|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Failing our Muslim Sisters in the name of Multiculturalism
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
This story in the New York Times, The New Berlin Wall (not sure how long it's available for free) describes how the work of three women muslim dissidents have exposed the parallel society that has grown up in Germany among Muslim communities in Berlin, in which girls are very frequently forced into marriage pre-minority, girls are imported from Turkey and elsewhere to be pressed into forced marriages, and the official permission to have Islamic-approved instruction (in state schools) has fueled a rise in honor killings for dissident women, and full veiling and early school dropout and marriage for girls. In "tolerating" all of these things, Germany, and any western country that permits this parallel society to be protected in these activities (I'm especially struck by the state schools being used as vehicles of shari'a) we are failing the girls and women growing up among us. These girls and woman are being denied those freedoms to which we are all entitled.
No multicultural tolerance can excuse it.
quote:
But the books of the three Muslim dissidents now tell us what Germans like me didn't care to know. What they report seems almost unbelievable. They describe an everyday life of oppression, isolation, imprisonment and brutal corporal punishment for Muslim women and girls in Germany, a situation for which there is only one word: slavery.
Seyran Ates estimates that perhaps half of young Turkish women living in Germany are forced into marriage every year. In the wake of these forced marriages often come violence and rape; the bride has no choice but to fulfill the duties of the marriage arranged by her parents and her in-laws. One side-effect of forced marriage is the psychological violation of the men involved. Although they are the presumed beneficiaries of this custom, men are likewise forbidden to marry whom they want. A groom who chooses his own wife faces threats, too. In such cases, according to Seyran Ates and Serap Cileli, the groom as well as the bride must go underground to escape the families' revenge.
Heavily veiled women wearing long coats even in summer are becoming an increasingly familiar sight in German Muslim neighborhoods. According to Necla Kelek's research, they are mostly under-age girls who have been bought - often for a handsome payment - in the Turkish heartland villages of Anatolia by mothers whose sons in Germany are ready to marry. The girls are then flown to Germany, and "with every new imported bride," Kelek says, "the parallel society grows." Meanwhile, Ates summarizes, "Turkish men who wish to marry and live by Shariah can do so with far less impediment in Berlin than in Istanbul."
and it isn't just economics driving this:
quote:
Many sociologists attribute the growth of a Muslim parallel society to the discouraging social circumstances of the third Muslim generation of immigrants - high unemployment, high dropout or failure rates in public schools. But this explanation is incomplete, to say the least. It turns out that the Muslim middle class has long been following the same trend. Rental agencies that procure and prepare rooms for traditional Turkish weddings and circumcisions are among the most booming businesses in Kreuzberg and Neukölln.
And about how the authorities are actually paying for girls and boys to be taught this stuff:
quote:
This conservative, fearful trend is likely to guide the next generation. For more than 20 years the Islamic Federation of Berlin, an umbrella organization of Islamic associations and mosque congregations, has struggled in the Berlin courts to secure Islamic religious instruction in local schools. In 2001 the federation finally succeeded. Since then, several thousand Muslim elementary-school students have been taught by teachers hired by the Islamic Federation and paid by the city of Berlin. City officials aren't in a position to control Islamic religious instruction. Often the teaching does not correspond to the lesson plan that was submitted in German. Citing the linguistic deficiencies of the students, instructors frequently hold lessons in Turkish or Arabic, often behind closed doors.
Since the introduction of Islamic religious instruction, the number of girls that come to school in head scarves has grown by leaps and bounds, and school offices are inundated with petitions to excuse girls from swimming and sports as well as class outings.
So what in the name of &*( are we to do about this? How can we prevent the honor killings? How can we keep women out of this sort of slavery and prevent the importation of girls for marriage/slavery?
[ 14. February 2006, 03:44: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
...
No multicultural tolerance can excuse it.
...
It is multicultural tolerance that allows it.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
No multicultural tolerance can excuse it.
It is multicultural tolerance that allows it.
Of course, we had our own story connected to forced marriages just recently. I wonder how many other such incidents have been avoided because the woman submitted to the will of her family? I find these situations deeply disturbing. But other than when the law is broken, in a free, multicultural society, what can be done?
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
It is multicultural tolerance that allows it.
Gee, I thought I'd made that clear enough from the excerpts from the story and that this was the central point of my OP.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
I find these situations deeply disturbing. But other than when the law is broken, in a free, multicultural society, what can be done?
Well, for starters, not to pay state money to Islamic teachers to teach little girls that thi is the way they must live? To sharply inquire into the reasons for immigration for teenage girls from the affected countries?
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
I find these situations deeply disturbing. But other than when the law is broken, in a free, multicultural society, what can be done?
Well, for starters, not to pay state money to Islamic teachers to teach little girls that thi is the way they must live? To sharply inquire into the reasons for immigration for teenage girls from the affected countries?
Instinctively, I agree with you.
I then see two problems straight away. Firstly, I can hear the cries echoing back of intolerance, interference, racism, picking on Muslims, etc (which I am not saying is what is being suggested, just that many would interpret such moves in this way). Secondly, where would it stop? No law is being broken. Teachers are allowed to teach faith issues to members of their flock, much as a Christian teacher may teach no sex before marriage to a teenage Christian girl. There might not be universal agreement with either teaching, but does that mean it should be banned? As for questions about immigration ... people can just lie about their intentions. How can their lie be revealed?
