Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Wednesday, May 2, 2007 | Reason : Political | print version Print | Comments |

Document How multiculturalism is betraying women

by Johann Hari, The Independent

Thanks to Linda Ward Selbie for the link.

Reposted from:
http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/johann_hari/article2496657.ece

hariIt would be easy to congratulate ourselves on our tolerance of the fanatically intolerant

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.

j.hari@independent.co.uk

Comments 1 - 50 of 67 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #36827 by AnatheistinNigeria on May 2, 2007 at 1:10 pm

This is so shameful for German/European law.

I am especially disappointed that such verdicts go unchallanged. These cases should appealed to higher and higher courts, if necessary until it reaches the European Court. I cannot image that these insane verdicts would not be struck down as being against European Laws related to the right for equal treatment for all people.

Are there any (German) lawyers on this blog that may be able to help?

Other Comments by AnatheistinNigeria

2. Comment #36828 by mr harry on May 2, 2007 at 1:11 pm

Why is a judge looking to the Koran for guidance in making this decision? Why is she not looking to the laws of this liberal democracy instead?

If the husband were claiming such, I would argue that he has to obey the law in the country where he seeks residence, but for the Judge, of all people, to ignore the law and look to the Koran does not make any sense to me.

I am beginning to be swayed further towards Mr. Hitchens' view. Religion poisons everything.

Other Comments by mr harry

3. Comment #36830 by ab_initio on May 2, 2007 at 1:21 pm

Im shocked at how absurd this is. Has anyone read about this elsewhere? Whilst it is very unlikely the author is over-exaggerating or fabricating this stuff, I'm finding it too ridiculous to believe. :|

Other Comments by ab_initio

4. Comment #36831 by posiedon on May 2, 2007 at 1:21 pm

 avatar
mr harry
Why is a judge looking to the Koran for guidance in making this decision? Why is she not looking to the laws of this liberal democracy instead?

I think the judge was taking the piss, you know? you've made your bed now lie in it, kind of thing.

Other Comments by posiedon

5. Comment #36833 by Richard Dawkins on May 2, 2007 at 1:25 pm

 avatarCongratulations to Johann Hari for exposing this monstrous injustice stemming from a fatuously stupid 'belief in belief'. It is hard to know which is the more evil, these Islamic customs themselves or the craven, cowardly and above all PATRONIZING 'respect' for them which the rest of us are expected to show.
Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

6. Comment #36836 by Glacian on May 2, 2007 at 1:28 pm

 avatarBeating one's wife mercilessly and threatening to kill her is deplorable in the highest degree; the fact that one's culture backs such behavior isn't justification for it, it is a mark against the culture itself!

This is shameful. I had thought most of Western Europe had progressed far beyond the United States, but this kind of absurdity would hopefully not be tolerated here. Multiculturalism is bunk; wrong is wrong, crime is crime; we may as well raise our children in isolation and then if they ever get in trouble cite it as their personalized culutural upbringing, and expect exemption from all culpability; Bah. Absurd.

Well you know what, us atheists, who lack any moral grounding, can't possibly be expected to be moral, right? So aren't we exempt from ALL wrongs, since we have no moral foundation? Any religious folk who simultaneously believe atheists have no morals and believe in this type of silly multiculturalism should be forced, by consistency, to accept that we atheists have the right to do anything we want. They won't, and this is simply an obvious case of special pleading on behalf of Islam, something they've demanded and, so far, with alarming success, received. It is past time we as a civilized world publicly denounce Islam and the Koran as the terrors they are for women, for civilization, and for freedom.

Other Comments by Glacian

7. Comment #36838 by uzi on May 2, 2007 at 1:31 pm

I'm tempted to think the judge is discriminating against these women not for being women, but for being one of "them" -- a muslim.

Too bad the Muslim women are the victims in that society. As posiedon said, "you've made your bed now lie in it" may be the judge's position, but the women didn't make THIS particular bed!

Other Comments by uzi

8. Comment #36840 by stereoroid on May 2, 2007 at 1:35 pm

 avatarposeidon: "I think the judge was taking the piss, you know? you've made your bed now lie in it, kind of thing."

