Multiculturalism

Hi Tangle,I would agree that multiculturalism, as you've outlined it, is preferable to the alternatives you paint, and absolutely key to its success is your proviso that the laws of the integrating society are not compromised. (This is perhaps where multiculturalism has acquired bad press recently - a failure to ensure that your proviso is sufficiently emphasised).But I think we need to dig more deeply. Not all western values are enshrined in law - should we determine that certain of those values are sufficiently important, that we should introduce new laws which emphasise them over the practices of incoming cultures ? Take France's recently introduced laws, banning the wearing of full Muslim veils (the niqab and others) in public.We should also ask ourselves if we are too careful about challenging behaviours when they violate our laws or values. See the recent report into abuse (a mild term) in Rochdale, or the scandalous lack of attention given to allegations of systematic rape in the London Somali community.I am not convinced that we have ever been sufficiently clear in the UK as to the standards we expect our citizens to meet. These standards should, of course, never oppress a cultural practice which hurts no one. But we shouldn't be scared to protect values which are important and hard won.

Hi Modulous - may I ask you this, then.If a culture practices a custom which we find repugnant, and contrary to basic human rights (such as FGM), should we simply leave it to our laws, or should we go further and actively try to eradicate the practice of that custom ? (We can discuss the most effective means of doing so, but is it appropriate for us to seek to stop the practice of that custom altogether ? Knowing, as we do, that this will involve seeking to change one or more of a particular culture's norms).

Why on earth should my first step be to re-evaluate my repugnance ? Why should I assume that my repugnance is inappropriate ? My repugnance is directed at the sorts of practices which devalue and dehumanise vulnerable people - it targets FGM, rape, torture and the treatment of women as second class citizens, and worse. It finds disgusting the ordering of rape as punishment by village elders in India. My repugnance rails at widows being stoned to death for being with a man after their husband's death, when (to add insult to injury) the man suffers no such punishment. It finds abhorrent the practice of forced marriage, and the prevalence of slavery in North Africa.I am not blind to failings in my own, first world, Western democracy - but why the hell should I re-evaluate or compromise my repugnance of the widespread brutalisation of so bloody many of the world's people ?

But if we adopt that approach, then all values become meaningless - because, according to that logic, they are subject to change over time. I believe my values are more important than that - and I don't devalue them because they might have been different in the past. Hence my words "I'm not blind".

But you don't address my inference - that your point carries the implication that because values change over time, my values today have no meaning. In other words, my abhorrence for rape, FGM, torture etc, will be seen in a century as being just as indefensible as segregation in the states before civil rights, and should therefore be treated now, with the same lack of weight. I see no reason to question my values today, simply because someone in the past would have had values I find abhorrent. The need to re-evaluate necessarily assumes that circumstances could arise in which I could believe that rape, FGM, torture etc, are not abhorrent. I believe otherwise.

In part, yes. In part a product of my upbringing, in part of my personality, in part of my experiences, in part of my degree of native wit. They can't exclusively be a product of my culture, of course, since if that were the case, everyone in a culture would share the same values, which demonstrably they do not. I agree - which is why I did not say that. I referred to the values someone in the past would have had, and I see no implication that I was suggesting that I would have had the same ideals I do now. The point I have made repeatedly, is that your reference to the fact that someone 100 years ago would not see segregation as bad, implies that my ideals today will be seen as equally unacceptable in 100 years time, and therefore should be accorded little weight. My view is that if we accept such relativism, we accept such a dilution of values as to make them meaningless. I believe that my values are not devalued by values 100 years ago. I think we've made significant progress since then - women have got the vote and everything - it's brilliant ! That's an interesting phrase, "the bleeding obvious". Are you suggesting that some values are, by their nature, bleeding obvious ? Absolute, perhaps ?

