Conflict Between Religion of Peace and Womens' Liberation

[jbg]

Usually I make a comment but the article below speaks quite nicely for itself (link, excerpts below)

Pakistani man stones wife in Italy

Published: Oct. 4, 2010 at 6:24 PM

ROME, Oct. 4 (UPI) -- An Italian minister says she will stand as co-plaintiff in the case of a Pakistani woman allegedly stoned to death by her husband.

Ahmad Khan Butt allegedly was infuriated by his 20-year-old daughter Nosheen's refusal of an arranged marriage and by his wife's defense of her, ANSA reported Monday.

Butt and his 19-year-old son Umair allegedly joined forces to punish both wife and daughter, ANSA said, with Umair beating Nosheen with an iron bar and Butt stoning to death his 46-year-old wife Shahnaz Begum.

Nosheen was taken, comatose, to a Modena hospital.

[Melanie_]

I hope the Italian justice system prosecutes these men to the full extent of the law. Is there anything else really to say about this case?

[bloodyminded]

I hope the Italian justice system prosecutes these men to the full extent of the law. Is there anything else really to say about this case?

That seems to sum it up nicely.

[jbg]

I hope the Italian justice system prosecutes these men to the full extent of the law. Is there anything else really to say about this case?

That seems to sum it up nicely.

My point, which I guess isn't obvious, in that when we welcome immigrants to the West they must adopt Western ways. We cannot tolerate a rival system that operates under the surface, and hates us.

[bloodyminded]

My point, which I guess isn't obvious, in that when we welcome immigrants to the West they must adopt Western ways. We cannot tolerate a rival system that operates under the surface, and hates us.

Hence the clearly stated hope for prosecution to the full extent of the law.

[Melanie_]

My point, which I guess isn't obvious, in that when we welcome immigrants to the West they must adopt Western ways. We cannot tolerate a rival system that operates under the surface, and hates us.

I don't think you're going to get an argument over this. Anyone coming into a country needs to abide by the laws of that country. I don't think the Italian justice system is going to excuse this murder because of whatever rationalization the murderer puts forward.

What you really want is an argument over the ideology of fundamentalist Islam - no one bit the first time, so you are fanning the flames by using words like "rival" and "hate". This tragedy is an example of how there is a clash of culture and values when immigrants enter a new society - what is your solution to this problem?

[jbg]

Hence the clearly stated hope for prosecution to the full extent of the law.

What about some assimilation so this stuff doesn't keep happening. Hasn't Canada had a few honor killings, and one attempt under trial now in Montreal?

[Michael Hardner]

My point, which I guess isn't obvious, in that when we welcome immigrants to the West they must adopt Western ways. We cannot tolerate a rival system that operates under the surface, and hates us.

Submitting anecdotes and isolated incidents like this doesn't help you make your point to anybody but people who are completely naive.

[Michael Hardner]

What about some assimilation so this stuff doesn't keep happening. Hasn't Canada had a few honor killings, and one attempt under trial now in Montreal?

Your evidence is so shoddy.

Bad evidence practice #1 is submitting stories as proof of anything.

[jbg]

Your evidence is so shoddy.

Bad evidence practice #1 is submitting stories as proof of anything.

In Canada a proof is a proof.

But more seriously, for every case of this kind we find out about, there are no doubt far more, especially ones that result in injury short of death.

[Michael Hardner]

In Canada a proof is a proof.

But more seriously, for every case of this kind we find out about, there are no doubt far more, especially ones that result in injury short of death.

No doubt ? Doubt.

Would you accept anecdotal evidence to the contrary, with my comforting assertion that there are "far more examples" ? No, you wouldn't.

So why not try to do better, hmm ?

[ToadBrother]

What about some assimilation so this stuff doesn't keep happening. Hasn't Canada had a few honor killings, and one attempt under trial now in Montreal?

