[Regular commenter DeusExMacintosh has been noting with some interest commentary around the intertubes on the relationship between Islam, the disabled and - most important - disabled people who need Assistance Dogs to help with independent living. This is something about which she is uniquely well qualified to comment. DEM lives in the UK, where British dogliness and Islamic intransigence are clashing in all sorts of ugly ways. This post offers a few of her thoughts on the issue - SL].
WHY SHOULDN’T IT HAPPEN TO A MUSLIM?
The normally excellent Channel 4 ‘Dispatches’ strand of documentaries recently featured one called “It Shouldn’t Happen to a Muslim”.
Three years after the July 7 bombings in London, Peter Oborne reports on whether the attacks, combined with fears of terrorism, have fuelled the rise of violence and intolerance towards the Muslim community in Britain. Oborne meets British Muslims who live in fear of being attacked, and investigates whether press coverage of terror incidents has had the side-effect of portraying Islam and British Muslims in a negative fashion.
Had you asked me earlier, I’d have agreed that he might have a point. But then SkepticLawyer pointed me to an article in The Daily Mail:
A postcard featuring a cute puppy sitting in a policeman’s hat advertising a Scottish police force’s new telephone number has sparked outrage from Muslims… The advert has upset Muslims because dogs are considered ritually unclean and has sparked such anger that some shopkeepers in Dundee have refused to display the advert. Dundee councillor Mohammed Asif said: ‘My concern was that it’s not welcomed by all communities, with the dog on the cards… They (the police) should have understood. Since then, the police have explained that it was an oversight on their part, and that if they’d seen it was going to cause upset they wouldn’t have done it.’
For those familiar with the UK media scene this sounds suspiciously too good to be true (like the unfounded story of Lambeth council renaming their Xmas celebrations “Winter Festival” to appease the Muslim community in particular) but having checked around the interwebs it seems Tayside police have indeed apologized for not thinking it was necessary to seek diversity advice when putting their star police pup Rebel on a postcard. It’s fifty-fifty on which sector of the public is more offended – those Muslims who have complained about the ad or the wider British community who love their dogs. (Message to Scottish Muslims: If you thought you were a minority before…)
A cringing trustee of the local Dundee mosque quickly pooh-poohed the idea in a local paper.
“I’ve not heard anything about that from members of the community,”… Mr Sarwar said that religious sensitivities would prevent him from displaying the postcard on a building of religious significance but there was nothing to stop them being displayed in shops. “There is not a dog—it is just a picture,” he said.
No real story, then. No great surprise.
The funniest feature of “It Shouldn’t Happen to a Muslim” was Peter Oborne’s outrage that parts of the British media might deliberately distort and misrepresent Muslim views. (No, really? Unlike their typical dedication to accuracy and fairness, you mean?). Personally, I think Mr Sarwar protests too much. As someone who gets around town in the company of a large black Assistance Dog I know that an overwhelming number of Muslims have a genuine revulsion when it comes to even the professional canine corps. I know this because I regularly get full grown adults doing the ‘girl germs’ cringe with sound effects even when we’re metres away which, incidentally, I find bloody offensive (though admittedly useful when faced with a crowded pavement during the Edinburgh Festival – it’s like the parting of the Red Sea). One of the reasons I find this so offensive is because I am very much identified with my dog and can never be entirely sure the disgust is entirely due to him.
Having done a little research it doesn’t appear that Islam is another of the Hoddlesque ‘disability is a curse from God’ school of medievalism – at least officially. That said, the fact that Sikhism officially gives full rights to women hasn’t prevented honour killings in that community either. There are some pretty rank cultural traditions that have managed to survive the imposition of religious principles, and in the case of Islam I do know that lameness can be grounds for divorce under Shariah law. Teacher friends have also told me how many disabled Muslim children, whilst loved and well treated, are kept home and away from public gaze rather than being sent to school. Is that in shame?
Before I had an assistance dog, being disabled hadn’t seemed much of a problem in itself. Using a mobility scooter meant passing by the local mosque down a street dominated by Muslim families and I’d play with the kids – they’d pretend to block the pavement until I gave them money, I’d pretend to run them over. It was very good-natured until the London bombings. The last boy I saw (months later, after acquiring my Assistance Dog) was about six and had seen me coming. He darted out the front door to taunt me “You’re not a mother, you’re not a wife!” before his mother shooed him back indoors. I never saw any of the children again, though I continued to use that route every week for two years. How do I know whether this was due to a fear of reprisals post 7/7, or because their parents didn’t want them mixing with the disabled girl? If my dog is ‘untouchable’, am I?
Last year it was finally declared acceptable for a non-salivating Guide Dog to accompany his blind master into a UK Mosque (though not the prayer hall) but blind people are regularly being refused service by Muslim taxi drivers the world over despite formal advice to the contrary. (At least in Australia they’ve been fired for it).