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
Firstly, I can hear the cries echoing back of intolerance, interference, racism, picking on Muslims, etc (which I am not saying is what is being suggested, just that many would interpret such moves in this way).
I just think we need to get over that.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
[Political incorrectness alert]
Speaking from an American perspective: Our country is, or at least used to be, a country where citizenship was based on acceptance of a shared vision of rights/freedoms/responsibilities. Persons emigrating to the United States used to have to make an effort to indicate that they were willing to "get with the program" insofar as embracing the values of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Why would Islamists want to live in a western society whose values they despise? If people don't like the concepts of secular government, gender equity, etc., etc. -- then for pete's sake don't live here. I hear Iran is lovely in the spring. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif) If they're so freaking religious, taking a cut in income in order to live among others of the One True Faith would be, I think, a small price to pay for their integrity.
I think Germany's situation is complicated by residual shame about the Nazi times, and the tendency of some groups to exploit that by crying "Racism!" if the German authorities try to enforce the law evenly.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
In many cases, people are able to be more repressive in Western countries than in their home countries, such as Saudi Arabia. A number of majority Islamic countries have no problem repressing what they perceive as dangerous sects. It is we who have that problem. Someone in the article was asked why they stay in germany, to be surrounded by people they hate; she said, they don't need the Germans, they have everything they need AND they get work and the advantage of the health care system etcetera AND can practice their oppression freely! What a deal!
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
Teachers are allowed to teach faith issues to members of their flock, much as a Christian teacher may teach no sex before marriage to a teenage Christian girl. There might not be universal agreement with either teaching, but does that mean it should be banned? As for questions about immigration ... people can just lie about their intentions. How can their lie be revealed?
Teachers are not allowed to teach religious ethics in state schools in the US. You can do that in your church, of course. I suggest that state money should not be spent to pay Islamicist teachers to teach girls that they are second class citizens. This is inimical to the values we hold dear.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
Teachers are allowed to teach faith issues to members of their flock, much as a Christian teacher may teach no sex before marriage to a teenage Christian girl. There might not be universal agreement with either teaching, but does that mean it should be banned? As for questions about immigration ... people can just lie about their intentions. How can their lie be revealed?
Teachers are not allowed to teach religious ethics in state schools in the US. You can do that in your church, of course. I suggest that state money should not be spent to pay Islamicist teachers to teach girls that they are second class citizens. This is inimical to the values we hold dear.
Sorry, I forgot about the church/state divide in the States (very good idea, imo - saves a lot of hassle in the education system for instance). Here in the UK, of course, Muslim schools do attract state funding, as do Christian and Jewish schools. To withdraw state funding only from Muslim schools who taught those aspects of Islamic doctrine such as forced marriage would be unlikely to wash politically here.
British culture tends towards pragmatism as I'm sure you already know. So within that environment, and given that we don't have a church/state divide while also attempting to adopt a multicultural (as opposed to integrationist or assimilationist) approach to society, we are in a bit of a hole insofar as the OP is concerned.
I can't speak for German culture as having a single German friend doesn't really count as having a good understanding of German culture.
While I can be as pragmatic as the next Brit, sometimes I find it problematic. I find myself wishing we'd be a bit more American in the field of Getting Stuff Done.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Here's something of a parallel situation, though, in the States: In the West, in remote parts of Utah, Nevada, etc., there are breakaway polygamous sects of the Latter-Day Saints who've founded their own communities -- their local governments, law enforcement agencies, schools, etc. are all run by people in these sects. Their polygamous practices include child marriage, forced marriages, and a lot of other weird goings-on. (They've recently made news by expelling scores of teenage boys to fend for themselves in the outside world -- evidently there aren't enough women to go around in these communities, and the older men want 'em all for themselves; honestly, it's like "Nature" with bipeds.) They're also heavily armed people with a persecution complex and a history of blood spillage -- always a dangerous combination. Anyhow, state/county governments have been loathe to prosecute these people for their lawbreaking, for a variety of logistical reasons. But incidents like the "lost boys," and the occasional runaway pubescent bride whose tales of rapacious old harem-masters and abused girls and women back at the ranch create public sensations, have in many cases shamed authorities into taking action against the polygamists.
Perhaps what the girls and women of Germany need is an all-out media campaign by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, et al, to shame the authorities there into enforcing equal protection, and to spur legislators into toughening up protections for women in vulnerable populations.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
[Political incorrectness alert]
Speaking from an American perspective: Our country is, or at least used to be, a country where citizenship was based on acceptance of a shared vision of rights/freedoms/responsibilities. Persons emigrating to the United States used to have to make an effort to indicate that they were willing to "get with the program" insofar as embracing the values of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Why would Islamists want to live in a western society whose values they despise? If people don't like the concepts of secular government, gender equity, etc., etc. -- then for pete's sake don't live here. I hear Iran is lovely in the spring. If they're so freaking religious, taking a cut in income in order to live among others of the One True Faith would be, I think, a small price to pay for their integrity.
I totally agree with Laura. But what complicates matters; and this is something that frequently seems to be missed by those from outside Europe is that most of the people involved aren't immigrants.
So it is no good simply quoting "When in Rome, do as the Romans do", because most of the people involved - except obviously the imported brides -are Romans, so to speak. They are not to be obliged to leave simply because their views do not accord with the majority.