If so, it just shows the judge was clueless - and a FEMALE judge, who (you might imagine) should have an awareness of the rights of woman. The Muslim woman did not "make her bed" - she was born in to a culture that treats women as second-class citizens at all levels, starting with education. And this is what she gets for moving to a supposedly enlightened Western society?

Other Comments by stereoroid

9. Comment #36842 by cassdenata on May 2, 2007 at 1:38 pm

This is the second time that I have seen an article on this matter. Each time I think that the judge is making a statement against multi-culturalism and the brutality of the islamic religion in order to generate a real discussion on these issues. His statements are so absurd, it can't be real...can they?

Other Comments by cassdenata

10. Comment #36846 by Jonathan Dore on May 2, 2007 at 1:48 pm

Yes, there was an article about this case on 22 March (http://richarddawkins.net/article,776,Germany-Cites-Koran-in-Rejecting-Divorce,NYTimescom-Mark-Landler). Following protests, the judge was recused from the case (see www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,druck-473017,00.html).

Other Comments by Jonathan Dore

11. Comment #36847 by The author on May 2, 2007 at 1:51 pm

 avatarThe situation is already changing. With the foundation of the (atheist) Council of Ex-Muslims we are moving in the right direction. Puplic opinion is changing.

Other Comments by The author

12. Comment #36848 by poppythinks on May 2, 2007 at 1:53 pm

 avatarwell written johann - this is what it is all about. Women have suffered long enough from religion, and in the 21st century human rights should be put above religious and superstitious rituals.
we need some kind of global agreement on abuse and everyone should be taught how to co-exist
without abuse. it is the accepted 'norm' in
religion for men to have superiority over women,
and parents over children - 'superiority' makes it ok to abuse. it develops skewed thinking and bad behaviour in everyone involved.
'multiculturism' is political 'people-pleasing'-
and has resulted in a perpetuation of abuses as each group tries to claim some sort of 'unique power' based on 'different needs', refusing to change or assimilate.
we need to keep outlawing abuse in all its forms,
and then perhaps everyone will start waking up
to the reality of 'religion' and its horrendous
legacy.

Other Comments by poppythinks

13. Comment #36852 by MartinSGill on May 2, 2007 at 2:03 pm

 avatarI'm ashamed of my heritage (well half of it) if this is really as bad as it seems. The only excuse I have is that I don't live there anymore.

While these decisions are pretty much indefensible, I think some mitigation might be in order.

For understandable historical reasons germany and especially german judges tend to have a very hard time dealing with issues were racial or especially religious discrimination/choice/freedoms is concerned. They also tend to be extremely aware of the international reaction to their decisions.

No judge wants to see their name in print under hte headline "Court makes Nazi's proud" or similar nonsense. It's no surprise then that maybe they would err on the side of "tollerance".

Decide that the Koran is wrong.. and you get calls of German judges defining a religion as wrong, just like Hitler did 70 years ago.

The good news is that Der Spiegel, one of the most influential and serious news magazines in Germany is highlighting the issue.

Let's hope people take notice and stop women being abused under the protection and guiding hand of religion.

Other Comments by MartinSGill

14. Comment #36854 by MartinSGill on May 2, 2007 at 2:07 pm

 avatarHaving just seen the article Jonathan Dore linked to, I note that German politicians and public are equally outraged. Good.

Other Comments by MartinSGill

15. Comment #36879 by Bonzai on May 2, 2007 at 4:02 pm

 avatarActually that is old news. I saw it about a month ago at least. The judge has been removed from the case. Some people called for her to be fired. The government said there would be some kind of investigation but I don't think she would lose her job.

Other Comments by Bonzai

16. Comment #36880 by steve99 on May 2, 2007 at 4:05 pm

 avatarThe recent history of inappropriate respect for oppressive right-wing views (justfied as 'religious') of minorities is discussed in detail in a recent book "What's Left" by Nick Cohen - an interesting read.

Other Comments by steve99

17. Comment #36881 by Bookman on May 2, 2007 at 4:07 pm

"She is horrified by the moves in Canada to introduce shariah courts to enforce family law for Muslims."

