Multi-culturism or women's rights? Which to choose you can't have both?

[lordofchaos]

I thought this was an interesting article and decided to share and see what the folks of R&P thought...

http://comment.independent.co.uk/col...cle2496657.ece

Johann Hari: How multiculturalism is betraying women
It would be easy to congratulate ourselves on our tolerance of the fanatically intolerant
Published: 30 April 2007

Do you believe in the rights of women, or do you believe in multiculturalism? A series of verdicts in the German courts in the past month, have shown with hot, hard logic that you can't back both. You have to choose.

The crux case centres on a woman called Nishal, a 26-year-old Moroccan immigrant to Germany with two kids and a psychotic husband. Since their wedding night, this husband beat the hell out of her. She crawled to the police covered in wounds, and they ordered the husband to stay away from her. He refused. He terrorised her with death threats.

So Nishal went to the courts to request an early divorce, hoping that once they were no longer married he would leave her alone. A judge who believed in the rights of women would find it very easy to make a judgement: you're free from this man, case dismissed.

But Judge Christa Datz-Winter followed the logic of multiculturalism instead. She said she would not grant an early divorce because - despite the police documentation of extreme violence and continued threats - there was no "unreasonable hardship" here.

Why? Because the woman, as a Muslim, should have "expected" it, the judge explained. She read out passages from the Koran to show that Muslim husbands have the "right to use corporal punishment". Look at Sura 4, verse 34, she said to Nishal, where the Koran says he can hammer you. That's your culture. Goodbye, and enjoy your beatings.

This is not a freakish exception. Germany's only state-level Minister for Integration, Armin Laschet, says this is only "the last link, for the time being, in a chain of horrific rulings handed down by the German courts".

The German magazine Der Spiegel has documented a long list of these multicultural verdicts. Here are just a few:

A Lebanese-German who strangled his daughter Ibthahale and then beat her unconscious with a bludgeon because she didn't want to marry the man he had picked out for her was sentenced to mere probation. His "cultural background" was cited by the judge as a mitigating factor.

A Turkish-German who stabbed his wife Zeynep to death in Frankfurt was given the lowest possible sentence, because, the judge said, the murdered woman had violated his "male honour, derived from his Anatolian moral concepts". The bitch. A Lebanese-German who raped his wife Fatima while whipping her with a belt was sentenced to probation, with the judge citing his ... you get the idea.

Their victims are forced to ask - like Soujourner Truth, the female slave who famously challenged early women's rights activists to consider black women as their sisters - "Ain't I a woman?"

In Germany today, Muslim women have been reduced to third-class citizens stripped of core legal protections - because of the doctrine of multiculturalism, which says a society should be divided into separate cultures with different norms according to ethnic origin.

Too often this issue is mixed up with other debates and gets waved through for the sake of politeness. The right loves mashing "mass immigration and multiculturalism" into one sound-bite. Well, I think Britain should take more immigrants and refugees, not fewer - but multiculturalism is a disastrous way to greet them.

These German cases highlight the flaw at the core of multiculturalism. It assumes that immigrants have one homogenous culture which they should all follow - and it allows the most reactionary and revolting men in their midst to define what that culture is. Across Europe, many imams are offering advice to Muslim men on how to beat Muslim women. For example, in Spain, the popular Imam Mohammed Kamal Mustafa warns that you shouldn't use "whips that are too thick" because they leave scars that can be detected by the "infidels". That might be Mustafa's culture - but it isn't Nishal's. It isn't the culture of the women who scream and weep as they are beaten.

And yes, we should admit that this is disproportionately a problem among Muslim, Sikh and Hindu immigrants who arrive from countries which have not had women's rights movements. Listen to Jasvinder Sanghera, who founded the best British charity helping Asian women after her sister was beaten and beaten and then burned herself to death. She says: "It's a betrayal of these women to be PC about this. Look at the figures. Asian women in Britain are three times more likely to commit suicide than their white friends. That's because of all this."

