Multiculturalism

Too funny.No I was saying I would never attempt those things. Fumble fingers. What I meant to say was that I have no real desire to give off the impression that I am consistent. I'm still confused how you could think I took any such position. I'm sorry but what basic human rights are being breached?How the balance would go would depend a great deal on whether or not a reasonable law could be passed. What if such surgery were decriminalized and allowed to be performed in a hospital under sterile and hygienic conditions by an experienced, trained and certified surgeon?And yes, my position is based on multiculturalism, that I am not sure I am competent to legislate morality or cultural mores.

If you aren't sure about how the word 'you' works, go back and replace it with 'one'. Also, re-read the statement in its full context and you will see I wasn't talking about jar, but the people who don't want to go to hospital because they had been involved in a crime. If that doesn't cover you, I'm not talking about you. I disagree, but regardless of the truth of the premise, the reasoning remains unimpaired. By reading the words you wrote as quoted in my last post. If there is a problem with my reasoning from your stated position on the topic? Also, you said so:

quote:

---

yes, if there was a culture that cut off boys penises then I would prefer it done in a sterile hospital situation with trained medical care.

---

The rights of the individuals who are having unnecessary and significantly damaging medical procedures performed on them without their consent.I have already discussed the rights involved in prepuce removal such as Article I of the Declaration of Human rights and German Basic Law as well as referencing EUCHR, if you want some codified examples. Yes, that's what you are proposing. Of course, this institutionalizes the practice and reinforces its continuation, as one side effect, meaning there will be lots of people denied their genitals without their consent. So nobody should try? That we should let 'it's my culture' be justification for any offence as long as it isn't too crippling?

But I do not see where any such rights are being infringed. Rights are not universal and depend on a cultural context. Declarations of Human Rights are not, to the best of my knowledge, anything that carries the force or law. I am not a German and so German Basic Law is pretty irrelevant. Nor is the European Council for Health Research. You should be free to speak against it, to try to persuade people that your position is correct, to change practices but I'm not at all sure you should try to criminalize such things.

In Europe, for a start. So? You asked about 'human rights' I gave you some. IF you wanted to know about legally enforceable rights, you should have stipulated this, and I would have pointed out I wasn't exclusively talking about those, but would have pointed out some that have already come up. Such as: You didn't ask 'What American rights are being breached', so actually it is relevant as the Basic Law does contain human rights laws. The U was a slipup. I meant the ECHR.

I figured you were talking about the European Council for Health Research.

Well, since I was talking about rights, I can assure you, I was talking about European Convention on Human Rights.

Okay, thanks for clearing that point up.

I answered, "Maybe," to the questions, "Should we stop the need to report? Decriminalise acts that might result in you getting shot?" There is no black-and-white, one-size-fits-all answer to those questions. The only generic answer possible is, "Maybe." We need to look at specific cases in specific jurisdictions before we can refine that answer.That's the way things are done in science. Why do you object to me doing it here?

Yes, you were mistaken - but my phrasing might have been unclear. "What I am advocating" in that quote is the process by which legislators discuss the status quo and propose measures which may or may not improve it.I said, "I'm not advocating for anything," in response to your question, "You're advocating for the way things are?" To be clear: I am not advocating for the way things are nor am I advocating for changing the way things are. I'm advocating for looking at the way things are and thinking about ways in which they might be improved. No doubt lines will be drawn but there is no "Way". We need to look at individual issues individually. There may be some practices that we can't condone and there may be others where we need to hold our noses and accept them. And no doubt our ideas of which is which will change over time.Hence my original suggestion that we need to look at our own values first. Can we live with distasteful "foreign" practices or can we live with ourselves if we suppress them?

Here are two examples of cultural differences outright considered in punishing criminals:

quote:

---

"Metis Woman Avoids Jail Term for Killing Husband" from National Post:

​

A Metis woman who stabbed to death her common-law husband was given a conditional sentence of two years less a day after her lawyer argued her aboriginal background should help mitigate her sentence.
...

​

"It's a slap on the wrist," Ms. Shorson said of the sentence imposed by British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Paul Williamson, who also ordered Emard to perform 240 hours of community service work. Failure to meet the conditions will result in Emard serving her time in jail.
...

​

"There should be justice for everyone -- not one system for Indian and Metis people and one for white people."
...

​

Emard's lawyer had argued his client should fall under a relatively new sentencing provision -- it came into effect in September, 1996 -- which says a judge must pay particular attention to native Indian offenders.

​

Sec. 718.2 (e) of the Criminal Code states "all available sanctions other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstance, should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to aboriginal offenders."
...

---

quote:

---

"Alleged Con Man's Defense: 'Different' Mores " originally from The Boston Globe:

​

The way Dr. Keith Ablow sees it, William Stanley is not a con man who targets the elderly, despite numerous convictions for just that. Instead, Ablow believes Stanley is a victim of his culture -- his Gypsy culture.

​

"An Inclusive Litany" from The Flummery Digest (blog):

​

Rejecting the prosecutor's recommendation of six to eight years in prison, Suffolk County Judge Maria I. Lopez gave Stanley a three-year sentence that took into account his Gypsy background. Johns Hopkins-educated psychiatrist Keith Ablow testified that Stanley's Gypsy upbringing contributed to his criminal behavior. "This is a culture for which deception and lying is a survival strategy," said Ablow, adding that "it's probably not fair to hold him to the same standards you would an average individual." Ablow noted that Czech playwright Vaclav Havel once said that the way a society treats its Gypsies defines its level of civility, adding that punishing a man for culturally learned actions would create a "Dante-esque" and "Kafka-esque" situation.

---

Multiculturalism is poisoning Western societies and will debilitate them if attitudes don't change. No society can be successful and free without the ability to maintain order and justice. The same anarchy that has made other cultures so dysfunctional is making its way into Western nations under the guise of "Multiculturalism".Patriarchy, tribalism, murder, theft, sex trafficking.I cannot imagine why some people want these things in their countries. But I know I sure as hell don't want them in mine.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Non sequitur.

No problem. Fancy addressing the topic?

I know. You said it twice, neither of which constituted an answer to what I was asking. Now you've said it three times. Who is being repetitive again? Obviously. Hence why 'maybe' is a useless answer as it doesn't say anything nor does it address the reason for my asking the questions. If all you have is the most generic answer to questions I wasn't asking you, perhaps you shouldn't answer? The way things are done in science is to provide one word meaningless answers to questions which necessarily contained that answer as part of the framing of the question?I don't think so, Ringo.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Non respondisti.

Sure.Learning to deal with and understand other cultures is difficult and no culture has all the answers.Wasting time on passing laws criminalizing FGM is just utterly stupid and only makes the situation worse when real issues are not being addressed. Lets deal with getting drunk drivers off the roads and other important issues.