Thankfully this was stopped in its tracks by the Premier of Ontario.

from the BBC:

"Mr McGuinty said he would introduce 'as soon as possible' a law banning all religious arbitration in the province"

Other Comments by Bookman

18. Comment #36882 by kaiserkriss on May 2, 2007 at 4:07 pm

 avatarWhile I also find kowtowing to oppression in the name of multiculturalism disgusting, degrading, offensive, unjust etc. I wish the author of this piece would have followed up on his "research" in Der Spiegel, by pointing out that the judge in Nishal case was "excused" from the bench.
Further more the case did attract significant political attention in Berlin, and the media. The judge in this case will have to deal with the fallout of her bizarre actions, probably through demotion, or forced retirement or resignation.
This is what happens when sharia law is allowed to superseded an established legal system as is being proposed in the UK.("Now Muslims get their own laws in Britain" thread)
Unfortunately multiculturalism has run amok in Germany through over compensation, probably a result of their less than glorious past record on the subject, and constant reminders by the international press of the past misdeeds. When it comes to any form of racial/ cultural issues, the germans still carry a huge chip on their shoulder.jcw

Other Comments by kaiserkriss

19. Comment #36883 by Ivan The Not So Bad on May 2, 2007 at 4:14 pm

 avatarTell it like it is Mr Hari. Another fine article from a fine writer in a publication with some considerable integrity.

Where would this kind of thing lead us? The acceptance of female genital mutilation as long as it was within its "proper" context? After all, some (usually Islamic) religion based cultures believe that a woman will become posessed by her clitoris and be driven insane with desire - resulting in the corruption of innocent men.

The solution(thought up by men, of course)? As soon as a girl reaches puberty, hold her down and use a knife to cut out the offending body part so saving her (and the pure men who she would defile) from the horrors of sexual desire.

Should we celebrate their cultural difference and respect their religious point of view? I think not.

Other Comments by Ivan The Not So Bad

20. Comment #36897 by Linda on May 2, 2007 at 5:28 pm

Domestic violence is an insidious disease that is particularly odious when perpetrated by those who claim religious justification for abuse.The fact that governments continue to protect and sanctify superstition and its peddlers is shameful.

CBC Documentary: SILENCE LIKE AIR
"Last October was a particularly cruel month for Indo-Canadian women In B.C.'s lower mainland. Navreet Kaur Waraichi was stabbed to death in her home in Surrey, BC. Her husband was charged with second degree murder. A few days later, pregnant Surrey schoolteacher Manjit Panghali (she was a stunningly beautiful woman who was adored by here students) was found in nearby Delta. She had been killed and her body set on fire. Her husband and brother-in-law have been charged with her murder. Not long after that Gurjeet Ghurman was shot in the face by her estranged husband who then killed himself. It was too much.

At a public forum at Langara College - in the heart of Vancouver's Punjabi market - people spoke out on the issue, many for the very first time. B.C.'s Attorney General called domestic violence a cancer on the community. And he welcomed the new attention to the issue. Three women, in their very early twenties, caught the attention of the Attorney General at the Langara forum. Wally Oppal invited Supreeti Ghosh, Ashley Sandu and Sandeep Rokra to meet with him and continue the conversation.

The three students came well-prepared, with a remarkable willingness to explore the impact of the violence on their own lives and the life of the community, and to think about solutions. In today's documentary, "Silence like Air", Supreeti Ghosh, Ashley Sandu, and Sandeep Rokra have the ear of the Attorney General. Meet them, as they talk to each other, and to Wally Oppal.

"Silence Like Air" was produced by Teresa Goff, with special thanks to Indira Prahst. In the upcoming months, you may hear more from Supreeti Ghosh, Ashley Sandu and Sandip Rokra. They and others are working to organize another Langara College Forum for the fall - about the issues of violence, double lives and the generation gap."

Listen to the piece - hit the link and scroll down to 'SILENCE LIKE AIR'
http://www.cbc.ca/radioshows/THE_SUNDAY_EDITION/20070429.shtml

Other Comments by Linda

21. Comment #36899 by Richard H on May 2, 2007 at 5:32 pm

I supposed this would be a great time to HIGHLY recommend Ayaan Hirsi Ali's new book "Infidel". I just finished it the other night and was amazed at her breadth of experience, her thoughtful prose, and, most of all, her modest tone even while making the sort of statements she is hated for.