Yet the brave campaigners who have tried to help these women - like the Labour MP Ann Cryer - have been smeared as racist. In fact, the real racists are the people who vehemently condemn misogyny and homophobia when it comes from white people but mysteriously fall silent when it comes from black and Asian men.

Indeed, in the name of this warm, welcoming multiculturalism, the German courts have explicitly compared Muslim women to the brain-damaged. The highest administrative court in North Rhine-Westphalia has agreed that Muslim parents have the "right" to forbid their daughter from going on a school trip unless she was accompanied by a male family member at all times. The judges said the girl was like "a partially mentally impaired person who, because of her disability, can only travel with a companion".

As the Iranian author Azar Nafisi puts it: "I very much resent it when people - maybe with good intentions or from a progressive point of view - keep telling me, 'It's their culture' ... It's like saying the culture of Massachusetts is burning witches." She is horrified by the moves in Canada to introduce shariah courts to enforce family law for Muslims.

Multiculturalists believe that they are defending immigrants. But in reality, they are betraying at least 55 per cent of them - the women and the gays. It is multiculturalists, for example, who are the biggest champions of the Government's massive expansion of "faith" schools, where children will be segregated according to parental superstition and often taught the most literalist and cruel strain of a "faith".

What will girls and gay pupils be taught there? Will they have Sura 4, verse 34 drilled into them, along with the passages from the hadith where Mohammed calls for gay people to be executed? We know Catholic schools often push the most vile aspects of their faith at children; why should Muslim schools be different?

We desperately need to empower Muslim women to reinterpret the Koran in less literalist and vicious ways, or to leave their religion all together, as they wish. But multiculturalism hobbles them before they even begin, by saying they should stick to the "authentic" culture represented by the imams.

Yes, it would be easy to keep our heads down, go with this multicultural drift, and congratulate ourselves on our tolerance of the fanatically intolerant. But I can give you a few good reasons not to. Their names are Nishal and Ibthahale and Zeynep and Fatima, and, yes, they were women.

[TwiloMike]

I read this in another forum. Very interesting article.

Is there a poll coming?

[lordofchaos]

Originally Posted by TwiloMike

I read this in another forum. Very interesting article.

Is there a poll coming?

You know, I didn't think of that, I was thinking more of a discussion since most people I know think that both multiculturalism and womens rights are important (hell, I think that), but this article brings up the important contridiction in that...

I think I will add a poll, thanks for the suggestion Mike... if I could just figure out how to... I are teh suck at this....

[Shaun1990]

Originally Posted by lordofchaos

You know, I didn't think of that, I was thinking more of a discussion since most people I know think that both multiculturalism and womens rights are important (hell, I think that), but this article brings up the important contridiction in that...

I think I will add a poll, thanks for the suggestion Mike... if I could just figure out how to... I are teh suck at this....

In some forums, you have the access right's to ammend the threads that you create by editing the title and adding a poll. However, at bb.com, we are not known for our rights - BB code is disabled for our sigs and we cannot even post pics in the R/P section, so I doubt this is possible. Just edit the original post to see if you can add a poll.

On topic: Me? I prefer freedom of expression over womens rights and multi culturalism. I believe we must be able to express what we feel at all times, as long as its not too extreme. Sometimes this can conflict womens rights, well, it can't really conflict with proper feminism which is the choice to have a career or stay at home, but it can conflict with the new wave of feminazism. It can also conflict with certain aspects of multiculturalism, the Danish cartoon's anyone? They were a use of our freedom of expression that we have in the West, some Muslims didn't take it very well, although its arguable that the protests were also freedom of expression, however this is paradoxical, a march against freedom of expression in the name of freedom of expression is illogical if you ask me.

[lordofchaos]

Originally Posted by Shaun1990

In some forums, you have the access right's to ammend the threads that you create by editing the title and adding a poll. However, at bb.com, we are not known for our rights - BB code is disabled for our sigs and we cannot even post pics in the R/P section, so I doubt this is possible. Just edit the original post to see if you can add a poll.

