How multiculturalism is betraying women. ⇒
30 April 2007, lunch time
It seems to me, after reading the article, that stupid ignorant people are betraying women. Calling them proponents of multiculturalism is a bit disingenuous.
This is a post from my link log: If you click the title of this post you will be taken the web page I am discussing.
and may I add it is also the stupid, ignorant people running egal systems who are betraying women.
by tiff on April 30 2007, 3:31 pm #
Is it though? Isn’t this a pretty thin line? When are things ok, and when are things abnormal?
If we say people should have the right to head-dresses of various sorts, but not to do more violent or depraved things, who should judge where the line is drawn?
From non-legal standards, it sounds so easy. But you can’t write “do what’s right” in the law codes, you have to make it clear. What has precedence. Sure you can give people outs for judgment, but the German example is showing us that not everyone has good judgment. And then, who is to judge THEM for their judgment.
I myself find religious laws to be hooey, and they should never have any force.
by Victor on April 30 2007, 5:22 pm #
Are you seriously trying to compare spousal abuse with wearing turbans or scarves? I don’t even know where to start with that. (Well actually, for starters, one has to do with religion, the other not so much.)
by ramanan on April 30 2007, 5:38 pm #
If you can’t see a clear line between letting a woman wear an article of clothing and physical violence, then I have no argument to make with you.
by Ben on April 30 2007, 6:40 pm #
I think what i meant when I said there’s a lot of ignorance within the legal profession is that there doesn’t seem to be a good understanding of religious legal regimes. Judges seem to take a much more literal approach interpreting religious laws than they do with secular laws. Why the double standard?
There are a lot of misconceptions about religious laws within the legal profession as well. The “sharia” as recognized by the profession is actually the poorly translated, distorted and codefied version of the islamic legal tradition. Hundreds of years of oral and written traditions were condensed by colonial, secular lawyers who want to “simplify” centuries of jurisprudence into a simple code. What you have is secular lawyers and judges referring to a copy of sharia for dummies in modern society, with no reference to any historical context. You end up having judges making literal interpretation of a text without any understanding of its backround. The examples in the article are extreme and would unlikely have been upheld had the judge made some contextual construction of the Qur’an.
I also don’t think the article made clear distinction between mutlticulturalism and religious legal systems. those two may be intertwined but are not synonymous. Cultural inequalities end up becoming justifications for eliminating religious laws from western society. It’s not fair to attribute systemic faults towards a religion which is capable of promoting equalities. It is also unfair to attribute independent crimes to the entire culture’s fault.
The line isn’t unclear if you have better trained judges understanding that religious laws do not advocate violence if read contextually. It is possible for accommodating multiple legal regimes without violating some fundamental human rights – it’s a matter of construction.
by tiff on April 30 2007, 11:51 pm #
I actually thought Victor’s comment was off the mark, but I’m glad you were confused and posted the second comment. Regardless, it seems clear to me that a judge operating in a German court really shouldn’t give a damn what Sharia has to say on the cases presented to him. It sounds like the Judges are just trying to get a reaction.
by ramanan on May 1 2007, 9:32 am #
Perhaps I’ll be more straight to the point.
The whole point of the article was that the judges couldn’t tell where the line was drawn. Thus, it should be obvious that the main outrage for the reader is that religious laws are letting men get away with beating their wives.
Given that, from my personal view, I don’t agree with any religious concessions whatsoever, I am distinctly anti-religion. Thus, I don’t think courts should protect head-scarves OR beatings.
I am not comparing head-scarves to beatings.
by Victor on May 1 2007, 9:52 am #
I still think it’s all just an example of judges being malicious. The fact these judges all assume wife beating is A-OK in Islam is telling in and of itself. I doubt he’d make the same concessions if the couple were devout Christians. (The bible has junk in it about wives being submissive to their husbands, and states the only legitimate reason for divorce is adultery.)
by ramanan on May 1 2007, 10:32 am #
Adultery can only be committed by the wife
by Gary on May 2 2007, 1:18 am #