Honor killings in certain cultures, from what I can tell in the main from Central Asia and the Indian Subcontinent, seem more prevalent. Note that this isn't limited to Muslims, but is also found among very conservative Sikh and Hindu populations. So it's not a religious problem at all, but a cultural one. Certainly if you look at other Muslim populations around the world, you don't see that kind of prevalence.

The other issue I have is that I think if you looked at a lot of spousal assault and murders, you might find a similar undercurrent in non-immigrant populations as well.

[Melanie_]

The other issue I have is that I think if you looked at a lot of spousal assault and murders, you might find a similar undercurrent in non-immigrant populations as well.

This ties in to the thread on Patriarchy that we've been discussing today; the inequality of power in a relationship can lead the power partner to feel such control over the subordinate partner, that her life is literally held in his hands.

[ironstone]

No doubt ? Doubt.

Would you accept anecdotal evidence to the contrary, with my comforting assertion that there are "far more examples" ? No, you wouldn't.

So why not try to do better, hmm ?

Do you believe that stories of"honour killings" are a complete and total fabrication?There has never been a single recorded case anywhere?

http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4DACA_enCA243CA243&q=honour+killings+canada

[Bonam]

This tragedy is an example of how there is a clash of culture and values when immigrants enter a new society - what is your solution to this problem?

The solution is multi-pronged:

- Increase efforts of assimilating new immigrants rather than following policies aimed at embracing and supporting a "cultural mosaic"

- Reduce the allowed rates of immigration to allow for immigrants to be assimilated into and diffuse throughout existing communities rather than forming ever-growing ethnic enclaves

- Improve screening of incoming immigrants and reject immigration to individuals or families likely to be strong adherents of cultural practices that are in direct opposition to fundamental Canadian laws or values

[Shwa]

The solution is multi-pronged:

- Increase efforts of assimilating new immigrants rather than following policies aimed at embracing and supporting a "cultural mosaic"

- Reduce the allowed rates of immigration to allow for immigrants to be assimilated into and diffuse throughout existing communities rather than forming ever-growing ethnic enclaves

- Improve screening of incoming immigrants and reject immigration to individuals or families likely to be strong adherents of cultural practices that are in direct opposition to fundamental Canadian laws or values

Interesting. If we lived in the idealized 1950's.

Some posters prefer we apply "...the full extent of the law..." to them, but your solution presupposes the suspension of Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is a pretty radical solution for a problem that simply does not exist to any great degree here in Canada.

So other than the suspension of Section 2 of the Charter and a little mind-melding magic, how is your solution supposed to work?

Edited October 7, 2010 by Shwa

[jbg]

Interesting. If we lived in the idealized 1950's.

The country worked then.

Some posters prefer we apply "...the full extent of the law..." to them, but your solution presupposes the suspension of Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is a pretty radical solution for a problem that simply does not exist to any great degree here in Canada.

So other than the suspension of Section 2 of the Charter and a little mind-melding magic, how is your solution supposed to work?

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

( freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c ) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

The Charter protects beliefs, not actions. Murders do not have charter protection, no matter how customary or accepted bloodshed is in a particular culture.

Edited October 7, 2010 by jbg

[Melanie_]

The Charter protects beliefs, not actions. Murders do not have charter protection, no matter how customary or accepted bloodshed is in a particular culture.

You're twisting what was said here. No one has defended murder, or said it should be condoned based on beliefs. The Charter protects people's rights to freedom of thought, belief, opinion, or expression, but Bonam is advocating restricting immigration based on the likelihood of them having views that are contrary to Canadian laws or customs.

[Michael Hardner]

Do you believe that stories of"honour killings" are a complete and total fabrication?There has never been a single recorded case anywhere?

http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4DACA_enCA243CA243&q=honour+killings+canada

No, I don't believe that. Also there was a gay man in Germany that killed and cannibalized his lover.

What does it all mean ?

[Bonam]

Interesting. If we lived in the idealized 1950's.