On topic: Me? I prefer freedom of expression over womens rights and multi culturalism. I believe we must be able to express what we feel at all times, as long as its not too extreme. Sometimes this can conflict womens rights, well, it can't really conflict with proper feminism which is the choice to have a career or stay at home, but it can conflict with the new wave of feminazism. It can also conflict with certain aspects of multiculturalism, the Danish cartoon's anyone? They were a use of our freedom of expression that we have in the West, some Muslims didn't take it very well, although its arguable that the protests were also freedom of expression, however this is paradoxical, a march against freedom of expression in the name of freedom of expression is illogical if you ask me.

yeah... I assumed it was one of the many things we can't do here when I tried editing the post and could not add a poll oh well...

Good point as well, freedom of expression is a must.

[TwiloMike]

Originally Posted by lordofchaos

You know, I didn't think of that, I was thinking more of a discussion since most people I know think that both multiculturalism and womens rights are important (hell, I think that), but this article brings up the important contridiction in that...

I think I will add a poll, thanks for the suggestion Mike... if I could just figure out how to... I are teh suck at this....

Heh, I dunno the tricks of bb.com so I'm of no help with setting up a poll post factum.

About the topic, though, as rosy as multiculturalism sounds, I'll take women's rights first. In some hell hole of a country people can govern themselves however they wish, but in western societies I expect western laws adhered to by judges. Speaking as a westerner, domestic violence is not acceptable, regardless of what one's import culture dictates. By establishing different legal standards based on cultures of origin we end up creating people with varying sets of rights... and that's a mess I don't wish to see happen.

[lordofchaos]

Originally Posted by TwiloMike

Heh, I dunno the tricks of bb.com so I'm of no help with setting up a poll post factum.

About the topic, though, as rosy as multiculturalism sounds, I'll take women's rights first. In some hell hole of a country people can govern themselves however they wish, but in western societies I expect western laws adhered to by judges. Speaking as a westerner, domestic violence is not acceptable, regardless of what one's import culture dictates. By establishing different legal standards based on cultures of origin we end up creating people with varying sets of rights... and that's a mess I don't wish to see happen.

I agree.. I think it is important to honor ones culture as that is part of who you are, however I can't agree strongly enough that it is most important to keep the rights of all people while doing this. I was shocked and appalled when reading this that the judges were basically creating a group of people with less rights by legislation from the bench.

Basically, in my opinion, cultures are important, but rights trump cultures whether it be womens rights or the rights of free expression as was talked about above...

[TwiloMike]

Originally Posted by lordofchaos

I agree.. I think it is important to honor ones culture as that is part of who you are, however I can't agree strongly enough that it is most important to keep the rights of all people while doing this. I was shocked and appalled when reading this that the judges were basically creating a group of people with less rights by legislation from the bench.

What the article neglected to mention, and this came out in a different forum from a European poster who apparently followed these cases as they happened, the judge mentioned in the first case was taken off the case and possibly faced disciplinary action for being such a dumbass.

Basically, in my opinion, cultures are important, but rights trump cultures whether it be womens rights or the rights of free expression as was talked about above...

I agree.

Another poster in the other forum mentioned an interesting position: the woman in question, the Muslim woman, voluntarily subscribed to a religion that tolerates corporal punishment of wives by husbands, therefore she may be considered a voluntary victim and shouldn't be clogging up the courts when the religion she consensually subscribes to turns unpleasant. It's a very sinister way to look at the situation, imo, but I do see some merit in that pov.

[Geno]

Women's rights.

There are many cultures I've seen firsthand that I want no part of whatsoever.

[concept]

That's fcuking ridiculous. Those judges let religion come before basic human rights!? If those backward fundie wife beaters want to stay in the country that they migrate to, they better obey the original laws there or they can get the fcuk out.

[Ibanez]

Originally Posted by Geno

Women's rights.

There are many cultures I've seen firsthand that I want no part of whatsoever.

Please share.

[Vante]

Originally Posted by TwiloMike

What the article neglected to mention, and this came out in a different forum from a European poster who apparently followed these cases as they happened, the judge mentioned in the first case was taken off the case and possibly faced disciplinary action for being such a dumbass.


