MixTogether slams approach to HBV


by Rumbold
23rd September, 2009 at 9:16 pm    

MixTogether, writing at Harry’s Place, is arguing that the government and NGOs aren’t doing enough to condemn communities where ‘honour’-based violence (HBV) is prevalent, and that simply introducing more initiatives and laws won’t solve the problems:

“This is a welcome initiative, but it gets no closer to tackling the real root of the problem. It is just the latest round in the bizarre game of charades the government is playing with regard to ‘honour’ crimes…

Why do Nazir Afzal and other senior figures not have the courage to say publicly to the known problem communities that their behaviour in these matters is wrong, and does not accord with the letter or the spirit of British law? Rather than attempt to educate and improve the lives of young people in these communities, this government prefers to wait until matters have got so bad that they cross into criminality and then prosecute families, as if we need further strain on the criminal justice system.

The NGOs who work most closely with victims of ‘honour’ crimes are also part of the problem. The funding they receive is based on their caseload, which means they have little incentive to try and fight the root causes of these crimes. Over the last decade they have done a fantastic job of telling the government, the police and senior judges what they are doing wrong in relation to ‘honour’ crimes, but you will seldom hear them castigating the communities where these problems actually originate.”

I agree with aspects of his critique. I certainly don’t think that new laws and more initiatives are the solution to any problem (though they can play a part), especially one as deep rooted as this. There also have been alarming incidences of cultural relativism (i.e. when immoral actions are excused by reference to culture) when dealing with HBV, most notoriously in the Banaz Mahmood case. I know MixTogether to be a principled campaigner against such abuses, and consider him a friend.

Yet I feel he is too harsh on some. People like Nazir Afzal have long campaigned against the scourge of HBV, and have been more then willing to criticise particular communities, such as when he said:

“It’s [HBV] about people clinging to outdated customs to give them identity. There is no religious justification for this. There is nothing in any Koranic texts or any south Asian religion that justifies or excuses this type of crime.

“They will use religion, they will use culture, they will use ‘this is the way things happen back home’, they will use a number of excuses but ultimately it comes down to simple male power.”

NGOs are in a difficult position as well. While many do condemn such practices in said communities, they need to avoid isolating themselves from the ‘community’, as it would stop them from helping those most in need. As Shaminder Ubhi, the director of a woman’s refuge, pointed out:

“What we find is perhaps interventions from people outside of the community are not that well received because sometimes it can be seen as intrusive… I think it is easier for us to go into the communities and speak to them as a local Asian woman’s group.”

(Quoted in J. Brandon and S. Hafez, Crimes of the Community, p. 126)

The most important thing is to condemn practises within certain communities, without it turning into a blanket condemnation of the communities. One of the problems with HBV is that it is a community problem, that is to say it happens in part because of the belief that the perpetrators need to ‘maintain face’ and ‘cleanse’ the family ‘honour’. This doesn’t really apply to any other crime in the same way.

I do think that the younger members of these communities represent the best chance of progress. While some still believe that their female relatives shouldn’t be dating/marrying the ‘wrong’ sort of men, no British Asian in their twenties or thirties that I know (with one exception) is as conservative as their parents in these matters. People do get more conservative as they age, but I really do believe that attitudes of the younger generation, or at least the ones born in this country, are becoming more liberal.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: 'Honour'-based violence






80 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. pickles

    New blog post: MixTogether slams approach to HBV http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5986


  2. Roopa Gownder

    RT @sunny_hundal: MixTogether slams approach to HBV http://t.co/h6csBm4




  1. sonia — on 23rd September, 2009 at 10:45 pm  

    “The most important thing is to condemn practises within certain communities, without it turning into a blanket condemnation of the communities.”

    well said Rumbold. Good piece

  2. MixTogether — on 23rd September, 2009 at 11:34 pm  

    Well put Rumbold.

    It is true that some campaigners including Nazir Afsal (who I think is a fantastic bloke) have spoken up, but their message is never loud and clear. The messages of condemnation get as far as the papers or TV, but they are never fed back into the community and amplified.

    It baffles me that ACPO and the CPS are going to all this trouble and expense, without first articulating what they DO want from these communities. The message is being delivered in a roundabout and negative way, through the use of threats.

    Shaminder Ubhi works for Ashiana in London. Their organisation was instrumental in opposing the move to create a specific criminal offence of forced marriage. They opposed it because they believed it would lead to unfair stigmatisation of certain communities (NB Jasvinder Sanghera and Karma Nirvana were fully in support of a new criminal offence).

    That one issue says a lot to me about the priorities of many of the workers in the field.

    They seem to want the British justice system to jump though hoops to provide culturally-sensitive services, but only after criminal activity has taken place. They do not seem nearly as interested in attacking the root causes of these problems, which lie in the communities themselves.

  3. persephone — on 24th September, 2009 at 12:05 am  

    “unfair stigmatisation of certain communities”

    But the statistics show it to be centred around certain community groups & the perception is also there.

    It is ironic that the reason why HDV occers is due to the avoidance of stigma and that stigma is also used as a defence shield. Surely using stigma to groups who fear it the most is why it is used.

    Lets face it committing any crime brings with it stigma but that should not be the reason to avoid using it

  4. persephone — on 24th September, 2009 at 12:22 am  

    “ They seem to want the British justice system to jump though hoops to provide culturally-sensitive services, but only after criminal activity has taken place. They do not seem nearly as interested in attacking the root causes of these problems, which lie in the communities themselves. “

    But if we were to wait for cultural change to be led by the very community at fault (which could take a generation), it would mean continued risk & death to the victims. The criminal charges may save lives in the short term. By all means other ways of changing community behaviour should be happening in tandem – though I cannot see a burning platform to do so yet.

    I do not see Jasvinder Sanghera/Karma Nirvana actually saying the criminal method is used in absence of other things. From reading Jasvinders book on her own life, even many years after her sister committed suicide (she was married to a violent man) & violence in Jasvinders relationships, her family did not shift their cultural outlook.

    Seeing that she has experienced the outcomes of HBV in her life and through the 100′s of women who come to her for help I can understand why she is pushing for this.

  5. persephone — on 24th September, 2009 at 12:24 am  

    text correction @ 3 : should read HBV occurs

  6. MixTogether — on 24th September, 2009 at 12:49 am  

    Persephone @ 4- spot on re JS’s motivations. She is the least ideologically driven of all the campaigners, because she sees that practical and immediate solutions are needed, not liberal hand-wringing.

    In this sense she is similar to Sayeeda Warsi, who with any luck we will be hearing much more from come next May.

  7. Sunny — on 24th September, 2009 at 6:00 am  

    The NGOs who work most closely with victims of ‘honour’ crimes are also part of the problem.

    Which NGOs are you referring to? Because all the ones I know bloody hate this kind of crap.

    It’s not very surprising your pot-shot at at NGOs working with these women because you think they’re not doing their job properly… without actually doing much of the work they’re doing.

