Women’s interests vs justice
FYI, an article and my response:
Germany and its Muslims
Soft on suffering
Mar 29th 2007 | FRANKFURT
From The Economist print edition
The adverse consequences of judicial appeasement
AP
INDIGNATION greeted the news of a (female) judge’s decision to deny a
Moroccan woman a quick divorce on the ground that the Koran allows
husbands to beat their wives. The judge, who was removed from the
case, seemed to imply that the woman, who got married in Morocco,
should take beatings as part of the deal. The tale has aroused fears
that the German judicial system may go too far to accommodate
immigrants.
Legal experts were quick to point out the sovereignty of German law
over any other in Germany. But with 3.3m Muslims, of whom 2.2m are
Turkish, striking a balance is not easy. Consider “honour killings”,
in which the victims are usually young women who have refused an
arranged marriage or strayed outside one, and the killers often the
husband or brother. There were 48 cases between 1996 and 2004, says
the Federal Crime Office. But data on trials have not been
collected–and a few cases suggest that the punishment can be light.
For example, three brothers of Hatun Surucu, a Kurdish Turk who
rebelled to become a single mother, were tried last year for shooting
her dead in Berlin in February 2005. The youngest was jailed for just
nine years and three months; the other two walked free for lack of
evidence. In a poll after the trial 65% of respondents said the whole
family should be returned to Turkey.
In another case last November a judge in North Rhine-Westphalia
acquitted a man accused of killing his brother’s former girlfriend,
despite strong signs that it was an honour killing. Only in Denmark
has an entire family been punished for an honour killing. German
courts err on the side of caution, partly because of Nazi history. “No
public servant wants to be accused of racism, but women suffer as a
result,” says Myria Böhmecke at Terre des Femmes, a women’s rights
group.
The real trouble lies in failure to integrate Muslim immigrants, and
to improve education and the lot of women. The first generation of
Turkish Gastarbeiter in the 1960s was expected to go home, but many
stayed. Even now only 19% of those of Turkish origin have taken German
nationality. Many of the young are alienated at school and home alike.
Unofficial figures this week showed an increase of 8% in right-wing
acts of racial violence in 2006. That figure may keep rising if judges
are seen to be too soft on unacceptable practices by Muslims.
My Response:
This article is unconvincing regarding its central argument. The
examples given don’t support the claim that Muslims are
being treated softly in Germany. One brother was jailed for “just” 9 years 3 months;
that seems light for murder but perhaps he played a minor role in the
events. The remaining examples involved accused being acquitted or “walking
free” (a pejorative implication) due to lack of evidence. That has nothing to do with going soft
on Muslims but does suggest that they are being given the same rights
as anyone else to be treated as innocent unless proven guilty beyond
reasonable doubt.
However, what the article does point to is the racism existing in the German population
the majority of whom wanted a whole family to be
deported when only one brother was found guilty of wrongdoing, and who
are increasingly subjecting innocent Muslim immigrants to violence for
no other reason than their religion or race. The article seems to
arise out of and to further encourage the same racism.
Another phenomenon highlighted by the article is the tendency for feminists
to view women’s interests as more important than any other ethic.
When Muslim men are acquitted after fair trials this is
seen as making women suffer. Do they want more changes to legal
process to make male or Muslim convictions easier to obtain on the basis of the same
(inadequate) evidence? Although this will result in fewer truly
guilty defendants being acquitted there will also be a
proportional increase in the number of truly innocent people
being found guilty, i.e. in wrongful convictions. For feminists, principles of fair justice
are then subservient to women’s “rights”. As pointed out by Lynley
Hood in her expose of the Peter Ellis debacle, in our own justice system over the last few decades
we have seen progressive removal of protections against wrongful conviction
of the innocent, but mainly for crimes thought to be committed more by
males against females. This was epitomized in the recent Nicholas case where an accused was
acquitted on the evidence but feminist groups insisted that
longstanding legal protections for the accused should have been
discarded in order to facilitate a conviction. Meanwhile, feminist
supporters in the media and elsewhere subjected the acquitted man
to various forms of mob justice regardless of
due process. Our family law system is now rotten with similar injustice in
service of women’s rights. Protection orders subject men to removal of
various civil rights on the basis of nothing but a woman’s
accusations. Even when those usually unevidenced accusations contain nothing about
the man’s behaviour towards the children, the men are routinely
separated from their children and are automatically sentenced to a form of periodic detention through
enforced attendance at regular feminist indoctrination sessions.
The article did however bring out at least one valid point: if we tolerate
ongoing injustice in our society the result is likely to be violent
backlash.
Hans
Hans,
You are quite right to note that there is pressure from feminist-inspired groups and individuals to relax the standards of justice when the accused is male, and even more so when the accuser is female. Peter Ellis was probably the first high-profile case to demonstrate this – his co-accused were all female and were relieved of any court appearance. Now it’s the police themselves who are caught up in another hysterical (and media-driven) frenzy of accusation and “to hell with the evidence”. Fortunately for them, Nicola May made an appearance with her rape allegation, taking some of the momentum out of the current campaign against due process.
