How multiculturalism is betraying women

[Sahara]

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.

Read rest of article here

Why oh why is multiculturalism being raised above basic human rights? or am I to accept that basic human rights are not as important as the "Don't offend other cultures" concept?

For many of these women who fall under the umbrella of multiculturalist laws as displayed above, turning to the law of the land, which is usually completely different from the laws that they are supposed to live by, is their only option as their own laws do not protect their basic human rights, to not be abused and murdered.

How would I have felt had that been me when I suffered equally? Had that been my case thrown out of court, because I should have expected it via my own culture I would have felt deeply betrayed by those I thought would protect me as this woman must feel above.

The last I heard, Germany was a secular country, I am shocked to see that a man can get off, and a woman can be abused, in the name of religion, and to see a judge use religion to make a decision.

[sdalek]

Originally Posted by Sahara

Read rest of article here

Why oh why is multiculturalism being raised above basic human rights? or am I to accept that basic human rights are not as important as the "Don't offend other cultures" concept?

For many of these women who fall under the umbrella of multiculturalist laws as displayed above, turning to the law of the land, which is usually completely different from the laws that they are supposed to live by, is their only option as their own laws do not protect their basic human rights, to not be abused and murdered.

How would I have felt had that been me when I suffered equally? Had that been my case thrown out of court, because I should have expected it via my own culture I would have felt deeply betrayed by those I thought would protect me as this woman must feel above.

The last I heard, Germany was a secular country, I am shocked to see that a man can get off, and a woman can be abused, in the name of religion, and to see a judge use religion to make a decision.

There, as here (US), people always yap on about multiculture and the supposed lack of respect others have to towards theirs. Nobody cares to fit into a society anymore, they want the society to fit into their culture. I see it as a case of selfishness; My culture, my ways, I won't conform. The laws and judges simply reflect those conditions in the effort to support individual freedoms instead of placing them in context of the society in which the culture is being practiced.

[Sahara]

Originally Posted by sdalek

There, as here (US), people always yap on about multiculture and the supposed lack of respect others have to towards theirs. Nobody cares to fit into a society anymore, they want the society to fit into their culture. I see it as a case of selfishness; My culture, my ways, I won't conform. The laws and judges simply reflect those conditions in the effort to support individual freedoms instead of placing them in context of the society in which the culture is being practiced.

That's a real shame.

I know I'm not supposed to be such a judgemental person in general, but I am.

Call me biggoted if you must (not you) but any cultural practise that violates a persons basic human rights, seems to me to be something that none of us should have to tolerate in the name of multiculturalism.

For example FGM, many will say "Who are we to interfere, who are we to push our morality and culture, on to a culture that practises FGM", excuse me for not being able to think that way, but I can't. As from what I have seen, most western countries, or "westernised" countries refuse to accept FGM as multiculturalist. Why then did this stupid judge, allow domestic violence to fall under it? (not a real question)

[Cindyrella]

And this is why separation of church and state is so incredibly important. Religion should not mix with politics. I cannot think of one exception to this rule. I'm right with you, Sahara...human rights should transcend culture and religion.

[Sahara]

Originally Posted by Cindyrella

I'm right with you, Sahara...human rights should transcend culture and religion.

I am glad to hear that the judge was removed from the case:

The court in Frankfurt abruptly removed Judge Datz-Winter from the case on Wednesday, saying it could not justify her reasoning


Religion should not enter in a court room when it comes to basic human rights, (or much else) as far as I know Germany isn't a sharia state so the judge was way off kilter with her decision.

One wonders if she should still be allowed to keep her office when she is capable of making such decisions in the first place.

[Lateralus]

Wow, that is so wrong. The Qu'ran does not say that men can beat the hell out of their wives. Any Muslim scholar would have granted this woman a divorce.

A Commentary on The Quran, Sura 4 Verse 34 by Dr. Ahmad Shafaat

b) The wife has no religious obligation to take the beating. She can ask for and get divorce any time.