British women resent being generalized as drunken ‘slags’ as much as Muslims resent being generalized as terrorists but given time both communities will have to come to an accommodation. It has already happened with the Jewish community, who were amongst the first wave of immigration into the UK early last century. Their Orthodox community also has some religious beliefs that don’t sit easily with secularism but it’s been almost a century since Jews were considered an alien and potentially hostile presence in Britain.
Muslim extremists made a mistake in assuming that terrorism would have the same effect in the UK as it had in the US – as local boys who’d grown up during the 30 years of ‘Troubles’ with Northern Ireland you’d think the London 7/7 bombers could have explained this to their Afghan trainers. Perhaps the sorry state of British education explains why they thought suicide bombing for religious reasons was something novel in a country that has been burning Guy Fawkes in effigy most Novembers since 1606. On 7/7 the resigned reaction of a London friend was typical. “So who was it this time?” she sighed. “The rag-heads or the bog-trotters?”
The major fault in the Dispatches documentary was its refusal to acknowledge that there are genuine points of cultural incompatibility between British secular law and Islamic cultural practice. Abuse and vilification of Muslims is a fact, but so is abuse and vilification by Muslims. Hostility seems to be part of the accommodation process for any large group of immigrants; in this case, however, a goodly part of the hostility is coming from the immigrants themselves, apparently in the expectation that the host culture will make all the changes and do all the accommodating.
Why shouldn’t it happen to a Muslim? It happens to me.
49 Comments
A good well balanced piece that correctly suggests that it is not just the responsibility of a host culture to accommodate the alien. The new comers have to do their share of adaptation as well.
It seems that a lot of Muslims in the UK simply want to import their entire world into the country and universalize their own values. I’m reminded here of the threats of various nutbag Imans that they will make Europe Muslim.
I’d like to contrast the image of DEM’s very clean and cut puppy with the method of garbage collection in Cairo. I don’t know whether things have improved but back in the 20th century they used to collect garbage by having an old man in filthy clothes riding a flat cart pulled by a (usually) diseased donkey.
They just chucked the garbage on the cart and when it started to spill off they’d head to wherever it was they went.
Perhaps this isn’t ‘ritually unclean’ but it is literally unclean as are the myriad turds that decorate the streets there.
I reckon ‘pull your heads’ in is the appropriate response.
And again - I love that dog. He’s so cute.
Best looking dog in the business, Adrien - agreed.
One of the things John Finnis often pointed out in jurisprudence was the emerging difficulty with being able to say ‘pull your head in’ (or such like - he wouldn’t use such a colloquialism) when confronted with stuff like this.
When I was getting pissed with the priest a little while back he objected to something I said viz theology. He said: You can’t say that.
I said: Of course I can.
He said: Why?
I said: Because no-one’s allowed to stop me.
He thought this ‘brilliant insight’. But of course being a member of the Catholic clergy within his circle there are things you can’t say. Same in Muslim socieites. They just have to learn that you don’t have the right to dictate other peoples’ lives for ‘em.
If there are such Muslims in Oz I don’t here from them much now that Shriek Hillaylee’s pissed off out of it. Actually most Muslims are pretty much Aussie round here.
It’s not clear to me that immigrants from countries that were exploited in colonial times have any real moral reponsibility to blend in (let alone assimilate) with the population already there. That’s just bad luck for colonial oppressors — if you wreck other people’s countries, then it shouldn’t come as any suprise when people from those countries come and live in yours but don’t happen to love you nor care about your culture in the slightest. I therefore disagree Adrien Halls comment that newcomers should adapt to the mainstream culture.
In addition, since a lot of the muslims in the UK are second generation ones, I also don’t see why they have any moral responsibility to blend in either — why should they change their attitudes for someone else? What makes mainstream attitudes superior to theirs? This is especially so for minority groups that get constantly discriminated against. Of course they don’t care nor identify with mainstream culture. Be glad not too many (yet) believe in real false prophets, versus just standard religious figures.
I also wonder what the legal bounds should be for these groups. If you are not part of nor care about the mainstream culture, and have no moral obligation to do so, then I wonder what laws you should adhere to, especially those laws that are culturally specific (marriage laws etc.) versus more universal ones (stealing etc.).
You’re making two assumptions there, Conrad, both of which are heavily contestable. First, you’re assuming that colonialism=exploitation. At least in the case of the British, the evidence is highly equivocal on that score.
Second, you’re forgetting that in a clash between Islam and the disabled (if you take group rights even remotely seriously), then Muslims have a choice about their religion. DEM (and other blind/disabled people) have no choice about their disability. It is literally impossible for one of the two groups to cede ground.
