Muslim father chokes daughter to near death

[cybercoma]

The fact that violence against women, indeed violence at all, happens in all cultures does not really add to the arguement, the reason I say this is because in our culture and most other western cultures in law and in culture our society does not advocate, or tolerate violence against women. Indeed our society does not tolerate any violence some might say even justified violence such as self defence.

However, in many Arab Islamic states the concept of vengeful justice, familial violence and dictatorial control are widely accepted cultural and legal principles. Hence as a woman one can easily seek refuge and justice in the west, where would a woman turn in these backward societies?

Wrong. The entire history of western thought has been misogynist up until the last 100 years. And how much it has improved is even debatable Edited November 28, 2008 by cybercoma

[JB Globe]

It was only relatively recently that Italy changed the law there about honour killings....these being done by Catholic men or women against ther spouse for infidility.

True, which is why when Italians first started to come to Canada, spousal abuse was a much bigger problem in the community than it was in the rest of the population. Over time, things improved a great deal, and I have no doubt that domestic violence will improve over time in many communities just like other social problems improve as those communities become more integrated into society.

Integration is a means of combating these problems, hence those who want to isolate these communities are only compounding the problem they claim they're concerned about. But of course they aren't really concerned about domestic violence (otherwise they'd be just as angry about the non-Muslim, white father who murdered his family and killed himself in Edmonton a few weeks ago, instead of being completely silent).

This is just another issue that they can manipulate into their agenda of oppressing or ridding Canada of non-Christian, and even non-Anglo people. If they can prove that "these people aren't like us" and that they're not fully human, than discriminatory policies become justified.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Every time there's a domestic abuse issue here in Vancouver with the Indo-Canadian community the same thing starts about whether or not multiculturalism is a good idea. I don't know... the expression throwing the baby out with the bathwater comes to mind if we want to stop immigration from all these countries.

Good point - the baby with the bathwater.

But there needs to be some understanding here. I think it's unfair that every time someone like me points out a negative component of another (growing) culture within our society, values which may be in direct conflict with many of the very things left wingers usually espouse - ie. women's rights or gay rights -, every time someone like me points this out - people on the left kneejerk want to shut us up - squash the debate by hurling accusations about how "I don't like those people".

It's not fair and it dumbs down the conversation.

Let's face it: our society (Canada, or the west more generally) has become superb at "self flagellation" - ie. we are to blame for all the world's ills. "We're ruining the planet or exciercising cultural imperialism or exploiting people in far off lands or we're unfair to women or minorities." Personally I think that's a lot of bullshit, and that we're objectively the best, fairest and most successful of all societies in the world but I digress.

I believe it is left winger who really aren't giving new cultures - such as the muslim community - their fair shake as a full fledged member of our society.

The point is, if we can self criticize all day long about all of our "evils", then shouldn't new cultures within Canada too?

If we're going to self examine the wrongs we may or may not be guilty of, as a community, isn't it in the utmost spirit of inclusiveness to include muslims, and others, in that conversation? ie what's wtong and how can it improve.

To say "leave those poor muslims alone - don't ever bring up any negatives about their culture" is typical of a left wing version of racism: ie. Immigrants are like childeren who need to be cared for and coddled, not upstanding adult communities capable of accepting criticism.

To shut down debate and say we can't talk about certain aspects of a culture which may be wanting is simply obtuse and unconstructive.

What say you, BC Chick? I'm asking you specifically because you, at the very least, have displayed some semblance of reason as opposed to some of the other frothing-mouth liberal debate stiflers on here.

Edited November 28, 2008 by JerrySeinfeld

[Slim MacSquinty]

Could someone please share with us the date of the last sentence of a woman anywhere in the western world of death by stoning for infidelity? Perhaps this could help us put this debate into perspective.

Edited November 29, 2008 by Slim MacSquinty

[cybercoma]

Could someone please share with us the date of the last sentence of a woman anywhere in the western world of death by stoning for infidelity? Perhaps this could help us put this debate into perspective.

Islam was born from the history of western society.

[Slim MacSquinty]

Islam was born from the history of western society

And in some parts holds on to the our long forgotten mistakes.

[BC_chick]

Good point - the baby with the bathwater.

But there needs to be some understanding here. I think it's unfair that every time someone like me points out a negative component of another (growing) culture within our society, values which may be in direct conflict with many of the very things left wingers usually espouse - ie. women's rights or gay rights -, every time someone like me points this out - people on the left kneejerk want to shut us up - squash the debate by hurling accusations about how "I don't like those people".

It's not fair and it dumbs down the conversation.

[...]

What say you, BC Chick? I'm asking you specifically because you, at the very least, have displayed some semblance of reason as opposed to some of the other frothing-mouth liberal debate stiflers on here.

