Feminists storm 'Should Wife-beating be Allowed?' debate in France and get attacked!

[Sunsoo]

And the response is sickening:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/16/femens-topless-condescension-towards-muslim-women-only-helps-sexism

I cannot believe people think that these women are just as bad as the men whom attacked them!

Also, why the fudge was this debate even allowed to happen? Violence is illegal in France. End of discussion!

I actually might stop reading the Gruan since they've published this article.

Cheezy it was sarcasm. I was referring to the fact that you and Scremer have been saying that some debates should be banned if the debaters advocate ideas that we in the West don't like that are unacceptable. And as you are advocating censorship, I think you need to be censored.

It makes sense in my head ;)

lush & fit but when these laws or practices are challenged, the counter argument from those in favour of introducing or retaining them are that they are codified Islamically and hence perfectly valid.

The UAE law is based on Sharia, which religious scholars over the centuries have derived. These scholars will have had and have an on-going input into the formulation of the country's laws. The judge isn't interpreting the scripture at all. He is merely applying the law as it stands on the statute book.

When the religious scripture is given so much credence that it is seen as valid enough to become part of the country's legal code, then it is any wonder that the culture of that country / society evolves to also encompass those abhorrent practices.

Its clear it is the religion that has shaped the culture and you are making excuses by saying it is the fault of 'the culture'.

And while I agree that our legal system is the result of 3000 years of civilian legal tradition, it wasn't so long ago that much of that was heavily influenced by the church and monarchs And the patriarchs. Which it still is. People in glass houses...

What is the time frame for significant reform - 20 years, 50 years, 100, 200 ?
That's a lot of suffering for many millions of women.
As a mixed race women, I certainly wouldn't tolerate racial violence and keep quiet for the rest of my life, just because of hope for racial equality a century after my death

Lush, where have I said I am against debate? Do you think my comments come dangerously close to an advocation of censorship in the same way as my being a woman might come dangerously close to a slapping, beating, raping, stoning, whatever?

but when these laws or practices are challenged, the counter argument from those in favour of introducing or retaining them are that they are codified Islamically and hence perfectly valid. Not in my experience. When I have challenged them, the answer has always been 'it is the way things are done here. This is an Arab country. Change will come but it will be slow'.

There are plenty of Muslim majority countries who do not use Shari'ah as a basis for their laws - take Turkey, for example.

I don't disagree with you that religion has influenced the culture of Middle Eastern world. But it has influenced different cultures and different people in different ways. I would say that the majority of Muslim men do not believe in beating their wives.

Oh FFS Cheezy, I was trying to keep it light. Obviously didn't translate - my bad.

"The judge isn't interpreting the scripture at all. He is merely applying the law as it stands on the statute book."

The judge does have to interpret the law though, and occasionally that must go to higher powers to debate in terms of the religion. Instances of domestic abuse are an example of that.

And where in the world is the law not challenged? Look at gay marriage? or even spousal abuse and spousal rape, there had always been those who condone it in every country. Many of those people use the Bible as there examples of why it's ok.

The reason we in the West are veering towards less religion based laws is because of cultural changes that are diminishing the influence of religion. (Quite rightly in my opinion). Gay marriage is certainly a heavily debated issue from every side of the spectrum, both for and against, and I don't see people here saying it shouldn't be debated because it's a hard YES it should be allowed. Fact is things have to be debated in order for changes to be made, and change never happens quickly.

And the religion was directly shaped by the culture, not the other way around. If you know anything about the culture of Pre-Islamic Saudi Arabia, that's really pretty obvious.

I would argue the opposite fitfatty. I would suggest that changing the law in a few key areas would do far more to improve the culture and the lives of millions than endless pointless, heated debate.

One of the most obvious changes to make, bearing in mind that there are a number of different jurisdictions involved, would be to introduce an inalienable legal requirement that those who enforce the law must be properly legally qualified in terms of an internationally recognised law degree and the requisite professional practice that is essential in most other parts of the world (and when I say most other parts of the world, I include even some countries which are considered in the Third World but in which there is still a recognition of the need for such basic requirements in a legal system alongside respect for the rule of law).

Another obvious change to make would be to simply legislate for the equality of men and women. Now I don't think this is at all practical at the moment for any Sharia law country because they are far too backward in terms of their legal systems. But quite often we do now lead the way with legislative change influence cultural change. It is an extremely effective way of achieving things. For example, we now have the crime in the UK of racially aggravated assault. This has been incredibly effective in changing and improving people's behaviour and in their seeing that racism is wrong on many levels.

In the Equality Act 2010, we have section 29 which prohibits, in relation to one of the prohibited characteristics, of which gender is one:

"(1)A person (a “service-provider”) concerned with the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public (for payment or not) must not discriminate against a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service."

Backed up by sub-section (6):
"A person must not, in the exercise of a public function that is not the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public, do anything that constitutes discrimination, harassment or victimisation."