Quite apart from that, some values are better than others, and giving up shitty ones is part of cultural maturation. Or should Southerners not have had to give up their cultural preference for slavery?
I think that any responsible immigrant (or even visitor) should be willing to find an accommodation with the host culture. Ask SL about the atrocious inefficiency of British institutions compared to their Australian equivalents [on second thoughts don't, you don't have the bandwidth] but she has accepted that is the price you pay for living here, it’s made up for in other ways that make it better for her overall to live in the UK than Australia, at least at the moment. If I visit Saudi Arabia then I wear long sleeves and don’t drive.
I admit that in the UK it’s a bit more difficult as we rely on the tradition of common law rather than statute alone so it’s not always clear, but if an adult woman (for example) wants to surrender some of her legal rights in order to meet the perceived demands of her religion there is nothing to stop her doing so. What is NOT acceptable is forcing your beliefs onto those who don’t share them or are too young to have a real choice. If you want to change the legal rights of all women in the UK to meet your own then you can stand up and argue for it like everybody else and accept your stake in the democratic process. You can tell me I’m not a ‘real’ woman unless I’m a mother and wife and I’ll tell you that “a woman’s place is in your face” and we can argue from there.
Islamic culture isn’t as monolithic as some would like you to think. The tradition of the ‘hijab’ (headscarf) for women has only been widespread since the 1970s, before that even the wives of the most conservative muslim scholars roamed the world bare-headed. There is absolutely nothing about it (or the Jewish tradition of married women covering their hair) that conflicts with British culture in any way. The problem comes when you want to add the identity concealing face veil. It’s not a security objection or even one of the status of women - it’s just that in British tradition the price of your free speech is being willing to accept the consequences of your opinions, and concealing your identity is instinctually perceived as either cowardly or dishonest. I have exactly the same gut reaction on seeing a woman with the full face veil as I do seeing an IRA spokesman in a balaclava (please note, I am NOT saying that this is because they are both terrorists). This is not specifically anti-Muslim, the same suspicion of ‘hoodies’ exists for exactly the same reason. The price of rights in this country is personal accountability, it just happens that this is one of the rare examples where Muslim tradition does indeed clash with local culture as the married convert in the documentary discovered. She felt she ‘ought’ to wear the veil but was met with such hostility in public that she’s gone back to the headscarf. She has the same protection in law from physical attack as anyone else regardless of what she chooses to wear or why (no snatching it off her face for example), but has not taking the veil really compromised her abillity to practice her faith? Is it an unreasonable compromise? I don’t think so.
The legal bounds for these groups is exactly the same as those for everyone else. If you’re not willing to conform to British Law and take the consequences when you break it then you have no business living here. You may be an evangelical christian or a muslim who thinks homosexuality is an affront to God - you have that right. You do NOT have the right to discriminate against or do violence to gay people. Any instances when Muslims feel they are being exceptionally targetted needs to be examined and stopped (racial profiling, whether of Muslim travellers at airports or black youths being stopped and searched on the street, is dodgy for exactly this reason regardless of how practical it may be). Like many people I’m absolutely horrified by the current anti-terror legislation and feel that I’d prefer to accept the added risks to my safety than live with the reduction of my civil liberties longer term. In the mean time I live within the law (or accept the consequences when I don’t) and use the democratic system to get it changed. I don’t think that’s asking any more of Muslims or other immigrants than I ask of myself.
Sorry, knocked the italics jar over again.
Fixed.
SL & DEM,
First of all I’m not just talking about Muslims here (I’m completely aware that Islamic culture is not monolithic — in France for example, some of the problematic groups are nominally Christian). In addition, not that I know much about it, but I doubt the disabled versus religious problem is very much a religious problem — disabled people get discriminated against to different degrees across the world, and a lot of this is due to superstitions, cultural shame etc., not because book X tells you to people Y are cursed and to be nasty to them for no apparent reason.
I guess it might be simpler to give two examples here. The first is the immigrant that comes, say, on a business or family visa. I think these guys do have some moral responsibility to give up some potentially clashing parts of their social identity. They don’t have to come after all, and even those that do (e.g., from refugees from Sudan), are being invited because we are being nice, and not because we caused the problem.
The second is a type that it’s pretty clear we are going to get whenever Iraq finally breaks down. I imagine we are going to get a whole pile of refugees who we basically created (Vietnam would be another good example, although IMHO these guys improved Australia with few negatives. Algerians in France are another example). Now whilst I’m under the impression that these guys are generally moderate, I couldn’t possibly blame them for being angry with us. Given this, I can’t see why they have anything like the obligation to accept our values compared to other groups. Obviously they might be better off giving up clashing parts of their culture, but if they didn’t want to, I don’t see why they have an obligation to given that they are here due to our stupidity. I therefore don’t buy these social tradition arguments with those groups. If I don’t happen to like something they do, I really see this as me complaining, rather than them as having some sort of social obligation not to do something.
