Thread: Honor killing and the difference in cultures.

Originally Posted by Rajagra

I don't even want to comment on this.

Ok I'll comment then.
It seems to me fair as long as you allow this group of people to set disputes among themselves, to also allow that other group of people. I think most here believe in personal freedom and responsibility, so if two parties agree among themselves on some matter, I see no reason for the society to step in and change that.

I don't know why would such agreements have to be enforced by the 'official' system though. In my thinking the 'official' system should only enforce the official judgements.

The fact that the jewish arbitrage courts or whatever they are would rule closer to what the legal system would, and the sharia ones wouldn't doesn't make the first more credible than the second. If you want to outsource justice you either have to keep up with the exact same standard, or it is a completely different kind of justice.

And as long as their decisions do not have to be enforced by the state if somebody is not happy with these unofficial courts they can turn to the official system of justice which is enforceable. Of course this would just make these communal courts completely irrelevant, but in my opinion they should really be. Justice has to be enforceable, otherwise it's pointless.

At least that's how I think I'd like it to be set up. And I don't have any legal training, so it's just my 'common sense'.

As a student and ardent believer in Rawlsian ideology let me say this about that.

According to Rawls society exists to make laws that balance the needs of the majority with that of the minority.

Rawls' idea, thought experiment, is this simplified.

Take 1 person from every race, creed, culture, and religion in the country that you live in. Sit them down at a table and "remove" all ignorances, preconceived notions, knowledge of station in life, etc.. Rawls called this the veil of ignorance.

They will then make the laws. Remove the veil. According to him then the laws will be balanced.

What we have in this country is an utter failure to recognize those laws that we have agreed to live by and order our lives by. Furthermore and Rawls makes allowances for this that individual societies, Little Havana for example, has "rules" that its people live by that seem to supersede the laws of the majority. This is wrong in all aspects. Rawls recognizes this and allows that certain "behaviors" are allowed but not a total usurpation of the laws of the majority.

Unless and until Little Havana wants to secede from the US they are bound by the laws that the majority decided would benefit and do the most good for the most people.

YMMV

Originally Posted by gugi

Ok I'll comment then.
It seems to me fair as long as you allow this group of people to set disputes among themselves, to also allow that other group of people. I think most here believe in personal freedom and responsibility, so if two parties agree among themselves on some matter, I see no reason for the society to step in and change that..

I have a problem with it when, in the course of settling disputes, their internal rules automatically designate 50% of the citizenry as second-class, borderline-subhuman property. I prefer a justice system that recognizes the equality of everyone, regardless of gender.

Originally Posted by jockeys

I have a problem with it when, in the course of settling disputes, their internal rules automatically designate 50% of the citizenry as second-class, borderline-subhuman property. I prefer a justice system that recognizes the equality of everyone, regardless of gender.

As long as that 50% is happy with the arrangement I have no problem with that. If they are unhappy they can turn to the official legal system which is more fair. In the cases when the official system is unfair it's up to that community to change it, if they want to do so. For example even in US human rights have not always extend equally to all humans. But the US society as a whole has recognized the need to change this and currently things are pretty fair.

First of all, it is a HORRIBLE thing!

Secondly, we need to try to understand their side of the picture (yes, it is possible to understand at the same time as you totally disagree)
Here in the west we live in a sin based culture. Our standards is based on acts being right or wrong. We also live in an extremely individualistic society where your actions leads to you being punished or not by the society.

Many other cultures are shame/honor based. Their main norm is honor, some times honor is even more important to them than right and wrong. (just try to ask a person in India about directions, if he doesn't know he don't want to make you feel shameful about making him look stupid, so to save you both from shame he will give you bogus directions)
The same cultures are also often based on family rather than individuals.
The combination of the two can lead to horrible things like honor killing. But the same cultures have some amazing things because of the same reasons, like it being a given thing to let old parents move in to your home and look after them because it would be a shame for your family to put them in to a nursery home and pay others to look after them when you live hundreds of miles away.
There are a few seriously screwed up things that are typical in the cultures where honor-killing is happening:
If a man sleeps with (or even rapes) a girl, she is the one bringing shame on to the family.
They believe in restoring honor by killing.

Honor killing is disgusting and horrible, but I think it is important to keep things clear. Honor killings are performed by individuals or small groups of individuals. NEVER even think about "killing them all" like someone here mentioned. That is way more barbaric than even honor killing.

And by the way what makes a white man killing his wife "domestic violence" when an arab killing his wife is "honor killing"

Originally Posted by gugi

As long as that 50% is happy with the arrangement I have no problem with that. If they are unhappy they can turn to the official legal system which is more fair. In the cases when the official system is unfair it's up to that community to change it, if they want to do so. For example even in US human rights have not always extend equally to all humans. But the US society as a whole has recognized the need to change this and currently things are pretty fair.

and what if that 50% isn't happy with it, but is bullied, brainwashed and beaten until it gives up and submits?

I'm just not ok with treating women worse than I'd treat a dog. I'll never be cool with it. Any culture that says it's ok to make your wife obey you (which I also have a fundamental problem with) by enforcing your whims with your fists... is a culture of cowardice and dishonorable wimps.

Originally Posted by jockeys

and what if that 50% isn't happy with it, but is bullied, brainwashed and beaten until it gives up and submits?

I'm just not ok with treating women worse than I'd treat a dog. I'll never be cool with it. Any culture that says it's ok to make your wife obey you (which I also have a fundamental problem with) by enforcing your whims with your fists... is a culture of cowardice and dishonorable wimps.

Agreed. There comes a point where you need to stop trying to "understand" and say "that's just wrong". We do this with each other all the time. The KKK and other groups are pretty much universally condemned. We don't try to "understand" them. The views of fundamentalist Muslims are not much different than these hate groups. Change a few words here and there....

I promised myself I would butt-out of this discussion ..., but I'm in the process of procrastinating over some things I need to get done.

Jordan

Yes, we sometimes need to say that is just wrong. It is really needed when it comes to honor-killing and unfair treatment of women.
But it is parts of the culture that needs to be taken away, not the cultures. Every culture has got good and bad sides, imagine how awesome it would be if they got rid of the bad sides.

Originally Posted by flyboy

Yes, we sometimes need to say that is just wrong. It is really needed when it comes to honor-killing and unfair treatment of women.
But it is parts of the culture that needs to be taken away, not the cultures. Every culture has got good and bad sides, imagine how awesome it would be if they got rid of the bad sides.

perhaps, but many theistic cultures proscribe changes to the culture, strengthening their traditions while at the same time preventing adaptation. if the culture is homogenous enough, and has a strong enough resistance to change (whether by legislative fiat or by supernatural threat) then the only way to remove the unacceptable elements is to completely wipe it out.

Originally Posted by jockeys

and what if that 50% isn't happy with it, but is bullied, brainwashed and beaten until it gives up and submits?

I'm just not ok with treating women worse than I'd treat a dog. I'll never be cool with it. Any culture that says it's ok to make your wife obey you (which I also have a fundamental problem with) by enforcing your whims with your fists... is a culture of cowardice and dishonorable wimps.

Well, I don't approve it but that really isn't my own business.
As it was pointed out many times the 'western culture' used to incorporate all these bad attitudes and practices, some of them not so long ago. Apparently it was able to evolve to what it is now and in anoher 20 years will be even more different.
I don't see why would anybody deny the right of any group of people to live the way they want to.
If somebody happened to be born say in USA they have a lot of freedoms that are protected by laws. If they happened to be born in Saudi Arabia they wouldn't have all these freedoms, but I do not see how that is my problem. Yes, if they are unhappy with their culture I would be supportive to their efforts to change it or move to another one which they like better, but the responsibility for this is theirs, not mine.

It is not my responsibility to proscribe how other people should live their lives, I am only responsible for mine. Killing off those who don't live the same way as me, apart from being against my moral norms, has never worked very well. I believe tolerance is the better way and I expect others to be tolerant of my choices the same way as I am tolerant of theirs. Of course I cannot force this on anybody, I can only choose to be tolerant myself.
The only thing I find justified is to defend my rights when somebody tries to infringe upon them.

Let me tell you a story. The first muslim women who I talked about their culture with were two ladies from Algeria and Morocco. They were very well educated, better than most people in the west, and were in a Western country on a career-related business. They were in their early/mid 20s and not married yet. I asked them how they feel about their male-domiated culture for example that a man can have multiple wifes. They told me they have absolutely no problem with that and it is better for a man to take more than one wife and take care of all of them, than divorce the ones he doesn't fancy anymore.
In a way it makes sense in such culture, where a single woman, or even worse divorced one is basically a complete outcast. One way would be to proclaim that culture completely inferior and go wipe it out from the face of the earth, but then our current culture was at the same stage only few hundred years ago. These things change on a generational timescale.