She talks quite a bit in the last few chapters about multiculturalism, especially Muslim immigrants in Holland, who are creating isolated communities totally out of touch with Dutch society and culture. Lots of honor killings and other abuses of women, but these are glossed over in the name of tolerance and multiculturalism.

An excellent book!

Other Comments by Richard H

22. Comment #36903 by Linda on May 2, 2007 at 5:40 pm

"Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because men spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those among you who fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them." Sura 4:34

Other Comments by Linda

23. Comment #36905 by Harlon57 on May 2, 2007 at 5:48 pm

 avatarGlacian said: This is shameful. I had thought most of Western Europe had progressed far beyond the United States, but this kind of absurdity would hopefully not be tolerated here.

I am really tired of the U.S. being the whipping post for every story. This was a story about Germany for crying out loud.

Your superiority is showing.

Other Comments by Harlon57

24. Comment #36915 by Helios G2V on May 2, 2007 at 7:13 pm

 avatarThis article comes as no surprise to me.

I have been living in Outback Australia for over ten years and the status of Anangu (Aboriginal) women would be below the status of the Muslim women depicted in this article.

The Anangu men who have succumbed to alcoholism regularly beat, rape and generally terrorise their women folk, sometimes in public view. Nobody is courageous enough to stop them because it is their "culture".

Politicians and Police Officers who intervene are vilified as racists.

This behaviour would not be tolerated in Australian cities, however, because it is mostly out of public view, in the remote parts of Australia, it is not a high priority issue. Most urban Aussie's wouldn't even know it was going on as publcity of these incidents is banned by Anangu councils afraid of being exposed as mysoginist bastards.

This is mutliculturalism at it's finest.

Other Comments by Helios G2V

25. Comment #36919 by MelM on May 2, 2007 at 7:39 pm

Why doesn't the German gov put a stop to this?

It might get worse.
But, I read somewhere about an EU plan somebody is advocating whereby couples would select which country's laws would govern their marriage thus potentially allowing people to opt out of basic rights. So, a woman--through extreme pressure or the ignorance of a newcomer--would sign such a thing and be stuck with the consequences. That would put EU countries in the position of enforcing the marriage laws from Iran or Saudi Arabia or... How could any judge keep up with such laws or even know how to administer them? Gosh, a holy man might have to be consulted or the whole matter sent over to a religious court. If stoning needs to be done, would the German (French or UK...) police do that? This entire scheme violates the idea of reason/reality as the proper source of justice and law. Silly tradition and superstition may still be in the law but the whole point of enlightened culture is to get rid of such things and certainly not to import vile nonsense from every backwards pest hole in the world. For the sake of civilization on this planet, I hope that the EU will reject this barbarous idea.

Other Comments by MelM

26. Comment #36924 by Yorker on May 2, 2007 at 8:17 pm

The answer to this stupidity is simple enough. If the dictates of any "culture" clash with the law of the land, then the law must take precedence. Adherents to outdated cultures must be made to realise that barbarism has no place in modern society. It needs to be said again and again, if you can't abide by a country's laws, leave; persons offending more than once should be deported, at their own cost of course.

If this means multiculturalism suffers, then so be it and so it should. People of reason need to force politicians to see sense by any means possible.

Other Comments by Yorker

27. Comment #36925 by Sapare Aude on May 2, 2007 at 8:19 pm

I thought Europe was above this. After Christians are not permitted to beat their wives event though they could cite the bible and say its their culture.
Here in Timothy 2:11-15 the bible states:
"Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.For Adam was formed first, then Eve.And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.
And in Ephesians 5:22-25
"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything."

Though paradoxically it states right afterwards from Ephesians 25-30
"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones."

Other Comments by Sapare Aude

28. Comment #36928 by Helios G2V on May 2, 2007 at 8:32 pm

 avatarThe deportation of serial wife bashers has merit but unfortunately it would eventually be used as a political greivance by the emigrated population. That is if it is used as a first resort measure. I would keep this as a last resort of particularly belligerent offenders.

Perhaps better screening of potential immigrants would go a long way towards attracting peaceful, law abiding citizens. This could be done on a user pays system, if you wish to emigrate to a country, prove to it's citizenry that you're worth the effort. A loan system similar to the university loan system could be employed. People tend to think a little harder about their actions when their income is a stake.

