Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Il vuoto morale del multiculturalismo ( Come i mussulmani possono battere le mogli in Australia)

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/008795.php
November 01, 2005
Spencer: Open Season on Muslim Women
In FrontPage this morning I discuss the implications of a new 
multiculturalist handbook in Australia that instructs police to be 
lenient with Muslims who beat their wives. (News links in the original.)
     Can wife-beating be justified under any circumstances? According to 
some in Australia, yes — if the couple is Muslim.
     The Australasian Police Multicultural Advisory Bureau has published 
and distributed 50,000 copies of an 82-page handbook for Australian 
police officers, directing them on how to deal with people from all the 
unfamiliar cultures that an Australian policeman may encounter. A Sikh, 
for example, may receive a three-day reprieve from arrest if the 
arresting officer happens upon him while he is reading his holy 
scriptures — a practice that takes fifty hours, and must not be 
interrupted. And Muslim husbands who beat their wives must be treated 
differently from other domestic violence cases, as a matter of cultural 
sensitivity: “In incidents such as domestic violence,” says the 
handbook, “police need to have an understanding of the traditions, ways 
of life and habits of Muslims.”
     This handbook has been issued, not surprisingly, in Australia’s 
Victoria state, where late last year two Christian pastors in Australia 
fell victim to new and treacherously elastic religious hatred laws. They 
were found guilty of vilification of Muslims for crimes such as quoting 
verses of the Qur’an that Victoria Muslims evidently preferred that 
non-Muslims not know about. The silencing of free speech was bad enough; 
now the distribution of the handbook made Joumanah El Matrah of the 
Islamic Women’s Welfare Council concerned that women would be 
endangered: “The implication,” she explained, “is one needs to be more 
tolerant of violence against Muslim women but they should be entitled to 
the same protection. Police should not be advising other officers to 
follow those sorts of protocols. It can only lead to harm.”
     Muslim husbands, of course, can point to Qur’an 4:34 to justifying 
wife-beating: “…good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen 
as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear 
desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places 
and beat them…” This sanction has become culturally ingrained: the 
Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences has determined that today over 
ninety percent of Pakistani wives have been struck, beaten, or abused 
sexually — for offenses on the order of cooking an unsatisfactory meal. 
Others were punished for failing to give birth to a male child.
     If Victoria police are to tolerate such behavior by Muslims on the 
grounds of multiculturalism, even though it contravenes Australian law, 
surely they must tolerate other behavior as well. After all, Islamic law 
also allows for polygamy. Western European governments already turn a 
blind eye to polygamous arrangements among Muslims, and the British have 
even considered legalizing polygamy for tax purposes. Will Victoria 
state allow it also? Will Victoria police turn a blind eye to thieves 
whose hands have been amputated in accord with Qur’an 5:38? That verse 
is clear: “As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. 
It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. 
Allah is Mighty, Wise.” Muhammad is equally clear that anyone who leaves 
Islam must be killed (cf. Bukhari, vol. 9, bk. 84, no. 57): will 
Victoria police hesitate or even decline to prosecute murder cases if 
the victim is an apostate from Islam?
     This backhanded endorsement of wife-beating in Australia has 
revealed in a harsh new light the bankruptcy of relativist 
multiculturalism. Is wife-beating intrinsically wrong? Evidently not in 
Victoria state. Indeed, it is doubtful that the learned members of the 
Australasian Police Multicultural Advisory Bureau think that moral 
categories have any relevance to the modern world. Yet if something that 
is endorsed by large numbers of people and ingrained in cultural habit 
cannot be condemned, then the Allies had no reason to oppose Nazi 
Germany or condemn Hitler. Murderous anti-Semitism? Well, yes, but you 
see, we need to have an understanding of the traditions, ways of life 
and habits of Nazis.
     All Muslim husbands are not wife-beaters, and it is condescending 
and irresponsible for the Australasian Police Multicultural Advisory 
Bureau to give those who are a free pass, instead of denouncing the 
practice unequivocally and calling upon Muslim men to heed the better 
angels of their nature. It is the same condescending irresponsibility 
that primly refuses to confront the elements of Islam that jihad 
terrorists use today to justify violence, for fear of offending moderate 
Muslims — thereby undercutting any chance sincere moderates may have had 
to speak out for reform within Islam. Why should they speak out if 
nothing needs reforming?
     But the folly of Victoria state runs deeper also: it reveals a 
gaping weakness in the West’s defense against the global jihad: this is, 
or threatens to become, not so much a clash of civilizations as a clash 
of barbarisms. One side contends for certain values that are, in a word, 
monstrous: the subjugation of women and non-Muslims, the stifling of 
freedom of conscience, and so on. But the other contends for no values 
at all, and opposes this great maelstrom with nothing more than a moral 
and intellectual vacuum in which no behavior, no matter how heinous, is 
beyond the pale.
     Which side will prevail in such a conflict? Well, nature abhors a 
vacuum. But it doesn’t have to be this way. It is the Judeo-Christian 
West that has given the world the great ideas of the equality of dignity 
and rights of all people, the freedom of conscience, the sanctity of the 
individual — all of which would be swept aside by the jihadists. Instead 
of sweeping it aside for them, as Victoria state seems determined to do, 
perhaps those who cherish these values will someday unite in their 
defense. But it is getting late, very late.
Posted by Robert at November 1, 2005 05:27 AM

in un'Europa che si vorrebbe sradicare dalle proprie radici accadra'
anche di peggio: il vero medioevo prossimo venturo. Molto piu' duro di
quello passato.
Il retaggio dell'Illuminismo si sta rivelando troppo debole; troppo
feroce da un lato e troppo remissivo con le culture "etniche"
dall'altro.


Oppure, come teme qualcuno, l'Europa sta solo cominciando a svegliarsi 
da un torpore durato altre mezzo secolo e si sta preparando una nuova 
guerra civile europea tra la popolazione locale e gli immigrati 
mussulmani e la popolazione e gli immigrati mussulmani.
Se le cose esplodono, cosa che spero non accada, ma temo proprio che 
accadrà dati i presupposti e la cecità della classe politica europea, ci 
saranno più vittime che durante la Seconda Guerra Mondiale.
I paesi più a rischio sono quelli del Nord Europa (Norvegia e Svezia) e 
quelli dell'Europa Centrale (Germania e Francia), con il Regno Unito a 
far loro compagnia.
Mirco

 schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:r2M9f.18088$65.5...@twister1.libero.it...


 Why should they speak out if nothing needs reforming?
Ma la follia dello Stato di Victoria è anche più profonda.
Rivela un varco nella difesa contro la jihad globale dell'Occidente.
Questa minaccia di diventare unoscontro non tra due civiltà, ma tra due 
barbarismi.
Uno che sostiene determinati valori e un'altro che non ne sostiene 
nessuno, dove non c'è nulla che possa essere condannato, per quanto odioso.