Last year it was finally declared acceptable for a non-salivating Guide Dog to accompany his blind master into a UK Mosque (though not the prayer hall) but blind people are regularly being refused service by Muslim taxi drivers the world over despite formal advice to the contrary. (At least in Australia they’ve been fired for it).
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24071667-2682,00.html
Blind man ‘gobsmacked’ as taxi refuses dog day after ruling
Interesting, too, that the cabbie sped off without speaking so the passenger couldn’t later do voice ID (something blind people are SPECTACULARLY good at).
This is really, really petty.
They still have exactly the same obligation as anybody else. Regardless of whose ‘fault’ it is, refugees still make a choice about leaving their country. They still (unless through the UNHCR program) choose where to apply. No one is putting them in leg irons and forcing them into slavery. Price of admission is willingness to make fair accommodation. And I’d argue that no-one is asking them to change their values (that would be unfair).
In the case of 7/7, most of the bombers didn’t have the choice as they were born here, but they are under the same obligation to submit to the law as any other British Citizen. You don’t like it, leave. It’s why I and upwards of 10% of those born in Australia no longer live there.
The only formal demand being made is that people accept the primacy of British (or Australian) law. There is nothing to stop this second generation choosing whatever of the most separatist practices their religion can devise, they just need to accept that there will be social consequences in choosing to do so.
DEM -
Firstly, apples should be compared with apples. I think your comparison with Saudi Arabia isn’t a good one. Why are you comparing a democracy with a theocracy?
Secondly, I think Conrad has a good argument. The bottom line is that there is no legal obligation to succumb to mainstream culture.
My point is that in Saudi (or Egypt/Iran etc) I would accommodate local custom by covering my arms (as I would inside a Greek church, say). I wouldn’t drive in Saudi even though I understand this is a matter of custom rather than law.
I agree that there is no legal obligation to succumb to mainstream culture, nor do you have to look like everyone else.
I highlighted the case of the full face veil as it seems one of the few areas where there seems to be a genuine clash with the underlying values of British society and is likely to draw genuine hostility in a way that the hijab does not. Should you choose to wear a full face veil however, you are entitled to do so and expect the same legal protection as anyone else (freedom from assault etc.)
You also have the right to dislike dogs if you so wish, but if you carry on like a pork chop (no religious offense meant, just an expression) don’t be surprised if I’m rude to you.
I think it is legitimate in these circumstances to ask questions of value. DEM has been the liberal good cop on this thread, while I’ve been the Finnisian bad cop. In those terms, if a religious tradition stunts human flourishing, then its worth should be called into question.
On another matter, I’m being forced to blog from my iPhone and it’s not brilliant, so will leave off until I get my Edinburgh internets working again.
DEM,
you might well accommodate yourself into Saudi society if you were there, but if they bombed your country, and you were there through no fault of your own (i.e., when you are forced to moved because you don’t have a choice — which is the case with many refugees, unlike what you appear to believe) I’m sure you’d probably think a lot harder about it than if you moved there by choice. If you were lucky enough to move with large numbers of your compatriots (say, like Algerians in France — again, a group forced to move via threat of genocide), then it would be possible for you to keep wearing your full face veil, and have a “normal” life without too many consequences (off topic, but very few Algerians actually do this in France — I think I see more of this in Aus than France, not that I’m hanging out in the banlieus much!). If the majority population happen to be rude to you because of it, then I don’t see why you shouldn’t be rude back. Of course, this sort of rude-rude situation leads to social out-groups and so on, but it’s not clear to me that the onus is on the minority group to solve this situation, which seems to be the common assumption (which is not what I think for groups that move here voluntarily).
SL: I agree there are lots of shitty religions, and shitty religious practices — I could write down a page of them, and I’d just be starting.
DEM -
It is interesting that you picked Saudi Arabia [again] and Iran. In my opinion, you would cover your arms there because Saudi Arabia and Iran are totally different societies than the ones we live in. They both have laws and systems of governing that we would find outlandish. They also have Religious Police that would probably force you to cover.
Egypt on the other hand, wouldn’t necessarily be so. I’m sure you could go to Egypt with your arms bare and not face abuse. A large portion of the Egyptian population dress not too different from ourselves.
In many Western countries, whilst we put pressure on minority groups to assimilat and become like us, i think it is unwarranted. Why? Because of our social fabric I would say. We’re societies that accept, or should I say tolerate differences? Where in Saudi Arabia/Iran you may experience abuse for not wearing a head scarf, in a country like Australia, you might get a stare, perhaps a yell or two but it would stop at that.
We don’t have a rigid set of social norms and behaviours that are enforceable.