Just as in Britain, this Islamism is to a considerable degree home-grown.
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mrs Tea
Shipmate
# 10570
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
... Here in the UK, of course, Muslim schools do attract state funding, as do Christian and Jewish schools. To withdraw state funding only from Muslim schools who taught those aspects of Islamic doctrine such as forced marriage would be unlikely to wash politically here.
British culture tends towards pragmatism as I'm sure you already know. So within that environment, and given that we don't have a church/state divide while also attempting to adopt a multicultural (as opposed to integrationist or assimilationist) approach to society, we are in a bit of a hole insofar as the OP is concerned. ...
And given that around 30% of state primary schools are 'church schools' (which is a weird compromise between 'Christian schools' and secular ones), simply trying to take religion out of state schooling in the UK is next to impossible, even if desireable. It's too big.
It's my understanding, though, that all state-funded Muslim schools (there aren't very many) are inspected by members of Her Majesty's Inspectorate who are able to speak the relevant languages, and HMI does sometimes say things that aren't entirely PC about how well religious schools of various flavours teach 'citizenship' (eg here) and related issues. And of course immediately gets accused of Islamophobia. I hope this means we're not doing as badly as in Germany, but I can't promise it.
Headscarves seem to be a significantly contentious issue (eg here) but it often seems to be the wrong issue to make a fuss about. Wearing or not wearing a headscarf isn't going to kill anyone. Marrying against a parent's wishes just might.
Posts: 58 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mrs Tea:
It's my understanding, though, that all state-funded Muslim schools (there aren't very many) are inspected by members of Her Majesty's Inspectorate who are able to speak the relevant languages, and HMI does sometimes say things that aren't entirely PC about how well religious schools of various flavours teach 'citizenship' (eg here) and related issues. And of course immediately gets accused of Islamophobia. I hope this means we're not doing as badly as in Germany, but I can't promise it.
Yes, all state schools are subject to periodic inspection. So far as I know, private schools are not (I'm not sure whether they have to even teach the national curriculum - at one time they didn't; but that might have changed).
quote:
Headscarves seem to be a significantly contentious issue (eg here) but it often seems to be the wrong issue to make a fuss about. Wearing or not wearing a headscarf isn't going to kill anyone. Marrying against a parent's wishes just might.
This is interesting. It seems that the headscarf has become symobolic of fundamentalism. I see women in headscarves and full burkha (sp?) on a daily basis, living in Sheffield. I have no objection to headscarves, but I confess to finding the burkha offensive - it smacks of oppression to me. But them I am looking through Western, non-Muslim eyes, so probably that's no surprise. I wouldn't want any woman to stop wearing it if she wanted to wear it. But I would hate it to be a true reflection of the oppression it represents to me.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
Laying this obviously difficult situation at the feet of multiculturalism is a bit extreme; it doesn't take into consideration the particularities of Germany - particularities such as years of sub-citizen Gestarbeiter status and heavy unemployment and alienation in the East, fueling resurgent racism. All these things encourage a minority culture to look within itself for identity and support; looking to traditional values and power structures.
Part of the problem here is that these people are not, and will never really be allowed to be, 'German'.
There may be official tolerance of 'foreign cultures', but there is not 'multiculturalism' in Germany in the same sense as would be understood in, say, Australia.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Slightly over a year ago the Dutch film-maker Theo van Gogh was murdered on the streets of Amsterdam in broad daylight. His killer was a Muslim who was deeply offended by a film van Gogh had made.
The film dealt with the way women are treated in European Muslim communities. His source of information was a Muslim woman who had written a book on the subject.
There appear to be a substantial number of Muslim men in Europe who believe Allah has given them the right to treat women as they please. People who try to interfere with this right deserve to have very bad things happen to them.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ananke
Shipmate
# 10059
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
This is interesting. It seems that the headscarf has become symobolic of fundamentalism. I see women in headscarves and full burkha (sp?) on a daily basis, living in Sheffield. I have no objection to headscarves, but I confess to finding the burkha offensive - it smacks of oppression to me. But them I am looking through Western, non-Muslim eyes, so probably that's no surprise. I wouldn't want any woman to stop wearing it if she wanted to wear it. But I would hate it to be a true reflection of the oppression it represents to me.
I find that attitude (headscarves as a representation of oppression) really just adds to the oppression itself. It's the girls that get killed for wearing a headscarf/not wearing a headscraf, not those making the proclamations. In Oz we're currently having several Ministers of Education (State and Federal and Shadow) calling for headscarves to be banned in schools. Which is utterly horrifying for me.
Why?
Because it makes the bodies of those girls our property instead of whoever they think it is now. It still takes any sense of self-determinism away from the girls and says, yet again, you have no choice. I work in a fairly multi-cultural area and the school has approved uniforms for Muslim and Sikh kids (headscarves, longsleeved alternatives, turbans etc.). None of that affects their education, none of it affects OUR faith. Yet people get so utterly offended when one group of women decide to not adopt the dress of their new nation. They adapt sure (i.e. very few women wear the burka in Australia, lots wear headscarves and long sleeves in very light airy material) but what on Earth is so bloody threatening about keeping their culture and faith?
--------------------
...and I bear witness, this grace, this prayer so long forgotten.
A Perfect Circle - Magdalena
Posts: 617 | From: australia | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Part of the problem here is that these people are not, and will never really be allowed to be, 'German'.
