Multiculturalism

Robbery, murder, rape, arson? Your doubt is well placed. I didn't say you advocated it, but it's the logical conclusion from allowing the exterior genitals of a female to be removed that you'd also allow the homologous male structures to be also. And I was right. Of course this is preferable. But even more preferable is to reduce its occurrence to the point it no longer happens at all. As far as I understand, after concerted global efforts and some of the regions with particular issues with it starting to enact laws to restrict the practice, prosecutions occurring in other places, information being distributed to those that carry out the practice as part of their traditions - the rates of FGM are coming down.FGM is almost universally done in unhygienic conditions whether it is legal or quasi-legal, so despite your preferences, the legality of the issue would not have changed that much in this regard. We have a much better chance of reducing it to near unheard of levels before we manage to get its practitioners into a position where they can afford to have proper medical facilities who perform the ritual in the correct way while minimising risk of unintended side effects (some side effects are obviously intended).

You are just repeating yourself.

Obviously not. Yes, FGM was made illegal quite recently as a result of change. And you questioned why a law should exist and if it was illegal while you were down there. I gave some reasons for why the law should exist and why it was not generally considered illegal. So you didn't in fact say:

quote:

---

The legislators were not convinced that the status quo was absolutely perfect, so they thought about it and came up with what may or may not be an improvement. That's what I'm advocating.

---

And I was mistaken? Aka: the title of the thread, and its central theme. So, the burning question is - which is the way you think we should go? More multicultural and tolerance of other practices even as they breach the rights of citizens? More rigorous measures to assimilate and/or legislating to enable powers to deal with specific cultural crimes against citizens as and when we learn about them? Is there any line?

They are all crimes you might commit or attempt to commit that might result in you getting shot and feeling that you need to avoid hospital to avoid the police being involved. Why was I right? Because in the next sentence you said I was right. No, but I expect you to at least want to give off the impression you were consistent. And I was right.You were arguing from a principle that practices, even against children, can/should be permitted under certain conditions. The removal of the the boy's penis mirrors quite closely the effects of certain FGM operations - so it stands to reason that if you were to stand by your general principle you'd have to accept that infant penisectomy's should be allowed by law. And you do.You want to get back to the side effects issue or would you rather dissect this some more?

What objections? What repetition?You said 'Maybe' in Message 359,
I objected this did not address the issue being raised in Message 362
You repeated 'Maybe' in Message 365
I said you were repeating yourself in Message 367
You now claim I am being repetitive, when in fact I made two posts with two different objections (1: Your post was not an answer to the issue 2: You repeated your non-answer).How is this repetitive? How are these 'many' objections nothing to do with what you were saying?

So you are saying that people who get shot never try and avoid hospital? I've never been in the situation before, so is this just an urban legend or something? I'm not sure what you think your point is here jar. How should this factor into my reasoning process? I am not accusing you of being perfectly consistent, jar, rest assured. I was simply stating that you would want to avoid special pleading charges, because (if nothing else) you are an experienced debater. Call it what you will, I was talking about the position you have taken in this thread:

quote:

---

If it is done under hygienic conditions on a very young child within a culture where it is custion I'm not at all sure I oppose it.

---

quote:

---

Probably actions that cause death or serious future disability would be indefensible.

---

quote:

---

Criminalizing the practice forces it to be done outside the health care system. It does not protect the children but instead denies them the chance of getting surgery in hygienic, sterile conditions done by competent trained doctors and surgeons.

---

So - it seems to me, based on the position you have advanced as quoted above, you would agree that that which applies to female genitals likewise applies to male genitals. Since removing the penis is basically as disabling as removing the clitoris and labia it stands to reason, based on your own argument, that you would take this position. I was right in my conclusion, and I'm perplexed that you would query this so much.Your objection seems to be that I assumed you were reasonable. IF you would rather I assumed otherwise, please alert me to this fact. Exactly, so now we're done with the side show perhaps you can answer my question about the side effects of your alternative notions. So let's talk about that, eh? I understand the damage you say the law causes, what damage does allowing people to breach established human rights do and why do you think the balance should go the way you suggest? I'm not sure where you are posting from these days, but I think it is YOUR stupid law too. Is the only line with children a certain degree of injury (serious long term disability or death), should all else be permitted? Is this because of multiculturalism, or is this some kind of failed-societies-require-laws-fix-society-no-need-for-laws schtick that isn't really tremendously on topic?

