Multiculturalism

I didn't come in to criticize your criticism of Jon, but to answer some vaguely on-topic questions you raised:

quote:

---

I'm not convinced that the law should exist at all, much less be enforced. Is it even legal to have a law that targets one particular section of society?

---

I was also responding a post where you were responding to Tangle. I have already cited the UDHR and ECHR but you could also read Message 20 and Message 233Which governments? France handles things quite differently than the USA for example. Saudi Arabia handles things differently than Kuwait. Do you think the FGM laws need improving? You questioned the necessity and legality of some of the laws earlier. Do you have any additional ideas on that? What about male circumcision? Do you think police investigations may be suffering from a suppression effect borne of multiculturalism? Does France's 'ban the burqa' law go too far or is the UK's tendency to bend over backwards to its detriment?I mean 'things are fine' is a nice position, but do you have any form of argument as to why? Yes, I said this thread was about the pros and cons of multiculturalism and you said the thread was about how we need to be more fervently opposed to poisonous foreign cultures. To me these are not saying the same thing, but if your language is so divorced from English-English as to equate the two, that probably explains much of this discussion, you'd be right there.

OK: here was the post your replied to: Message 358. So let's discuss that post. We both agree that 'maybe' is a non-false response to it. What next? I was clearly using my earlier analogy towards direct criticism of your actual behaviour in this real thread - hence why I linked to where you did all the things I said was done. So let's talk about the actual rabbit hole you've dragged us down, if you insist, but let's not talk about imaginary rabbit holes. If you think I 'kept insisting on yes-or-no answers' is a criticism of my behaviour in this thread please link to the post(s) in question. So let's, as members of society, get on with that! Every reply you make calls this claim into question. If you don't want to discuss things with me, stop replying.

I said "our" governments. That would be the UK and Canada. I don't thnk we need FGM laws. We don't have any specific ones in Canada, as far as I know. I would hope that our government will look at ways to improve the FGM situation rather than attempt to emulate laws in other jurisdictions that don't seem to work very well. I think multicultural considerations can put a valuable constraint on police investigations. I'm enough of an anarchist to be wary of expanding police powers. I only stated the con position. In a debate milieu, a corresponding pro is implicit.

Did you have a stroke or something? Your reading comprehension is really bad today.I didn't say I didn't want to discuss things with you. I said that when I used the word "advocating", I wasn't avocating a discussion between you and me - i.e. I was advocating a society-wide discussion. That does not preclude a discussion between you and me.I'd be glad to discuss the topic if you can stop nit-picking every syllable I choose - and if you can't, I'll be gad to keep defending the syllables I use.

Fyi countries with laws against FGMPage not found | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public HealthCANADA. Criminal Code.
* * *
Aggravated assault
268. (1) Every one commits an aggravated assault who wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant.
Punishment
(2) Every one who commits an aggravated assault is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
Excision
(3) For greater certainty, in this section, wounds or maims includes to excise, infibulate or mutilate, in whole or in part, the labia majora, labia minora or clitoris of a person, except where
(a) a surgical procedure is performed, by a person duly qualified by provincial law to practise medicine, for the benefit of the physical health of the person or for the purpose of that person having normal reproductive functions or normal sexual appearance or function; or
(b) the person is at least eighteen years of age and there is no resulting bodily harm.
Consent
(4) For the purposes of this section and section 265, no consent to the excision, infibulation or mutilation, in whole or in part, of the labia majora, labia minora or clitoris of a person is valid, except in the cases described in paragraphs (3)(a) and (b).
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 268; 1997, c. 16, s. 5.
* * *Page not found | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

Thanks.Is it enforceable?

So what do you think of the given justifications for having such laws that I posted some time ago? Other than it 'might' be 'valid', of course. Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46), section 268 {Aggravated Assault}:

quote:

---

For greater certainty, in this section, wounds or maims includes to excise, infibulate or mutilate, in whole or in part, the labia majora, labia minora or clitoris of a person

---

Is what you have as well as section 267. Are there any ways you want to propose for discussion? I mean - Canada is only in the position of having 'some evidence' that FGM occurs in their territory. You have the FGM Prevention Task Force, is that something you support? You are for the duty to report, presumably? Do you think at risk children should be given periodic medical examinations, in part, to check for FGM? Do you think we should engage in more significant surveillance to detect the crime and its perpetrators, given that its victims rarely cooperate with the legal system? Or would you prefer hard-hitting TV and radio commercials, targetted towards the Somali population? Stern discussions from disapproving doctors? Expulsion of Somalians from Canada? What do you think will improve the situation? Do you think it ever puts a negative constraint on them?

It's a law, it can be enforced.

Then start doing so. I invited you to do so in my last post, and you apparently decided to decline. The topic of this subthread is Message 358. So let's discuss that post. We both agree that 'maybe' is a non-false response to it. What next? Do you think we should make rape, as it is defined in your country, legal in order to protect the health of rapists who might get injured in their pursuit of crime? If a person comes in to a hospital with a gun shot wound, should doctors treat the individual without alerting law enforcement? Even if there is additional reason to suspect a serious crime has occurred? What? I'm only nit-picking the syllables you are using. Maybe, if you'd focus instead on discussing the issues I raised in Message 358 I might not feel like criticising your avoidance of so doing.

I don't recall saying there are unquestionable moral absolutes. So I'm not sure what I'm supposed to give an example of.

Can you give an example of a moral absolute?

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.

Well I agree with all of that. Which just goes to show you don't need to adopt the idiocy of moral absolutism in order to condemn as wrong practises such as fgm. Why Jon thinks you do is a question for him to answer.

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

I'm not at all sure there is any reasoned basis for any personal belief as much as the it being the result of upbringing and culture. I was raised with the concept that laws were to obeyed except in very specific conditions and that when laws were disobeyed their should be a reasoned objection, an understanding that you were breaking the law and a willing acceptance of the consequences. Laws should never be connected to morals. Any law based on morals is in my opinion really stupid.But peoples behavior is entirely different. Even if a law is stupid it is still the law and should be obeyed except in very special, reasoned and limited cases as outlined above.You really need to learn to read.Laws and obedience are not synonyms.