“Muslim extremists made a mistake in assuming that terrorism would have the same effect in the UK as it had in the US” I’m sorry, but what effect was that?
Thanks for sharing your perspective on this DEM.
“That’s just bad luck for colonial oppressors — if you wreck other people’s countries, then it shouldn’t come as any suprise when people from those countries come and live in yours but don’t happen to love you nor care about your culture in the slightest. ”
That argument only holds so long as you accept the “original sin” morality that is so popular among theists. If you think that the actions of previous generations (and, in fact, we are not even talking about generations but rather the state, and a few well-connected corporations, itself) are morally binding on subsequent ones, then yes, it does make perfect sense to argue, for example, that Pakistani immigrants can legitimately treat kufrs like chattel on British soil, simply because Britain happened to be the colonial power in India more than two generations ago.
Conrad I currently live in the UK and strangely, we are not receiving refugees fleeing France. For an asylum seeker (ie. an uninvited immigrant) to reach the UK, he has had to pass through several other countries on the way but has CHOSEN not to stop. It’s referred to as ‘asylum shopping’. That is a definite expression of choice. Leaving due to unbearable/dangerous circumstances is one choice, where you then go is another choice entirely (unless you are part of the UNHCR program and go where you are sent). Britain takes few refugees through this program because our systems are already overloaded with asylum seekers.
I haven’t said that the onus is on the minority to solve the problem, it’s important for BOTH cultures to meet each other half way. For those not born in the UK or to British parents, residency is a privilege not a right (ask some of the Aussies desperate to work over here but can’t get a visa). I don’t buy the argument that we ‘owe’ immigrants or refugees special treatment and if asked for help we don’t have to say yes. You end up with cases like that of the Rwandan commander wanted for genocide who was discovered in London living on social security. The UK genuinely could not accept everyone who wanted to come here, so there is a real need to properly manage all sorts of immigration. If it were genuinely based on need we’d be taking Afghan widows with children instead of the healthy single men of working age from Africa and the middle east who continuously turn up. Determining who is ‘deserving’ or not, is like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. And the current crop of Muslim separatists in the UK are NOT refugees, they are the children of economic migrants who moved here in the sixties.
I’d have to agree with SkepticLawyer’s point - if a Muslim is expected to wear a scarf rather than a veil, does this inherently limit their ability to live as they wish? No. If I’m expected to stay home or not have an assistance dog because some people don’t like them, does this limit my ability to live as I wish? Yes, extremely.
Actually, LDU, when I went to Egypt as a teenager, I was sexually harrassed constantly when I wore short sleeved tops. Guys shouted out sexually explicit comments, tried to grab me, etc. etc. Fortunately I know a few words of Arabic and could tell them where to go. It generally scared them off. Of course, this happens occasionally in Australia too, but not almost every time you go outside onto the street.
My sister and I ended up buying galabeyas (sp?) so that we were more covered up. Another friend ended up wearing a headscarf when she travelled in Egypt, and bought a cheap silver “wedding ring” so that guys would stop accosting her.
My personal belief is that there is no duty on immigrants to assimilate in their private lives as long as their conduct does not contravene the local criminal or civil law. But they cannot tell me what to do.
So stupid old Hilaly can say in his own community that women who follow his particular brand of faith must cover up. That’s a question for people who follow that particular faith. But he’s not entitled to say that I must cover up, and that if I do not cover up I am “cat’s meat” who deserves to be harrassed, assaulted or raped. I don’t follow his particular brand of faith, and nor do I want to. That being said, if I went to his mosque, I would wear appropriate clothing because I would be on the private territory of that faith. It’s just a respectful thing to do.
I thought one of the main points of religion generally (including Islam) was to show charity to one’s fellow human beings. If people with guide dogs are being discriminated against, that is totally unfair, and I don’t care whether they come from former colonies or the moon.
Secret Agent: the Brits weren’t shocked, like people on the US. There’s always been one bunch of people somewhere who simply hate them for what they are; the response was thus rather resigned and utterly phlegmatic.
Conrad - if you wreck other people’s countries, then it shouldn’t come as any suprise when people from those countries come and live in yours but don’t happen to love you nor care about your culture in the slightest. I therefore disagree …comment that newcomers should adapt to the mainstream culture.
Firstly I’m not sure you’re correct in your assumption that we wrecked Mid East countries. The process of colonialism began there long before there was a British Empire. In fact it began before there was even an English language. Needless to say Australia never conquered any Middle Eastern country.
Also I didn’t say that immigrants are required to adopt mainstream culture. I actually think the notion of mainstream culture in democratic societies is spurious. However there are basic principles one of which is free speech. If you live in a democratic society you must respect this. If not tough. You wanna live in a theocracy go back to one.
LE -
My sister and I ended up buying galabeyas (sp?) so that we were more covered up.
Yeah, that’s my advice for anyone travelling to the ME - adopt the local rules viz modesty saves you heaps of pain.
I did know this British backpacker couple. They were on a beach near Alexandria and she took her top off to sunbake. Two teenage boys came up, knelt down right next to her and started to masturbate!
There’s always been one bunch of people somewhere who simply hate them for what they are
Yeah Scotland, Ireland, Wales, France etc….
LE -
I’m not sure how long ago you were a teenager in Egypt, but women not dressing with the full Islamic gear has become a common sight in the Middle East, so maybe attitudes may have evolved? In Turkey (although not in the Middle East), it seems to be those who are covered get abused.
With Hilaly, why shouldn’t he say what he wants, and to whichever audience he wants, as long as his comments aren’t going against the law?
His cat meat comments weren’t good, but were they illegal? No, I don’t think they were. So I think he, and anyone else, is entitled to express their opinions, however much we disagree with them - unless the law negates that entitlement.
And why can’t immigrants tell you what to do? It is discourteous, but i think it only stops at that.
LDU -
Without disclosing too much about my age, it was well over ten years ago - I’m not sure whether things have changed. Perhaps my hair colour had something to do with the harrassment as well - I was patently not a local. But the friend who had to buy a veil visited about five or six years ago, so I suspect not that much has changed…
I guess there’s degrees of Western dress too. A skirt and suit jacket, t-shirt and pants, or something like that is likely to be okay, but then there’s something like a short sundress with spaghetti string straps or a singlet top and shorts. And I suppose it depends where you are - you are less likely to get into trouble in a metropolis like Cairo than somewhere in the back of beyond.
Hilaly can say what he wants - I’m not saying he doesn’t have a right to free speech! When I say that he has “no right” to tell me what to do, I am saying that he is a rude so-and-so, rather than saying that he has no right to speak. On the other hand, I also have a right to say that he’s an absolute idiot, and that I find his comments offensive and inappropriate.
Personally, I wouldn’t tell someone in their own country what to do. So if I went to somewhere where people often are almost naked (eg, some of those Papua New Guinean tribes), I don’t think I’d have a right to be offended and tell them to put on more clothes, even though my own culture means I would feel uncomfortable just wearing a loincloth.
I just think it’s really arrogant and intolerant to go to a country and then start criticising the local inhabitants for conduct which isn’t actually illegal or criminal - just different. I believe tolerance goes both ways - when different cultures interact, they have to accept that each has different customs.
Of course, then you get the question of where you draw the line - surely there has to be some point where you can actually say conduct is wrong - I would draw the line at conduct which infringes basic human rights.
Steve, you have basically summorized what I believe, except that I don’t believe people have the right to be rude to each other more than they would in general (since it isn’t part of the original culture). I’m also really more concerned about cases where both sides are doing legal activities that are considerable culturally dislikable by one but not the other (like wearing veils). I think doing illegal activities in liberal societies is another question, since its hard for me to think of something meaningful that would be illegal in, say, the UK, but not authoritarian country X (e.g., Pakistan), where the activity occurs across cultural groups (beating your wife is obviously within cultural groups). However, even within cultural groups, if the laws are culturally enforced ones, rather than ones that hurt other people (e.g., polygamy), I don’t see why they should be respected.
Also, you and Adrien use the not this generation argument, and DEM uses the argument about refugees right to choose — which is no doubt true in some cases, but certainly wasn’t in Algeria, for example. However, as I pointed out, it seems fairly likely we are going to get a whole pile of Iraqi refugees looking for somewhere to live in the next year or two, so they will be a good example of a group that isn’t generations old, the source of them isn’t especially contentious, and I’m sure lots will want to live in Australia and the UK, who will also have more obligation to take them than the neighboring countries (perhaps excluding Iran, who I imagine will get a few hundred thousand at least by default anyway).
Given this, are you telling me that the ones let into Australia should love us for it or particularly care that, for example, we don’t like them wearing veils or doing any other things that Australians happen to find culturally dislikeable?
Conrad -
What’s the not-this-generation argument?
The Middle-East is entirely composed of invaders. There’s not a single Aboriginal to be had anywhere.
You’ve got the point backwards Conrad. I grew up in the Middle-East. When my Brit mate told me about the sunbathing incident I relate above I told him that it was his girlfriend that did the wrong thing. It was. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with going starkers at the beach but there it’s out. When in Rome…
And when in a democratic country, one you’ve moved to, don’t go around expecting the locals to adopt your antiquated ideas viz unclean animals blah blah blah. It’s just rude.
A lot of Muslims would agree with me. Often it’s extremist, culturally chauvanist nutbags who set ‘emselves up as the avatars of their culture.
Do as you like, don’t stop others doing so. It’s the most reasonable basis for a political creed ever. I don’t care what they wear. Just don’t go around telling me what to wear. That’s all.
Ahh, I see Skepticlawyer. Thanks for the clarification.
Many of us here in the US are rather resigned to being hated the world over and have held that belief for far longer than the last eight years. Being attacked on our home soil by foreign terrorists was shocking only in its magnitude, not the action itself nor neccesarily the people who committed it.
LE -
Where to draw the line? I think the law should be that line. Individuals categorise different things as good or bad. Whereas the law doesn’t necessarily operate on what is good/bad morally.
Skepticlawyer, Deus, what a magnificent article.
Deus, you’re quite right to point out the hypocrisy involved with some religions. I thought your post was tremendous.
From what I see, Muslims move into an area and then try to shape it to copy what they’ve just left. A trait I dislike immensely.
Have to say those backpackers were complete tools going to the ME and skinny dipping, Adrien. Sauce for the goose and all that.
I don’t know how to break this to you Conrad, but actually there is no obligation to take them (at least not one a taxpayer would recognise). Britain definitely has a moral obligation to grant asylum to those Iraqis they have employed as translators who are endangered by this service, in my opinion that’s a no-brainer but even they haven’t been offered blanket entry. They’ve had to satisfy all the usual requirements whereas the Americans and Dutch have let them straight in. The UK public isn’t very impressed with their government on this.
LDU -
I agree totally: but the question is whose law? Is it the law of the jurisdiction or international law? The law of the jurisdiction is likely to be quite different. And then what about individual groups which have their own different special set of laws? It just gets horribly tangled.
This is why I picked human rights as the standard - something which by international law treaty covers many countries.
Of course, as I’ve pointed out in human rights posts before, they’re not altogether satisfying. It’s easy to have two conflicting human rights (eg, right to maintain indigenous culture versus right to be free of bodily harm in a culture which allows painful initiation rites). But still, they do provide the best represention of the international norm.
I would suggest it should be the law of the jurisdiction, in our case - Australian law. With groups that have their own set of laws, parts of their laws which go against the law of the jurisdiction should be set aside.
If everyone conducts themselves in a manner within the laws limits then there should be no dramas.
But you are still left with the cultural clash dramas my article highlights LDU. Wearing a veil isn’t against the law any more than hating dogs is (though thanks to the anti-discrimination act refusing service to a working Assistance Dog is) but these DO seem to be genuine points of cultural conflict. There will be some drama (as we’ve already seen) as both sides try to find a fair social accommodation with each other’s differences. Hostility, though not violence, seems to be part of this process.
I was of the opinion in letting the clashes continue as long as nobody is doing nothing illegal. If the clashes lead to some sort of breach of the law, then the law should deal with those breaches.
If we really are concerned about cultural clashes, then our concerns should be expressed to the government and interest groups should be created to lobby the government (e.g. people should feel free to ask for the banning of the Muslim face veil or the Sikh Dastar/turban).
“I don’t know how to break this to you Conrad, but actually there is no obligation to take them”
Maybe this hasn’t occurred to you, but if countries were allowed to destroy others, create a few million refugees, and then take no responsibility at all, the world would be an extremely dangerous place. Luckily that generally hasn’t been the case (e.g., Vietnam, Algeria). If the Brits are going to try and absolve themselves of all responsibility in Iraq despite being such an active participant, then all I can say is that in case people start bombing them back a bit, it would hardly be a surprise and nor especially unjustified.
But once again, we are holding the entire population responsible for the actions of the state. It is not only people who supported the British government in attacking Iraq (and who had their taxes stolen by that government for the purpose) who will have to put up with the significant social disorder of an Iraqi refugee influx, but also those who were resolutely opposed. The same argument of declaring an entire population to be essentially criminal, based on the actions of “their” government, is also used by Hamas to justify homocide terrorism against Israeli school children. This can only be justified if you accept the (extremely dubious) morality of original sin.
My favourite counter-example is of the very well known and respected Western Australian trade unionist Tony Cooke (he was awarded a Centenary medal in 2003). Mr Cooke was the secretary of the TLC, and no doubt hundreds of thousands of workers are better off for his service. Yet his father, Eric Cooke, was one of the worst serial killers in Australian history. No-one in their right mind would suggest that this carries any implications for Tony Cooke’s community standing. Yet it seems to me that there is no moral difference between punishing the entire population of England for the actions of its government, and punishing the entire Cooke family for the actions of Eric Cooke.
There is, happily, an alternative to prescribing the double punishment of populations who happen to live under traitorous governments. This can be done by passing a law saying that the humanitarian costs of any war of aggression will be borne entirely by the members of parliament who voted for it, and any corporations who were granted contracts during the course of the illegal war.