What’s not so clear to me is the actual cause of this trend. It’s tempting to ascribe it to certain powerful and ambitious individuals, but it’s also possible that these developments are being brought about by a broad concensus of people who don’t actually consider themselves to be agents of change, but merely acting in accordance with the societal values of the day. Where are they getting these values from? A media that is dependent on advertising revenue, and is therefore going to play to the fancies of those consumers with the most spending power. We often hear that women don’t earn as much as men, but we all know they control the spending of far more than 50% – I would not be surprised if the figure exceeded 80%.
At a personal level, I have noticed that I find public broadcasting (as shown on Triangle Television) to be freer of anti-male slant, and that the internet is the only place I can find pro-male content – both sources are free of advertiser interests.
If I am right, then the law is only reflecting the views of people at large, and is not the most effective point of attack. It is either advertising media or men’s poor consumer power that needs to be attacked. The former is probably more likely to meet with success.
Comment by Rob Case — Tue 15th May 2007 @ 2:05 pm
Rob,
Would you mind doing a post on media and anti male. I have been in converstaion with a woman from Brazil on this subject but I don’t see it.
Sorry, but it may be the way I view things. I would like to be challenged on this subject. I don’t get it. I am so pro “Bro town” for speaking up the truth that I seem to not know the difference between free speech and discrimination.
Hans,
My computer isn’t working so well so I am not adding info of sites to your posts. On your last one about the Muslim women I wanted to add a stuff.co.nz story but they don’t have it anymore. It stated one of the doctors that do these operations saying Government funding pays for many operations because rape and trauma are accepted and that 99% of the claims are false.
But on this post;
The feminists are now receiving funding at University level from the Muslim groups. So now they are promoting the Muslim women as feminists. They say that it is a woman’s choice thus pro feminist and so they are backing the Muslims.
Go figure. All they care about is money.
Comment by julie — Tue 15th May 2007 @ 4:43 pm
Julie,
Not quite sure what you’re not getting.
Is it my connecting of anti-male slant to advertising, or my claim that there is an anti-male slant?
Comment by Rob Case — Tue 15th May 2007 @ 4:59 pm
Rob,
I guess I have the point of view as a lawyer does. You use the word ‘slant’
Hmmm. In the dictionary (this is what judges use as the first step to work out a law) slant means ‘a point of view’ I don’t seem to have the same point of view on our commercials.
If I was to remember advertising off my head I would say I like the commerical where the father gets a cheuqe from a friend while at the hospital looking at his baby just born who says, “here, you are going to need this for the baby”
But the male goes down to a retail shop like placemakers but not placemakers and buys a heap of tools.
That is (really) funny to me. I laugh at that because I can see a man doing that. Because it is on the sly.
It’s like I expect a man to care about the tools without his wife knowing. I don’t know many women who care about tools. But they are neccessary. It is a man thing. IMO.
But i do know that men pay for alot of baby furniture and baby clothing.
I don’t think many women in NZ would not know that men will pay for things that are needed for the children.
Comment by julie — Tue 15th May 2007 @ 5:38 pm
Rob,
Gosh. I could have just answered
Your idea that there is anti male slant.
Comment by julie — Tue 15th May 2007 @ 5:45 pm
The anti-male slant is evident in TV commercials, such as the one you quote. There are quite a few others where couples are portrayed, the man being a bit of a fool and the woman being smart and capable. The first two that come to mind are one where a young woman shows off her new car to a older silly male neighbour, duping him into thinking the car responds to voice commands. Another shows a male shopper with his child at a supermarket, buying frivolous things, only to be reproved by his more sensible wife. I would let these things pass as harmless send-ups if there were similar commercials where women were stereotyped as foolish or dim-witted, but that is very rare indeed. The only one I can think of is a beer ad, where a female guard is lured away by a pair of new shoes. But this is consistent with my point – beer ads are aimed at male consumers, so the slant is anti-female.
It’s not just in commercials that men are routinely portrayed as idiotic – in other genres they are also violent and of little value. American comedy is particularly fond of the idiot husband/capable wife archetype. American hosted chat shows (Oprah, Dr Phil) regularly denounce men as irreponsible, unreliable and inattentive to their more deserving wives. In feature length movies, large numbers of men are predictably killed in all manner of hideous ways, without any pause for consideration. In the few times that females die, it is more peaceful and of emotional significance.
The worst offender has to be the news. Nearly every night there is a story about a female victim and a male offender. There is an awful lot of news to choose from, but these same themes keep appearing. Women’s health issues are a common favorite, and incompetent male doctors involved in women’s health scandals are eagerly reported on – one could easily form the view that women doctors are by nature more able. Then of course there are men’s issues which never make it into the public dialogue, but I think I’ve gone on enough.
Comment by Rob Case — Tue 15th May 2007 @ 6:47 pm
Oh, yes. I see what you mean Rob.
I had a whole piece of comment written to you but I decided to not post it. I liked ‘Kill Bill’ because I happen to love Quintin Tarantino. LOL Good movies are hard to come by these days. LOL Have you seen ‘Hostage’ Not as good but not bad.
Males deserve the same as females. I am lucky to see the the days I do, that’s for sure.
Comment by julie — Tue 15th May 2007 @ 8:10 pm
Looks as if other MRAs are giving deeper thought to the connection between female privilege and consumerism.
This comment on the Men’s Rights Network.
Comment by Rob Case — Mon 21st May 2007 @ 2:00 pm