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?

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.

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

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.

That process is 'the way things are' at the moment.
You are advocating for this.
Therefore, my rhetorical question, 'You're advocating for the way things are?' shows no signs of me having been mistaken. How would we do that? Say some 11 year old girl is discovered to have had Type III FGM performed on her. How do we look at this case individually? If it is not illegal, the police can't get involved, the hospital have no rights to answers about a persons deep private life, and the government has no business either. At best, a private/scientific exploration might be possible, with the consent of the family, which probably won't happen. So we're stuck, right? Is this the same situation if she is raped or sexually abused?Alternatively, if it was illegal, we could examine each case individually and use what we learn to refine the law and supporting legal system.Do you have any personal views about what should be considered the 'line' - with all due philosophical tentativity of course. Indeed - but I see you won't put forward your own views for discussion, preferring a hands off and content-free position of 'we should do the wise thing'. Do you think multiculturalism causes any harms, does it promote anything beneficial? Do you want to actually address the topic? Did I dispute this? Or did I instead try and talk to you about the specific cases of FGM as a candidate practice we might prefer to suppress over accepting. After all, it breaches human rights to perform it. So surely we should not be ignoring established human rights just because we don't want to upset some cultural groups?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Of course. Perhaps you could support this argument? Lets. But unless you propose that DUI is typically performed by a specific cultural group or related groups, it wouldn't really be on topic. You can't be suggesting putting a moratorium on legislation until one specific crime is wiped out permanently can you?

Then how do we test 'FGM is immoral and should be a criminal offense'?

And the process is being used, as I provided evidence for. I can provide more if you'd like, but since this is kind of what legislators and judges do for a living (for better or worse) it seems a bit pointless. No. Only certain kinds of cutting are illegal in some countries. It is legal for me to have some of my daughter's genitals sliced off, if she existed, in the UK and the USA for example - though some heavily technical legal arguments may be raised as to why even that is illegal, there is no explicit law against it. Indeed - as a result of multiculturalism (in my opinion, but not Jon's, see earlier in the thread) - the practice looks like it will be entrenched as a legal procedure for many years to come.However, your answer misses the point by ignoring the conditional, 'if it isn't illegal'. That's the whole point of this thread. Do you have intent on taking part in a discussion on whether the bad wins over the good as multiculturalism exists in practice today?Do you have any personal views about what should be considered the 'line'? With all due philosophical tentativity of course. That is - is there anything you personally would object to being made legal for the purposes of cultural diversity? You know, if cutting children's genitals off is too much of a border-line or corner-case for you. I was disputing the notion that governments should avoid enacting laws that target the criminal practices of cultural minorities etc. I was arguing that there are reasons why specific FGM laws were enacted rather than relying on pre-existing child abuse laws. I was disputing the contribution to the thread that is: 'we should think about things'. It only happened like yesterday and a bit of the day before. I'm not sure how you forgot and lost the ability to look back through the thread. Yes, again the easiest demonstration of this I can find is Article I of the Declaration of Human Rights and German Basic Law, but jurisprudence surrounding rights listed in the ECHR can also make the case, I believe and there are legal minds in the UK that believe they can make a case that even the 'perfectly benign' male circumcision is prohibited by law in the UK with recourse to human rights laws. I believe the typical response would go along the lines of 'their rights end where their children's genitals begin'. We are of course, talking about the response of Western cultures to the practice occurring in their territory. But looking at it from a more domestic perspective - Kenya is part of the UN. That means it accepts, as binding, the UN Charter -which defines human rights in terms of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is widely regarded as customary international law. So there is potentially an argument that could be made even there.