I suspect it will be a range of coercive and educational measures that will improve the attitude of the serial mysoginists. I have suggested just one measure.

Other Comments by Helios G2V

29. Comment #36935 by Yorker on May 2, 2007 at 8:55 pm

28. Comment #36928 by Helios G2V

Most countries already have some kind of screening. For example, there are two ways to legally emigrate to the USA; you must prove you have a skill that is needed and an employer must show that getting an American citizen has been difficult. The other method is to buy your way in, you must be willing to start a business and employ at least two American citizens.

Money is clearly no problem for well funded barbaric fanatics so they always will get in.

More countries should adopt the American method of making immigrants state upon entry that they will abide by the law and make no attempt to subvert it. This gives the government the right to deport any offender even for a first time offence.

Other Comments by Yorker

30. Comment #36938 by MelM on May 2, 2007 at 9:10 pm

How about serial jail time for serial wife bashers?

Other Comments by MelM

31. Comment #36941 by BaronOchs on May 2, 2007 at 9:21 pm

 avatarI've always thought that religion is dealing itself a deadly blow with its continuing opposition to women's rights.

But perhaps you think I'm an optimist?

Other Comments by BaronOchs

32. Comment #36950 by TedWak on May 2, 2007 at 10:33 pm

The judge's rationale is absurd and assinine, but the writer's view that there is no reconciling "multiculturalism" and human rights is also wrong.

Multiculturalism simply recognizes that a society comprises many different cultures and people should try, in the interest of harmony, to learn a bit about other cultures and not condemn differences just because they're strange.

But that doesn't mean tossing out the law of the land or liberal democratic principles -- or trying to judge the state of a Muslim marriage in light of the Koran.

Tolerance of innocuous cultural behaviour is fine, even laudable. Tolerance of violence, rape, murder as culturally determined is, well, -- intolerable.

It's not that hard a concept. This judge must be suffering big time from post-Third Reich guilt.

Other Comments by TedWak

33. Comment #36952 by fatcitymax on May 2, 2007 at 10:58 pm

Nishal should have just killed her husband. Any woman who puts up with being beaten by her husband deserves to be beaten.

Other Comments by fatcitymax

34. Comment #36958 by Shuggy on May 2, 2007 at 11:48 pm

 avatar6. Comment #36836 by Glacian on May 2, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Multiculturalism is bunk; wrong is wrong, crime is crime;

Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. "Our" culture (white, western, male, heterosexual, able-bodied) is not unmarked/neutral/always right and our laws are not perfect. Other cultures have a lot to teach us (think food), maybe even Islam, maybe even Christianity (I don't know what, but maybe).

It seems to me that we should maybe state some bottom-line trans-cultural values (in particular those protecting women and children from abusive cultural practices), but then encourage cross-pollination so we can all gain the best of all worlds.

Other Comments by Shuggy

35. Comment #36961 by Veronique on May 3, 2007 at 12:14 am

 avatar33. Comment #36952 by fatcitymax

If she had killed her husband, what makes you think that the male Muslim community in which she was probably sequestered with her family would not have killed her? Remember honour killing! Heavy little number.

I am 5'2" and slightly built. Let's say I am 'sold' to a man in wedlock and he beats me. Have I actually got the presence of mind to overcome well indoctrinated cultural and social mores and attempt to kill him (let's say he's 5'10", weighs about 95kgs to my 50kgs and is angry with me - more strength comes with anger - great surges of hormones and chemicals). Have I got a hope? I don't think so. And if I were to bide my time, make sure the kids were safe and kill him while he is sleeping, what reason would I be able to offer to a court of law and/or a Sharia court?

26. Comment #36924 by Yorker

Do you recall instances where children died because the kids were ill and needed blood transfusions and their JW parents wouldn't allow it? These instances flew in the face of the doctors' adherence to the Hippocratic oath but they couldn't override the parents' jurisdiction over their kids.

24. Comment #36915 by Helios G2V

Christ almighty. I hear things but you have said it. And I don't live where you do so you see much more than I could possibly see. I do know that Aboriginal law in Oz tends, in the wilds, to overrule Federal and State laws. It sickens me. But they were here first (so maybe it's a very different problem), the Islamics weren't first in Germany.