There may be official tolerance of 'foreign cultures', but there is not 'multiculturalism' in Germany in the same sense as would be understood in, say, Australia.
![[Confused]](confused.gif) I would have thought that, for example, state funding of Islamic education, and/or instruction in Arabic or Turkish was rather strong evidence to the contrary.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
Not really - multiculturalism cannot be mere toleration of a minority by the elite of the normative majority; it must be embraced by a substantial part of the population.
It is a question of what defines a 'German'. To a large extent Germany is the state of the Germans; rather than a German being defined as a citizen of Germany. An ethnic German is simply more 'German' than a Turkish German.
Any official tolerance by the German state of the Turkish immigrants is at the recent end of a long postwar history of exclusion and rejection by mainstream German society and authority.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
The inspectorate in Scotland have had to deal with private Muslim schools which were totally sub-standard, with the poor senior girls at one Dundee boarding school being taught nothing but sewing, cookery and arabic, as it turned out. Our idiot education minister, Peter Peacock, reprieved the school because it got a super-duper new headmistress and he says that's improved it enough. He should have shut the damn thing as a message that we are not going to tolerate women being given a sub-standard education designed to stunt them for religious reasons.
The problem is that in Scotland, though we haven't had the same level of Tony Blair's faith school wheeze, we have, for historical reasons a separate Catholic education system, and therefore some Muslim community leaders are claiming discrimination because they're not getting their own school system as well. The difference is though, that the Catholic Schools have moved on from the pre-Vatican two horror stories older friends of mine used to recount, and apart from the occasional ineffectual attempts on the part of the Bishops to ban gay teachers, they don't have negative human rights implications. The Bishops are kept far enough away from day-to-day school running that the hardliners can't do too much damage.
My fear is that the sections of the Muslim community who really want these schools are likely to be too conservative to implement them in a way which would not be damaging to women. In fact I suspect that one of the main reasons many of the activists want them is so that they can teach women to learn quietly and in full submission, just as a certain Apostle suggested. We've fought the fight to overcome that kind of thinking, the last thing we should do is sit back and watch Muslim women being forced into that, let alone pay our taxes for it to happen in the public sector.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ananke:
They adapt sure (i.e. very few women wear the burka in Australia, lots wear headscarves and long sleeves in very light airy material) but what on Earth is so bloody threatening about keeping their culture and faith?
Ananke - your guess is as good as mine. I have no idea. As I've confessed, I find the burkha oppressive, but I'm western so it's likely I would. But I wouldn't like to see the wearing of it banned - within education or elsewhere - if the women/girls are happy and/or proud to wear it themselves. The imposition of one cultural view upon another is lost on me.
Both headscarves and the burkha are quite familiar sights in the UK, in certain areas of the country anyway.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Because it makes the bodies of those girls our property instead of whoever they think it is now. It still takes any sense of self-determinism away from the girls and says, yet again, you have no choice. I work in a fairly multi-cultural area and the school has approved uniforms for Muslim and Sikh kids (headscarves, longsleeved alternatives, turbans etc.).
If you object to taking the choices away from the kids then why have any sort of school uniform at all? That's circumscribing people's choice. If you're going to have a uniform then you need to think about what boundaries are acceptable and what values you are trying to communicate.
quote:
None of that affects their education, none of it affects OUR faith. Yet people get so utterly offended when one group of women decide to not adopt the dress of their new nation. They adapt sure (i.e. very few women wear the burka in Australia, lots wear headscarves and long sleeves in very light airy material) but what on Earth is so bloody threatening about keeping their culture and faith?
Because it's not just about a natty fashion choice, it's an external sign of a behaviour code which once you get onto things that go beyond the hijab, like the niqab and burqah is a behaviour code for women which should not be accepted for women in schools and which will very probably affect their education. You wouldn't accept wee Kylie turning up dressed as a lap-dancer in nothing but three-inch stilletoes and a thong, because of what that says about the exploitation of women, so why should you accept wee Aisha wearing a niqab or burqah which marks her out as the property of the men of her family, (her father and then later her husband) and as someone who shouldn't even be talking to men who are not her male relatives and as someone whose body is so dangerous, it must be covered up? More about the attitudes which go with these extreme dress codes here - The Big Cover Up
I think it's fair to think of the hijab (headscarf) as something - which as long as girls are not forced into it - is not that much different from a yarmulka, a sign of religious identity, but once it gets into girls being forced to shroud themselves as they are not to be looked upon by any male outside of their family, even to the point of covering their faces, then you're in the realms of people being treated like property.
Fine, when they've left school and grown up, then they're entitled to exercise their rights and go around swathed in a burqah, just as if a consenting woman wants to dress up in a dog collar and leash to be held by her male master, she's entitled to do it, if that's what she finds empowering, but in public schools I would suggest that both extremes should be avoided as I don't want to see public schools teaching women to be submissive to men.
L.
[ 04. December 2005, 23:36: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
quote:
But I wouldn't like to see the wearing of it banned - within education or elsewhere - if the women/girls are happy and/or proud to wear it themselves.
In conservative communities we really don't know if the women/girls are happy/proud to wear Islamic dress, because they're not allowed to have a public opinion; and I suspect that if they did manage to express themselves in a way contrary to the community hive mind, they'd be disciplined severely -- perhaps beaten, or put under what amounts to house arrest, or maybe even killed by male relatives for offending the honor of the family.