    So… let’s have the names of some NGOs.

  8. persephone — on 24th September, 2009 at 9:02 am  

    “ the government and NGOs aren’t doing enough to condemn communities where ‘honour’-based violence (HBV) is prevalent”

    Why are we giving criminals the importance, collective position, humanity and justification by calling them a community?

    When the very definition of community is a body of people having common rights, privileges, possessions, enjoyment or interests, or living in the same place under the same laws and regulations.

    If any condemnation is required it is the use of the word community. They should be positioned and isolated as the deviants who are outside of our community of humanity. Which is the same tactic they employ with their victims.

  9. Reza — on 24th September, 2009 at 10:23 am  

    “There also have been alarming incidences of cultural relativism (i.e. when immoral actions are excused by reference to culture) when dealing with HBV…”

    You’ve hit the nail on the head there.

    “The most important thing is to condemn practises within certain communities, without it turning into a blanket condemnation of the communities.”

    But you completely miss the nail here. We do need a “blanket condemnation” of the cultural practices and values of specific communities. We need much less ‘tolerance’.

    After all, let’s not kid ourselves here. There is no culture of ‘honour’ crimes among the indigenous British population. Nor among the Jewish and various European communities living here. And I’m not aware of these crimes occurring among the Caribbean community.

    They are exclusively an African, Middle Eastern and South Asian phenomena. They feature mainly among Muslim communities and also, to a lesser extent, among Sikhs and Hindus.

    And why can’t we just accept that the root cause of ‘honour’ crimes is the cultural practice of ‘arranged’ marriages; where children are expected to marry within their own community and often, more horrifyingly, within their own family or to a stranger-in-need-of-a-British-Passport, back in their ancestoral village.

    There is a very fine line between an ‘arranged’ marriage and a ‘forced’ marriage. After all, a ‘forced’ marriage is only an ‘arranged’ marriage which the participant has been willing to risk refusing.

    This alien, third-world, cultural practice has no place in Europe. It must be stigmatized at every level. Schools must teach that in Britain, people marry whom they choose to marry. And that no-one has the right to say otherwise. And we must have urgent laws to prevent all international arranged marriages.

    Otherwise girls will continue to get pressured or forced into unwanted marriages and suffer the rape, violence and murder which accompanies this very un-British mindset.

    Sometimes, multiculturalism really does stink.

  10. Rumbold — on 24th September, 2009 at 10:26 am  

    Thanks Sonia.

    MixTogether:

    I agree that more needs to be done to tackle the root causes of HBV. I was initially in favour of a specific criminal offence of forced marriage, and then I read that nearly all the girls who reported such cases didn’t want their parents prosecuted- they simply wanted to escape the marriage. If forced marriage had been criminalised then some of these girls would not have reported it, which would have made the law a bad one, since it is designed to reduce forced marriages.

    What I am trying to say is that we need to make sure to separate condemnation of practices from condemnation the communities. When talking about racism against minorities for example, we condemn those who are racist, and try and get them to change their attitudes/behaviour, but we don’t issue a blanket condemnation.

    As for the NGOs, most of them are trying to balance out their disgust with such practices with the need to remain an acceptable presence in the ‘community’. It’s like aid organisations working in vicious dictatorships. You avoid criticising the regime too much because your primary goal is to help people.

    Persephone:

    I think that using ‘community’ in this sense, as with ‘honour’, is useful because it gets across the nature of HBV, which is very much a collective crime, in that a person is hurt/killed in such a way that everyone knows about it.

  11. Rumbold — on 24th September, 2009 at 10:33 am  

    Reza:

    Well, there have been some instances of HBV in Italian and South American groups (though not in this country).

    You are saying the same thing as I am (I think), as we are both adamant that such practices need to be condemned absolutely and not excused at all. I am more than happy to point out that forced marriage/HBV is prevalent in certain communities. What I was cautioning against was the potential shift from ‘HBV is disgusting and communities need to stamp it out’ to ‘these communities are disgusting’.

  12. Reza — on 24th September, 2009 at 11:05 am  

    Rumbold:

    Your mentioning of HBV among Italians and South Americans is utterly disingenuous. Of course, theoretically, incidents of HBV could be carried out by anyone, anywhere. But they aren’t.

    As a cultural practice, it affects only specific ‘communities’. And we know, and those ‘communities’ know, who they are.

    The culture of HBV is far more insidious than simply damaging the victims.

    It effectively terrorize a whole ‘community’. Girls are fearful of what might happen to them if they date the wrong man or refuse to marry the stranger-in-need-of-a-British-Passport back in their ancestral village.

    “What I was cautioning against was the potential shift from ‘HBV is disgusting and communities need to stamp it out’ to ‘these communities are disgusting’.”

    Any “community” that tolerates HBV, (and many do) is “disgusting”. So let’s be brave and tell them they are.

    In Denmark, the government jailed a whole family that conspired and killed a girl. Every member of that family will be deported at the end of their sentence.

    THAT’S the message we need to be giving. Not ‘tolerance’. Not ‘sensitivity’. Not ‘understanding’. Not talking to ‘community leaders’.

    And we need to address the root cause of HBV. ‘Arranged’ marriage must be stigmatized.

    After all, what is more utterly racist than having a culture that promotes marriage only within a narrow ‘community’, or worse, the same family?

  13. Rumbold — on 24th September, 2009 at 11:15 am  

    Reza:

    “Your mentioning of HBV among Italians and South Americans is utterly disingenuous.”

    Not really. I was just pointing it out. The vast majority of HBV happens in South Asian and Middle Eastern groups.

    “The culture of HBV is far more insidious than simply damaging the victims.

    It effectively terrorize a whole ‘community’. Girls are fearful of what might happen to them if they date the wrong man or refuse to marry the stranger-in-need-of-a-British-Passport back in their ancestral village.”

    Agreed. That is why I have been campaigning against such practices for years.

    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/categories/cultural-relativism

    “Any “community” that tolerates HBV, (and many do) is “disgusting”. So let’s be brave and tell them they are.”

    Or rather, any individuals within said communties who tolerate HBV are disgusting. You might think I am splitting hairs, but I am not. If we don’t make this clear, there will simply be a knee jerk reaction against us. And the only way HBV is going to be stamped out is to change attitudes.

  14. cjcjc — on 24th September, 2009 at 11:22 am  

    This issue is one of several (eg anti-social behaviour) where the process seems to go:
    don’t judge – don’t judge – don’t judge – don’t judge – f*ck it, call the police, with nothing in between.

  15. Reza — on 24th September, 2009 at 11:30 am  

    Any community ‘community’ that strongly supports ‘arranged’ marriage to the extent that it opposes and stigmatizes ‘free’ marriage to people outside it’s cultural or ethnic ‘group’ has taken the first step towards condoning ‘forced’ marriage and HBV.

    We have a duty to name and shame that community. It is only right to ‘offend’ it.