Some posters prefer we apply "...the full extent of the law..." to them, but your solution presupposes the suspension of Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is a pretty radical solution for a problem that simply does not exist to any great degree here in Canada.

So other than the suspension of Section 2 of the Charter and a little mind-melding magic, how is your solution supposed to work?

Nowhere in section 2 is the right granted to a foreigner to freely immigrate to Canada. Immigrating to Canada is a privilege, that one can earn by fulfilling certain criteria, not a right. We do not allow many people to immigrate based on a variety of reasons (not scoring enough points, etc). Adding one more evaluation to the others that are already carried out before accepting an application for immigration does not violate any rights.

[dre]

The solution is multi-pronged:

- Increase efforts of assimilating new immigrants rather than following policies aimed at embracing and supporting a "cultural mosaic"

- Reduce the allowed rates of immigration to allow for immigrants to be assimilated into and diffuse throughout existing communities rather than forming ever-growing ethnic enclaves

- Improve screening of incoming immigrants and reject immigration to individuals or families likely to be strong adherents of cultural practices that are in direct opposition to fundamental Canadian laws or values

- Increase efforts of assimilating new immigrants rather than following policies aimed at embracing and supporting a "cultural mosaic"

Youd need to get specific about what those efforts would be before Id buy that.

- Reduce the allowed rates of immigration to allow for immigrants to be assimilated into and diffuse throughout existing communities rather than forming ever-growing ethnic enclaves

I dont see the rate of immigration being a factor here and I dont see how slowing down the rate will remove the natural human tendency to cluster in like groups by religion/race/etc.

- Improve screening of incoming immigrants and reject immigration to individuals or families likely to be strong adherents of cultural practices that are in direct opposition to fundamental Canadian laws or val

That sounds like a nightmare to me. Too subjective. "likely" to be strong adherents? So these are people you predict might predict crimes based on their ethnicity or cultural background?

Heh... wow.

[Shwa]

Nowhere in section 2 is the right granted to a foreigner to freely immigrate to Canada. Immigrating to Canada is a privilege, that one can earn by fulfilling certain criteria, not a right. We do not allow many people to immigrate based on a variety of reasons (not scoring enough points, etc). Adding one more evaluation to the others that are already carried out before accepting an application for immigration does not violate any rights.

It's really quite simple Bonam, since your 'solutions' more or less presuppose the fact that those people are already on Canadian soil. Therefore, once they are here, those rights apply to them.

There is already a 'cultural mosaic' here - so you admit - how to you propose to remove that mosaic and all the enclaves it has caused and then assure that people assemble according to immigration policy?

Or were you thinking of assimilating them while they were still in their own country?

Edited October 7, 2010 by Shwa

[Shwa]

The country worked then.

So you are admitting that "the country" doesn't work now?

The Charter protects beliefs, not actions. Murders do not have charter protection, no matter how customary or accepted bloodshed is in a particular culture.

You know jbg, for a self-admitted "lawyer", your skills at sophistry are truly piss-poor. Or did you completely miss the parts where several posters believed that treating cimes in Canada according to Canadian law was the way to go?

[jbg]

You know jbg, for a self-admitted "lawyer", your skills at sophistry are truly piss-poor. Or did you completely miss the parts where several posters believed that treating cimes in Canada according to Canadian law was the way to go?

Oh come on.

Do you really think a woman totally under her husband's thumb under Islamic law would have the gumption to say "I'm in a free country now so f*** off"? These women have no earning power, no skills and little schooling. They are totally under their husband's control no matter what Canadian law says.

[Shwa]

Oh come on.

Do you really think a woman totally under her husband's thumb under Islamic law would have the gumption to say "I'm in a free country now so f*** off"? These women have no earning power, no skills and little schooling. They are totally under their husband's control no matter what Canadian law says.

How would you know that, are you an expert in "Islamic law" and hence, the whole lawyer thing?