Dear Alochoks:
It is appalling how women have always had to bear the brunt of all injustices in this world, be it religious or social. The fact that people are using religious discrimination as a means to obfuscate any rape trial is absolutely disturbing.
It is appalling how women have always had to bear the brunt of all injustices in this world, be it religious or social. The fact that people are using religious discrimination as a means to obfuscate any rape trial is absolutely disturbing.
In my humble opinion any man accused of rape regardless of what religious or social background he comes from should be castrated especially since certain countries do not believe in capital punishment. But, castration is the type of punishment that would prevent men from committing such heinous crimes!!!
Zeenat
-----Original Message-----
From: Farida Majid <farida_majid@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 3:31 pm
Subject: [ALOCHONA] FW: Why gender equity trumps religious rights
Subjugation of women is symptomatic of a retarded civil society.
A retarded civil society is a prerequisite for politics of religious fundamentalism to prosper -- be it in U. S. of America, India, Pakistan or Bangladesh.
Religious fundamentalism-dependent politics helps keep a nation destabilised and ultimately leads to its ruination. Look what Bush/Rove fundamentalism has done to America!
--- Farida Majid
To: muslimchronicle@yahoogroups.com
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 07:15:14 -0400
Subject: Why gender equity trumps religious rights
Get more out of the Web. Learn 10 hidden secrets of Windows Live. Learn Now
A retarded civil society is a prerequisite for politics of religious fundamentalism to prosper -- be it in U. S. of America, India, Pakistan or Bangladesh.
Religious fundamentalism-
--- Farida Majid
To: muslimchronicle@
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 07:15:14 -0400
Subject: Why gender equity trumps religious rights
October 2, 2008
http://www.canada.
Why gender equity trumps religious rights
Janet Keeping
The Calgary Herald
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=e49e6c05-c977-4442-95b1-a1d695258057
Freedom of religion is an important principle in a free society, but it should not override the rights of women.
From rapes that go unreported because the victim is a female Muslim to the legal enforcement of arbitrations based on religions which seriously disadvantage women in matters such as divorce and child custody, we have seen increased tension between accommodation of religious difference and women's right to equality in our laws, public institutions and society more broadly. This increased tension is due, in part, to greater religious diversity in Canada. Many of the religious groups which have grown in recent years -- for example, some Muslim and Evangelical Christian sects -- don't hold as progressive views on women's rights as some of those that have historically been dominant in Canada, such as the United Church.
But the increased tension is also due to the "global resurgence of religious orthodoxy."
Janice Stein, political scientist at University of Toronto, says this should not surprise us. "When rights in a liberal democratic state bump up against deeply embedded religious-cultural traditions, the hot spot of contention is the rights of women." This is not a slam against Islam. As Stein also points out: "The three great monotheistic religions -- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam -- all have foundational texts which are profoundly patriarchal . . . which profoundly discriminate against women."
The question is not, why do some religious groups oppress women? That's easy -- their religion tells them to: women can't be priests or bishops or conduct prayer. Women can't enter the temple during menstruation. Women must defer to their male relatives. Women must "dress modestly." We are all aware of the gender discrimination that passes for religion, but as Stein observes, "We rarely speak in public about the coincidence that it is women who are covered, not men, irrespective of religious tradition. Nor do we talk about the belief, common to all religions, that it is women who are responsible for inciting lust or violence in men."
Nor is this a slam against religion per se. Our social institutions might have evolved differently, as in some cultures they did. But facts are facts -- historically most religions have greatly disadvantaged women. Nor does freedom of religion help out here. Freedom of religion and conscience has usually been seen as a way of keeping government from meddling in religion, not as an excuse for religion to dictate to our public institutions.
Besides, in a multicultural society, how could laws and public policy be subject to religion? Which religion, when there is such a variety of them and many people who are not at all religious?
The real question is, what kind of thinking leads a person to conclude that gender equality in our public institutions could ever yield to religious belief? The answer is "bad" thinking, which -- sadly enough -- comes in many forms. For example, it is bad thinking to shy away from the truth that some religious traditions are more humane than others. Some Christian, Jewish and Muslim groups are leaders in the advancement of women's rights. They don't try to bend laws to oppress women -- quite the contrary. But it is just a fact that others treat women as the property of their male relatives. Some practices -- such as "honour" killings of women who have "strayed" -- must never be allowed to influence Canadian laws so as to accommodate these murders.