    Because this is where fear causing offence leads:-

    “Some teachers have been reluctant to display information about forced marriages for fear of offending pupils’ cultural sensibilities.”

    http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storyCode=6020453

  16. Amrit — on 24th September, 2009 at 11:33 am  

    If any condemnation is required it is the use of the word community. They should be positioned and isolated as the deviants who are outside of our community of humanity. Which is the same tactic they employ with their victims.

    AMEN, Persephone!

    Although I agree that MT’s criticisms of NGOs are a bit harsh, they’ve reminded me of an important point. Rumbold’s response at #10 reminds us of the fact that we are dealing often (but not always) with dependent young women here.

    If you criminalise their parents, then what the hell are they going to do? Go into foster care? Great, that’ll improve their (already turbulent) lives no end! Reza’s Danish example sounds great and all, but that was after the girl had died. Furthermore, if the people doing this are British citizens, how exactly are you supposed to deport them just like that? I have to admit, I would be FINE with deporting such people, but yet again, it’s not really realistic. In some HBV cases, female relatives such as mothers and sisters want to stop it from happening and may be under threat of violence themselves. In such a situation, it would be abhorrent to just deport those people as well.

    One thing that maybe needs to be addressed more, is of how to help these girls AFTER they’ve escaped a marriage. Some of them will never be able to go home, others will turn a misplaced sense of guilt on themselves at the outcome. ‘Oh, why did I have to be different, why couldn’t I have put up with it?’ A lot of them are in denial about the gap between their parents and their values, only being able to cope with seeing the forced marriage attempt as a ‘blip’ in normal life, rather than the climax of fundamentalism that it is.

    People need to remember that the climate in which HBV occurs, is frequently very like the climate in which DV occurs. Except that it’s your parents and/or family and certain ‘community members’ or ‘leaders’ who collectively play the role of the abusive partner. Also, rather than being directly told you are worthless, you are subtly shown that women generally are worth less, than men. Showing is of course, more effective than telling. That order of the world becomes ‘normal’ to you.

    I would say that that is why it is so hard to deprogramme and rehabilitate young ethnic minority women who’ve grown up with this kind of thing. It’s like when people say of DV victims: ‘Why doesn’t she just leave?’ Of course, she is at the highest risk of death when that occurs, and again this pattern is paralleled in HBV; when children are feared to be ‘escaping,’ that’s when you murder them! As with Banaz Mahmood and Surjit Athwal. As we make it easier to leave (not very easy to do!), preventing this crime will get easier.

  17. bananabrain — on 24th September, 2009 at 11:35 am  

    After all, what is more utterly racist than having a culture that promotes marriage only within a narrow ‘community’

    oh, great, so now judaism is racist as well. this is the sort of reductionist thinking that lumps perfectly reasonable, integrated communities (of which we are one) in with unreconstructed, hidebound peasants (which we are not entirely without) in a “they’re all as bad as each other” kind of way. this is the sort of thinking that penalised everybody religious in france for the extremism of a few.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  18. Paul — on 24th September, 2009 at 11:53 am  

    No-one in western Europe who complains loudly about ‘honour killings’ has any interest in the victims. Their sole intent is to justify their own xenophobia, by appealing to a false sense of moral superiority. All complaints about community-specific crimes and practices, such as honour killings, female circumcision, recruitment of white girls into prostitution, arranged marriages, ritual slaughter, and so on, are solely intended to target immigrant minorities, and to falsely depict them as barbaric and evil.

    That’s why people like ‘Rumbold’ and Sunny Hundal, despite their well-mannered liberal style, find themselves in the company of abject racists. Google site:stormfront.org “honour killings” and you’ll see what I mean.

    What to do about this all? First, state, media, and society must recognise that millions of people, including middle-class liberals, reject the presence of immigrant minorities, and reject their culture. Secondly, recognise that integration of immigrant minorities is impossible in this climate. And third, formulate policy on that basis.

    A referendum on Islam would be an appropriate state response, to the widespread abhorrence of honour killings. Since most of those who complain about honour killings attribute them directly of indirectly to Islam, a ban on Islam is the ultimate logic of their position. Therefore they should be offered the chance to determine the issue in a free and democratic way. That will also give them the opportunity to re-formulate their position, if the majority reject a ban on Islam.

    The obsessive political correctness on these issues is harming immigrant minorities. The simple truth is, that people who say things like “honour killings are unacceptable and oppress women” really mean “Pakis Out!” (or Ausländer Raus! or Holland Blank! or Eigen Volk Eerst!). These issues ought to be out in the open, and making Islam prohibition and mass deportations into everyday political issues is the consequence of that openness. A continual stream of xenophobic harassment, coupled with evasion of these underlying issues, will be worse for minorities in the long run.

  19. chairwoman — on 24th September, 2009 at 12:02 pm  

    Can we all start by removing the word ‘Honour’ from this syndrome.

    Thank you.

  20. Galloise Blonde — on 24th September, 2009 at 12:33 pm  

    NGO’s are in a difficult position: it’s not just, as Rumbold says, they wish to maintain some sort of diplomatic ties with the community, it’s (mainly, for us) the dire situation of funding. For example, we’ve been holding annual seminars on FM and HBV in Kurdish and Farsi, some of which have been covered by media in Kurdish, Farsi and Turkish. These events and the coverage they get is obviously an essential part of changing mentalities and consolidating the majority’s opposition to HBV. Funding these has been a nightmare — funding more ambitious community outreach schemes (which we do try) has so far proved impossible.

    We have a bare handful of paid staff, most of whom are on short-term, part-time contracts. The funding we do get is not based on caseload, and I don’t know if other organisations are funded this way because for sure we are not. With over 900 clients in 07-08 (with issues such as DV, FM and HBV) we’d be a lot better off than we are now if this were the case! In fact, as many of our clients have ‘no recourse’ they in fact require a high level of resources from us. If it appears that NGOs like ourselves are firefighting, and only dealing with cases when they become critical, that’s because saving lives and providing advocacy must be a priority when resources are limited and people are at risk. That doesn’t mean that it’s our only priority, but with the only available funding and resources being short-term and ringed around with rules and exceptions we can’t do as we’d wish and create a forward-looking, preventative strategy to go alongside protection measures but we are just unable to do that.

    To criticise NGOs without taking the funding situation into account is unfair.

  21. persephone — on 24th September, 2009 at 12:34 pm  

    Rumbold

    “I think that using ‘community’ in this sense, as with ‘honour’, is useful because it gets across the nature of HBV, which is very much a collective crime “

    I can see where you are coming from as those outside of the Izzat (honour) scam were unaware of it all.

    Unfortunately community has come to be largely defined along race/skin colour/culture/religious grounds. This includes me and tars many others with the same brush. Groups like the BNP then use this misconception for their own ends.

    And I am not of that limited, separatist definition of community. I want to reclaim the use of the word community to be a common set of humane values, rights and regulations/laws to forcibly endorse those who operate outside of accepted behaviour. I agree with Chairwoman in that the word honour should also be reclaimed as otherwise we are using the same language as the perpetrators.