I agree.

Another poster in the other forum mentioned an interesting position: the woman in question, the Muslim woman, voluntarily subscribed to a religion that tolerates corporal punishment of wives by husbands, therefore she may be considered a voluntary victim and shouldn't be clogging up the courts when the religion she consensually subscribes to turns unpleasant. It's a very sinister way to look at the situation, imo, but I do see some merit in that pov.

I dont...

Did the woman convert ? Was she indoctrinised as a child ?

Whatever be the case, u and I, we both know that rationality and logic are thrown right out the window when religion comes into picture.

The lines need to be drawn. Culture, social norms, religion are informal means of social control and should remain as such.

[The Experiment]

Women's rights

[Rambo26]

Women's rights

[BVAV]

Originally Posted by TwiloMike

Another poster in the other forum mentioned an interesting position: the woman in question, the Muslim woman, voluntarily subscribed to a religion that tolerates corporal punishment of wives by husbands, therefore she may be considered a voluntary victim and shouldn't be clogging up the courts when the religion she consensually subscribes to turns unpleasant. It's a very sinister way to look at the situation, imo, but I do see some merit in that pov.

Actually the religion doesn't tolerate it and she is entitled to the same protection as everyone else. There are lots of "voluntary" victims most of whom don't adhere to any specific religion. Do you propose that all battered wives who repeatedly return to their husbands not be serviced by the law?

[TwiloMike]

Originally Posted by Vante

I dont...

Did the woman convert ? Was she indoctrinised as a child ?

Doesn't matter, as far as that pov goes. I understand the difficulty of leaving something you were indoctrinated into your whole life, which is why I said that I see some merit in that pov, but I certainly didn't endorse it fully.

[xer0xed]

Rights of women ftw

[Geno]

Originally Posted by Ibanez

Please share.

Any country under shariah in it's entirety, rural areas in muslim dominated countries, rural areas in most south american countries (not muslim but just as bad with the off the wall religions you've never heard of), wahabiism (most prevalent in KSA but not confined to KSA by any means) and redneckism/christian fundamentalist (sometimes, but not always, one and the same).

[TwiloMike]

Originally Posted by BVAV

Actually the religion doesn't tolerate it and she is entitled to the same protection as everyone else. There are lots of "voluntary" victims most of whom don't adhere to any specific religion. Do you propose that all battered wives who repeatedly return to their husbands not be serviced by the law?

Is the German judge here talking out of her ass?

"But Judge Christa Datz-Winter followed the logic of multiculturalism instead. She said she would not grant an early divorce because - despite the police documentation of extreme violence and continued threats - there was no "unreasonable hardship" here.

Why? Because the woman, as a Muslim, should have "expected" it, the judge explained. She read out passages from the Koran to show that Muslim husbands have the "right to use corporal punishment". Look at Sura 4, verse 34, she said to Nishal, where the Koran says he can hammer you. That's your culture. Goodbye, and enjoy your beatings."

[Geno]

Originally Posted by BVAV

Actually the religion doesn't tolerate it and she is entitled to the same protection as everyone else.

She has the same rights and protections as men?

Amazingly, this forum is the only place I ever see or hear muslims say this.

[Ibanez]

Originally Posted by Geno

Any country under shariah in it's entirety, rural areas in muslim dominated countries, rural areas in most south american countries (not muslim but just as bad with the off the wall religions you've never heard of), wahabiism (most prevalent in KSA but not confined to KSA by any means) and redneckism/christian fundamentalist (sometimes, but not always, one and the same).

Oh, you see the muslim and south american countries in the military or traveling?

[BVAV]

Originally Posted by TwiloMike

Is the German judge here talking out of her ass?

"But Judge Christa Datz-Winter followed the logic of multiculturalism instead. She said she would not grant an early divorce because - despite the police documentation of extreme violence and continued threats - there was no "unreasonable hardship" here.

Why? Because the woman, as a Muslim, should have "expected" it, the judge explained. She read out passages from the Koran to show that Muslim husbands have the "right to use corporal punishment". Look at Sura 4, verse 34, she said to Nishal, where the Koran says he can hammer you. That's your culture. Goodbye, and enjoy your beatings."