I think one of the weaknesses of the Western p.o.v. is that we assume that all other cultures place the same value on, or even have a concept of, the idea of individual choice...we look at women in burkhas and say, "Well, it's their choice," assuming that they have the same opportunity to get up in the morning and think, "Hmmm...what shall I wear today?" That isn't how it works.
BTW -- good observation, several posts back, about the Gastarbeiter factor in this problem. The German government pretty much brought this problem upon themselves by essentially creating a subclass of resident aliens, not attempting to assimilate them into the wider culture, but also not making much of an attempt to make their stays in their country as temporary as the term "guest" might imply. (An idea that The Idiot Bush is trying to implement in the States, BTW.)
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
I find these situations deeply disturbing. But other than when the law is broken, in a free, multicultural society, what can be done?
Well, for starters, not to pay state money to Islamic teachers to teach little girls that thi is the way they must live?
How is that massively different from giving state money to "Christian" teachers to teach little girls that they must submit to their husbands, or to teach boys that "fags are evil" and "evolution is a lie"?
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
In conservative communities we really don't know if the women/girls are happy/proud to wear Islamic dress, because they're not allowed to have a public opinion; and I suspect that if they did manage to express themselves in a way contrary to the community hive mind, they'd be disciplined severely -- perhaps beaten, or put under what amounts to house arrest, or maybe even killed by male relatives for offending the honor of the family.
Right, and fifty years ago western society had no problem with people that broke community dress codes. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Or that this very day some white middle class christian family is probably disowning one of their children for refusing to submit to "common standards of decency"? And "house arrest"? Do you mean by any chance mean "grounded"? Which happens to most teenagers when they do something their parents don't approve of.
[code]
[ 05. December 2005, 15:25: Message edited by: John Holding ]
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
whitelaughter
Shipmate
# 10611
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Well, for starters, not to pay state money to Islamic teachers to teach little girls that thi is the way they must live?
How is that massively different from giving state money to "Christian" teachers to teach little girls that they must submit to their husbands, or to teach boys that "fags are evil" and "evolution is a lie"?
It's not - so can both be cleaned up at the same time?
Linking funding to external examinations seems the obvious move to me. If 'citizenship'is in the exams then the schools have to teach students their basic rights and responsibilities or lose their funding. Not perfect, but it would be a start - and perfect for dealing with creationism.
[code]
[ 05. December 2005, 15:24: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posts: 114 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Multiculturalism is one of these terms (eg., Christianity, socialism, decency, democracy) which needs to get defined, otherwise we end up with a room of people using the same word, and ascribing entirely different meanings to it. For Multiculturalism, I had always assumed that it was an integrationist, as opposed to assimilationist policy--Littleday, for one, appears to equate the two.
In the Canadian context, we've never had a unicultural situation-- it's always been, at a minumum, bicultural (historical tangent-- it was the Germans and Ukrainians who advocated the Multiculturalism policy). Multiculturalism was simply a word to describe our situation and try to manage it. I had always assumed, and (progressive) Muslim women such as we find with Irshad Manji or the Canadian Council of Muslim Women seem to be in accord, that it meant working within a common set of values. If you plough through the material which is prepared for citizenship classes here (and, aside from senior citizen applicants who can apply for exemption, everyone has to sit the exam to get their papers), equality of rights and opportunity for women is one of the points made at length.
I will note that in Oz, they are even clearer (blunter?) about adherence to common Australian values, and I think that's not a bad thing to emulate.
The article, which I've just finished reading, makes the very good point that the Germans pretended that they did not have immigrants and, for over 30 years, and had no real immigrant integration or citizenship programming. Moreover, like most European countries, they placed real barriers to citizenship (language exams at a high academic level, rather than a functional one) and extensive waiting periods (I think that it's 10 years or more). Canada and Oz, and to a lesser degree (cf. Will Kymlicka's book on this), pushed citizenship classes on immigrants. In both countries, funding went to integration programming designed jointly by community groups and the Government.
Another factor, which the article didn't go into, was that Germany encouraged the arrival of less-educated farmers, where Canada and Oz have encouraged professional immigrants (and then didn't recognize their credentials, so we have engineers etc driving cabs, but that's another thread).
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I agree, "Multiculturalism" screams for a defintion.
I always become angry on reading this kind of thread; because to me, multicultaralism describes the situation of having different cultures within a society. So I read this kind of thread as attacking the presence of another culture, using a particular atrocity or failing of that culture as ammunition.
I'm 100% sure that that's not what is meant here. But to me, and many of us, for whom multiculturalism is something of a rallying call, that's how it reads.
I'm presuming that multiculturalism here carries the idea of tolerating murder and oppression.
I would be desperate either for a clear definition of the word as used here, or a preferably a different word completely to be attacked.
As I say, I realise that's not the intent.... and I really don't want anyone here to think I'm throwing around accusations of racism, that's not the point. I'm just trying to be open about the reaction this kind of thread generates in me.... and I think I speak for others.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ananke
Shipmate
# 10059
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
If you object to taking the choices away from the kids then why have any sort of school uniform at all? That's circumscribing people's choice. If you're going to have a uniform then you need to think about what boundaries are acceptable and what values you are trying to communicate.
...