    HBV is actually a breakdown of what a community/ religous group is meant to be all about. It is in fact a dysfunctional community or dysfunctional families.

    “ in that a person is hurt/killed in such a way that everyone knows about it.”

    This is why community should not be used. Because the perpetrators use this to make the victim feel that their whole world comprises of this community based on race/skin colour/culture/religion.

    Instead it needs to be stressed that the (universal) community is in fact a bigger part of the whole population. And that there are more of us than there are of them to support the victims.

  22. persephone — on 24th September, 2009 at 12:37 pm  

    Aside from what the UK can do locally I say sanctions to those countries who allow or look the other way as to forced marriages, quickie local ceremonies, underage marriages or have records of abuse of rights towards females.

    Also, if a UK citizen really loves their spouse/fiance then let them live for a lengthy period/emigrate permanently to the country of their beloved. That would certainly be a good filter of someone getting married for the right reasons. It would also meet the needs of those who want an unwesternised girl/boy from India/Pakistan etc – so lets give them what they really want but not host it in the UK.

  23. MixTogether — on 24th September, 2009 at 1:19 pm  

    GB great to see you.

    Can’t type much from my phone, but please see your emails. I think there IS a solution.

  24. cjcjc — on 24th September, 2009 at 1:46 pm  

    @18 “to falsely depict them as barbaric and evil”

    There’s nothing more barbaric than a split infinitive.

  25. damon — on 24th September, 2009 at 1:56 pm  

    Paul @ 18. The start of your post is very harsh, and rather sweeping.
    And to be honest, the rest of it is a bit nuts (IMO).

    I don’t think Ramita Navai (in this youtube) is only thinking of putting down the culture of northen Nigerian villages.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0_oK7Ic1wg

  26. Adnan — on 24th September, 2009 at 1:59 pm  

    Paul @ 18,

    What is your position on Islam in Europe ?

    Your state ethics blog talks about what the anti-Islam “movement” as you call it feels (as you do here about the HBV debate being used “falsely to depict” immigrant minorities as “barbaric and evil”), is that, in reality. your view or is it that that integration of immigrants is not possible ?

    The referendum questions you suggest for Islam:

    ” * complete prohibition of Islam as a religion
    * prohibition of all public expression of Islam, including closure of all mosques and Islamic institutions
    * prohibition of the Koran
    * a program for the deportation of all Muslims from the national territory.”

    seem more a vehicle to disseminate those ideas rather than any benign purpose. What would your suggested alternatives to integration (since a large proportion of the population reject it) be then – they’re either along the lines of the above or worse.

    I think your views come out in the “Truth About Immigration” blog entry i.e. immigration does not harm the nation state, but harms the indigenous population and culture.

    (Rumbold: apologies for going off-topic)

  27. persephone — on 24th September, 2009 at 2:07 pm  

    @24 Apparently its ok ‘to boldly go where no man has gone before’

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/150458.stm

  28. cjcjc — on 24th September, 2009 at 2:18 pm  

    Alas and alack

  29. Reza — on 24th September, 2009 at 2:51 pm  

    Paul

    “No-one in western Europe who complains loudly about ‘honour killings’ has any interest in the victims. Their sole intent is to justify their own xenophobia, by appealing to a false sense of moral superiority. ”

    But that’s where you are so utterly wrong. I think you’ll find the true evil much closer to home.

    It is to be found in those “Western Europeans” whose own selfish desire to preserve that warm, fuzzy feeling that being a ‘multiculturalist’ gives them. That desire to ‘value’ and ‘celebrate’ all the wonderful ‘diversity’ that our ‘coloured cousins’ bring to these bland and culturally worthless shores. And so powerful is that desire, that they close their eyes to the evil going on in their midst. They refuse to acknowledge anything which might contradict their intellectually bankrupt views of moral and cultural relativism.

    In the meantime, girls continue to be coerced or forced into unwanted marriages, (very often to a cousin-in-need-of-a-British-Passport back in their ancestral village). And they continue to be raped and murdered. And many, many more that aren’t murdered continue to live in fear that they might be. A fear that enslaves them to the whims of their barbaric culture.

    Yet still, the multiculturalists speak of ‘tolerance’ and ‘understanding’ and ‘engaging’ with ‘communities’ when any reasonable person should be saying “Enough!” “We will not tolerate this.” “We demand that the state employs every power in its grasp to hound and persecute and prosecute those savages who mistreat their girls so.”

    These are the times when the stink of multiculturalist-thinking becomes utterly unbearable.

  30. Morrigan — on 24th September, 2009 at 3:14 pm  

    Reza,

    There’s no doubt you have passion, and a point too.

    Yet still, the multiculturalists speak of ‘tolerance’ and ‘understanding’ and ‘engaging’ with ‘communities’ when any reasonable person should be saying “Enough!” “We will not tolerate this.” “We demand that the state employs every power in its grasp to hound and persecute and prosecute those savages who mistreat their girls so.”

    Reasonableness is never a prominent feature of a left wing administration (including Hundal’s).

  31. douglas clark — on 24th September, 2009 at 4:42 pm  

    Reza,

    That desire to ‘value’ and ‘celebrate’ all the wonderful ‘diversity’ that our ‘coloured cousins’ bring to these bland and culturally worthless shores.

    Well, maybe. I am old enough to remember just how bland and frankly controlling our culture was, even before Windrush. I do not, for instance, think, that the somewhat harrowing story told in ‘The Magdaleine Sisters’ is ancient history. And neither was it limited to Ireland.

    I think I do stand with you, in the sense that the UN Declaration of Human Rights has to have support from everyone. And that the Islamic Declaration of Human Rights can reasonably be seen as demurring from that.

    So, I’d suppose you could describe me as a monoculturalist, in the sense that I support what is best about us, rather than what is not.

  32. Sunny — on 24th September, 2009 at 4:50 pm  

    they wish to maintain some sort of diplomatic ties with the community, it’s (mainly, for us) the dire situation of funding.

    Exactly. It’s easy to just start blanket condemnations isn’t it without actually explaining what you’re talking about.

    Or even mentioning any names or giving examples, as I asked earlier.

    Yet still, the multiculturalists speak of ‘tolerance’ and ‘understanding’ and ‘engaging’ with ‘communities’ when any reasonable person should be saying “Enough!” “We will not tolerate this.” “We demand that the state employs every power in its grasp to hound and persecute and prosecute those savages who mistreat their girls so.”

    Reza do you copy and paste from those ‘dhimmititude’ websites or do you actually think about what you write here? I suspect its copy and paste.

    Which illegal and abhorrent acts have we asked for “toleration” on? Go on – name me some. People like you and MixTogether are the same – just throwing out wild accusations without actually backing anything up.

