Wife beating is now legal in the UAE.
- Thread starter Sewblon
- Start date
Recommended Videos
But what does "no marks left" really mean? Because if they're really traditional where the woman can't walk around in public showing more than just her eyes, then we may have a problem. And if it is like this, then great job making Islam look backward and stupid yet again, Islamic politicians. If not, then hopefully this will not be twisted into some hateful way, like a woman coming to a hospital covered in bruises under her clothes and the prosecution accusing her of afflicting them upon herself.
How sad to see one of the despicable parts of Islam rear its ugly head once again. Beats Yemen refusing to outlaw child marriage (i.e. what would here be statutory rape) on account of it being unislamic though.
Mixing religion and politics never goes well, and the Islamic world especially (and to some extent Israel) is especially culpable of this. And it doesn't help one bit that it's the outdated, brutal, discriminatory and violent norms of the Abrahamic religions that's mixed in...
I'm not seeing anyone complaining that their music, architecture, clothing, stories etc. are vastly different from ours (and would scathingly attack anyone who did). All I'm seeing is people finding it bloody unethical to beat up your wife however skillful you might be at it, and whatever petty religion or culture you might push in front of you as justification. And I see no wrong in that.
Cultural relativism can only go so far. And are you even sure that this ruling is of the people living there, or is it some government appointed religious judge oppressing them?
EDIT: There are certainly plenty of explanations - sociological, psychological, historical, geographical etc. - of why religious and secular aspects of their culture(s) has fallen beneath these standards, but these are just that; explanations, not excuses. Everyone of mental maturity is of course 100 % responsible for their views and deeds, having knowingly and willingly chosen to adhear to them, and continuously choosing to do so every single day. And none are exempt from ethical - and legal - evaluation, whatever their cultural group might be. As they judge, so are they judged; Both in regard to an objectivized and legalistic international minimum standard of human rights and decency, and by the subjective - which does not equal worthless by default - criteria on how (not) to treat women in all cultures different from theirs, including "ours".
In this case, they fall short of either. Why should we not judge - and act - upon even our subjective views on their culture, when clearly that is the (likewise subjective) standard they have set for how humans - innocent ones even - can be treated in their culture (i.e. a tit-for-tat tactic)? And even more pressing (and less strict), why should we not judge and act upon the objectivized human rights standard???
Mixing religion and politics never goes well, and the Islamic world especially (and to some extent Israel) is especially culpable of this. And it doesn't help one bit that it's the outdated, brutal, discriminatory and violent norms of the Abrahamic religions that's mixed in...
No, lets all rejoice in the obvious and universal superiority of human rights, the rule of international law and minimum standards, and the civil rights and (initial) worth of each individual human, women and children included.Spinozaad said:
I'm not seeing anyone complaining that their music, architecture, clothing, stories etc. are vastly different from ours (and would scathingly attack anyone who did). All I'm seeing is people finding it bloody unethical to beat up your wife however skillful you might be at it, and whatever petty religion or culture you might push in front of you as justification. And I see no wrong in that.
Cultural relativism can only go so far. And are you even sure that this ruling is of the people living there, or is it some government appointed religious judge oppressing them?
EDIT: There are certainly plenty of explanations - sociological, psychological, historical, geographical etc. - of why religious and secular aspects of their culture(s) has fallen beneath these standards, but these are just that; explanations, not excuses. Everyone of mental maturity is of course 100 % responsible for their views and deeds, having knowingly and willingly chosen to adhear to them, and continuously choosing to do so every single day. And none are exempt from ethical - and legal - evaluation, whatever their cultural group might be. As they judge, so are they judged; Both in regard to an objectivized and legalistic international minimum standard of human rights and decency, and by the subjective - which does not equal worthless by default - criteria on how (not) to treat women in all cultures different from theirs, including "ours".
In this case, they fall short of either. Why should we not judge - and act - upon even our subjective views on their culture, when clearly that is the (likewise subjective) standard they have set for how humans - innocent ones even - can be treated in their culture (i.e. a tit-for-tat tactic)? And even more pressing (and less strict), why should we not judge and act upon the objectivized human rights standard???
You know, the only thing I wanna know is whether the woman is allowed to hit back. Or hit first, if the husband misbehaves.
If the answer to those questions is yes, then apparently they just like smacking each other around and if that's the case then I'm seriously not judging.
If the answer is no, then I'm sorry but no culture or tradition can override the fact that women are not inferior to men and that they are not subordinate by default. I don't give a shit if it `doesn't leave a mark`. There's this little thing called human dignity too, you know.
If the answer to those questions is yes, then apparently they just like smacking each other around and if that's the case then I'm seriously not judging.
If the answer is no, then I'm sorry but no culture or tradition can override the fact that women are not inferior to men and that they are not subordinate by default. I don't give a shit if it `doesn't leave a mark`. There's this little thing called human dignity too, you know.
Because kids are not human beings and do not deserve the same rights as adults, right?! RIGHT?!deadman91 said:
OT: I can't say I'm surprised.
Damn right they don't! Fucking kids screaming an' yelling "Tom! Tom! I'm drowning!" I'm breathing and you don't hear me screaming about it. Need a good thrashing, the lot of them.AndyFromMonday said:
On a more serious note, this is a very contentious issue you raise and not one that I really feel like arguing in depth within this particular discussion. So I won't. I will however make mention that from a political, legal and cultural point of view children are indeed within their own particular area and as such are subject to a different set of rights to the adult (and even adolescent) population. Ultimately it is a matter of personal opinion whether you feel violence is an acceptable disciplinary tool. I say yes, but place limitations on the cause and severity, but hey that's just me.
I will leave you with this question: Have there been no screaming 8-12 year olds on Xbox live or PSN or whatever you play on whose parents you wished gave them a good hiding more often?