11:17 PM

During circumcision ceremony the priest uses his mouth to suck blood off the baby's penis.




Posted Image
  • 2

#12 taxi

taxi

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,337 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06

Posted 14 September 2012 - 08:32 AM

Officials believes 3600 infant boys go thru this ritual every year in New York city alone.


That's because there are only two places with significant amounts of Haredi Jews: NYC and Israel, and they have a lot of kids as they don't believe in birth control. There's 30,000 or so in London, but those are the only major population centres. Also most Haredi who do the procedure use a glass tube to separate the Rabbi and the baby (I agree still weird).

Jewish population in the US is turning increasingly conservative.

http://www.haaretz.c...orhood-1.440337


Thirty-two percent of Jewish households in the New York region are now Orthodox. Three decades ago, in 1981, the figure was just 13 percent. In New York City itself, the epicenter of the organized American Jewish community, 40 percent of the population is Orthodox. Most of these are actually ultra-Orthodox Jews.
Not only do Orthodox Jews now constitute a large proportion of New York's Jewish population, but they are also likely to become a majority in the future, if current demographic trends continue. The startling fact that two out of three Jewish children living in the New York region are Orthodox (even more in the city ) already suggests that the future Jewish community of New York will be increasingly religious, if not Haredi.


There is a huge difference between Orthodox and Haredi. Orthodox would be the equivalent of Catholic. Haredi is something else entirely.

I'm not in favor of this procedure in any way. However, you seem to be making the case that it's taking over the Jewish world, which it isn't. In fact, quite the opposite is happening as more and more Haredi are banning it. The Haredi movement itself only came to being in the 1800s. They do not reflect traditional Jewish customs in any way.
  • 0

#13 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 14 September 2012 - 03:15 PM

That's because there are only two places with significant amounts of Haredi Jews: NYC and Israel, and they have a lot of kids as they don't believe in birth control. There's 30,000 or so in London, but those are the only major population centres. Also most Haredi who do the procedure use a glass tube to separate the Rabbi and the baby (I agree still weird).



There is a huge difference between Orthodox and Haredi. Orthodox would be the equivalent of Catholic. Haredi is something else entirely.

I'm not in favor of this procedure in any way. However, you seem to be making the case that it's taking over the Jewish world, which it isn't. In fact, quite the opposite is happening as more and more Haredi are banning it. The Haredi movement itself only came to being in the 1800s. They do not reflect traditional Jewish customs in any way.


In Israel 10% of the population is Heredi. That is not a "very small" number as you claimed. 10% is a significant part of the population and it's increasing at a very high rate. The Heredi jewish population is doubling every 12 to 20 years according to Wiki.

As the article from Haaretz states 40% of NY jews are orthodox and MOST of these are ultra - orthodox. It also says "the future of NYC jewish community will be increasingly religious if not, Heredi."

According to your claim this ritual only started in the 1800's. 200 Rabbis protesting the regulation of this ritual claim this is an ancient and holy custom. I believe the rabbis.

http://www.jewishpre...peh/2012/09/04/

Some 200 rabbis have signed a statement alleging that the department “printed and spread lies … in order to justify their evil decree.It is clear to us that there is not even an iota of blame or danger in this ancient and holy custom,” the New York Post reported.

I understand the sensitivities around religion but sometimes we just have to call it like it is. No matter what the religion of the community practising this type of ritual. If its not right its not right.

IMHO sweeping it under the rug is pbbly not the best thing to do. We should face it not minimise it.
  • 0

#14 Horny Manatee

Horny Manatee

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,886 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 06

Posted 14 September 2012 - 03:50 PM

That sucks.
  • 1
Posted Image
Lick my lollipops?

#15 taxi

taxi

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,337 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06

Posted 14 September 2012 - 04:15 PM

In Israel 10% of the population is Heredi. That is not a "very small" number as you claimed. 10% is a significant part of the population and it's increasing at a very high rate. The Heredi jewish population is doubling every 12 to 20 years according to Wiki.

As the article from Haaretz states 40% of NY jews are orthodox and MOST of these are ultra - orthodox. It also says "the future of NYC jewish community will be increasingly religious if not, Heredi."

According to your claim this ritual only started in the 1800's. 200 Rabbis protesting the regulation of this ritual claim this is an ancient and holy custom. I believe the rabbis.

http://www.jewishpre...peh/2012/09/04/

Some 200 rabbis have signed a statement alleging that the department “printed and spread lies … in order to justify their evil decree.It is clear to us that there is not even an iota of blame or danger in this ancient and holy custom,” the New York Post reported.

I understand the sensitivities around religion but sometimes we just have to call it like it is. No matter what the religion of the community practising this type of ritual. If its not right its not right.