Certainly people within cultures will tend to share some values - and I can agree that it is possible to analyse sub-cultures within cultures. You get into issues as to how thinly to slice the cake then, of course, in an endeavour to find as tightly a defined sub-set of people as you can - and even then, I'm not sure as to the level of consensus you would get in values. I'm a reasonably standard white middle class male in an urban environment in England. One of my values is honesty. I would never falsify an insurance claim - but I know that many people do in my culture (however you'd like to define that term). And although they know it is illegal, many will genuinely believe it is not morally wrong - they see it as part of an acceptable level of give and take between wealthy corporations and less wealthy individuals. In that regard, I believe we have different values, within the same culture, for example. I'm not so sure. My concern as to the dialogue around mutable values is that it engenders a view that no particular value set should be given extra weight, and that this in turn weakens the strength of my current value set. My values are right for me, right here right now, and that makes them especially important to me in the present. If I think otherwise, and start to shrug my shoulders at the fact that 125 million living women are thought to have undergone FGM, on the basis that my values are no more valid or important than another set of values which might conceivably condone FGM, then I would not be the man I would want to be. That to me is the danger of relativism - the dialogue of it dilutes moral outrage and can engender an environment in which we are less motivated to help others. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I'm not blind to the problems in my own society - and you're right, I want the absolute bare minimum of state and corporate intrusion into my life and those of others. But that doesn't, of course, undermine my concern as to the effects of the dialogue of relativism, nor my abhorrence for things which brutalise individuals and which are (occasionally) accepted in other cultures.

But not exclusively so, so my point still stands. My values are not just a product of my culture - they are a product of many things. Otherwise everyone in a culture would have the same values, no ? So, you have a pop at my intelligence, and to add irony, you appear to misunderstand me on two levels. First, I neither said nor implied that my level of native wit is particularly high - the point I was making that one factor which will have an impact on mine and anyone else's values, is how able, or indeed unable, someone is to analyse and think things through. It was a simple enough point, and not one to justify a pop by you. And secondly, I have never suggested being able to, or indeed seeking to, predict people's values in a hundred years. Indeed, my very point would be, that because I cannot, my values now are what are important to me, and not to be thrown into some relativistic hotpot of potential future values. I understand that. My belief is that this dialogue and approach permits an argument that my values should be ignored (or at least be accorded no greater weight than a value set with which I profoundly disagree), simply because they are mutable and ephemeral. Perhaps some of my values will change over time - but as Nonukes mentioned before, I frankly don't care much about that - my values are what they are right now, and my focus is on arguing them in the face of some pretty vile stuff. Another pop. I have never said that values will not change over time. They may well. But the dialogue of change and relativism detracts from people shouting loudly, now, in support of their values now. By necessity, it carries with it the possibility that you might not be shouting so loudly in the future, because your values may change - and that in turn leaves open the argument that you shouldn't shout so loudly now. This is my objection to focussing on mutability, rather than on our current values. In other words, moral relativism. You have just conflated FGM with tattoos. You have also talked about voluntary FGM, as if the consent of the women in question was in the slightest degree an informed consent. I would love to be able to link to a radio interview I heard, from an activist in Africa, who spends her time travelling and seeking to educate men and women in Africa about the misconceptions and true horror involved in FGM, but I don't have that link available. She spoke (through an interpreter) very movingly about how any consent of the women is severely misinformed. (And this quite apart from the fact that the majority of FGM is carried out forcibly or without any consent).This quotation of yours is the perfect example of what I am saying. The dialogue between us is such that you are inviting me to re-assess my disgust at, and my opposition to, FGM. I know that you would never actually equate FGM with getting a tattoo, but you have put them right there, in the same paragraph, on the same spectrum. You are suggesting I re-assess my values, by proposing blurred lines, which I do not accept are there. I believe that FGM is wrong - full stop. And I do not believe I need to re-assess that opposition, on the basis of a different culture's values, or on the basis of a rather unfortunate conflation with getting tattoos.

Well, then we get into discussions of how useful the definition of culture is, if it's going to be used as a yardstick for values. I could express myself another way by saying that I do not believe my culture defines me, or limits my values. Would that work for both of us ? Clever :-). But you promised me four ;-) Twice I've acknowledged that my values may change over time. But they won't do so to any agenda, and they won't compromise my abhorrence for rape, torture, brutality and murder as a result of any cultural relativism. Compromise on FGM, rape, torture ? Can't see it Ringo. Labels ? If we're gonna go with labels, I prefer "Not-an-Apologist" ;-) I think there is a difference between "I refuse to compromise on rape, torture and brutality to the vulnerable in this world" and "I refuse to think about it." I think about it a great deal - I read about it a great deal - I try to engage with it to the extent I can - but I will not compromise those values.On other issues, the application of my values is already nuanced - I find the niqab and burka difficult - it does little direct harm to people, but I believe it perpetuates a treatment of women as second class citizens. Would I go as far as the French and ban it in public places ? I'm not sure, but I would certainly consider that as a question. But does that involve me questioning or re-assessing my value, that women are equal members of society to men in every way ? No - it just means I recognise that in this area, the balancing of that value against cultural norms is finer, than when it comes, for example, to the vile crime of rape being balanced against the cultural norms of parts of rural India, where tribal elders find it appropriate to order gang rape against women.

And I said that any consent was utterly uninformed, as witnessed by the testimony of a charity worker I heard interviewed, who had undergone FGM herself. I support a law which criminalises the practice of FGM on women. (I try not to suggest it's the victim's fault in these circumstances). There is room for debate as to how best to put an end to FGM - but none of that flexibility affects my view that it is a brutal and inhumane practice, seated in ancient views of male superiority, which I think is abhorrent. My view that it is abhorrent does not feel terribly flexible. I would disagree. I have thought extensively about the niqab/burka issue, for example, and how reasonable the French law is. I have balanced competing values, and still find it hard to come down firmly on one side of the fence or the other. Does that mean I have re-assessed or changed my value that women are, and should be treated as, equal members of society to men in every way ? No. It means that I am unsure as to the extent to which niqabs/burkas impede the practice of that value, and ask myself whether it is appropriate to legislate against it as the French have. I don't believe that in order to arrive at a balanced opinion on an issue, you need to change your values. I certainly don't feel the need to alter or suppress my thoughts, simply because some of the women in question may not feel treated as second class citizens. And with the niqab/burka issue, I won't be too upset if the law is left as it is in the UK - like I said, I'm not sure how much harm they do to women's equality. However, with FGM, or with village elders in India ordering punishment gang rapings, I will feel very free indeed to tell anyone I talk to about it, that it is utterly abhorrent, no matter how widespread and entrenched its local customary acceptance.

Informed consent, as a phrase, is used to denote when an adult is fully aware of all elements of a situation, including, crucially, the downsides of that situation. You may have noted, when reading the article you linked, that there was not one single acknowledgment of the appalling downsides of FGM by any of the women the journalist refers to.You should also be aware that FGM, in the vast majority of cases, is inflicted on children, from a few days old through to adolescence. Informed consent to these procedures by children is a position that I cannot believe you would genuinely take Ringo. According to Forward's website, Job vacancy: Communications and Digital Fundraising Officer | FORWARD , there are reports of six adults holding down a six year old girl, to inflict FGM.Perhaps it's appropriate to just set out now, for the benefit of those who may think that FGM is to be equated with male circumcision, exactly what FGM can entail. It varies somewhat, from community to community, but it can include the partial or total removal of the clitoris (the male equivalent would be cutting off most of the top of the dick); the partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia majora; and in extreme cases (though this happens around 15% of the time, the narrowing of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal, by cutting and repositioning the labia.According to the World Health Organisation, ( Female genital mutilation ) there are no known health benefits.On the other hand, the effects can include severe bleeding, problems urinating, cystitis, infertility, increased newborn deaths, occasional deaths for the woman, and (no surprises here) severe impairment of sexual pleasure for the woman.So, to recap, we have this astonishingly brutal procedure carried out in the majority of cases on girls aged from a few days old to adolescent, (according to reports, some have been restrained by 6 adults whilst having their genitals mutilated in the ways I've described). And when I suggest that any consent was "uninformed", you ask whether that means they disagree with me ?Seriously dude ?

An upside. To having the end of your clitoris cut off. Seriously ? An upside ?Well, let's have a look at the World Health Organisation website again, to see what the reasons are for FGM being inflicted on these young girls.We've first of all got social pressure to conform. Not really building a case for informed consent there, are we ? And it's a pretty poor argument for mutilating a girl, to say that mutilating her is what's expected of the person doing it. I don't believe I have to re-assess my values, just because someone feels social pressure to mutilate a child. I still think I'm entitled to believe that's just a tad wrong.Then we have a belief that mutilating a girl's genitals is considered a necessary part of raising a girl properly. Well, to demonstrate that, you'd need to demonstrate that every girl who doesn't have her clitoris cut off at the tip is raised improperly. I happen to know of a number of young girls, with whom this is not the case. I know of many women, who have grown into exemplary members of the human species, and not come within feet of a scalpel on their clitoris.Then we have a belief that the procedure reduces "improper" female libido. I will concede that FGM stands a very good chance of reducing female libido, but I invite you to build a case that it is improper for women to have a libido.Then, we have a belief that the removal of the clitoris and labia involve the removal of body parts which make a woman "unclean" because they are associated with being "male". These are naturally evolved parts of the female body - it isn't possible for them to be more naturally female. Should women remove their eyes, noses, mouths, arms, legs and so on, because they look like men's ? (A whole heap more like men's than their genitals look too).Next, we have certain beliefs that the practice is religiously required, even though no religious text requires it. So to defend things on this ground, you have to defend any practice if a local shaman requires it - you name it - rape, torture, murder.Carrying on, local structures of power and authority can require it. So in other words, it's an instrument of repression and conformity, as well as being intrinsically brutal and abhorrent.And carrying on from that, it's a cultural tradition. Which can, I grant you, be a reason to maintain a dying language, or an element of group identity, but is absolutely not a reason to continue a practice which involves mutilating children's genitals.Even worse, we have the practice of copying neighbouring groups. The idea that in order to be cool, like those guys over there, we'll cut off our girls' clitorises, is beyond pathetic. And an "upside", as you call it ? No.I see no "upsides" to young girls having their clitorises cut off. You are, I believe, left with arguing that because it's a cultural tradition, it's acceptable. If that is your only argument, and it trumps any moral argument from an outsider, then you are left with endorsing any cultural practice, no matter how outrageous - murder, torture, punishment rapes, death penalties for being gay, whatever.Do you see any defensible "upside" to a girl having the tip,of her clitoris cut off ? I don't. Tell me, are you conflating beneficial medical procedures with FGM ? Or perhaps ear piercing or the like ? Would you like to undertake a comparative analysis of the upsides and downsides of those procedures, and FGM ?We give parents the ability to take important decisions for the well being of their children - like consenting to them having life saving operations. If parents instead decide to carve their initials into their children's skin, we lock them up for child cruelty.So contrary to your suggestion, we've already distinguished between taking good decisions for children, and cruel ones. We skated down that particular slippery slope many, many years ago, and are now drinking gluhwein at the aprs ski. No - what I am disagreeing with is your statement that "Step one should be to re-evaluate our repugnance." I profoundly disagree with that. My repugnance at the removal of the tip of a girl's clitoris is not there to be re-evaluated, simply because a particular culture practices FGM. I am entitled to that repugnance - I am entitled to my values - and I am entitled to empathise with the young girls, who have no informed consent at all in the matter. I have thought a great deal about my values, and one of them is the right of every human being to their physical integrity. I am in no position to dictate those values to anyone else, but I am very much entitled to seek to change cultural practices which violate those values, whether through persuasion or (in my ow country and hopefully elsewhere), in supporting laws which criminalise cultural practices which violate those values. If I did not, then the only alternative is to accept brutalisation of powerless human beings as a cultural peccadillo, about which I can't even speak out. I know you don't advocate it - but you have found yourself inviting me to consider the "upsides" of FGM. Moreover, it is only a side issue, in that it is just one of several examples of where our natural, liberal, cultural sensitivity has to take a back seat to the far more urgent liberal need to protect vulnerable fellow human beings from being brutalised. Other examples include the Indian village elders ordering punishment gang rapings; the fact that there are currently 30 million people in the world living in full-blown slavery; and the fact that in five countries (and in parts of two others), being gay is punishable by death. I don't see these as side issues. I see them as fundamental parts of multiculturalism - all cultures are to be respected, welcomed and form part of a vibrant world community - but there remain certain cultural practices which I believe cannot ever be accepted as part of that process.

Here's a question for you. Picture a fairly busy piece of road you know, and imagine someone secretly recording the speed of every passing car for, say, an hour. Then picture the same piece of road, with the same amount of traffic and the same secret observer, but this time picture also a police car with a policeman standing beside it with a speed gun pointed at the traffic. In which scenario do people break the speed limit ?

First of all, can you let us know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin ?Whilst you're doing that, I'll continue supporting the work of PLAN-UK in their efforts to stop FGM worldwide in a generation; the work of Amnesty International in fighting (amongst many other things) torture, and executions of people for being gay; in expressing my outrage to the government of India for their failure to put a stop to punishment gang rapings; in supporting laws which enable our agencies to prevent, and if not, to punish (for example) FGM, honor killings and forced marriages; and supporting the widespread work of the NSPCC to put a stop to child abuse and child poverty.In doing so, I am aware that other people have other opinions, and that it can be seen as terribly presumptuous of me to want to see an end to certain cultural practices when people in those cultures support them.But as long as the young and the powerless are being brutalised by such cultural practices, I consider it an utter intellectual indulgence to debate the existence or otherwise of moral absolutes, or to push moral relativism to an equally absolute degree.I may not be a good man, but perhaps all that is required for the triumph of evil, is for average people to do nothing.

Fair enough. I mis-read the thinking behind your challenge to him to some extent, for which my apologies.