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 51 - 67 of 67 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

51. Comment #37039 by Helios G2V on May 3, 2007 at 8:29 am

 avatar#36935 by Yorker
You are probably correct in that money talks all languages.
I was thinking of something more like a more rigourous character assessment where the intending emigree has to prove their worth to the citizenry of the country that accepts their immigration.
I'm sure there are psychologists who have mountains of data on behaviorial traits of serial mysoginists. There could even be models to refer to.
Perhaps a bond payable at entry to the place of immigration in return for ten years of acceptable behaviour may even keep the well funded immigrant thinking about their actions.

#36961 Veronique
Nobody disputes the length of time the Anangu have resided in Australia, I'm told it's around 60,000 years. I don't see how this equates to acceptance of violence toward the Anangu women and children.
Unfortunately, I could provide video evidence of the violence but it would probably sicken you and this is probably not the forum to air this video. Maybe one day on YouTube, I have reservations as to whether it would improve or inflame the situation. I don't fear being labelled a racist however, it may give ammunition to those who genuinely are racist.

I realise the first Caucasian's in Australia were not model citizens, they were sent here in chains as slave labour for the British.
They did however manage to forge a country to be proud of, a lot of these convicts had a lower social status than the Anangu at the time. They still managed to rise above their station in life and make the best of a bad situation. It has galvinised Australian national sporting teams for decades in contests with the British. The same opportunities are there for the Anangu to exploit, but sadly very few are willing.

Other Comments by Helios G2V

52. Comment #37043 by nickthelight on May 3, 2007 at 8:45 am

 avatarWhy are we blaming multiculturalism for this, when will the media get a spine and say it like it is? It's Islam not multiculturalism which is to blame. Many cultures have existed in this 'multicultural' society for generations. Australians, Kiwis, South Africans, French, Spanish, Italians…the list goes on. Only when the barbarism of the Koran is involved do we hear about the problem of multiculturalism.

Other Comments by nickthelight

53. Comment #37053 by Linda on May 3, 2007 at 9:35 am

nickthelight - The Koran specifically advises men to harm women:

"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

54. Comment #37058 by Raman on May 3, 2007 at 9:56 am

I must say I am kind of happy to hear voices rising up against multiculturalism. Though seemingly politically correct, that ideological position hides pernicious facets.

If people here are interested in the wider implications of this topic - multiculturalism VS Western universal rights - you might want to look into some of the debates that are raging now in places like Quebec and France.

Traditionally, Anglo-Saxon (Protestant-inspired) states have opposed a particular form of liberalism to a French (Catholic-inspired) ideology that is more social-democrat: The former arguing that, as much as possible, individuals should be left to decide what norms they abide to, as long as they don't infringe on others' liberties; whereas the latter tend to promote the adherence to universal social values which are seen as the guarantors of individual liberties.
Multiculturalism, in the form expressed by this German court ruling, is a natural extension, many would say, of all-out liberalism.

In the case of immigration, for example, the British have openly encouraged immigrants to retain their cultures, whereas the French have asked that the immigrants "become French" and adhere to French values. (This is caricatured in France through the fact that immigrants' children in school must talk about "their ancestors the Gauls". Which can seem ironic coming from dark-skinned kids...)

The debate in Quebec is of particular interest, because it is taking place in a country where the two positions coexist, yet seem incapable of understanding each other: The English-speaking chattering class often accusing the French-speaking population of intolerance and racism for insisting that ethnic or religious minorities refrain from asking for special rights in regards to their particular cultures.

Lately, many cases have popped up in the media causing disbelief, if not outrage, among the French-speaking population of Quebec. Such cases range from: -Muslim interest groups asking for alternative Chariah-based tribunals; -the existence of alternative Christian fringe, Jewish and Muslim religious private schools where barely any secular education is given; -Orthodox Jews asking (and obtaining) that YMCA windows be covered around their neighbourhoods so they are not subjected to the sight of lightly-clad women exercising; -parents going to court so their sons and daughters can wear kirpans or the hijab in school, even when school rules prohibit it; and so on.

Herouxville (Google it, or search on this site) has become very infamous for its code of conduct addressed to immigrants. Though obviously over the top and more likely to foster racial suspicion than anything else, that little town's initiative (very clumsily) expresses the fear many Quebecers have of seeing Human rights they fought so hard for being eroded by the "ethnopolitical correctness" that is promoted everywhere around them.