  33. Reza — on 24th September, 2009 at 4:51 pm  

    @ persephone

    “Also, if a UK citizen really loves their spouse/fiance then let them live for a lengthy period/emigrate permanently to the country of their beloved…”

    Excellent point and I agree 100%.

    However, I doubt that under the current climate of moral and cultural equivalence, it would be possible to draft the necessary laws in a way that targeted those wretched internationally arranged ‘fetching’ marriages whilst allowing say, a Canadian and a British citizen to meet, fall in love, marry and live together in the UK.

  34. Rumbold — on 24th September, 2009 at 5:09 pm  

    Amrit:

    Excellent points.

    “One thing that maybe needs to be addressed more, is of how to help these girls AFTER they’ve escaped a marriage. Some of them will never be able to go home, others will turn a misplaced sense of guilt on themselves at the outcome.”

    Girls do need more help after leaving home, especially when it comes to things like housing.

    Paul:

    “No-one in western Europe who complains loudly about ‘honour killings’ has any interest in the victims. Their sole intent is to justify their own xenophobia, by appealing to a false sense of moral superiority.”

    I do feel morally superior to people who murder someone because they haven’t adhered to rigid norms. If you don’t feel morally superior then you are a cultural relativist.

    “All complaints about community-specific crimes and practices, such as honour killings, female circumcision, recruitment of white girls into prostitution, arranged marriages, ritual slaughter, and so on, are solely intended to target immigrant minorities, and to falsely depict them as barbaric and evil.”

    And by that logic complaining about the BNP is racist too, as the vast majority of their supporters are white.

    “The simple truth is, that people who say things like “honour killings are unacceptable and oppress women” really mean “Pakis Out!” (or Ausländer Raus! or Holland Blank! or Eigen Volk Eerst!).”

    So you think that ‘honour’ killings are acceptable then? Thank you for clarifying your position on that. I sincerely hope that you are never in a position of responsibility, especially if it is one which involves minorities.

  35. Adnan — on 24th September, 2009 at 5:18 pm  

    “However, I doubt that under the current climate of moral and cultural equivalence, it would be possible to draft the necessary laws in a way that targeted those wretched internationally arranged ‘fetching’ marriages whilst allowing say, a Canadian and a British citizen to meet, fall in love, marry and live together in the UK.”

    Would it be possible to draft such laws under a different climate ? The “Right” always complain about the “nanny-state” but have no qualms on wanting to impose restrictions on those they consider undesirable – a kind of “strict father” state for the “badly behaved” communities only.

    Maybe it just hasn’t been done the way you’d like because it’s darned difficult to do so ?

  36. MixTogether — on 24th September, 2009 at 5:39 pm  

    Rumbold and Amrit, i know what you are saying, but you are missing the point of my post.

    What we need is not better after care, but rather for families not to do this stuff in the first place. If nobody in authority has ever bothered asking them to stop, why would they stop? After care is needed, but it partially removes the responsibility of parents to treat their children right.

  37. Rumbold — on 24th September, 2009 at 5:41 pm  

    Galloise Blonde:

    Thank you for highlighting what life is like on the front lines of the fight against HBV.

    Persephone:

    Well, the best suggestion for an alternative phrase was ‘control murders’, which sums up nicely the nature of the crime. What do you think?

    Adnan:

    Don’t worry about it. I am glad that you exposed Paul some more.

  38. Rumbold — on 24th September, 2009 at 5:58 pm  

    MixTogether:

    I agree with you that it is up to families to stop committing these crimes. But I am not sure how much can be done by simply condemning it (not that this should stop condemnations). How much attention do you pay to government ministers? We do need to make clear that it is unacceptable. I think that this is being done already though.

  39. douglas clark — on 24th September, 2009 at 6:44 pm  

    Rumbold @ 34,

    I agree with you. Paul is completely unbelievable.

  40. Galloise Blonde — on 24th September, 2009 at 6:48 pm  

    Thanks Rumbold (37). And I apologise for mangling the last sentence in my last comment, I was IMing at the same time.

    IKWRO’s staff and volunteers are highly dedicated and talented women, most of them working way beyond full time hours (on part-time pay for the few who are emmployed), always on call, in work that is emotionally draining, and facing violence and threats from clients’ relatives. It’s all very well to suggest we should be more proactive, but we already spend far too many woman-hours applying for funding to maintain the services we already offer and to try to cater for increasing demand. If we then have a high-risk client or more with urgent needs then a lot of other projects get dropped or postponed.

    Since 2002, central government has funded one part-time post at our organisation for 12 months. That’s all. Mostly the money for the essential, and in some cases life-saving, services we provide comes from charities and donations. So, I do resent the implication that my colleagues are ‘part of the problem’ when they are working to the very extent of their abiliites on a frayed shoestring. I’m also concerned that creating a perception that protection and advocacy work is counterproductive could have on essential donations.

    And (38), I agree that just shouting: ‘Oi! Foreigners! Naow!’ isn’t the way to go. What’s needed is to consolidate and amplify the voices of the majority who are anti-violence. The community of humanity, as persephone says.

  41. MixTogether — on 24th September, 2009 at 6:51 pm  

    It seems to those who watch these matters carefully that things are being done, but only because we keep a look out for news. The message is obviously not reaching the rest of the population properly.

    Which of the 3 main party leaders has ever said publicly that they believe all children should be able to choose their own spouse if they wish??

    Where is the leadership?

    Do yot think it should be left to backbenchers like Ann Cryer to fight for what is right with no clear support from the leaders of their parties?

    Do yot think nobody would listen if Obama said it?

  42. MixTogether — on 24th September, 2009 at 7:30 pm  

    Right, this is the last thing I will say on this thread.

    I am hereby making a personal commitment.

    Within 1 year of the next general election, I will personally deliver a letter to every MP and Peer in the Houses Of Parliament, asking them to lend their support to a simple statement of people’s marriage rights under British Law. I will publish all of their responses (or lack of response) on a website where people can examine the results.

    That should leave minorities and anyone else in no doubt about where they stand.

    It’s a big job. Anyone who wants to help me out, just let me know.

    Anyone who thinks they have a better idea is welcome to try it.

  43. Amrit — on 24th September, 2009 at 8:05 pm  

    MT – I fully support what you’re doing! I was however trying to point something out to you:

    What we need is not better after care, but rather for families not to do this stuff in the first place.

    Make it easier for girls to leave, and more girls will leave! In a lot of these cases, a major clash of beliefs leads to HBV, and the sooner girls (and boys) are able to be separated off from what their parents believe and not totally dependent on them, thereby cutting short the whole ‘guilt and shame’ complex. That needs to work ALONGSIDE what you’re proposing (and I daresay, that’s what some of the NGOs you’ve criticised are trying to do).

  44. Sunny — on 24th September, 2009 at 8:30 pm  

    I’m going to send out letters to people asking them not to give blow-jobs to plastic dolls. And to stop sending out stupid letters.

  45. KB Player — on 24th September, 2009 at 9:04 pm  

    Piece here about how the threat of honour killings are a way of keeping women in line, from a Canadian angle:-

    http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Features/2009/08/25/10599876-sun.html

    An honour killing is part of an organized effort to subjugate women to a specific and oppressive view of society. Although the total number of honour killings in Canada is still relatively small, probably less than 50 in total to date, the impact on the community as a whole is huge. When compared to a worldwide figure of perhaps 5,000 honour killing a year the implied threat is heightened.

    But numbers alone do not tell the story. Even at its height, the number of lynchings in the American South was fairly small (probably less than 100 a year) but the intimidation huge. Southern blacks knew the danger of speaking up for their rights; with honour killings, women can see the risk of behaving outside their place.

    Lynching was once part of the Southern States culture. Did anyone think being outraged by it was a cunning ploy on their part to show the superiority of their own culture?

    This issue needs a song like Strange Fruit. Dead Girls perhaps?

  46. Reza — on 24th September, 2009 at 9:20 pm  

    KB Player

    “Lynching was once part of the Southern States culture. Did anyone think being outraged by it was a cunning ploy on their part to show the superiority of their own culture?”

    Excellent point. And no one spoke about “engaging” with those doing the lynching or their supporters. Neither is it conceivable that anyone discussed “education” or “cultural sensitivity”. And I doubt anyone gave a hoot about condemning the lynching community.

    But you must remember, those savages were white. Different rules apply.

  47. Reza — on 24th September, 2009 at 9:24 pm  

    @MixTogether

    “…I will personally deliver a letter to every MP and Peer in the Houses Of Parliament, asking them to lend their support to a simple statement of people’s marriage rights under British Law…

    … Anyone who wants to help me out, just let me know.”

    Seems like a worthy cause. I’d be willing to provide practical and financial support.

  48. Paul — on 24th September, 2009 at 10:16 pm  

    Reza says that any reasonable person should be saying “We demand that the state employs every power in its grasp to hound and persecute and prosecute those savages who mistreat their girls so.”

    That’s straight out of Stormfront. That applies to several other comments here, which depict immigrant minorities as barbaric killers and mutilators. Some immigrants, most notably Ayaan Hirsi Ali, have made careers out of repeating and repackaging this kind of racism: Ramita Navai obviously belongs to that category.

    Everyone who raises the issue of honour killings (or genital mutilation, or child marriages) has a racist agenda. Take the comment about feeling superior to ethnic minorities because they “murder someone because they haven’t adhered to rigid norms”. That is pure racism, based on a 100% false allegation that ethnic minorities murder people.

    I am the first to accept, that racists believe the nonsense they promote. Anyone who reads forum postings on migration-related issues knows that a section of the population is genuinely convinced that (at the very least) all Muslims are bloodthirsty, barbaric, mutilating, beheading, paedophile rapist monsters. Many are almost as hostile to, for instance, Poles. The fact that this blog can reiterate these views in identical language, and still pass for an acceptable political blog, shows how widespread and socially acceptable they are.

    The most important lesson which minorities can learn from this kind of xenophobic hysteria, is the absolute impossibility of integration. Someone asked what the alternative is. It is, of course, state-enforced segregation. Continual accusations of honour killings, mutilation, child marriages, and so on, will inevitably lead to physical attacks on immigrants in the long run. The state does have duties of protection, and that is what is cited as justification by the UK government for its segregationist policies in Northern Ireland. Of course minorities suffer many other problems as well, besides the constant accusations of barbarity, but that only strengthens the case for protective segregation.

    On the specific issue of honour killings, since all discussion of them is purely xenophobic, then censorship of that discussion is the appropriate state policy. Public allegations of honour killings, mutilation, and so on, should be treated for what they are – racist incitement – and prosecuted as such. Organisations like IKWRO, which campaign together with racist groups on these issues, should also be prosecuted. They should certainly get no government funding, tax breaks, or ‘charity’ status.

  49. KB Player — on 24th September, 2009 at 10:18 pm  

    There’s a very famous lynching picture:-

    http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/lm18.html

    Could we have as shocking a picture of girls murdered by their fathers and/or brothers stuck on the front of every newspaper and every magazine in the country?

    If these barbarians are shamed by a girl misbehaving, let them be further shamed by what the rest of the country thinks of them.

  50. Adnan — on 24th September, 2009 at 10:40 pm  

    Paul @48

    I’ve read some articles on your blog and it seems that the views you claim to oppose here, are actually your own views. You’ve stopped short of deporting or genocide of immigrant minorities and are proposing a “humane” / “pragmatic” solution of segregation of communities – this is effectively exile in the UK. I think that some on the US Far Right proposed this also, but you couch it in the language of doing this for the immigrants’ own protection.

    Also, regarding the accusations against the editors of this blog: they criticise HBV because it is wrong, not as a points scoring exercise as some undoubtedly do.

  51. Andy Gilmour — on 24th September, 2009 at 11:22 pm  

    Paul declares:”Everyone who raises the issue of honour killings (or genital mutilation, or child marriages) has a racist agenda.”

    Excuse me?

    That’s a mightily impressive (unprovable) assertion to make.

    So everyone who doesn’t agree with you about this, and thinks that so-called “honour killings” (there’s nothing ‘honourable’ about them, but that’s a different argument) are a bad thing, and openly says so, has “a racist agenda”?

    Because you say so. Just because some right-wing extremists use criticism of “honour” killings, nobody else is allowed to, and if we do, we’re racists.

    Nice.

    Your quality of argument consistently fails to meet the quantity of it you pour forth. You might want to have a go at fixing that…

    But then why listen to me – I openly criticise “honour” (spit) killings, so I’ve got a “racist agenda”.

    Oh dear.

  52. persephone — on 24th September, 2009 at 11:58 pm  

    Rumbold

    Why not just call it murder. Or terrorism as per that link @ 45 which has the following take:

    “ Terrorism is violence designed to intimidate for an ideological purpose…. In the United Kingdom, the CPS has found links between honour killings and terrorism …. Let’s call honour killing what it really is. Call it terrorism.“

    And why not? Honour killing is unlike murder in that the target is not just the person/s murdered but it targets others in a universal message not to do likewise.

    If it were re-classified as terrorism it would have wider implications that when it is treated as a murder. In that, the planning of such an offence is clamped down upon by the Police (w/t any tip toeing around upsetting the cultural cart if they have cause to investigate before the event). Terrorism also carries with it the possibility of extradition – perhaps the families that plan or do kill their children for not going abroad in a forced marriage would be extradited to the same country. Extradition would certainly break up their cosy cabal in the UK.

  53. persephone — on 25th September, 2009 at 12:00 am  

    And on that train of thought, should forced marriage be re-classified as slavery or forced prostitution – how about that term being bandied about in the izzat family circle. It cannot be a marriage in any sense though tragically even if a girl escapes after a forced marriage legally she is married.

  54. Sunny — on 25th September, 2009 at 2:46 am  

    If these barbarians are shamed by a girl misbehaving, let them be further shamed by what the rest of the country thinks of them.

    Oh FFS, this is already highlighted and made a big deal of. Some of you people are talking as if forced marriages is never talked about in the Asian press. I also suspect none of you actually read or watch or listen to the Asian press – or attend the demonstrations or meetings that take place (Galloise Blonde excluded of course).

    What I want to know is – who are you people pointing the finger at? Let’s hear some names. Let’s see who you’re talking about?

  55. MixTogether — on 25th September, 2009 at 8:09 am  

    Reza, thanks for your offer of help. There is a form on the homepage of MixTogether.org that you can contact me on, let’s chat.

  56. Reza — on 25th September, 2009 at 9:32 am  

    Sunny

    “Some of you people are talking as if forced marriages is never talked about in the Asian press. ”

    I couldn’t give a f*** if the “Asian Press” are talking about forced marriages. Who the hell are the “Asian Press”? This is Britain for god’s sake! We’re supposed to be a nation. We have not yet become the collection of co-existing ghettoes you appear to desire for us.

    It’s the job of the BRITISH government deal with it.

    Arranged marriage is at the root of the problem. At the very least it must be stigmatized. Schools must teach girls that they can (and should) choose when and to whom they marry. The disgusting and dangerous culture of cousin marriage must similarly be stigmatized.

    And that practice of international arranged marriages, which damages society on so many levels, must be outlawed as a matter of urgency.

  57. Rumbold — on 25th September, 2009 at 10:30 am  

    Paul:

    “That is pure racism, based on a 100% false allegation that ethnic minorities murder people.”

    Some do murder people. As do some white people.

    Are you supposed to be a satire of the earnest white liberal sociologist, who believes that minorities can do no wrong, or do you really believe what you are saying? If it is the latter, I suggest you get help. Really. Go and talk to your average minority, and see what they think (have you ever met a non-white person, or told them how you think? Many of our regulars are non-white, and not one of them has agreed with you).

    Persephone:

    “Why not just call it murder. Or terrorism as per that link @ 45.”

    It is just murder, but we need another term for it as well in order to denote its unique nature. The terrorism angle is more promising, because, as you say, it is a deliberate attempt to spread fear amongst people (though its primary aim is to save face).

    Reza:

    How do you ban arranged marriages? By definition they are marriages which have been arranged but not against the couple’s will.

  58. Reza — on 25th September, 2009 at 11:03 am  

    Rumbold:

    “How do you ban arranged marriages? By definition they are marriages which have been arranged but not against the couple’s will.”

    I never said that arranged marriages should be banned. That would be ridiculous. I said that they should be “stigmatized and that “schools must teach girls that they can (and should) choose when and to whom they marry.”

    But we can, and should, ban the right for a foreign spouse to settle in the UK by virtue of an international arranged marriage.

    They’ve done some good work on this in Denmark. It is possible.

  59. Rumbold — on 25th September, 2009 at 11:26 am  

    Reza:

    Schools should teach that people have the right to marry who they want. But how do you ban international arranged marriages then? The only way to do that is to ban any foreign spouses from coming in.

  60. Reza — on 25th September, 2009 at 11:44 am  

    Rumbold:

    “But how do you ban international arranged marriages then? The only way to do that is to ban any foreign spouses from coming in.”

    Off the top of my head, the Danish approach has been:

    1. No right for foreign spouse to live in Denmark unless both parties are over 24 years old at marriage.
    2. Danish passport holder must have been in full time employment at the time of marriage and for a certain (can’t remember how long) period of time before the marriage.
    3. The foreign spouse must be able to speak good Danish.

    I have a Danish friend who tells me that there is anecdotal evidence that many immigrants who have this cultural practice are leaving Denmark and relocating to Sweden as a result of these rules.

    If that is true then it is proof that the rules work.

    We need them here. Urgently.

  61. Rumbold — on 25th September, 2009 at 11:53 am  

    I can see some merit in that, though 24 seems too harsh. I would make it 21. And it doesn’t solve the problem of Briitsh girls being married off.

  62. Reza — on 25th September, 2009 at 12:04 pm  

    Rumbold

    How does it not solve the problem of Briitsh girls being married off?

    The reason it happens is to import a foreigner from the parents’ ancestoral village, often for money. Stop that foreigner being allowed to live here and you stop international arranged marriages.

  63. Rumbold — on 25th September, 2009 at 12:22 pm  

    Well, the men would be older, so they wouldn’t be affected, and the family could simply say that the gilr was working in the family business. So the standard of the husaband’s English would be the only question. And this then leads to other questions. Why should I, as a tax-paying British adult, be allowed to marry who I want? (Just raising a few objections that would appear).

  64. Aliyah — on 25th September, 2009 at 12:33 pm  

    One of the most racist commenters at Harry’s Place called SueR writes about how Rekha Kumari-Baker killed her children because of her ethnicity. MixTogether sympathises with her underneath. To be honest, I think that MixTogether is a bigot himself.

  65. Rumbold — on 25th September, 2009 at 12:35 pm  

    MixTogether is not bigoted in the slightest.

  66. Aliyah — on 25th September, 2009 at 12:38 pm  

    Even though Rumbold, you had to write an article about how he transmutes criticisms of individual crimes into blanket generalisations? Sorry Rumbold, that is bigotry, and you had to pull him up on it.

    Now, please explain, why would anyone give a sympathetic ear to a racist who says that Rekha Kumari Baker murdered her daughters not because she was evil, psycho, but because of her ethnicity?

  67. Rumbold — on 25th September, 2009 at 12:40 pm  

    You mean when he said…

    “That case is terribly sad. I do wonder whether the lady and her ex husband had faced family problems when they first got together as a mixed couple 16-20 years ago.

    I worry about that kind of thing for all my friends on MT, who can only see the present problems they face…”

    Can’t see how that is bigoted myself.

  68. Reza — on 25th September, 2009 at 12:54 pm  

    That’s why BOTH partners must be over 24.

    And if the British passport holder had been working (I would say for a minimum of 3 out of the last 5 years) then they would have to provide proper pay-slips proving tax and NI payments.

    They would also have to prove that they were financially independent and could support the spouse.

    As for speaking English, NO ONE, (except for a GENUINE asylum seeker, in fear for their lives) should be allowed residency here unless they speak good English.

    And NO ONE should EVER receive a British Passport unless their English is excellent and that they have passed a citizenship test (like the US).

    Q. “Why should I, as a tax-paying British adult, be allowed to marry who I want?”

    A. “You can marry whoever you want. You just can’t bring whomever you want here. We, the tax-paying British majority cannot be expected to support your spouse if they are unable or unwilling to work due to cultural factors, lack of skills or education or an inability to speak good English.”

    “And if you are able to satisfy us that this won’t be the case, then you must realise that your spouse will have no entitlement to the welfare benefits for (x) number of years and no entitlement to a British Passport for (y) number of years.”