Because it's not just about a natty fashion choice, it's an external sign of a behaviour code which once you get onto things that go beyond the hijab, like the niqab and burqah is a behaviour code for women which should not be accepted for women in schools and which will very probably affect their education. You wouldn't accept wee Kylie turning up dressed as a lap-dancer in nothing but three-inch stilletoes and a thong, because of what that says about the exploitation of women, so why should you accept wee Aisha wearing a niqab or burqah which marks her out as the property of the men of her family, (her father and then later her husband) and as someone who shouldn't even be talking to men who are not her male relatives and as someone whose body is so dangerous, it must be covered up?
School uniforms: I wore one, always did. Would have loved an option which didn't include either cleavage baring formal top or arse-baring sport skirt. Or admin which didn't put me in detention for wearing what was most comfortable for an overly endowed teenage girl. I object to a lack of choice - If I went to the school I work at I would probably adopt the Muslim versions of the uniform - long sleeves and higher necklines.
As for the Kylie and Aisha comparison, there's a slight difference. Unless Kylie is worshipping Isis in a direct way, that doesn't even in the slightest compare to Aisha in a headscarf.
This discussion (for me) is deeply coloured by the fact I know quite well several girls who wear headscarves and varying degrees of modest clothing. I've considered taking on the headscarf myself. The girls, here in Australia, that I know have made a choice, a very deliberate and thoughtful choice to wear the headscarf. They have thought about it in the context of their faith, their culture and the surrounding society.
To say "I'm sorry, your religious faith doesn't mirror mine, you must expose yourself for my 'comfort'" is utterly horrifyiing for me. Not as horrifying as the situations where girls and women are forced into it, but damn close. But then again, my focus is on the men who perpetrate this bullshit rather than the women who are forced to submit to it.
If a woman wear the headscarf, fine. If a woman wears a burquah, fine. If a man says she must, or another woman says she must, not fine. If a government says she can't, not fine.
There are many different reasons for wearing headscarves etc. Not all of them are propietary and gendered.
--------------------
...and I bear witness, this grace, this prayer so long forgotten.
A Perfect Circle - Magdalena
Posts: 617 | From: australia | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Why is it that when the OP focusses on child abuse, segregation, and womens' rights the thread degenerates into the hijab issue? ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) How are we going to deal with this unless we face it?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
I've got no trouble with the headscarf but I draw the line at schoolgirls having their schooling blighted by niqabs and burqahs. These are mandated by minority opinions in Islam which follow a stricter interpretation of sharia which tends to carry with it a lot of disadvantages for women. I think the danger is that people don't realise the religious baggage which can come with women accepting these kinds of veiling.
[edited to add - it's that kind of baggage which brings in the kind of thing which is noticed in the OP]
It makes no difference to me whether degrading dress is mandated by religion or forced upon someone by social circumstances or peer or parental pressure. Religion is not an excuse for teaching girls to accept lives of submission, that this is done in the name of religion, in my opinion, makes it worse because these people are saying God demands these sinister sacrifices of a woman's identity and independence.
The only reason we're not in the same position of being damned if we show an ankle and pushed back into the home is because generations of men and women have fought the ideal of female submission put forward in the bible. Now some of us accept young women in our society being inducted into that sort of oppression in the name of tolerating religious beliefs, which if we had tolerated them for ourselves would have condemned us to an utterly unjust society. What happens when British men and women brought up to think female submission is OK and just part of their culture start voting to reverse the freedoms that you and I have? Schools funded by public money should not be re-inforcing this by tolerating institutionalised religious oppression of women and its outward insignia. I don't think it should even be tolerated in private schools - no more than we tolerate female circumcision.
L.
[ 05. December 2005, 10:46: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
The only reason we're not in the same position of being damned if we show an ankle and pushed back into the home is because generations of men and women have fought the ideal of female submission put forward in the bible. Now some of us accept young women in our society being inducted into that sort of oppression in the name of tolerating religious beliefs, which if we had tolerated them for ourselves would have condemned us to an utterly unjust society.
What you mean like how a man can expose his nipples and it goes by without notice, but if a woman does she will end up arrested for indcency? How about mothers getting arrested for breast feeding in public? Or if you exposed your gentials to another persons child you would end up charged for child molestation?
Why is that oppression acceptable but wearing a viel and modest dress some great travesty of human rights? Why don't you run around with no clothes on? By going around clothed you are only submitting to dress codes mandated "by social circumstances or peer or parental pressure." You are part of that oppression. You are "teaching girls to accept lives of submission".
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Religion is not an excuse for teaching girls to accept lives of submission, that this is done in the name of religion, in my opinion, makes it worse because these people are saying God demands these sinister sacrifices of a woman's identity and independence.
I would agree that religion shouldn't be an excuse to teach girls to live in submission. However, it is an excuse, which is alive and well within certain expressions of Christianity in the UK (and elsewhere I'm sure) as well as Islam. I think the difficulty arises between two conflicting ideals: respect for another faith (whichever that might be) when aspects of that faith disagree with our own view, and knowing the point at which that faith (whichever it might be) crosses the line into encouraging an abusive situation. But where is the line? Personally I consider forcing anyone into doing something they do not want to do to be abusive. However, how do I go about proving force, rather than a cultural assumption (however unpleasant it might be to me)? Assuming I can prove force, what do I then do about it? And what ramifications does acting upon such a situation have for respecting other faiths within a multicultural society?
quote:
What happens when British men and women brought up to think female submission is OK and just part of their culture start voting to reverse the freedoms that you and I have?