I for one would not ask of immigrants that they completely reject their cultural heritage, which would be a major loss not only for them but for their host countries. But there should definitely be some core values that host countries should insist all their citizens abide by.

Other Comments by Raman

55. Comment #37060 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 3, 2007 at 10:00 am

"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)"

Right.... Okay, I don't know what your culture is, but speaking just for myself, as a proud supporter of Western Civilisation, I have no idea where you get some of this stuff.

Let's run through it shall we?

"White"? I suppose Averroes and Avincenna who were booted out of their culture don't count? Nor Omar Khayyam...

"Male" Hmmm... I take it Jane Austen, Marie Curie, Dorothy Wordsworth aren't part of Western Civilisation then?

"Heterosexual". Oh, now your just being silly: Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Sappho... Not part of Western Civilisation then? Oh, and of course, you might want to take a look at attitudes in Ancient Greece, which is the source of our civilisation.

"Able-bodied"? I wonder whether or not Stephen Hawking feels exiled from the Enlightenment tradition of reason and scientific inquiry.

Oh, I'm sure that Islam has much to teach us. For example, it can teach us how _not_ to run a society. Tyrranical totalitarianism, law that extends into every nook and cranny of existence, religious fanaticism and zealotry, sloth and inshallah fatalism, complete inequality between the sexes, endemic racism, the practice of slavery...

Oh, what's that? Sorry, you mean we could copy some of their ideas for our own benefit? Such as...? I'm drawing a blank here.

Jokes aside the simple fact is this: the Enlightenment legacy of reason, science and idividualism thrashes anything else that's on offer. It has allowed the building of the greatest civilisation the world has ever seen. And, incidentally, it has done this because it is wise enough to judge other cultures and incorporate those portions that are worthwhile - and condemn those that aren't.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

56. Comment #37082 by Bonzai on May 3, 2007 at 10:53 am

 avatarWe need to have a better definition of "multi-culturalism" before we can carry on. In the U.K (and in Europe) "multi-culturalism" is almost like a kind of cultural apartheid where the population is artificially segregated into tribes. It is not really "multi-culturalism" but, actually, as Amartya Sen puts it, "plual-mono culturalism". In European societies predegree is always an important preoccupation. "Multi-culturalism" in this kind of cultural setting inevitibaly turns into a way to affix labels. An "indentity" becomes a tyranny if it is binding, that seems to be the case of European multi-culturalism.

In contrast multiculturalism works quite well in Canada. It is a young country built by immigrants. People are in general less conscious about ancestry and family history. An "identity" is less binding and people can slip in and out of different identities with relative ease. Multi-culturalism in this case servese alternately as a decoration of a relatively barren cultural landscape and a comfort zone to allow immigrants to integrate in their own pace. It doesn't has the sting of European style cultural apartheid.

More specific to the U.K., multiculturalism seems to be an adaptation of colonial technique to manage the domestic immigrant population. Anyone with some experience with British colonialism would not miss it. Unlike other colonial powers, the British colonial administrations were relatively invisible. Instead they ruled by manipulating a network of local elites to do their biddings. A special feature of British colonialism is that it often enhanced, not diminished the power and prestige of the tribal elders. It is the same way the Blair government deals with muslims.
The government instead of talking to citizens directly, prop up some so called "muslim leaders" and deal with them instead. It doesn't matter how reactionary and backward in the outlooks of these people are, they qualify as "moderates" for the government as long as they are against Jihadism. The government is willing to make all kinds of concessions as bribes for these people to support, or at least be quiet about the war in Iraq. This is condenscending and insulting to the British muslims. How do you expect young muslims to feel "British" while clearly they are not treated as such? These policies are short sighted and actually create more alienaton among young muslims.

Other Comments by Bonzai

57. Comment #37126 by Roll on May 3, 2007 at 12:37 pm

Thanks Russel Blackford. It is worth the time you have to spend on your postings. You articulate so well many of my own concerns and bemusements.