IMHO sweeping it under the rug is pbbly not the best thing to do. We should face it not minimise it.


My point was pretty simple. Most Jews are oppossed to this act. You're previous post was purposely misleading. Only a fraction of Jews are Orthodox Only a fraction of those are Haredi. Only a fraction of those continue this practice. Basically, most Jews consider the Haredi to be weirdos and the articles you were pointing to suggesting 40% of Jews in NYC do this, was totally false.

And no, noone is sweeping it under the rug. The point of the article was taht the mayor of NYC, who is Jewish, is enacting legislation to regulate this.
  • 1

#16 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 14 September 2012 - 04:31 PM

Religion.....putting the 'suckers' in %*#@-suckers.
  • 1

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#17 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,163 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 14 September 2012 - 04:41 PM

Oh boy, another God thread! Quick everyone, to your high horses!
  • 1

#18 MrMooresBeard

MrMooresBeard

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 477 posts
  • Joined: 20-November 09

Posted 14 September 2012 - 05:55 PM

finally someone is pulling the hood off this thing and exposing the meat of the issue to the world
  • 0

#19 Bure fan

Bure fan

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 974 posts
  • Joined: 20-March 09

Posted 14 September 2012 - 06:32 PM

Don't really know what to say exactly .

Yuck !
  • 0

#10 Pavel Bure #96


Posted Image


#20 JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo

JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,596 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 09

Posted 14 September 2012 - 07:45 PM

This is news to me, and I don't condone it at all.


Hypocrite much?
  • 0
Posted Image

#21 Offensive Threat

Offensive Threat

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,550 posts
  • Joined: 18-March 03

Posted 15 September 2012 - 01:56 AM

I accept that jewish people are going continue to have ritual circumcisions as per their faith and understand it is not optional in the fremework of their beliefs. The covenant between God and Abraham etc etc. I accept that. But the sucking thing... it goes so far beyond what I can consider even remotely acceptable practices.So very far beyond anything I could have even made up. Is there a point where religion goes to far? Yes. This isnt that point. This is way beyond that point.

EDIT: I used the word "beyond" a lot. But this issue is beyond belief. Its beyond beyond.

Edited by Offensive Threat, 15 September 2012 - 02:00 AM.

  • 0

Posted Image


#22 Magikal

Magikal

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,656 posts
  • Joined: 09-March 09

Posted 15 September 2012 - 02:05 AM

God apparently designed us in his image.

So why did he create males with such a flaw as foreskin, that humans had to step in and start chopping them off?

I don't see how society can let old men mutilate infants and then let them hide behind the guise of religion.

If we can all come to the agreement that blowing up buildings/planes etc. in the name of god is wrong, then why isn't taking a knife to a newborns genitalia?
  • 2
Posted Image
Credit to Lahey.

October1st,2013. #HistoryWillBeMade

#23 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,021 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 15 September 2012 - 09:17 AM

God apparently designed us in his image.

So why did he create males with such a flaw as foreskin, that humans had to step in and start chopping them off?

I don't see how society can let old men mutilate infants and then let them hide behind the guise of religion.

If we can all come to the agreement that blowing up buildings/planes etc. in the name of god is wrong, then why isn't taking a knife to a newborns genitalia?

Probably because there are benefits to circumcision when done properly.

This case though is abhorrent and like you said should not be able to hide behind the guise of religion.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#24 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 15 September 2012 - 10:19 AM

Probably because there are benefits to circumcision when done properly.

This case though is abhorrent and like you said should not be able to hide behind the guise of religion.


Evolution evolved the foreskin into place. There's a reason for it. It's not a vestigial anatomical structure, despite what a book written in the desert over 2000 years ago says, which was written by uneducated sheep-herders and tribesman and whose modern day slaw jawed torch bearers continue to contend.

There are benefits to amputating your legs as well, in order to avoid the potential problem of 'Restless Leg Syndrome' in the modern world. Should we remove those too, because some tribesman somewhere and sometime may have thought that's a command given to us by his regionally worshipped deity?
  • 2

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#25 Bitter Melon

Bitter Melon

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,928 posts
  • Joined: 04-August 11

Posted 15 September 2012 - 10:52 AM

If you want to be circumcised, go ahead. All power to you. But you should not mutilate a baby who is incapable of giving consent.
  • 0
"Suck it Phaneuf" -Scott Hartnell
The poster formerly known as "CAPSLOCK"
Posted Image

#26 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,021 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 15 September 2012 - 11:12 AM

Evolution evolved the foreskin into place. There's a reason for it. It's not a vestigial anatomical structure, despite what a book written in the desert over 2000 years ago says, which was written by uneducated sheep-herders and tribesman and whose modern day slaw jawed torch bearers continue to contend.