How do we know this doesn't go on already? I've met a number of men and women who consider female submission the way to go. Friends of mine who a few years ago returned to Australia with YWAM are a case in point. My friend submits to her husband in all things and believes this is what is expected of her as a Christian. I've had many an, um, interesting conversation with her and her hubby, but at the end of the day, it's her choice. And so long as I'm not forced to follow in her footsteps, what can be done?
However, she isn't being physically restrained or physically threatened, which is possibly the key point. But that isn't unique to faith, of course. There are abusive relationships everywhere.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
If you object to taking the choices away from the kids then why have any sort of school uniform at all? That's circumscribing people's choice. If you're going to have a uniform then you need to think about what boundaries are acceptable and what values you are trying to communicate.
Than get rid of school uniforms. Their only purpose was to reinforce the old heirarchical system in the Prussian military school system that incvented them They should never have been imported into our schools and ought to be chucked out at once.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Why is it that when the OP focusses on child abuse, segregation, and womens' rights the thread degenerates into the hijab issue?
Because that is the most visible expression of Arab & Muslim oppression of women.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Than get rid of school uniforms. Their only purpose was to reinforce the old heirarchical system in the Prussian military school system that incvented them They should never have been imported into our schools and ought to be chucked out at once.
[tangent]
School uniforms spared my parents from being shown to be poor when I was at school. They may have started out as elitist, but quite often school uniforms now have the opposite effect - they offer a (kind of) level playing field and allow poorer kids some self-respect in the sometimes ferocious world of the school yard.
[/tangent]
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Than get rid of school uniforms. Their only purpose was to reinforce the old heirarchical system in the Prussian military school system that incvented them They should never have been imported into our schools and ought to be chucked out at once.
Bugger off. If they got rid of school uniforms then clueless geeks like me would have no way to semi-mask our ineptitude during those tender school years.
I was a rebel man, I wore a non-regulation belt. And some days I used to wear my socks *down*.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
The Raptor writes: quote:
Do you mean by any chance mean "grounded"? Which happens to most teenagers when they do something their parents don't approve of.
No; I mean being locked in one's room , sometimes for years . I read about a Saudi girl who, while a teen in boarding school in Switzerland, came out as a lesbian, was promptly hauled home, subjected to medieval "therapy" and locked in her room, with just a hole cut in the door to pass meals in and pass her toilet pail out. At the time the book had been written, the now-woman had been imprisoned for over a decade.
You seem not to take the subject of women's oppression too seriously, Raptor. Any particular reason for that? Are you just playing devil's advocate, or do you seriously believe that women in fundamentalist Islamic homes enjoy anything resembling the Western concept of "choice" in anything they do? You think it's all just like "Father Knows Best"* but in Islamic costume?
*Beloved American sitcom of the 1950's, with loveable, befuddled Dad, indulgent Mother in pearls and a swing skirt with an apron, happy-go-lucky kids...where everyone knew their place, and everything was beautiful all the time.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
If they got rid of school uniforms then clueless geeks like me would have no way to semi-mask our ineptitude during those tender school years.
Rubbish. Every school has its own real codes of dress, often unknown to the teachers, which the "in" groups of students use to distinguish themselves from the "out" groups. The tighter the school rules the more minuscule the differences in the way you wear the uniform - but they still exist. Our cluless ineptitude was completely unmasked and the bastards were laughing at us all along.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
You seem not to take the subject of women's oppression too seriously, Raptor. Any particular reason for that? Are you just playing devil's advocate, or do you seriously believe that women in fundamentalist Islamic homes enjoy anything resembling the Western concept of "choice" in anything they do? You think it's all just like "Father Knows Best"* but in Islamic costume?
Mea culpa. I just enjoy playing devil's advocate.
Many people in this thread seem to be suffering from specks and beams syndrome. And that annoys me. People harp on about all the freedom we enjoy in western society, but in reality it is very restraining unless you want to be an outcast.
Locking women up for disobeying their family is no longer acceptable in western society, but there are still many coercieve (and destructive) methods employed to enforce the will of the family.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
I'd also like to add that our own cultures' human rights lapses of the past are not a reason not to advocate on behalf of others' human rights now: "Oh, we don't have any right to talk about human rights after what we did to [insert various examples of past colonial oppression, past gender inequity, etc.]..." What bullshit.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
On the other hand, reflecting on that might prompt a note of humility in the approach.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
I think the danger is that people don't realise the religious baggage which can come with women accepting these kinds of veiling.
[edited to add - it's that kind of baggage which brings in the kind of thing which is noticed in the OP]
I'd suggest that there is no cause-and-effect relationship which starts with wearing ethnic costume in school and leads directly to forced marriage.
I'm very willing to believe that there is a connection. That those whose belief system includes forced marriage are more likely to want their daughters to wear ethnic costume. Makes perfect sense.
But note which way causality runs here.
By focussing too much on the costume you seem to be supporting the sort of brainless knee-jerk reaction which seeks to ban the effect in order to register moral disapproval of the cause.
Don't go there. It gives the fanatics the warm glow of being persecuted for their religious beliefs, and makes the ambivalent feel more sympathy for them.
Murder is a crime. Threat of murder is a crime. Non-consensual sex is a crime. Knowingly covering up a crime is a crime. Perfectly reasonable to insist that state schools teach some level of citizenship which includes a very clear statement of these facts about our legal system.