This may not cover the real costs of an entire conflict, but it will certainly help to abolish war.
In fact, expanding on my point, I think there may be a case for seizing the entire assets of Halliburton and its board of directors, then flogging them off and dividing the proceeds among both Iraqis and Americans who have lost family members through this unnecessary war. There is no such thing as a right to collaborate in criminal aggression. Unfortunately, American taxpayers cannot be reimbursed for the war. They should at least be given the right to become conscientious tax objectors.
Steve,
I’d be happy to see your suggestions implemented (occasionally, for people in powerless countries, they already are).
However, it doesn’t solve the problem of 2 million refugees floating around the world — here you only have bad choices, unlike your example, where you really can punish just the perpetrator. Thus it’s either the Brits that are going to put up with a bit of social disorder or someone else. Given that 0% of the population may be responsible in the case of someone else, places like the UK obviously have a better hit rate, even if only 50% of the people voted for Blair (or whatever the number was).
Also, the fact that governments create collective externalities for their citizens in some cases is just a hazard of having governments and borders. If that wasn’t accepted, places like Germany shouldn’t have been held responsible for the mess which some of the 20th century was. Using a less extreme observation, I might note that some people don’t happen to like immigration, refugees etc. at all, but that doesn’t stop the government from having policies which take these people.
In which case you could argue that refugees are caused by the policies of their own government (which terrorises the people and/or has invited military intervention by unreasonable action) and are therefore no-one else’s responsibility.
DEM,
refugees are typically no-one else’s problem (I’m sure most know that only too well), which of course doesn’t make them go away. We might be lucky — perhaps Iran could do everyone a favor and take most of them and Iraq too, and thank the Americans for doing what they spent countless years failing at. It seems like a good trade to me (although somehow I doubt it does to the US).
Also, I’m not sure that Iraq would fall into your categories — Saddam Hussein didn’t invite military intervention (it is the COW who made up the WMD story because they couldn’t think of something unreasonable enough), and nor did he terrorize the people enough to create 2 million refugees. Evidentally even dropping chemical weapons on the Kurds didn’t create the type of problems the COW have, no matter how nasty it sounds.
Also, I don’t think collective externalities for many things (including war) are controversial incidentally. Most African’s pay taxes for loans taken out before they were born. The Chinese still spend oodles of money keeping North Korea afloat/happy, again for things that happened before the average citizen was born. Germany paid out money for WWII for years. Serbia more recently lost control of a fair chunk of land. And so on.
Conrad -
I expressed my views on the subject extensively a while ago. But at base there’s no real mechanism by which nations are permitted to do things or not to things.
There are three reasons that we don’t have rampant imperialism nowadays. The first is that since the second World War it’s been increasingly conventional to view that sort of thing as immoral. The second is that the world is pretty much sewn up and under State control. The third is that there’s a stable hierarchy of States who prevent others from mounting invasions.
Of course there’s the UN but as the Iraq War shows: a nation that has the clout can defy the UN and invade another country and get away with it. What’s gonna happen to ‘em: the US, Britain, Us and the rest? By what means will the UN spank our bottoms? It can’t. It can act multilaterally to arrest invasion as it did when Iraq invaded Kuwait.
But if a state decides to take ‘the law’ into its own hands or if there’s some nasty ethnic business involving byzantine enigma issues inside mystery debates (not to mention some horrifyingly barbaric violence) they’re less effective. There is no international law in the sense of a set of rules, generally agreed to be valid which can be enforced by an authority that is universally respected as such.
Hence whatever obligations states have to refugees or any other consequence of nefarious action are a matter either of charity or coercion.
Adrien, not sure what was going on there but I’ve tried to blockquote the correct bits so what you’re saying is a bit clearer.
Conrad, at least for me, we’re going to have to agree to disagree. I just don’t think one can draw a link between reprehensible behaviour by immigrant/refugee/what-have-you groups and past injustice. It’s too akin to reparations for slavery, compensation for the stolen generations or ‘rents’ for the land the UK government now owns in Scotland as a result of the highland clearances.
Ultimately, introducing a ‘past injustice’ argument amounts to a legal red herring; the problem we’re confronted with here is one of ‘reasonable accommodation’, something considered at length in the work of Charles Taylor and Joseph Raz, both of whom are far less sanguine about multicultural policy than they once were.
Indeed, if you speak French, watching the YouTube videos of Quebec’s Bouchard-Taylor Commission illustrates the bleeding edge of ‘reasonable accommodation’ superbly. Ultimately, a decision has to be made: do we (in the narrow case discussed here) respect Muslim sensibilities about dogs or the needs of disabled people?
Following Raz, I come down firmly on the side of the group who cannot modify their behaviour (the disabled) without harm.