By Charles Bloomer
Here's a story that clearly illustrates the danger of "multiculturalism" and "moral equivalency" – the nonsensical notions that all cultures are equal.
Here's the report from the Guardian (UK) paper:
So Judge Datz-Winter has determined that, even though you might live in a "civilized" country, if you are from a less civilized culture you are subject to less civilized rules.
The judge's decision is so outrageous it is difficult to know where to start in criticizing it. Let's start with racist. If this had been a white German woman married to a violent German man, the divorce would most likely have been granted. But since the woman in question was of Moroccan descent, the judge determined that the normal rules for whites don't apply. The judge clearly believes in apartheid, that a Moroccan woman is inferior to white German women.
The ruling was also grossly anti-woman. Does the judge hate her own sex? She must not have much sympathy for her "sisters" if she rules that beating a woman is acceptable. This attitude reduces German women to chattel based on nothing more than their sex and their foreign descent. I can't imagine any Western woman wanting this judge at a domestic abuse trial. So much for women's liberation.
Even worse is the damage a precedent such as this could do to Germany's legal system. Judge Datz-Winter has essentially overturned the traditional concept of sovereignty based on national borders and replaced it with the concept of jurisdiction based on ancestry or national origin. The idea is absurd to the point of being ridiculous. Ruling that a German woman of Moroccan descent is not protected by German law while subject to the laws and cultural norms of a foreign country negatively impacts every German who has any foreign ancestors.
Are Turkish immigrants and their children and grandchildren to be subject to Turkish law forever? Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe steals the land from rightful owners in his country. Will the courts allow other Germans to steal land from Zimbabwean immigrants or their descendents? What about Darfur? Can immigrants from Sudan be enslaved or slaughtered? After all, that's what they do in Sudan to each other. What about Saudi women living in Germany – can they be stoned for adultery? What about other points of German civil law? Islam permits a man to have four wives. Will Muslim men in Germany now quote the Qur'an to justify polygamy?
At what point in the family tree does one become German enough to be privileged to be covered by German Law? Two generations? Three? Maybe never?
Using the moral equivalency concept with the Liberal ideal of multiculturalism destroys the foundation of fairness and equality upon which Western law is built. Applying foreign jurisdiction based on national or ancestral origin creates an unfair, two-tiered legal system that is unjust, inherently racist and sexist, and turns the subjects into second-class citizens (or worse).
Despite the rantings of insistent Liberals, all cultures are not equal. Western culture may not be perfect, but the ideals it espouses are far superior to many of the uncivilized patriarchal, misogynistic cultures that still exist in the world today. Stooping to the level of uncivilized societies is not progress – it is institutionalized tyranny. Raising those uncivilized cultures by lending them legitimacy through Western courts is a large step in the direction of gross injustice.
If you want to see where this kind of wooly-headed multicultural nonsense leads, I recommend reading Londonistan by Melanie Phillips.