There are benefits to amputating your legs as well, in order to avoid the potential problem of 'Restless Leg Syndrome' in the modern world. Should we remove those too, because some tribesman somewhere and sometime may have thought that's a command given to us by his regionally worshipped deity?

Difference of course being the benefits of having legs far outweigh the benefits of amputating your legs.

No one said the foreskin doesn't have a purpose, the Bible certainly doesn't say it's just a vestigial anatomical structure. There is also a reason for your tonsils, appendix, spleen, gall bladder etc. sometimes it's more beneficial to have them removed then to keep them. All about weighing the benefits and harms. Just because evolution evolved certain things into place doesn't mean that they are best features to have. For example some people have evolved and passed on variations of the BRCA1 and 2 genes that increase peoples susceptibility to breast cancer. So just because something evolves doesn't mean it's necessarily good.

Edit
Not that I'm saying the foreskin is bad!! Just that circumcision if done properly also isn't bad!

Edited by Nevlach, 15 September 2012 - 11:12 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#27 Bitter Melon

Bitter Melon

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,928 posts
  • Joined: 04-August 11

Posted 15 September 2012 - 11:24 AM

Difference of course being the benefits of having legs far outweigh the benefits of amputating your legs.

No one said the foreskin doesn't have a purpose, the Bible certainly doesn't say it's just a vestigial anatomical structure. There is also a reason for your tonsils, appendix, spleen, gall bladder etc. sometimes it's more beneficial to have them removed then to keep them. All about weighing the benefits and harms. Just because evolution evolved certain things into place doesn't mean that they are best features to have. For example some people have evolved and passed on variations of the BRCA1 and 2 genes that increase peoples susceptibility to breast cancer. So just because something evolves doesn't mean it's necessarily good.

Edit
Not that I'm saying the foreskin is bad!! Just that circumcision if done properly also isn't bad!


Yes, but circumcising a baby who is unable to consent is a bad thing. I don't think anyone here is arguing that circumcision should be abolished, rather they're saying that "Oh, the baby is out. Time to chop off part of their genitals." shouldn't happen.

Edited by CAPSLOCK, 15 September 2012 - 11:26 AM.

  • 1
"Suck it Phaneuf" -Scott Hartnell
The poster formerly known as "CAPSLOCK"
Posted Image

#28 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,021 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 15 September 2012 - 11:39 AM

Yes, but circumcising a baby who is unable to consent is a bad thing. I don't think anyone here is arguing that circumcision should be abolished, rather they're saying that "Oh, the baby is out. Time to chop off part of their genitals." shouldn't happen.

Truth.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#29 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 15 September 2012 - 11:39 AM

Difference of course being the benefits of having legs far outweigh the benefits of amputating your legs.

No one said the foreskin doesn't have a purpose, the Bible certainly doesn't say it's just a vestigial anatomical structure. There is also a reason for your tonsils, appendix, spleen, gall bladder etc. sometimes it's more beneficial to have them removed then to keep them. All about weighing the benefits and harms. Just because evolution evolved certain things into place doesn't mean that they are best features to have. For example some people have evolved and passed on variations of the BRCA1 and 2 genes that increase peoples susceptibility to breast cancer. So just because something evolves doesn't mean it's necessarily good.

Edit
Not that I'm saying the foreskin is bad!! Just that circumcision if done properly also isn't bad!


And 'some' foreskin removal is necessary for 'some' people, for 'some' medical reasons. They should not be removed for reasons by way of supernatural belief structures, because then its simply removal of healthy tissue of a person who hasn't decided if they want it removed or not.

There is no health benefit to its removal that warrants the general practice as one of being medically necessary for the general male population.

Its removal was/is an act born out of religion and is now pursued in some places, like the U.S., because of profit and greed.

People who can't argue the religious reasons it started and became accepted practice, attempt to used medical ones as cover. Those who simply use the medical ones without knowing where the practice originated and why, are arguing something that isn't medically necessary and fall victim to logical trappings concerning other body parts. For example, with the advent of composite blades and materials human can create better legs with which to run on which will last longer and won't be susceptible to disease and other disorders such as Deep Vein Thrombosis, which can be fatal, not to mention the overall benefit from never having to sprain one's ankles ever again. So, we should remove all legs and attach composite legs instead. The benefits of heading off problems before they occur is obvious.

What? I'm simply advocating for a proactive means to eliminate potential health risks too, and if it just so happens to align with my beliefs in a supernatural story that I don't have any proof for, but I believe anyways, then that's just a happy coincidence. We should totally just be focusing on the medical/health benefits, of course.
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#30 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,153 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 15 September 2012 - 01:29 PM

Willing to bet more people in New York sacrifice animals for their religion.

It's not Jews (or any other religion), it's New York.
  • 0
Posted Image





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Discussion

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.