Other Comments by Roll

58. Comment #37163 by Bonzai on May 3, 2007 at 2:20 pm

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

That move has failed and there is a big bonus. Since the government cannot just deny muslims their religious courts while accomodating other religions, all religious tribunals are outlawed in Ontario.This happened in gentle, multi-cultural Canada.

The U.K can learn a thing or two. On a related note, it would be a good idea to cut off fundings to all the "faith schools" which artificially maintain differences.

Other Comments by Bonzai

59. Comment #37165 by dmcr35 on May 3, 2007 at 2:26 pm

 avatar"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."

Multiculturism does not necessarily mean that the courts of the land must recognize "cultural" differences of ethnic groups.

Canada, officially a multicultural society, does not recognize these differences in a court of law, particularly regarding violent actions such as the one described aboove.

The province of Ontario, after considerable lobbying from muslim groups, recently considered allowing the use of sharia law in domestic cases and firmly rejected the possibility. In announcing the decision, the Premier confirmed the application of the same rule of law for all citizens.

Dave

Other Comments by dmcr35

60. Comment #37167 by TedWak on May 3, 2007 at 2:34 pm

Absolutely, this is about not throwing out the baby with the bath water and it's about re-defining multiculturalism. It's not really about religion, but about creating a new society comprising many immigrant and other cultural groups.

The question is, What's the alternative to multiculturalism (carefully defined) – complete intolerance? Obviously not. These issues can't be black and white (pun intended).

This blog from a conservative source highlights the challenge liberalism faces, in re-defining multiculturalism and itself.

http://www.newcriterion.com/weblog/2007/04/ian-buruma-and-multiculruralism.html

Other Comments by TedWak

61. Comment #37177 by Bonzai on May 3, 2007 at 3:08 pm

 avatar>>The province of Ontario, after considerable lobbying from muslim groups, recently considered allowing the use of sharia law in domestic cases and firmly rejected the possibility. In announcing the decision, the Premier confirmed the application of the same rule of law for all citizens.<<

We should give credits when they are due. The Sharia lobby failed primarily because of a highly vocal, spirited compagin by moderate muslims, especially muslim women. The Premier had commissioned some white femninist "multi-culturalist" to study the proposal and she came back with a report saying it was alright.

Sharia was that close to become law when the Primier backtracked practically half an hour before midnight because of the unexpectedly vocal opposition. Since the opposition was led by muslims themselves it could not be easily dismissed as "Islamophobia"

As an aside, a mulsim woman who was on the forefront of the anti-Sharia compaign was on a CBC discussion panel on RD's "the root of all evil". She was visibly livid because she thought RD's missives against "moderates" tarred her and the funamentalists with the same brush. This is a very brave muslim woman who has endured numerous death threats because of her uncompromising support for the seperation of state and religion. I think RD should rethink his approach towards religious moderates.

Other Comments by Bonzai

62. Comment #37257 by roach on May 3, 2007 at 10:00 pm

Good points Bonzai.

But I think religious moderates sould rethink their position on their own religion and how they read the words of the "new atheists". I have never understood anyone to paint moderates and fundamentalists with the same brush.

Other Comments by roach

63. Comment #37267 by MelM on May 3, 2007 at 11:41 pm

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.


No. The above would be called tolerance. Multiculturalism claims that all cultures are equal. In effect though, it means that all cultures are equal except that one is less equal than the others--the one being Western culture and this includes even reason and science. Just yesterday, I saw a piece (like dozens of others) on TV about some tradition and superstition bound culture (that such a culture is anti-reason is obvious) and the presenters were overcome with adulation. That's multiculturalism! What the judges are doing comes from multiculturalism not tolerance. I think I'd even allow plural marriages because that would not violate anyone's rights. But, I won't allow the violation of rights via beatings to women or to anyone. If someone can't support the hard won science and reason and rights that have been such a struggle for the West, then they f'ing deserve what's coming.

Other Comments by MelM

64. Comment #37276 by Flagellant on May 4, 2007 at 12:41 am

 avatarMeIM says
I think I'd even allow plural marriages because that would not violate anyone's rights.
Provided that "plural marriages" means allowing women to have several husbands, as well as men to have several wives, I might go along with that: polygamy means polyandry, too.

Of course, if you argue this with a Muslim, the irredeemable sexism of Islam quickly becomes apparent.

