No stoning of the women...

[jits]

Reuters (who would never lead the world astray) reports under the title Canadian town to immigrants: you can't stone women that:

Immigrants to the small Quebec town of Herouxville must not stone women in public, burn them alive or throw acid on them, according to an extraordinary set of rules made public by the local council.It's a cutesy little

Comments

[starfishchick]

It doesn't bother me that much, actually. I think Canada - unlike the US, which is all 'rah rah America, great American melting pot where we're all the same - tries to be Canada first, your country-of-origin's culture and traditions second.

I know there have been some issues (in Quebec, I think) of women being denied divorce because the courts of their religions forbid it, but Canadian law overrules that - or should.

And if people need to be told that stoning of women is not allowed here, then that's good, isn't it?

[dramaqueen_23]

As jits guessed, Herouxville has a significant number of immigrants from Middle Eastern countries. If there'd been a rash of stonings or acid tossings in the town, I might understand town councils motives in stating the rules a little more clearly. However, that hasn't been the case (at least not so far as I've read). Immigrants coming to Canada are made aware that they are bound to follow the laws of this country and in the overwhelming majority of case, they seem to understand our whole "hurting people = not good" way of life. The declaration feels condescending and totally unecessary to me.

I do think that issues involving things like cultural garb are less cut and dry. But again I have to agree with jits. Allowing daggers (potential weapons) but NOT head/face coverings is an odd concession. It's perfectly okay for boys to have knives on the playground, but extra fabric is a problem?

[starfishchick]

As you and I have talked about before, allowing the knives REALLY bothers me.

And I do agree that it makes more sense to state the rules if there have been problems, but isn't an ounce of prevention (reminding people of the rules) better than reminding them after something has happened?

Hi.

[dramaqueen_23]

isn't an ounce of prevention (reminding people of the rules) better than reminding them after something has happened?

I get what you're saying, but the laws that forbid stoning, burning, etc are not obscure ones. I have a hard time believing that someone who's determined to stone their spouse, has simply forgotten the rules and needs a gentle reminder.

I see it as analogous to the following (fictional) scenario. You and I get jobs in a male-dominated, corporate environment. There's a general policy outlining acceptable workplace behaviour. However, our first day on the job, we find memos on our desks saying "Please be aware that we expect you to dispose of your menstral products in a discreet manner, preferably in the bathroom. Crying during board meetings is considered unprofessional, as is gossiping about fellow co-workers in the lunch room". While I do menstruate, cry and gossip, I'd be incredibly insulted that they felt I was too stupid, emotional or "girlish" to interpret the general policy.

Invitation to participate in an academic survey

[anonymous]

Hi bloggers, you're invited to participate in our study on blogs and relationships (and it's not a spam, really)

Our study is affiliated with the Singapore Internet Research Centre (SiRC) and examples of previous studies can be found here: http://www.ntu.edu.sg/sci/sirc/workingpapers.html.

Simply fill in the survey and you stand a chance to win US$50!! 3 prizes in total available.

This is an academic research and all data are confidential. You may send any queries to: gohh0003@ntu.edu.sg or mind0001@ntu.edu.sg. Good luck and spread the word to fellow bloggers!

The survey link: http://www.questionpro.com/akira/TakeSurvey?id=591306