Got to go

Talk soon
V

Other Comments by Veronique

36. Comment #36968 by Philip1978 on May 3, 2007 at 1:12 am

 avatarI agree with Professor Dawkins, this is disgusting behaviour, beating anybody sickens me to the core but then being let off because of religion just horrifies me.

I think Veronique has got a really good point, how the heck do you overcome a 5"10 maniac inside a culture that forbids you from doing anything about it.

Women can be raped and beaten and then whipped for perjury if they do not have a certain number of male witnesses. Then obviously surviving the horrific ordeal of rape they can then be killed by their father for letting themselves get raped in the first place.

This has been going on for centuries and nobody can do a thing about it because offending someone's religion is supposedly a worse crime than the above. How pathetic and horribly sad is that?

In order to fix this you would need Islamic women en masse protesting and demonstrating in overwhelming numbers against the men who rule over them. Sharia Law needs to be condemned worldwide and not allowed to continue. The next generation of male muslims to be taught not to do this and after that make Islam as convincing a religion as Norse Mythology... Optimistic as I am, even I cant see any of this happening soon but neither will I give up hope that something will change for the better

Other Comments by Philip1978

37. Comment #36979 by NJS on May 3, 2007 at 2:20 am

I've asked this question a few times:

Why won't somebody take the Koran (and the bible) to court for inciting violence?

In more general terms my contempt for the UK justice system has always been fuelled by "not in the real world" judges - I'm not surprised its not an exclusive problem.

Other Comments by NJS

38. Comment #36983 by sppach on May 3, 2007 at 3:03 am

ANYBODY WITH ANY REASONABLE SENSE OF DECENCY WILL BE OUTRAGED AT THIS, AS I WAS READING IT I WAS GETTING ANGRIER AND ANGRIER AND I HOPE THAT ONE DAY ALL THOSE IN POWER WILL USE COMMON SENSE AND NOT PANDER TO FUCKING P.C

Other Comments by sppach

39. Comment #36987 by Glacian on May 3, 2007 at 4:03 am

 avatar
Harlon57, I believe you are drawing too much about my opinion of America from that comment. I live in the U.S. so why wouldn't I refer to it? Secondly, America has more than deserved itself a whipping for its complacency on religoius matters, allowing them to influence public policy for far too long.

Furthermore, my opinion of the U.S. is decidedly the opposite of "superior". I am much more a harsh critic of the United States than European countries, especially Germany, Denmark, Scandinavian countries, etc.; wherever Christianity isn't so prevalent. My point is that, EVEN HERE, that kind of thing likely would not be tolerated; that is to say, I don't think this type of beating would be as acceptable here in spite of America sucking as a post industrustialized country. And, of course, I could be wrong, but I haven't heard any reports of similar things in the U.S. yet.


The U.S. has massive flaws, and my biggest gripe with it is that, despite massive resources, we waste them away and fail to put our wealth to good use. Stupid wars, horrible education, huge obesity rate and lazy people, intolerance of gays and atheists, bad healthcare, apathetic voters and screwed up elections, rampant Christiamania, where does it end? If I had some money and spoke German, I'd probably move to Germany tomorrow. If anything, I consider the U.S. to be pathetically lagging in its ability to catch up with the European world, which is exactly *why* I'm so appalled at what's going on in Germany. To sum up my original comment, it would be "How is this going on HERE? this is the type of crap I'd expect of Americans".

Other Comments by Glacian

40. Comment #36988 by Russell Blackford on May 3, 2007 at 4:06 am

Apart from the ridiculous solicitude that we are all expected to show to religious belief, one of the HUGE problems in public discussion is the widespread (and perfectly rational) fear of being condemned as a racist if you are critical of other cultures, or aspects of them. And of course, it's true that there can sometimes be an element of racism hiding behind certain opportunistic attacks on the practices of a despised group. I, for one, feel inhibited about what I say in many situations, as I have no wish to be seen in the same light, or even branded as a racist.

Nonetheless, we must be prepared to try to discuss traditional cultural practices, with all their ugly aspects, in good faith. Overcoming our fear of doing so may be even more important than overcoming our fear of being perceived as "disrespectful" to religion.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

41. Comment #36993 by FJM on May 3, 2007 at 4:48 am

Comment #36827 by AnatheistinNigeria on May 2, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Are there any (German) lawyers on this blog that may be able to help?