Perfectly reasonable, in my view, to insist that state schools teach in the language of the country concerned. And that all pupils do sport.
What we don't need is well-meaning people identifying a "syndrome" which includes both crimes and harmless elements of traditional culture, and then trying to ban the harmless elements because they're associated with crime and that's the easy thing to do.
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I often think that kind of approach, Russ, is what entrenches antipathy and feelings of "them and us" in the immigrant community.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I'd also like to add that our own cultures' human rights lapses of the past are not a reason not to advocate on behalf of others' human rights now: "Oh, we don't have any right to talk about human rights after what we did to [insert various examples of past colonial oppression, past gender inequity, etc.]..." What bullshit.
It's not our past I am reflecting on, it's what is happening right this very day. Plenty of women in Australia who are breast feeding in public get threatend with indeceny laws. Many American states have the lovely little quirk of putting people on sex offender registers, who were convicted of urinating in public. Not to mention in those same states you would probably end up in jail for soliciting for sex.
You are free to what society tells you to do.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Humility is fine as long as it's expressed in terms of "Look -- we've been there, done that; our society is richer for having abandoned our old attitudes and practices. Trust us; we know," and not in a whingeing, quivering refusal to make value judgments on customs that deprive human beings of their human rights. I remember being on a discussion forum, talking about multiculturalism, where one person kept insisting that one value system is just as good as the other. I asked that person if s/he thought that, say, the Nazis' value system was as good as his/hers, or the practice in some cultures of selling children off to slave-labor or worse for the greater good of the family, or if some latter-day Aztec restorationist started sacrificing children and offering their still-beating hearts to the sun god, was just as swell a value as his or her own...that person started stuttering and equivocating in a way that made it clear that, as long as he wasn't the one being loaded into a cattle car for a concentration camp, or lying on a stone altar waiting for the knife to come down on his chest, or seeing his child taken away to be chained to a sewing machine in a sweatshop to pay off a debt, he really didn't give a damn about values other than his own rather suspect value of "not imposing my values on others."
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
The article, which I've just finished reading, makes the very good point that the Germans pretended that they did not have immigrants and, for over 30 years, and had no real immigrant integration or citizenship programming. Moreover, like most European countries, they placed real barriers to citizenship (language exams at a high academic level, rather than a functional one) and extensive waiting periods (I think that it's 10 years or more). Canada and Oz, and to a lesser degree (cf. Will Kymlicka's book on this), pushed citizenship classes on immigrants. In both countries, funding went to integration programming designed jointly by community groups and the Government.
Of course. For most German citizens Turks aren't Germans. Why, therefore, should they be expected to conform to German values. This then raises a second point that, despite the objections of the cultural left, one can to a large extent object to doing this sort of thing with the taxpayers money in the US or the UK by an appeal to the fact that such things "are not British, old boy" or are against the "American Way". This is because US and UK patriotism are tied up with some kind of self-understanding of democracy and civil society. In Germany patriotism took other, malign, forms and therefore is difficult to invoke as a kind of social glue. German politicians would find it difficult to object to the behaviour of an ethnic minority on the grounds that it doesn't conform with German values for fairly obvious historical reasons. A society can cope reasonably well with immigrant populations if it has a language of civic patriotism which, in effect, tells immigrants "thus far and no farther" on certain issues. But without any clear notion of what immigrants should integrate or assimilate to and no clear desire to foster such integration or assimilation it is easier to placate such groups by subsidising them as a kind of ethnic ghetto than attempting the harder task of deterring such behaviour.
I'm not sure what the situation is now but it was undoubtedly the case that many of the earliest immigrants to Germany were from sectors of Turkish society that left Turkey because they objected to Ataturkism. This suited the Germans who got cheap labour, the Turks who exported their dissident problem and the Turkish expats who could pursue their reactionary brand of Islam without coming to the attention of the Turkish state. Certainly the Turkish immigrant community was fertile recruiting ground for the neo-fascist group the Grey Wolves in the 1970s. From Laura's article it sounds like a Turkish woman growing up in Berlin is less free than that same woman would be if she were growing up in Ankara or Istanbul.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Humility is fine as long as it's expressed in terms of "Look -- we've been there, done that; our society is richer for having abandoned our old attitudes and practices. Trust us; we know,"
That is, however, so rarely what comes across. The average expression seems to be "Look -- you have a primitive, repressive, barbaric culture and religion. You need to abandon this wholesale if you want to be accepted - and those hijabs are part of the problem, they need to go too."
I've yet to see European/US society exhibiting an excess of humility in this regard, I must say. Your counter example doesn't sound like such a case, either.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
I think the relativism here which would equate wearing school uniforms with forcing girls into marriage at 13 is pretty scary. I'm also not interested in "but your society tells women they need to wear high heels and makeup" sort of thing, because it's bullshit. The social cost of not wearing high heels or makeup (which I do not do and it has not affected my personal success in life) is nothing at all to the very real cost of the Muslim girl's refusal to toe the line in the situations described which can result in death.
Nor do I think it is fair to say we can't do anything about trying to prevent, say, honor killings to go unpunished or girls being taught rubbish in state schools, because our society is also failing women from time to time. That fact should make us want to fix our own society and encourage changes in the immigrant communities among us to foster the same goals.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
