Multiculturalism

As the discussion is at end, you may see my usual wordiness drop off. Really I'm just providing rebuttal at this point. Maybe I'll see you over in another subthread about a subject you can be more academically detached regarding, such as the Kosher discussion. Who cares that we might be abusing children where one or both of us might have to compromise our values or opinions - let's talk about how the government saying a rabbi is involved in Kosher oversight will lead to the dilution of the Constitution or the disengagement of the populace whatever other negative effect you think it has. Much safer ground, yes? But all you want to do repeat the charges, discussing it in depth was met with resistance. By all means go back to my discussion on those topics earlier and pick that up. You aren't obligated to continue this subthread if you regard it is a worthy of ridicule. False by definition. What is un-Western about asserting the equality of children's rights? Have we entered no-true Westerner territory? If you want to explain how dismissing Europeans who disagree with you as nosy 'busy-bodies' is not attacking the traits of those individuals to dismiss their argument, please do. Not in a discussion about multiculturalism there isn't, it depends on the dominant culture. This is a discussion about how minority cultures are influencing majority cultures and the upsides and downsides of promoting this or the diversity in and of itself. so the 'right'/American answer on circumcision, as I've been saying, is irrelevant.You really can't do it can you? You can't see this from an alternative cultural perspective in any sense. You won't even countenance other points of view. You think there is One True Way to live, and you know what that is and if someone might have a slightly different view this renders them Western Heretics who should be derided as being dumb and irrational. You just wanted to talk about things that are against your values, not multiculturalism in and of itself, it seems. What Western values?

quote:

---

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

---

This?

quote:

---

Every person shall have the right to life and physical integrity. Freedom of the person shall be inviolable.

---

This? Or are these not Western values? Rightly illegal according to whom? I would have thought, in a multiculturalist discussion that would necessarily be the dominant culture. Which is what I am saying. X is not in {Y} because some things are not in {Y} is a very silly argument. This continues to be a pointless thing to say. No it isn't. It helps to retain the power of your class and exercise control over reproduction. That's not dumb, it's wicked. Wrong.
Now you have to prove it.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I asked you about voluntary genital mutilation. Are you going to forbid a woman to control her own body? Or, are there any women who had their genitals mutilated when they were young and are in favour if it now? Is there no room for flexibility at all? If you're willing to "think" about something but there's no possibility of changing how you think about it, that's called confirmation bias. Again, what do they think? It seems to me that you are telling women how they should feel, that they should feel they are being treated as second class even if they don't.

No, I'm saying that a law that is clearly bad for one subculture may not be good for the culture as a whole - for example, Colored and White drinking fountains. Of course it is. The law is applied to individual cases, which may include differences in culture. In Canada we recognize that by, for example, allowing sentencing circles for aboriginal offenders in place of the "regular" route.

A separate class is not synonymous with second class. Too often it seems we feel we must create hierarchies instead of just recognizing plurality.

Sure, that's an example of a bad law - like laws against sodomy. But my argument is that there should not be laws that apply to people in different ways based on their religion or culture. Gays should not be able to drive at different speeds to straights. No it isn't. The law is unitary. Whatever law your aboriginal offender broke was applicable to everyone - sentencing is a seperate matter. Sentencing is variable according to harm, culpability, means, circumstances etc etc. Having sentences relevant to individuals makes some sort of sense, but I'd be concerned if it was applied differently to an immigrant community - that's just asking for trouble.

My argument is that laws should be applied appropriately. It may be appropriate to imprison one individual but not another, even for the same crime. And what's appropriate for the individual is often a product of his culture, so culture must be taken into account. That's what I'm saying.When the law is applied to the aboriginal community in the same was as it is to the community at large, it doesn't work very well. The aboriginal offender doesn't learn anything from a sentence that his culture hasn't prepared him to understand.

Ok, so long as you understand the difference between a law - which must be applied universally to be fair - and the punishment for breaking it - which will normally be customised to the crime and sometimes also to individual circumstances, we're not disagreeing.

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.

So they're "uninformed" unless they agree with you? What about the Maasai women who support female circumcision? Are they "uninformed" too?

The article you cited says they are mostly illiterate and the people they want to mutilate are commonly children, so 'uninformed' doesn't seem like a stretch.

So what is it that they lack information about?

As illiterate children I'd say 'most things'. The adult's general knowledge of medicine, for instance, holds that removing children's teeth can prevent sickness. When you believe there is no choice but to slice genitals to ensure marriages of your little girls, I'm sure an argument could be made regarding how informed they are of the human condition.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

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 ?

The implication is that if they were "better informed" they'd change their minds. I'd call that the "if-you-knew-what-I-know-you'd-agree-with-me" fallacy.

Surely the women who have actually had the procedure are entitled to their own opinions of what is a "downside" and what is an "upside". We "inflict" a lot of things on children without asking them to give informed consent. If you're going to remove parents' ability to make decisions for children on this one issue, you're skiing down a slippery slope. To recap, what I said was that we need to think about our own values before we start dictating values to others. That is what you're disagreeing with.Female circumcision is a side issue - which I have never advocated. I do, however, question the validity of prosecuting people who make that decision for their children.