Multiculturalism

Sure. I don't have a problem with any of that. But the idea that the main aim and practical effect of the law will be to separate mothers from their babies by throwing hordes of mothers into jail (as per Ringo's objection) is just drivel.The focus of the law will be on those who do the cutting.

But what is it about the law in question that leads you to think mothers, rather than those doing the cutting, will face imprisonment?You have invented a problem that doesn't exist and isn't likely to exist even if the law in question is pursued to a far greater extent than it is at present.Your objection based on imprisoning mothers as a major issue is a complete straw man.What mothers have been imprisoned?

Nobody has said "Let's imprison lots of mothers" either. Yet you are fixated on this "imprisoning mothers" nonsense. And, more to the point, no mothers have been imprisoned.If a mother takes a pair of pliers or a carving knife (take your pick), spread-eagles her 4 year old daughter on the kitchen table and clips off her clitoris - Then I think most here, including myself, would deem that an offense potentially worthy of imprisonment. In the same way that a mother clipping off other body parts of their children would not be legally tolerated.But the fact is that those who do the cutting, those who will face the full force of the law, are not generally the mothers. Which is why your "oh the mothers the mothers, the mothers will all be imprisoned" is just a disingenuous straw man. If a mother takes a pair of pliers or a carving knife (take your pick), spread-eagles her 4 year old daughter on the kitchen table and clips off her clitoris - How do you think the law as it stands in the UK should be applied?

No. Not exempting mothers from the law isn't the same as advocating mass imprisonment of mothers. We both know that in reality those who actually undertake the cutting will be the ones who face the full force of the law. Whilst mothers who are complicit but not the actual practitioners in the FGM practise are likely to be treated relatively sympathetically with non-custodial sentences where these are deemed to be in the best interests of the child.the aim of the law is not to make orphans. What if that is exactly what had happened to the mother in question when she herself was 4 years old? And all her sisters? And her mother before her and her grandmother before her and so on and so forth.At what point does an "individual act of abuse" become a cultural practice to which you find the application of the term "abuse" so objectionable? How? Be specific. Will you please quit with this bullshit straw man of "the mothers will be imprisoned, the mothers will be imprisoned". There are not going to be swathes of imprisoned mothers leaving behind a morass of orphans in their wake.

No mothers have gone to jail. Given that in most cases it is not the mothers doing the cutting there seems little danger of UK law resulting in swathes of mothers going to jail leaving behind hordes of orphans.This entire line of objection is a fantasy of your own making. You have then insisted everyone else comment upon this fantasy outcome and when people say anything that fails to exclude any mother ever going to jail you congratulate yourself on having been right all along.The whole "mothers in jail" phenomenon doesn't exist and is a disingenuous debate tactic on your part. In the case of child abuse it is the actual abuser who faces the full force of the law. Those who may have facilitated the abuse, rather than actually undertaken it, are treated in a more context dependent manner. A mother who has been abused herself and who has been effectively brainwashed into facilitating the abuse of her children will be treated more sympathetically than someone who gets paid by paedophiles to find and groom vulnerable children, for example.In the case of FGM I would expect an equally context dependent view to be taken with the best interests of the child being of paramount importance. In most cases where the mother is not the actual mutilator non-custodial sentancing with involvement from social services to assess ongoing risk to the child would be a perfectly valid outcome. Firstly - Can you shed some light on what constitutes a "whole culture"? How many people or generations of people or percentage of people need to practise a to qualify as a "whole culture" in your view? So - To return to our example - If a mother takes a pair of pliers or a carving knife (take your pick), spread-eagles her 4 year old daughter on the kitchen table and clips off her clitoris - Then this behaviour no longer qualifis as "abuse" and is perfectly acceptable to you as long as it is practised by the "whole culture". Is that correct? You think being forced to have one's genitalia removed is the same as being made to go to school to be educated......Seriously?

In your examples doctors are recommending medical procedures for medical reasons that are deemed to be in the best medical interests of the child. How can you fail to see that FGM is NOT in that category? link

quote:

---

Female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) refers to all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.

---

quote:

---

FGM/C is a fundamental violation of the rights of girls and is a deeply entrenched social norm. It is a manifestation of gender discrimination. The practice is perpetrated by families without a primary intention of violence, but is de facto violent in nature. Communities practice FGM/C in the belief that it will ensure a girl's proper marriage, chastity, beauty or family honour. Some also associate it with religious beliefs although no religious scriptures require it. The practice is such a powerful social norm that families have their daughters cut even when they are aware of the harm it can cause. If families were to stop practicing on their own they would risk the marriage prospects of their daughter as well as the family's status.

---

Why is it irrelevant?"Medical necessity" involves objectively evidenced medical reason to consider a procedure as in the best health interests of a child."Cultural necessity".... Well perhaps you can explain what you mean by that and why that entitles parents to make life changing decisions for their children which are, in the case of FGM, very far from being in the best health interests of the child?

The medical procedures doctors recommend and undertake on children are limited to medical necessity. Parental consent comes after medical recommendation.But in the case of FGM this is not the case so it is different and it is relevant.That you would describe the bets medical interests of the child as "irrelevant" is rather damning of your position here.... What is deemed to be in the best medical interests of a child is not based on what I, or you, or anybody else subjectively thinks. It is based on medical evidence and the judgements of medical professionals.Now can you explain what you mean by "cultural necessity" and why that entitles parents to make life changing decisions for their children which are, in the case of FGM, very far from being in the best medical interests of the child?

But who is "Islam" in this context?Is it all muslims? Most? Some....? How many does it need to be in order to legitimise the comment that "For Islam it is a religious conflict by an empire intent on transforming every aspect of life into one defined by Islam"?Of the world religions at the moment Islam certainly seems to have more than it's fair share of nutters and is certainly giving rise to more than it's fair share of religiously inspired violence. I am not quibbling that.But what religion doesn't have it's violent nutter brigade and on what basis do we tar all followers of a religion with that brush?Christianity has it's crazy-wing who want to impose a form of theocracy on the world and who are prepared to kill in the name of God (personally I'd put GW Bush in that category - but let's no fixate on specific individuals here) - Does this mean we can say that because these individuals exist we can say that "For Christianity it is a religious conflict by an empire intent on transforming every aspect of life into one defined by Christianity"?Or would that be a sweeping generalisation too far?

Focusing on this as it seems most relevant: So basically the bulk of Christians (Jews etc.) don't take the bits of their religious book which would incite them to do bad things if taken literally very seriously. But the bulk of moslems do. That is the crux of the argument here - Right?You will find muslims who consider "jihad" to be descriptive of an internal spiritual struggle rather than a call to holy war and 'martyr' to be similarly used to describe non-violent acts of sacrificing oneself for the greater good. Conversely you will find biblical fanatics who think that the bible instructs them to take revenge on sinners and suchlike.Are these peace-talking muslims re-interpreting texts filled with medieval violence to suit their own modern moral outlook? Sure. Of course they are. Exactly as are biblical apologists are ignoring or re-interpreting the nasty bits of the bible to suit their own modern moral viewpoint. We see that all the time here at EvC.So the justification for talking about "Islam" in this sweeping way seems to rest on a numbers game of how many from each religion choose to re-interpret their holy book in a nice way vs how many stick with the more brutal historical interpretation of what it is God supposedly wants them to do.Do the bulk of moslems accept the brutal version over the apologists version?
How do we find out?

My issue here is not with the claim that Islamic fundamentalism is currently a major issue that needs to be tackled. I agree that it is. What I question is whether this is innate to that specific religion or just a case of that cult presently being host to the the current extreme-wackodoodle-mob. I suspect that it is the latter. And that talk of "Islam is this...." and "Islam is that..." in such sweeping terms about a major world religion practised by mllions, just plays into the hands of those who utilise such things to foster a persecution complex as a means for further radicalisation and recruitment. Much like a lot of our more direct interventions in the Middle East. The law of unintended consequences and all that....Give it a generation or two and will Islam be the problem? Or will the 'Scientologists True Thought Movement', the Christian 'Jesus Is Here And He's American and Armed' brigade or the 'Pure Race and One True God' contingent be the prevailing cause for concern? Almost certainly none of these hypotheticals but I daresay we will have moved onto something equally uncompromising and ideologically equivalent to todays Islamic threat, whatever it may call itself and whichever religious beliefs it may have hijacked for it's own detructive ends. Well we could try asking them.....

quote:

---

Aboulmagd-Forster sees an interesting paradoxical correlation between how jihad is defined by extreme political Islamists and by some people who are not Muslims. "They agree on the (incorrect) use of the word, while in the middle you have the huge billion-person-strong Muslim community, people who certainly don't believe that there is some duty to go and fight Christians or Jews."

---

LinkWhether that would be the answer "the bulk" of the 1 billion people wo call themselves Muslim would subscribe to - I honestly don't know. But we might be better off attempting to put that forward as the "Islamic" approach rather than confidently proclaiming that "For Islam it is a religious conflict by an empire intent on transforming every aspect of life into one defined by Islam" as though this were some sort of self evident truth despite the fact a lot of Muslims obviously disagree.Edited by Straggler, : Atrocious spelling mistakes

Daniel Pipes seems as responsible as anyone for originating this idea of muslim no-go zones pervading Europe. This is what he said after visiting one of these "no-go zones"

quote:

---

For a visiting American, these areas are very mild, even dull. We who know the Bronx and Detroit expect urban hell in Europe too, but there things look fine. The immigrant areas are hardly beautiful, but buildings are intact, greenery abounds, and order prevails.

​

These are not full-fledged no-go zones but, as the French nomenclature accurately indicates, "sensitive urban zones." In normal times, they are unthreatening, routine places. But they do unpredictably erupt, with car burnings, attacks on representatives of the state (including police), and riots.

​

Having this first-hand experience, I regret having called these areas no-go zones.

---

If you know of any supposed such "no-go zones" in London let me know and I will cycle through the area in question at some point soon and maybe even post a pic or two for you here.

Meanwhile back on Earth......We Europeans will continue to travel around our cities blissfully unaware that we are actually in "no go zones" and very much going to the places that the people telling you these lies say we can't possibly be going to.

You are being lied to Faith.If there is a "no go" zone in London tell me about it. I will go there and I can absolutely assure you that I am not some sort of badass who goes where the police fear to tread. Name these "no go" zones that you are so convinced must exist.