A dish fit only for a madman!

[evil_mr_tim]

In case anyone has missed it, I kind of have a toothpick up my nose (figurative) about modern (almost post-modern, I would say) conceptions of racism and sexism, and the specific problem that I have with the essential racism of applying different standards of interactions (and ethics!) to people of different races, owing to some presume 'race-

Comments

[aussietiger]

Mmmm, I remember studying about that at high school. But they're completely different circumstances. Aborigines were here before we Europeans, and a lot of the recognition of Aboriginal Law is to do with the strong under-current that modern Australians "owe" present-day aborigines for what their ancestors suffered many many years ago. Since aborigines were here first, they, according to some, have the right to keep their traditions.

The situation in Britain is completely different. For starters, as I've already stated, even if this were the case, it would not be Britain-wide. Northern Ireland for one would never do such a thing, nor to a lesser extent Scotland.

England has approximately 1.5 - 2 million muslims. They're an immigrant group. They weren't there first. There's no "primary occupant" claim, so to speak.

It is true that in the past few weeks, English and Welsh courts have decided to allow muslim women to wear full-face-covering veils in court. Something which has caused a bit of debate in past years. But that's a far cry from incorporating muslim customs and "laws" into the judicial system. Something which I'm still not convinced of.

[evil_mr_tim]

I'm pretty sure the issues remain comparable, because whether aboriginal culture was 'here first' or not, really doesn't influence how 'entitled' they are to have separate cultural standards.
Strictly speaking, everyone should have the right to be judged by cultural standards of their own identification, or no one should. Personally, I'm thinking the latter is better, and we should seek to have a singular cultural standard whose authority is drawn from reasoned discussion, rather than historical incidence.

[aussietiger]

People do not have the right to be judged by their own cultural standards, Tim. This is what we have national borders and self-governance for. Every self-governing state has it's own set of laws, which are easily accessible for any person who wishes to see them, and for which there are no excuses for not knowing them in the eyes of the law.
Anyone moving to another country moves there in full knowledge of their laws and customs, and that by living there, they agree to live by those laws. If you don't agree with a state's laws, you don't live in that country. If you want to live according to muslim law, you live in a country whose laws are based on muslim law.
In England, muslims do not deserve to be judged according to muslim law. They deserve to be judged according to English law. Just like an Englishman in the U.A.E. has to expect to be judged according to their laws, not English law. Just like Chapelle Corby had no right to expect to be judged according to Australian Law.

[evil_mr_tim]

Doesn't this rather naively overlook the reality of where people are capable of living, particularly when immigrating under duress or in crisis?
We both agree that culture-specific standards are a no-go, but your telling seems like a somewhat dressed up version of "Well if you don't like living in America then you can just git-owt".

[beliael]

Ack, sorry my first link is wrong, the case is found here. There's no mention about the customary punishment there anyway.

I found an interesting article on cultural relativism in the Australian legal system. Haven't read it yet. You're probably correct to say that the whole primary occupancy thing does give Aboriginal culture more of a say than other cultures though.

Speaking of Muslims, it's interesting to see how culture plays into non-criminal cases. In the case of Kavanagh v Akhtar an Indian Muslim woman sustained a shoulder injury because a bunch of boxes fell on her as the shop keeper had been negligent. Because of the injury, the woman wasn't able to maintain her long hair and so she cut it (presumably out of frustration) without her husband's consent. Her husband divorced her for that because it was contrary to his family's customs and religion. The woman sustained psychiatric illness because of this. The shopkeeper was found to have to pay for her physical injury AS WELL as psychiatry costs, as the judge took into account the woman's religion and found that the shopkeeper's negligent actions affected that enough to cause the woman's psychiatric problems. I'm personally not too convinced that that is fair but then again... there are many problems with our legal system as it is. -_-

[evil_mr_tim]

I think, if anything, this points out the ethical dilemma inherent to the legal principle of judging payouts on the basis of damages, rather than forseeable damages.

[beliael]

How's forseeable damage better? Wouldn't it be just as variable and prone to exceptions? Because common law is really good at coming up with those.

[evil_mr_tim]

I know we can't realistically have a system that always gives people the benefit of the doubt. It is the ethical, but not the practical thing, to do.