Other Comments by Flagellant

65. Comment #37471 by TedWak on May 4, 2007 at 2:23 pm

There are obviously many definitions and ways multiculturalism is applied. The dictionary definition is simply that a society/community has many cultures, and multicultural policies simply advocate promoting such a society.

Some countries may interpret this to mean complete cultural equality or relativism but not many would follow this to the extreme (or so I thought until I read about these German examples.)

We need more accurate terms to describe the range of positions here – like maybe intolerance, tolerance, reasonable accommodation and cultural relativism.

Treating different cultures fairly doesn't mean treating them exactly the same. But at the same time, equal application of the law can allow for reasonable accommodation.

For example -- to use an analogy -- you wouldn't expect inspectors to overlook health code violations by an ethnic restaurant on the basis that the owner was used to different standards in his home country.

But if the restaurant didn't have any chairs (say it was Japanese) it would be intolerant to say, "No, that's just too weird – you gotta have chairs."

Decisions on such matters should be made based on common sense, good will and, as much as possible, by the local community. The only time central governments or courts should intervene is where the law is broken, or basic human/civil rights trampled.

Should girls be allowed to wear a hijab (head scarf) in school? Generally, let the school decide but why not, if there isn't a strict dress code? To play soccer, maybe not, as there is a safety issue. But if the local soccer association wants to accept that risk, that should be their call.

Burkas, which cover the entire face, are a bit different. It's not unreasonable to say they would cause problems in a school situation, for security and disciplinary reason as well as the basic teaching process.

Similarly with kirpan daggers. There would seem to be an obvious risk in allowing Sikh boys to wear a kirpan to school, so it would reasonable, not intolerant, to prohibit them.

The highest court in my own country, Canada, has ruled that banning kirpans in schools is unconstitutional. I think this is a bad decision: it assumes the non-ceremonial (aggressive) use of kirpans is so unlikely as to make banning them only explainable as intolerance.

This should be a community decision – that is, made by each school or school board – based on balancing public risk against reasonable accommodation. Some school boards may be OK with them but to ban them is not completely arbitrary.

And so it goes. Working out common sense, balanced and flexible decisions may be hard work but ultimately it's the best way to go.

Other Comments by TedWak

66. Comment #37789 by pippini on May 5, 2007 at 5:38 pm

Thank you TedWak, for being the most reasonable person on this board.

To everyone else: It is RIDICULOUS to say that multiculturalism and women's rights are fundamentally incompatible. The point is that we have these things called BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. If we assume that these are of paramount importance, we accept that everything else is secondary. So we can accept multiculturalism, and simply not allow any behavior that violates another human's basic human rights. What does this mean? An immigrant in my country (Canada) can speak whatever language they wish, they may eat what they like, wear what they like, and hold whatever basic values they wish. But if their behavior breaks a LAW, then they face legal action. What exactly is WRONG with this? It does not condone violence against women, and it does not force the assimilation of immigrant or minority populations. It is utterly ridiculous to suggest that multiculturalism is the problem here, rather than a lack of PERSPECTIVE. Please try to use your evolved capacity for reason in this discussion, as this is not a binary choice between two mutually-exclusive options. The author of this article is wrong in thinking that it is.

Other Comments by pippini

67. Comment #37818 by Russell Blackford on May 5, 2007 at 9:05 pm

Pippini, I agree with some of your points, but there's no need to shout. As far as I can see, most people here are happy with tolerance, pluralism, and the idea that many cultures are welcome in Western societies as long as everyone accepts some basic values, such as freedom of belief and expression, non-violence, the equality of women, and the rule of law. To me, that's what multiculturalism is about, so I accept it happily.

However, there is a stronger form of so-called multiculturalism that we sometimes see, and which is sometimes manifested in court rulings and official documents. This idea is that all cultures and traditions, no matter how violent or repressive, are equal, equally deserving of respect, and beyond satire or criticism.

We just have to be careful of how we define our terms. If multiculturalism is the first thing I described, and the second thing should be called something else, then I think most reasonable people would embrace multiculturalism while worrying about the "something else". However, the something else certainly exists, whatever term we use for it. Personally, I'd like to find another term, or at least call it something like "vulgar multiculturalism".

Other Comments by Russell Blackford
Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: First | Previous | 1 2

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: