|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Multiculturalism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
I've had very little time recently, but the irony here is too delicious to pass up.
You feel the need to mock illiteracy:
It may be a typo or it may be your characteristic illiteracy. And yet, we have this:
ringo writes: i.e. the women who have been circumcised and who want their daughters to be circumcised. Perhaps your own particular literacy omitted etymology - or perhaps omitted a classical education. You might want to look up the etymology of "circumcision", before applying it to what happens to girls who have their genitalia excised (and more). Look it up on wiki - go on - it's easy.Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Ringo writes: If everybody in the thread will agree with you, I'll stop bringing it up. No mothers have gone to jail. Given that in most cases it is not the mothers doing the cutting there seems little danger of UK law resulting in swathes of mothers going to jail leaving behind hordes of orphans. This entire line of objection is a fantasy of your own making. You have then insisted everyone else comment upon this fantasy outcome and when people say anything that fails to exclude any mother ever going to jail you congratulate yourself on having been right all along. The whole "mothers in jail" phenomenon doesn't exist and is a disingenuous debate tactic on your part.
Ringo writes: In the case of murder or assault, the one who does the hiring is considered as guilty as the one who does the act. Are you suggesting that FGM would not be treated the same way? In the case of child abuse it is the actual abuser who faces the full force of the law. Those who may have facilitated the abuse, rather than actually undertaken it, are treated in a more context dependent manner. A mother who has been abused herself and who has been effectively brainwashed into facilitating the abuse of her children will be treated more sympathetically than someone who gets paid by paedophiles to find and groom vulnerable children, for example. In the case of FGM I would expect an equally context dependent view to be taken with the best interests of the child being of paramount importance. In most cases where the mother is not the actual mutilator non-custodial sentancing with involvement from social services to assess ongoing risk to the child would be a perfectly valid outcome.
Straggler writes: At what point does an "individual act of abuse" become a cultural practice to which you find the application of the term "abuse" so objectionable? Ringo writes: Simple: at the point where a whole culture practices it. Firstly - Can you shed some light on what constitutes a "whole culture"? How many people or generations of people or percentage of people need to practise a to qualify as a "whole culture" in your view?
Ringo writes: Simple: at the point where a whole culture practices it. So - To return to our example - If a mother takes a pair of pliers or a carving knife (take your pick), spread-eagles her 4 year old daughter on the kitchen table and clips off her clitoris - Then this behaviour no longer qualifis as "abuse" and is perfectly acceptable to you as long as it is practised by the "whole culture". Is that correct?
Ringo writes: When women who have been "victims" of FGM grow up, they often realize that they were not "abused" at all, much like children grow up to realize that forcing them to go to school was not "abuse". You think being forced to have one's genitalia removed is the same as being made to go to school to be educated...... Seriously?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dronester writes:
I have problems with this part. For example, it would send parents to jail for having their daughters' ears pierced.
The mutilation of children is wrong and should be illegal. dronerster writes:
No, I'm asking you to answer what you haven't answered: Short of female circumcision what would you consider acceptable?
It seems you keep asking me to repeat myself in this thread....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Having the right to set the terms is not the same as setting the right terms. It's the terms that I'm disputing.
It's the UK society that are quite rightly setting out the terms by which foreigners may live in its society.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
vimesey writes:
You might want to look up the etymology of "circumcision"....quote:What's your point?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
It's the terms that I'm disputing. No you're not, you're defending the practice of FGM. My position - and my society's position - is that FGM harms children and is therefore a moral and legal wrong which needs preventing. Period.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
Nonsense. The entire point is that the people in this thread are willing to send mothers to prison for circumcising their daughters. Whether the British legal system is sensible enough and/or humane enough no to do so is irrelevant. It's the motives of the people in this thread that I'm calling into question.
This entire line of objection is a fantasy of your own making. Straggler writes:
And the "actual abuser" would be the one who takes her daughter out to be "abused". The facilitator would be the one who did the cutting.
In the case of child abuse it is the actual abuser who faces the full force of the law. Those who may have facilitated the abuse, rather than actually undertaken it, are treated in a more context dependent manner. Straggler writes:
See the UNICEF discussion on social norms. If a certain practice is a social norm within a group of people, then that group could be considered a "whole culture" in the context of that practice. Individual acts by individual members of that group would not be considered cultural practices.
Firstly - Can you shed some light on what constitutes a "whole culture"? How many people or generations of people or percentage of people need to practise a to qualify as a "whole culture" in your view? Straggler writes:
I don't think I'd characterize it as "acceptable" but I wouldn't send her to prison for doing it. If a mother takes a pair of pliers or a carving knife (take your pick), spread-eagles her 4 year old daughter on the kitchen table and clips off her clitoris - Then this behaviour no longer qualifis as "abuse" and is perfectly acceptable to you as long as it is practised by the "whole culture". Is that correct? I've compared FGM to abortion in this thread. I don't find it "acceptable" but I wouldn't treat it as criminal either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
I have said repeatedly in this thread that I do not support FGM. No you're not, you're defending the practice of FGM. I'm defending the practitioners of FGM. What part of that distinction do you not understand?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Ringo writes: I have said repeatedly in this thread that I do not support FGM. I'm defending the practitioners of FGM. Guess what the practitioners of FGM do? That's right!Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
So you don't understand the distinction. Guess what the practitioners of FGM do? That's right! Are you aware that in our legal system(s) the accused has a right to the protection of the law? The right to be defended by counsel? Even a convicted felon has the right to the full protection of the law. Defense counsel uses its fullest abilities to defend the accused (and/or convicted) to the full extent of the law. That does not in any way suggest that defense counsel approves of the acts (allegedly) committed by the accused/convicted. It is not the acts that are being defended. Edited by ringo, : Shift key malfunction and/or operator malfunction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Ringo writes: Are you aware that in our legal system(s) the accused has a right to the protection of the law? The right to be defended by counsel? Even a convicted felon has the right to the full protection of the law. Defense counsel uses its fullest abilities to defend the accused (and/or convicted) to the full extent of the law. That does not in any way suggest that defense counsel approves of the acts (allegedly) committed by the accused/convicted. It is not the acts that are being defended. Don't be silly, a defense lawyer's job is is to try show that his client didn't commit the crime. If he starts by saying that in his opinion his client's culture required his client to mutilate her child and that therefore the law should not apply to his client, he'll get told to sit down. (And the prosecution will rub its hands in glee). If you must stretch this analogy, the best the lawyer can do is mitigate on behalf of his client - "she admits the act m'lord, but her culture is really the criminal here etc etc"Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Are you saying that there is nothing between male circumcision and female circumcision? Because I've been saying that the only difference is in degree and I've gotten some flak over that ... Where do you draw the line? "difference in degree"? Plucking out the boy's eyelashes versus plucking out the girl's eye certainly is a difference in degree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
If he starts by saying that in his opinion his client's culture required his client to mutilate her child and that therefore the law should not apply to his client, he'll get told to sit down. Actually, being told to sit down probably would not happen in a US court. The prosecution would of course make note that the defendants representative had admitted to all elements of the case. I've seen defendants representing themselves who make the mistake of admitting to elements of the case while trying to present an excuse that does not remotely add up to a legitimate defense to the crime. In such cases, the judge lets the defendant have all of the rope he needs. Generally, those defendants get themselves convicted. But a jury doesn't actually have to convict in that or any case, and under US law, the prosecution cannot ask for a directed verdict.
Don't be silly, a defense lawyer's job is is to try show that his client didn't commit the crime. The defense lawyer represents his client's interest. That does not always mean seeking an acquittal. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
noNukes writes: Actually, being told to sit down probably would not happen in a US court. The prosecution would of course make note that the defendants representative had admitted to all elements of the case. I wonder. I think in the UK if a defence lawyer was behaving as incompetently as to put forward an admission of guilt whilst defending a not guilty plea, the judge would be obliged to stop the trial in the interest of the defendant. An exception would be that if the lawyer made it clear, up front, to the court that he was acting under instruction.
I've seen defendants representing themselves who make the mistake of admitting to elements of the case while trying to present an excuse that does not remotely add up to a legitimate defense to the crime. In such cases, the judge lets the defendant have all of the rope he needs. Generally, those defendants get themselves convicted. Unrepresented defendants tend to make a right mess, but in the UK the court has a duty to aid the defendant as best it can. They do tend to hang themselves anyway.
But a jury doesn't actually have to convict in that or any case, and under US law, the prosecution cannot ask for a directed verdict. Juries can do what the hell they like and not give a reason - it's one of the wonderful things about the jury system. But a perverse verdict can be challenged. In the UK a judge can direct a verdict. The jury is not absolutely obliged to do as he says but.......
The defense lawyer represents his client's interest. That does not always mean seeking an acquittal. If he's defending a not guilty plea it does. If it's a guilty plea he mitigates. If it's pre-trial, he advises the best course of action. If he's directed, he looks embarrassed and does what he's told but makes sure the judge knows it.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I wonder. I think in the UK if a defence lawyer was behaving as incompetently as to put forward an admission of guilt whilst defending a not guilty plea If he's defending a not guilty plea it does. If it's a guilty plea he mitigates. That all relies on a presumption on your part that you know the client's best interest. Maybe putting the law 'on trial' is what the defendant wants. Perhaps doing so is his best primary objective. Maybe he is a doctor who makes $500,000 a year doing FGMs. There are any number of ways to support a not guilty plea. You think we must insist that the state prove the elements of the case, but that's not the only way to structure a defense. One way is to attack the basis of the statue itself. In this particular case, the lawyer would be relying on jury nullification, but in other cases the lawyer may be relying on establishing that the statute is contrary to good public policy or is even unconstitutional. In such cases, particularly when the state has lots of witnesses, and lots of physical evidence, putting the state to the point of proving its case may be mere exercise. But in many cases, and perhaps for an FGM case, doing so might not even be desirable Example cases might be any of the Dr. Kevorkian suicide cases or the Loving v. Virginia interracial marriage case, or Plessy v. Ferguson. Would it be useful for an attorney to have forced the state to prove that Rosa parks sat in the front of the bus?Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024