Yes

She said "that's your culture goodbye and enjoy your beatings"?

Sounds like she's a german biggot who wanted to punish the woman rather than respect her culture. She hardly sounds like an expert on Islam or culture for that matter.

[xer0xed]

Originally Posted by BVAV

Yes

She said "that's your culture goodbye and enjoy your beatings"?

Sounds like she's a german biggot who wanted to punish the woman rather than respect her culture. She hardly sounds like an expert on Islam or culture for that matter.

More like a power hungry ultra-leftist

[Geno]

Originally Posted by Ibanez

Oh, you see the muslim and south american countries in the military or traveling?

Mostly in the military.

[TwiloMike]

Originally Posted by BVAV

Yes

She said "that's your culture goodbye and enjoy your beatings"?

Sounds like she's a german biggot who wanted to punish the woman rather than respect her culture. She hardly sounds like an expert on Islam or culture for that matter.

I quoted her specifically to put the Koran thing she cited in context. Was she talking out of her ass about the follwing?

"She read out passages from the Koran to show that Muslim husbands have the "right to use corporal punishment". Look at Sura 4, verse 34, she said to Nishal, where the Koran says he can hammer you."

[BVAV]

Originally Posted by TwiloMike

I quoted her specifically to put the Koran thing she cited in context. Was she talking out of her ass about the follwing?

"She read out passages from the Koran to show that Muslim husbands have the "right to use corporal punishment". Look at Sura 4, verse 34, she said to Nishal, where the Koran says he can hammer you."

I said yes

[TwiloMike]

Originally Posted by BVAV

I said yes

And your rebuttal is....?

[Lloyd Braun]

Originally Posted by lordofchaos

The crux case centres on a woman called Nishal, a 26-year-old Moroccan immigrant to Germany with two kids and a psychotic husband. Since their wedding night, this husband beat the hell out of her. She crawled to the police covered in wounds, and they ordered the husband to stay away from her. He refused. He terrorised her with death threats.

So Nishal went to the courts to request an early divorce, hoping that once they were no longer married he would leave her alone. A judge who believed in the rights of women would find it very easy to make a judgement: you're free from this man, case dismissed.

But Judge Christa Datz-Winter followed the logic of multiculturalism instead. She said she would not grant an early divorce because - despite the police documentation of extreme violence and continued threats - there was no "unreasonable hardship" here.

Why? Because the woman, as a Muslim, should have "expected" it, the judge explained. She read out passages from the Koran to show that Muslim husbands have the "right to use corporal punishment". Look at Sura 4, verse 34, she said to Nishal, where the Koran says he can hammer you. That's your culture. Goodbye, and enjoy your beatings.

You've got to be kidding. Unbelievable. Sir Charles James Napier's quote is even more applicable here...

Originally Posted by Charles James Napier

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."

Women's rights for the win.

[lordofchaos]

Originally Posted by TwiloMike

What the article neglected to mention, and this came out in a different forum from a European poster who apparently followed these cases as they happened, the judge mentioned in the first case was taken off the case and possibly faced disciplinary action for being such a dumbass.

That is great to hear and is what should happen

Originally Posted by TwiloMike

Another poster in the other forum mentioned an interesting position: the woman in question, the Muslim woman, voluntarily subscribed to a religion that tolerates corporal punishment of wives by husbands, therefore she may be considered a voluntary victim and shouldn't be clogging up the courts when the religion she consensually subscribes to turns unpleasant. It's a very sinister way to look at the situation, imo, but I do see some merit in that pov.

I don't agree with that ideal at all, as like I said, basic rights come before cultural or religious ideals IMO and I don't believe that we should base this on someones supposed acceptance because they follow a religion or come from a culture that accepts them to have less rights..

[lordofchaos]

Originally Posted by Perspacitos

You've got to be kidding. Unbelievable. Sir Charles James Napier's quote is even more applicable here...



Women's rights for the win.

ah yes... great quote there man.