Some thoughts by an American lawyer working in Germany:

http://andrewhammel.typepad.com/german_joys/2007/03/the_judge_who_q.html

Other Comments by FJM

42. Comment #36996 by Biblebeltheretic on May 3, 2007 at 4:50 am

Comment #36988 by Russell Blackford

Russell, I always enjoy reading your posts as you give clear and rational arguments, but I have to disagree with this one.

This kind of brutality is flat wrong in any culture and no one should fear being called a racist for criticizing it.

It can be argued that slavery was part of the southern culture in the US but no one here would be reluctant to condemn it.

As for the judge's remarks, it's like telling a woman she should have expected to be raped for being at a certain place or being dressed a certain way. Disgusting!!

Other Comments by Biblebeltheretic

43. Comment #37000 by Logicel on May 3, 2007 at 5:19 am

 avatarI still remember vividly how it was during the 1950's and early 1960's for women in America. When women were beaten/raped, they were not believed, or they were made to feel that they caused the beating/rape. Perpetrators of incest were seldom jailed or even reprimanded. Male cops, and they were the only kind back then, would come when battered kids or women called for help, and they, how can I say, handled the situation with not much empathy. Male doctors, and the majority of doctors were male back then, would often treat rape victims with disdain. Women were often not encouraged to take science/math courses and therefore were not eligible for well paying jobs, resulting in women being forced to remain with cruel male husbands/lovers. Birth control/planning, sexual education, and abortion rights were either barely there or not there at all.

Down-beaten people often just take the injustice meted out to them in silence. It was a great achievement of Western civilization that many aspects which were considered normal for women in the 50s/60s are now considered less than satisfactory, intolerable, or criminal. Publicizing the double standard in which women of different cultures are treated from native-born women is necessary and will result in change.

Other Comments by Logicel

44. Comment #37004 by Russell Blackford on May 3, 2007 at 5:30 am

Biblebeltheretic: That's okay, you're quite entitled to disagree with me. Maybe I'm wrong, and will learn something. :)

But I didn't actually mean what I evidently came across as meaning. Sorry about that. I wouldn't fear condemning this specific kind of behaviour, since no one sane is actually going to defend domestic violence against women. But I was kind of free associating from this to more general issues where I get that kind of sinking "is it really worth saying this?" feeling. Maybe I'm the only one who ever has it.

I'll give another example or two. I'm sure that some of the people whom I talk to irl already feel that I am too loud and opinionated; however, I actually feel a bit inhibited, in many (public or private) situations, about saying what I really think about, say, the Jyllands Posten cartoon controversy (my views are along the lines of "Support Denmark!"), or my opposition to religious vilification laws. I guess I am prominently pc enough in other ways (e.g. I'm very strong on gay rights) to get away with this without it being thought that I am a racist, but my views on those issues are seen as highly provocative in some circles, and if not racist at least naively playing into the hands of racists. There's this whole thing going on among well-meaning humanities intellectuals, literary folks, etc., that to be critical of a religion or a culture equals being critical of its adherents/members which, in turn, equals being critical of them on some kind of racist basis, or similar.

Does that make more sense? It may not - I'm feeling stupid tonight.

Also, the fear I'm talking about may only be felt by people who are themselves basically pc intellectuals (as I guess I am, really, when viewed at a sufficient distance to get perspective). We can get hung up by the post-colonialist etc, etc, anxieties of our peers. On the other hand, I think that we have a responsibility to speak up, so it's a fear we need to overcome, even if it sometimes doesn't make us friends or win us kudos in our peer groups.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

45. Comment #37009 by I'mNotAlone on May 3, 2007 at 6:08 am

Reading Veronique's posting (Comment35) made me think about where the boundaries are for this.
In countries like Germany (possibly most of Europe)the predominant culture has been predominant for many centuries. So like Veronique said, a Muslim coming to that country should abide by that countries rule of law (i.e. equality of women). In countries like America and Australia, where the predominent culture is a recent imported one, it must be very difficult to tell people of the original culture (Indians and Aboriginals) that they must obey the invading, dominant culture.
I'm afraid that in other countries, it is impossible to enforce our cultural norms. That is why modern, invading countries (of which America is the most obvious example) always end up in an impossible situation - like Iraq.
In cases like that, all us more enlightened countries can do is to offer sanctuary for people who want it, and to limit our dealings with these countries. If the first-world electorate wasnt so hypocritical, self-centred and financially greedy then politicians could stop trading with places like Saudi Arabia.
Here in Britain, I believe a review of an arms deal with the Saudis has been dropped by the Govnt because it would 'prejudice our relationship with them'.
If we (read: Govnts: read electorate) werent so hypocritical in are attitude to these countries then the moral battle would be a lot easier.