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Wow, that is so wrong. The Qu'ran does not say that men can beat the hell out of their wives. Any Muslim scholar would have granted this woman a divorce.

Uggh, headache -- I feel like I'm looking through all my books that address the issue of "women teaching in [the Christian] church." So much argument over something that is probably much simpler than people make it out to be.

The link looked interesting -- I plan to read through it all later.

As far as I can tell, because the woman (and family) lives in Germany, they should be under German law. I cannot see how domestic abuse should be considered a religious matter, especially if one of the parties (the one being beaten) does not want to "practice" that supposed doctrine.

[IOW -- she doesn't want to be beaten. So whose values are being respected here? The husband's? Hers are not, obviously.]

The whole FGM thing is still shocking to me -- as to why it is even practiced at all. I cannot remember the title of the book I have at home, but it was published in the late 80's/early 90's and addresses this issue of "judging other cultures" and whether it is appropriate to do so.

[The author's opinion is, well, hell, yes, some behaviors/practices should be judged as wrong regardless of the bent towards multiculturalism. It's written from a college-course level perspective than from an activist POV.]

For a long time, as far as I can tell, the goal of anthropologists was to be an outside observer and not interfere in any way with what they were observing. But more and more, it seems that there is a vocal opposition to taking that to an extreme and refusing to judge another culture, even when it is doing destructive things.

I agree with sdalek that people have a tendency towards using political freedom as an excuse to take and indulge (self-focus) rather than as an opportunity to give. The question often asked is, "How should people be treating me?" rather than "How can I create space for others?"

[Sahara]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Wow, that is so wrong. The Qu'ran does not say that men can beat the hell out of their wives. Any Muslim scholar would have granted this woman a divorce.

A Commentary on The Quran, Sura 4 Verse 34 by Dr. Ahmad Shafaat

Hi Lateralus

Without getting into a long debate on the link you provided, you are wrong about any muslim scholar granting a divorce in this case. The link is misleading, and whats' worse not actually giving references to the hadiths.

For example it claims that a woman can have her husband beaten in retaliation, that's not true, it also uses tabari to say that the beating is a light one with either a miswak or cloth of some sort. One tabari has been discredited by many respected scholars, and two what is the point in a light beating? It also claims Mohammed never hit a wife, that's not true, he struck aisha, he also sent a bruised woman (bruises from a beating) back to her husband with the order that she must have sex with him before she can divorce him.

To be honest though, I don't want to break it down, I can but I don't want to.

You know why?

Because beating a woman shouldn't be part of any religion, there shouldn;t even be a debate on how light it is, or symbolic, or how it may help her Grow to love and obey him, and having read that link I see that is what they are doing, debating the benefits of a "Light" beating.

Anyway, like I said, I don't want to go off topic, this thread is about a secular country and judge, allowing religion to affect the outcome of a court case, in the name of multiculturalism.

[Oberon]

Once upon a time in India, a British officer inquired what a group of people were doing, as they seemed to be setting about some project the officer had never observed before.

"We are preparing a fire to burn up the body of a man who died, and his widow," one of the participants replied.

"They died together?" inquired the officer. The Indian then explained that it was a centuries-old Hindu custom to burn a widow alive on her husband's funeral pyre. Widows were expected to throw themselves on, but if they would not, the funeral participants would help to see that it was done.

"I won't permit that," replied the officer.

"But it is our custom!" replied the Indian.

"And it is our custom to hang blokes who do that," said the officer.

Without apology, I might add. That's one thing about the English Empire; for better or for worse, the English were never afraid to tell people "Our culture is better," and mean it.

[Sahara]

Originally Posted by Oberon67

"I won't permit that," replied the officer.

"But it is our custom!" replied the Indian.

"And it is our custom to hang blokes who do that," said the officer.

Without apology, I might add. That's one thing about the English Empire; for better or for worse, the English were never afraid to tell people "Our culture is better," and mean it.

Here here.. ..oops, sorry, My royal britishness exposed itself quickly.