It is also bad thinking to claim that, generally speaking, women have "made it" in Canada and so compromise with religious fundamentalists on the rights of "their" women is no big deal. (Think of recently arrived burka-clad immigrants or refugees who may be subject to genital mutilation.) Whether in terms of incomes earned, adequacy of child-care facilities or representation in government or on the boards of major corporations, Canadian women are a long, long way from equality. Any loss of ground is a major deal, and "their" rights are just as important as mine.
Not many of our laws state a simple, unassailable moral truth. But Section 28 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does just that. It says that all rights protected by the charter are, "notwithstanding anything else in this charter," "guaranteed equally to male and female persons." When it comes to our laws and public institutions, gender equity must always trump religious doctrine that discriminates against women. In ethics and law, women are entitled to an equal shot at a life worth living.
---------------------
Janet Keeping is president of the Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership, which is hosting a symposium on diversity issues, Identity and Polarization: Implications for our Ability to Live Well
From rapes that go unreported because the victim is a female Muslim to the legal enforcement of arbitrations based on religions which seriously disadvantage women in matters such as divorce and child custody, we have seen increased tension between accommodation of religious difference and women's right to equality in our laws, public institutions and society more broadly. This increased tension is due, in part, to greater religious diversity in Canada. Many of the religious groups which have grown in recent years -- for example, some Muslim and Evangelical Christian sects -- don't hold as progressive views on women's rights as some of those that have historically been dominant in Canada, such as the United Church.
But the increased tension is also due to the "global resurgence of religious orthodoxy."
Janice Stein, political scientist at University of Toronto, says this should not surprise us. "When rights in a liberal democratic state bump up against deeply embedded religious-cultural traditions, the hot spot of contention is the rights of women." This is not a slam against Islam. As Stein also points out: "The three great monotheistic religions -- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam -- all have foundational texts which are profoundly patriarchal . . . which profoundly discriminate against women."
The question is not, why do some religious groups oppress women? That's easy -- their religion tells them to: women can't be priests or bishops or conduct prayer. Women can't enter the temple during menstruation. Women must defer to their male relatives. Women must "dress modestly." We are all aware of the gender discrimination that passes for religion, but as Stein observes, "We rarely speak in public about the coincidence that it is women who are covered, not men, irrespective of religious tradition. Nor do we talk about the belief, common to all religions, that it is women who are responsible for inciting lust or violence in men."
Nor is this a slam against religion per se. Our social institutions might have evolved differently, as in some cultures they did. But facts are facts -- historically most religions have greatly disadvantaged women. Nor does freedom of religion help out here. Freedom of religion and conscience has usually been seen as a way of keeping government from meddling in religion, not as an excuse for religion to dictate to our public institutions.
Besides, in a multicultural society, how could laws and public policy be subject to religion? Which religion, when there is such a variety of them and many people who are not at all religious?
The real question is, what kind of thinking leads a person to conclude that gender equality in our public institutions could ever yield to religious belief? The answer is "bad" thinking, which -- sadly enough -- comes in many forms. For example, it is bad thinking to shy away from the truth that some religious traditions are more humane than others. Some Christian, Jewish and Muslim groups are leaders in the advancement of women's rights. They don't try to bend laws to oppress women -- quite the contrary. But it is just a fact that others treat women as the property of their male relatives. Some practices -- such as "honour" killings of women who have "strayed" -- must never be allowed to influence Canadian laws so as to accommodate these murders.
It is also bad thinking to claim that, generally speaking, women have "made it" in Canada and so compromise with religious fundamentalists on the rights of "their" women is no big deal. (Think of recently arrived burka-clad immigrants or refugees who may be subject to genital mutilation.) Whether in terms of incomes earned, adequacy of child-care facilities or representation in government or on the boards of major corporations, Canadian women are a long, long way from equality. Any loss of ground is a major deal, and "their" rights are just as important as mine.
Not many of our laws state a simple, unassailable moral truth. But Section 28 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does just that. It says that all rights protected by the charter are, "notwithstanding anything else in this charter," "guaranteed equally to male and female persons." When it comes to our laws and public institutions, gender equity must always trump religious doctrine that discriminates against women. In ethics and law, women are entitled to an equal shot at a life worth living.
------------
Janet Keeping is president of the Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership, which is hosting a symposium on diversity issues, Identity and Polarization: Implications for our Ability to Live Well
Get more out of the Web. Learn 10 hidden secrets of Windows Live. Learn Now
[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___