Other Comments by I'mNotAlone

46. Comment #37011 by scot on May 3, 2007 at 6:21 am

Comment 39:

Be careful about putting the "European World" on a pedastal. America has gone through the worst of it's racism problems and while racism still exists, you'll find that racism in Europe, or at least in Ireland which I have the most experience with, is much more apparent than the part of America I'm from. As are some of the other things you mention. Just my opinion.

Other Comments by scot

47. Comment #37013 by Biblebeltheretic on May 3, 2007 at 6:29 am

Comment #37004 by Russell Blackford

Russell, you make perfect sense as usual.

I may have read more into your post than was actually there. I certainly didn't mean to imply you would defend violence against women or anyone else for that matter.

I guess the point I was trying to make is that when something is fundamentally wrong we shouldn't hesitate to say so out of fear of being labeled racist. There are plenty of people looking for reasons to label someone racist to further their agenda whatever it may be.

I also have experienced that sinking feeling you describe and kept my mouth shut on occasion but I think I do it more for my wife's sake than for mine.

Other Comments by Biblebeltheretic

48. Comment #37025 by Flagellant on May 3, 2007 at 7:17 am

 avatarHere is a quote from a long, rambling, anti-Islam polemic by Martin Amis in The Observer earlier this year:
[Quote from Koran Sura 4.34. See 22. Comment #36903 by Linda.] Can we imagine seeing men on the march in defence of their right to beat their wives? And if we do see it, then what? Would that win hearts and minds? The martyrs of this revolution would be sustained by two obvious truths: the binding authority of scripture, all over the world, is very seriously questioned; and women, by definition, are not a minority. They would know, too, that their struggle is a heroic assault on the weight of the past - the alpweight of 14 centuries…

All religions are violent; and all ideologies are violent…
Perhaps Amis is right and this is the way in which Islam can be undermined here. The ridiculous banner seen at a UK demonstration saying words to the effect of "Behead those who insult Islam" won no friends. Come on girls and women: get struggling.

Here's the link to Amis's article: http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/story/0,,1868840,00.html

Other Comments by Flagellant

49. Comment #37031 by Philip1978 on May 3, 2007 at 7:53 am

 avatarFlagellant,
I was chatting with Manfred, an Iranian woman on another post about how the women on of Islam hold the keys to the downfall of Islam. She said something very interesting about how the oppression of religion out in these countries becomes almost like Stockholm Syndrome, the situation seems so bad they simply have to relent to it all. Their morale is completely shattered, almost to complete breaking point, hope is hardly an option.

One way I see of remedying the situation would be to dent the massive religious fundamentalist male ego, take away that illusion of power they think gives them authority and you have a free country. Convincing a Muslim fundie that he is not a real man and this power is an illusion however is one event I don't see happening any time soon, but I refuse to give up

Other Comments by Philip1978

50. Comment #37034 by NJS on May 3, 2007 at 8:06 am

The BBC had a couple of HYS debates on the veil last year. There were a few posts from Muslim women insisting that they wore whichever garment of oppression it was "of their own free will" as they weren't forced. Leaving aside the fact that I'm sure there are many who are forced it struck me that this "willingness" to be oppressed is part of the problem.

I know as a "free" western man its easy for me to agree with those above who say the women should stand up without much thought for the consequences but we have to start with a bit of encouragement which I think applying the law in a kind of "positive descrimination" could do.

I think the judge in the case above should have granted the divorce and also awarded all of the man's assets to the women and told him it was "because" he thought it was culturally okay to mistreat her that it was done like that. Harsher sentences for the beaters/murderers along the same lines would send out a simple message that something is wrong.

Other Comments by NJS
Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: