October 31, 2005

• This is certainly not indicative of the general approach over here, as far as I can see. I think you're perhaps reading a bit too much into it. We've got a very big mix of cultures here and so far we've done well to avoid any racial or religious problems, learning from our past with the aboriginal Australians and how the whites made many terrible mistakes. This is part of an effort to maintain a public relations image rather than a reflection on legal practice, from what I can gather. As far as I'm concerned, the Aussie cops need to develop such awareness, because they've traditionally acted like jackbooted thugs.
• I was curious how it was that Buddhist and Hindu elements were included also in the sensitivity approach. But if, as you say, this is mainly PR and not a varied application of law, I'll accept it as the Buddhist "skillful means".
• The Herald-Sun is not regarded as a bastion of fair, unbiased and sensation-free journalism here in Melbourne. It's a Murdoch tabloid. Think a slightly less tit-filled 'News of The World' or 'Sun' in the UK. I don't know what the US equivalent would be.
• That would be The New York Times
• Well, I was more interested in the message not a critique of the messanger, though if it had been in the NY Times here I would have been more willing to accept it rather had it been in the National Enquirer. All such cases, one must search and decide. So I see that there actually is listed A Practical Reference to Religious Diversity for Operational Police and Emergency Services but unfortunately no content. Half a truth is, I guess, better than none.
• I'm pretty sure that if a Moslem guy is beating his wife, the cops are gonna throw him in the fucking prison, whatever that document contains. They are simply going to be made aware that Islam says the guy is the boss and what may appear abusive to Westerners is not considered so in such a background. This is a country where you get charged if you slap your kid in the supermarket, remember. This is only about how they talk to the people on the doorstep, not that laws apply differently to different religions. I know what the Quran says about wife beating, but I also know a few cops, and I don't think they will differentiate based on religion, if there really is a crime.
• Thanks for the input. I appreciate it.
• This is unfortunate, in large part because of the obvious consequence towards the affected women, but also because cases like this serve as strawmen for those who hate multiculturalism and cross-cultural understanding.
• um as one who sees this kind of thing occasionally - rest assured - the law is the law - all law enforcement officers recieve 'cultural sensitivity training - it prevents jack boots in times of misunderstanding - however if a law of the country has been broken - whether that be domestic violence or whatever - it is upheld. What u have shown is part of the attempt to avoid misunderstanding which can lead to greater error and even worse publicity!
• I have no clue what chyren `knows' about Islam's views on this subject, but allow me to add some insight. If we seriously want to discuss Islam and domestic abuse, we need to look at the traditional Islamic views on the subject. But, that will just give us a theoretical view, we would also need to see, do people follow the teachings or act of their own will. #1. The fırst issue is addressed in detail here: http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=612&CATE=10 The bottom line is that any such dispensation is severely limited (in that it is only allowed in the extreme situation of adultery, and even then it is discouraged, AND if done, is to be done with something like a miswak (a sort of wooden toothbrush, but smaller than a normal plastic toothbrush)). (note: i studied with Gibril Haddad and have to say, he's one of the rare, real-deal geniuses i've met as well as a excellent teacher (which is understood from his years of teaching at Columbia U)) #2. what about reality? Sadly, many men, muslims and nonmuslim, are scum who have little respect for the dignity of women, and are abusive no matter what society, religion, and just plain common decency tell them. That being said, in discussions with my local imam, he's very frank when he says, "the biggest problem in this community is that a number of men continue to ignore all religious rulings forbidding domestic abuse." It is an acknowleged problem and few muslims would contend that the law should be ignored for any reason. Beating your wife is horrible and people who do so deserve to be punished. that being said, nationally domestic violence is still a serious problem where i am currently, in the U.S. Work needs to be done amongst all people,including immigrant communities, to prevent such acts. from the ABA's website: "# 4 million American women experience a serious assault by an intimate partner during an average 12-month period. American Psychl. Ass'n, Violence and the Family: Report of the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family (1996), p. 10. # nearly 1 in 3 adult women experience at least one physical assault by a partner during adulthood. American Psychl. Ass'n, Violence and the Family: Report of the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family (1996), p. 10.
• I hapen to be taking a class called, "The Anthropology of Law, or Legal Anthropology" and this is basically under the broad subject of "customary law" and "legal pluralism." What is occuring is an attempt to balance personal rights with a group's culture. One article we've read that specifically addresses this is Sally Engel Merry. Changing Rights, Changing Culture. Culture and Rights. 31-54. The book Culture and Rights can be seen online at both print.google and amazon. In that article, Merry talks about the fact that human rights are seen as in conflict with indigenous culture but makes the argument that this is not always the case. She cites examples in either Austrailia or New Zealand where personal rights are respected, but the culture is allowed to deal with the problems, such as wife abuse, in their own ways -- but they should still be dealt with. Her article is specifically about the fact that you can say that women shouldn't be hit by husbands in ANY culture. However, what should be done with men who do hit their wives can be up to the culture to decide. So basically, she is agruing that everyone should have the same rights, it is the punishment for violating those rights that is culturally specific. It sounds like what is going on here, is that somewhere along the line, either in what the police are told, or the way the paper is reporting it, is that the message that you should be aware that some cultures have different ways of dealing with things, but that they should still be dealt with, has been warped into the more simplistic and more sensationalist "let them get away with it." If this were America, I would suspect that the paper was guilty of twisting things around to get people riled up about how horrible tham damn foriegners are, but I don't know enough about Australia's political climate to speculate about this situation...
• Wow, I killed this thread...
• nah...threads die a natural death from falling down the page.
• da winnah!
• Yeah, that's right, mulligan, it says in the Quran, Mohammed said to one of his servants "you know, fucknuckle, you have been so rude to me that for a moment there I thought I should beat the shit out of you.. with my toothbrush. But you know, I've been so busy fucking all these women and killing everyone who doesn't listen to my insane psychotic ramblings and making me their king, that I just don't have the strength." Then it goes on to list all the ways you can beat your wife, with a toothbrush or any object that is not a large club, as long as it doesn't leave a mark. Because having a lame bruised wife is a bit of a dishonour in front of all the other misogynistic raghead brutal motherfuckers eating goats around a fucking campfire in buttfuck, Arabia. But you can still beat your wife, of course, and she's still a servant of the husband. And that never will be questioned. Fuckin' load of old shit, just like all the blithering nonsense in the Old Testament and sundry other mythologies. Wake the fuck up.
• Wow. Rant.
• I'm sorry, what was that? *removes earplugs*
• I feel ashamed of that. Still, there you go.