Note too, sub-section (8):

"In the application of section 26 for the purposes of subsection (3), and subsection (6) as it relates to harassment, neither of the following is a relevant protected characteristic—
(a)religion or belief;"

All EU countries have similar provisions.

Another vital change, and I mean absolutely vital, would be to ensure the separation of powers between government, the executive and the judiciary. But you need a professional judiciary to do that.

Oh ok. X post.

But we didn't say that anyway.

We shouldn't censor debate or peaceful protest.

A few years ago, a Muslim acquaintance said he thought homosexuality should be made a criminal offence. I said it is his right to campaign for this change in law and my right to campaign against, so long as we are both peaceful.
He believes in equal opportunity for women, btw and is passionate that his daughter have a career. So, his views are more like 1950s Britain, rather than pre-Reformation.

Look, my effing tablet is extremely s l o w. X post again.

What is the time frame for significant reform - 20 years, 50 years, 100, 200 ?

Well Gosh, I don't know. Let's think about it. The first domestic violence law appeared in the UK in the 1860's, which was that men can't beat their wives with anything bigger then the width of their thumb.....and humanity appeared in the UK in, what, 10,000 BC, give or take...so.....

fatfitty And the religion was directly shaped by the culture, not the other way around. If you know anything about the culture of Pre-Islamic Saudi Arabia, that's really pretty obvious.

All legal systems are directly shaped by culture and by the moral codes those cultures produce, originally. That happened in the west, that is what the Danelaw that eventually comprised English common law was based on. Its a moot point - this is and always has been well recognised.

It is also a marker or primitive, or archaic legal systems. Commerce and trade tends to be a driving factor for modernisation. Legal systems move on. The problem that Shaira law-based systems face is that they are unable to modernise quickly enough, and that seems to influence cultural norms. So in effect they are stuck in a cycle of lack of modernisation.

Scremer again, I don't mean to be rude. But have you actually been to the Middle East? Or practiced law here?

changing the law in a few key areas would do far more to improve the culture and the lives of millions than endless pointless, heated debate.

It would also send the whole country toppling into a religious civil war. As much as I would LOVE to see rapid change here, I also understand the constraints the leadership of the country is under and what a fine balancing act it is.

lush so you believe Femen are as much a threat to peace and human rights as the Nazis were? You stand by that?

Commerce and trade tends to be a driving factor for modernisation. Legal systems move on.

Agree 100%. And, especially he UAE's, need for commerce with the outside world is what will continue to drive change. It might not be as fast as everyone would like, but things are very Inshallah here.

Believe me, there are people actively involved and pushing for change, myself included, but I don't see how not entering into the debate will do anything.

Saying that, it is 4:45 pm and my work day is done and it's now the weekend here! WOO fucking HOO! Thank you ladies for a wonderful and intelligent debate, it's been a while since I had one!

Scremer again, I don't mean to be rude. But have you actually been to the Middle East? Or practiced law here?

I actually think that its beyond hope. I don't think there are any solutions that would work in the Middle East, and I think it will continue to be an area of turmoil and unpleasant living conditions for the majority of women. Why on earth would anyone who has the choice of living in the west want to live there at all?

Implicit in your comment is the assumption that no-one who is not a certain nationality should be permitted to comment on Sharia or the Middle East (the usual pseudo attempt at censorship).

Oh for god's sake Hermione, it's s turn of phrase. Let's not get hysterical about it.

I think you could answer Hermione's question, lush and had been meaning to ask you that too.

And anyway, where is the op?

Hysterical as in the ancient meaning used to put down women or in some other more modern meaning?

Ah, that's right, when women stand up for themselves they need to be undermined by being called "hysterical"

"Feminazis" is not a common turn of phrase outside misogynists, any more than racial slurs are. You used a term that equates women wanting equality with the Nazis, and when questioned said you stood by it because you don't like them.

Backtracking now ?

I don't think there are any solutions that would work in the Middle East, and I think it will continue to be an area of turmoil and unpleasant living conditions for the majority of women. Why on earth would anyone who has the choice of living in the west want to live there at all? Well, I am a women and I chose to live here despite all the people who told me I would be miserable and oppressed. I actually find the conditions here are a damn sight better than they were for us in London.

Implicit in your comment is the assumption that no-one who is not a certain nationality should be permitted to comment on Sharia or the Middle East (the usual pseudo attempt at censorship). I am British born and bred and non-Muslim so I certainly wouldn't say that only people of a 'certain nationality' (whatever that is) can comment on Shari'ah or the ME.

I'm afraid, however, that no matter how highly-qualified or well-read you are, no amount of education can make up for a lack of on-the-ground, human experience. Fair enough if you simply haven't had the opportunity to visit a country or interact with Muslims. But the fact that you have just dismissed the possibility out of hand because you've heard it's such an awful place, and because 'who on earth wouldn't want to live in the west if they had the opportunity' really just says it all.