Thanks for the compliment Jerry, I hope it's because I tend to state my views on subjective matters as opinion and not fact.

As for multiculturalism and its benefits for society.... I'm obviously biased, not only am I very socially liberal, I'm also a second generation immigrant, so obviously I favour multiculturalism.

Having said that, I have a lot of sympathy for a white nationalist argument which I think is only natural. However, I find that white nationalism resonates more in a a homogeneous European society than in North American countries which were built around the idea of multiculturalism (face it, 100 years ago, Irish, Italian and Romanian living in the same city was considered multiculturalism).

As for question about the fairness of criticising other cultures... I tend to see criticism of other cultures in the same way as I see stereotyping other cultures.... it all depends on a person's motive. I got into this debate with someone about stereotypes a while ago, and as I said then, to me, sterotypes are all about a person's motive. Just think of the n-word... is it okay for blacks to call each other that, but not others? Sure, their intention (usually) isn't to degrade the other person.

So it's not what's being said that's the culprit, but rather, the intent that makes the difference (IMO). To my surprise, after I got into this debate on this forum, Chris Rock was saying exactly the same thing in "kill the messenger"... and if anyone knows how to say it without pulling any punches, it's Chris Rock.

Personally, I don't mind hearing constructive criticism about other cultures as long as the intent is not malicious. In a nutshell, there is a a difference between the person who speaks out against xyz culture when their intentions are to improve race relations, than when their intent is to alienate and malign a culture.

Depicting other cultures as inherently evil is the type of thing the Nazis did. Speaking out against race with good intentions is the type of ideas Martin Luther King espoused...

It all depends on what you say, how you say it, and what your intentions are... kinda like how I see the difference between white supremacism and white nationalism. The latter makes much more sense to me.

Edited November 29, 2008 by BC_chick

[WIP]

The difference is culture. Under the Arab Islamic governments the law is interpreted by religious Mullahs who are invariably mysoginists, and would probably equate to the western idea of law sometime around 1400 before King James had the new testament translated to English, and thereafter allowed the separation of church and state.

Well, actually the concept of separating religious life from law and government had more to do with the need to find a solution to end the bloody civil wars between Catholics and the growing number of Protestants in Europe. But this concept has never caught on in the Muslim World, where even most of the so called moderates still insist that laws have to be in accordance with the Quran, and elected government must not violate Islamic principles as expressed by the leading clerics -- it's even in the Iraqi and Afghanistan constitutions that we are wasting money and soldiers on!

So, when is the Muslim World going to have their own "reformation?" I'm sure we're not aiding the process by meddling in with regime change and setting up puppet governments. But, neither will it happen if we just turn a blind eye and refuse to be honest about barbaric practices that they sanction with religious justification. And we certainly shouldn't accept the concept that religions are entities that are entitled to respect and above criticism!

Right now, the 57 member Organization of Islamic Countries is trying to push through anti-blasphemy laws in the U.N. that will try to create international laws to censor everything that they consider offensive to their religion. If such a thing is accepted by the West, reform or dealing with any problems specific to Muslims, will be impossible!

The problem we face is not to fight the religion, but to overcome the culture which allows such travesties.

And you are not going to overcome the culture if the people of that culture believe that they have divine sanction to carry out sharia punishments such as public stonings, and no one is allowed to demonstrate that these laws and prescribed punishments are barbaric and need to be replaced by modern evidence-based laws and punishments.

[cybercoma]

Islam was born from the history of western society

And in some parts holds on to the our long forgotten mistakes.

Regardless, they're OUR mistakes and Islam had to take up the sword from its inception because of the violent backlash it faced from the Christians at the time. Nevertheless, Islam actually created more rights for women at that time, even though it appears as though they limit them here and now. Furthermore, not all Muslims are violent fanatics, not even close. Of the billions on the planet, relatively few are violent and oppressive.

[Slim MacSquinty]

Right now, the 57 member Organization of Islamic Countries is trying to push through anti-blasphemy laws in the U.N. that will try to create international laws to censor everything that they consider offensive to their religion. If such a thing is accepted by the West, reform or dealing with any problems specific to Muslims, will be impossible!

And they were succesful, Canada being one of the few who voted against it with this reasoning: (to paraphrase) Human Rights are inherently provided to protect the rights of an individual, a religion as an organiztion is not afforded that same benefit and therefore protecting a religion does nothing to protect an individuals rights and in fact will take away rights of those outside or within the religion who may wish to criticize that religion.

Perfect reasoning in my mind.

Unfortunately Islamic nations and organizations are extremely aggressive in pursuing their own agendas and are well aware of the wests many weaknesses when it comes to offering rights, which of course they do not offer in their home countries.