German Judges : women can be beaten - if they're Muslim.

[Az]

You're a racist for posting this.

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III


Anyway, the case, of course, was a tad different from how it is colportated through the media.

The judge did order that the woman be given a new apartment and that her still-husband was ordered to stay away from her.
German law (and not Quran) does not allow quick divorce: you have to disrupt your marriage for over a year. A quick divorce, so the judge, would not have resulted in a better situation for the woman (judging that her legal measures were enough to protect her). So, the main stupidity of the judge was to even mention Quran - bis mistake, really.

But yes, German justice is far too ready to take into consideration cultural differences as an excuse...

Thanks for that info on German law, as it's just about exactly what I was about to post a request for. If "undue hardship" is the test for whether to grant a quick divorce, it's perfectly rational to consider the parties' culture, since the test is subjective. I don't know how German courts consider precedent, but even in a common law system, this wouldn't establish any precedent regarding what constituted undue hardship for a non-Muslim (except that this other woman's culture could also be considered).

Granted, this cultural consideration has its own pitfalls, such as judicial misunderstanding of non-dominant cultures, but it's hardly an abandonment of women's rights or the rule of law in favor of multiculturalism.

[Arrian]

It seems rather obvious to me that "multiculturalism," like anything else, can be taken too far.

-Arrian

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Solomwi

Thanks for that info on German law, as it's just about exactly what I was about to post a request for. If "undue hardship" is the test for whether to grant a quick divorce, it's perfectly rational to consider the parties' culture, since the test is subjective. I don't know how German courts consider precedent, but even in a common law system, this wouldn't establish any precedent regarding what constituted undue hardship for a non-Muslim (except that this other woman's culture could also be considered).

Granted, this cultural consideration has its own pitfalls, such as judicial misunderstanding of non-dominant cultures, but it's hardly an abandonment of women's rights or the rule of law in favor of multiculturalism.

Erm, so are you saying that it's fine for Muslims to beat the crap out of their women, on cultural consideration grounds? A bit of a pitfall, but basically OK.

[Solomwi]

No, that's a common trap you're falling into. I'm saying if the test for a quick divorce is subjective "undue hardship," it's all right to consider how the parties' culture views beating women when determining whether that constitutes an undue hardship. I would still hold that the husband could be convicted under any applicable criminal statute, or, generally speaking, held liable in tort for battery (NB: applying American tort law to this situation, as I have no knowledge of German tort law). Those positions aren't mutually exclusive, because the elements of the criminal/tort laws are objective.

In other words, if the criminal law, for instance, only requires forceful touching and intent, it doesn't matter whether the man comes from a culture that grants him the right to beat his wife. What matters is that he has satisfied the necessary elements. The question in the case of divorce seems not to be whether a behavior is, in itself, okay (cultural considerations included), but whether it presents cause to deviate from the standard divorce procedure, based on unreasonable hardship.

That said, there are several factors I would consider that aren't mentioned in the article. If she got married in Germany, I'd argue that the hardship put upon her is much less reasonable than if she were married in a jurisdiction that relied on Islamic law, because the presumption would be that she got married expecting the full protection of German law. That presumption couldn't exist if she got married elsewhere, then later moved to Germany.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Arrian
It seems rather obvious to me that "multiculturalism," like anything else, can be taken too far.

-Arrian

It gets taken too far quite often.

Self-authorship

Identity-mongering

[Spiffor]

I distinctly remember from the previous thread that the Muslim associations in Germany were outraged by the ruling, and said that Shariah had nothing to do in German courts.

BTW, this statement is horribly dishonest:

Do you believe in the rights of women, or do you believe in multiculturalism? A series of verdicts in the German courts in the past month, have shown with hot, hard logic that you can't back both.

I could as well say: "Do you believe in life, or do you believe in automobiles? A series of car accidents in the past month, have shown with hot, hard logic that you can't back both"

"Do you support children, or puppies? A series of puppy-kickings in the past month have shown with hot, hard logic that you can't back both".

That could be a fun idea for a thread actually

[Last Conformist]

puppies

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I distinctly remember from the previous thread that the Muslim associations in Germany were outraged by the ruling, and said that Shariah had nothing to do in German courts.

BTW, this statement is horribly dishonest:

Do you believe in the rights of women, or do you believe in multiculturalism? A series of verdicts in the German courts in the past month, have shown with hot, hard logic that you can't back both.

I could as well say: "Do you believe in life, or do you believe in automobiles? A series of car accidents in the past month, have shown with hot, hard logic that you can't back both"

"Do you support children, or puppies? A series of puppy-kickings in the past month have shown with hot, hard logic that you can't back both".

That could be a fun idea for a thread actually

Comparing those statements with the quoted one is horribly dishonest.

[RGBVideo]

Intellectual dishonesty and ignoring their problems are the only counters defenders of "multiculturalism" have. I am surprised die Thoughtpolizei (aka European federal authorities) hasn't solved the problem in the same way they solved the terrorist problem: removing the indication that muslims are allowed to beat their wives from lexicon and making it racist to report it.

Then again, they don't really have to since no paper dares to talk about this case in Finland. It would be a provocation to different cultures, remember?

There's really not much to say because the situation is so depressing. Europe has been hitting itself with a blunt axe for a long time now, and nothing seems to change until it's already too late.

Combat Ingrid Vill du flytta till Finland med din make? We could use more voters which can see through this BS and have the courage to face reality.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Whoha
Comparing those statements with the quoted one is horribly dishonest.

No. In any case, that's "throwing the baby with the bathwater": the author thinks of mutliculturalism as complete garbage because of those cases where it went wrong.

If those German cases teach us something, it's that multiculturalism can indeed go wrong if pushed to the extreme, beyond the reasonable. Like pretty much any idea if I may add. Germans and other multiculturalists should watch themselves about not going too far, and the latest case served as a reminder for that.
However, this article definitely doesn't teach us that multiculturalism and women's rights are inherently mutually exclusive. Just like life and cars aren't mutually exclusive, despite car accidents.

Edit: xpost

[Datajack Franit]

Gay Poles

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit
Gay Poles

[Datajack Franit]

Oh sorry.

"Homoerotic" Poles

[-Jrabbit]

Are the German courts afraid of making their country a target for extremists? What pussies!

It's like saying that any quasi-random claimed religious belief grants immunity from the laws of the land.