    “We also give you notice that any children born in the UK will be expected to be able to speak English on entering school so as not to place unreasonable burden on the Education system and therefore the British taxpayer. If not, you will be liable to fines and any entitlement to a British Passport will be compromised.”

    That should work.

  69. Aliyah — on 25th September, 2009 at 1:05 pm  

    Rumbold, do you think that Rekha Kumari Baker’s criminal act was intrinsically because of her ethnicity? As SueR said?

    Also, you had to write a post calling MixTogether out for his blanket generalisations — I repeat the question, if that is not bigotry, what is?

  70. Reza — on 25th September, 2009 at 1:23 pm  

    Aliyah

    From Harry’s Place

    SueR asked

    “Is it something in the way that people are brought up in these cultures? That they have to hold themselves ready to kill at what they regard as provocative acts?”

    MixTogether responded:

    “That case is terribly sad. I do wonder whether the lady and her ex husband had faced family problems when they first got together as a mixed couple 16-20 years ago.”

    SueR was making a comment about culture not ethnicity. MixTogether wondered whether the relationship had faced problems due to cultural factors.

    Like it or not, cultural factors clearly effect behaviours.

    Isn’t this very thread about the CULTURE of ‘honour’ violence?

    I don’t agree with SueR that the Kumari-Baker murders had a cultural element.

    But I see nothing racist in her asking the question.

    And there is nothing racist whatsoever in MixTogether’s response.

  71. Morrigan — on 25th September, 2009 at 1:34 pm  

    Aliyah,

    You are the only person who has brought ethnicity into the story of that murder.

    Neither this SueR nor MixTogether has even mentioned it. They are talking about cultural pressures, and their questions are valid.

  72. Paul — on 25th September, 2009 at 2:23 pm  

    No ethnic minority ever murdered anyone. Statements that specific minorities (Asians, Turks, Kurds) murder people, are racist incitement pure and simple. That applies to any claim of collective guilt for crimes by minorities, and that is what this blog is promoting.

    It ought not to be necessary to point out the logic, but evidently some people have difficulty understanding it. Saying that the Kurds commit honour killings is exactly the same as saying that the British murder schoolgirls. The Kurds do not engage in honour killings, or any other kind of killing, and have never done so.

    Such accusations of collective ethnic guilt can never have anything but a racist motivation, and this blog is itself engaging in incitement to racist violence, by publishing them. They form part of a pattern of accusations against immigrant minorities, which are the standard repertoire of xenophobic individuals and groups:

    “they take our jobs, they rape our women, they are parasites living on benefit, they rob and steal, they mutilate their children, they cost us billions, they don’t speak our language, they kill their wives and daughters, they want Christmas banned, they hang around in streets and parks, they wear strange clothes, they ritually slaughter animals, …”

    None of these accusations is motivated by any moral purpose, or the desire to help anyone. They are motivated by xenophobia among the majority indigenous national population. That’s the problem that has to be dealt with, and especially the increased risk of attacks on immigrant minorities.

    I can not integrate with, communicate with, or trust in any way, a person who hysterically accuses me of honour killings and genital mutilation. Social integration with such people is absolutely impossible. It is a prudent assumption that they would attack, if they were not restrained. This is the individual perspective, which leads to the conclusion that the state should remove such people from my proximity.

    That perspective is similar to that of many individuals in Northern Ireland. They may for instance need a wall at the back of their garden, because otherwise their neighbours will throw petrol bombs into the house at night. There is nothing wrong with the state providing the wall (and I rarely see anyone complaining about the segregation in Northern Ireland).

    However, it is true that such policies are an affront to the integrationist and assimilationist agenda of this blog. Mainstream political parties, and most western EU governments, also generally promote integrationist policies. Integration means that immigrants do have to live in proximity to those who hate them, and the immigrants sometimes pay for that with their lives.

  73. Paul — on 25th September, 2009 at 2:56 pm  

    An example of the causal relationship between crime accusations against immigrants, and attacks on them

    Russian official warns of dangerous growth of race-hate groups
    Describing the racist propaganda, he said they often focus on reports of crimes committed by foreigners, mainly from post-Soviet countries in Central Asia and the South Caucasus, and call on Russians to take revenge. Many sites feature discussion forums. “Such discussions are dangerous because they expand the circle of nationalists who are ready to shift from empty discussions to violent action,” he said. As an example of a crime that sparked racist violence, he cited an incident last October, when a girl was raped and killed by a migrant worker in Moscow. “Regardless of the fact that the crime was solved and the culprit arrested, some individuals demonstrated their power and defiance to authorities by killing a migrant worker from Tajikistan, leaving his decapitated head near the administrative building in the area where the girl was raped and killed,” he said.

    Moscow youths jailed for up to 10 years for race-hate attacks
    A Moscow court on Tuesday sentenced a group of ultranationalist youths to prison terms ranging from five to 10 years for attempted race-hate murders. … The youths made four attempts to kill nationals of China, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan in Moscow between February 1 and March 7, 2008, prosecutors said. …
    Russia has seen a wave of racially motivated crime since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Attacks by gangs of youths on foreigners and people with non-Slavic features are a routine occurrence in Moscow, St. Petersburg and Voronezh, which hosts many foreign university students.

  74. Morrigan — on 25th September, 2009 at 3:14 pm  

    Paul

    No ethnic minority ever murdered anyone. Statements that specific minorities (Asians, Turks, Kurds) murder people, are racist incitement pure and simple. That applies to any claim of collective guilt for crimes by minorities, and that is what this blog is promoting.

    LMAO!

  75. Sunny — on 25th September, 2009 at 3:35 pm  

    This is Britain for god’s sake! We’re supposed to be a nation. We have not yet become the collection of co-existing ghettoes you appear to desire for us.

    It’s not the job of the British government to legislate who people can marry or not.

    Basically – you’re just frothing at the mouth and screaming hysterically.

    A bit like MixTogether really. There are no concrete proposals here (age for overseas marriage is already raised to 21, and I agree with that Rumbold) nor can either of you actually cite examples to back up what you’re saying.

    So in other words a lot of hot air from people who don’t really know what the hell they’re talking about.

    No surprise there.

  76. Morrigan — on 25th September, 2009 at 4:10 pm  

    Sunny,

    Do you work in the field, or run a website that provides practical help to those in need?

  77. Chris Baldwin — on 25th September, 2009 at 8:42 pm  

    It’s a serious issue, but I don’t think Harry’s Place have anything to contribute. Scoring political points is their main priority.

  78. Rumbold — on 26th September, 2009 at 12:11 pm  

    Reza:

    I have no problem with people coming over here as spouses having to meet certain conditions. But the danger of refusing them state help once they get here (the ‘no recourse to public funds’ rule) is that this traps them in abusive relationships. They can’t go back home because someone might hurt them, but they can’t leave and live in this country either as they have no money.

    Aliyah:

    See Morrigan at #71.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.