Honor killing in Pakistan

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Seems as though they think that their values are the "Universal Bookmark" values.

Pretty much as I suspect.

 

[Kaylee]

It doesn’t matter who DIDN’T think it was a good idea – that’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that there WAS a desire for change from within the US, and change was not brought about mainly due to external pressure.

I'm not sure about that. Reading the history, it seems that Great Britain was putting a great deal of pressure on other countries including the USA -- such as by stopping the slave trade over the Atlantic.

As per my last post it's clear that Middle Eastern women enjoy freedom, civil rights and dignity the same as most members of the human race do as indicated by past history and civil rights organizations that they have formed.

Politically powerful men who benefit by the current system are not in favor of change anymore than wealthy (U.S.) southern slave holders were in the 1800s. That is why I made the comparisons that I did.

That’s smashing – it really is. But – once again – you’re not seeing what I am saying; We should not be imposing our cultural values and standards on other cultures just because we don’t like theirs. If there is a desire for change within,

Clearly there is.

then I am all for helping.

That's great! How will you help?

I have never said there is no desire for change within Middle Eastern countries, so you wasted 30 seconds.

You were concerned about outsiders imposing their unwanted foreign cultural values on a Middle Eastern culture. You have received enough information to have your concerns assuaged.

Not sure what you mean. What do you think Western morals and values are fundamentally based on? What have I suggested they are based on?

Don't change the subject. How do you decide where the boundary lines are? Most people in this thread have said they have no qualms supporting moral or human rights. Your position seems to be that there is no way to objectively identify moral values from other cultural values and that its only OK for people who share the same culture to put pressure on each other. So how narrowly or widely do you define these cultural boundaries? Why not all Abrahamic religions as the boundary line? Or,if you want to have narrower boundaries where would you stand on Protestant vs Catholicism in Ireland, as an example? How do you decide how narrowly to draw your demarcation lines and how do you justify them?

Because I don’t see how they were relevant to a Western culture imposing its completely differing values and standards on a Middle Eastern one. Please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

I suggest you reread my post. I was showing that Western culture is not really that simple or homogeneous and that it has many influences and threads. Incidentally, you probably know since you've been a member of the JREF for a few years and presumably been reading the religion forum during all of that time that many people think that Judaism was heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism, a religion that originated around where Iran is today. And Judaism of course heavily influenced Christianity. Also Western culture is highly influenced by ancient Greek and Roman culture but that is only possible because their texts were preserved by the Arabs while Europe was undergoing the horrors of the Dark Ages. Just a few more examples of showing how complicated the history and interplay of various cultures are. There are many, many more that can be discussed.

You seem to be determined to prove that it’s OK for us to dictate cultural values to a completely differing Middle Eastern culture by showing that Western cultures have influenced change in other Western cultures.

No. Reread my post.

You think? Maybe I was simplifying…



Really? I thought it was about family honour…

If you read the links in my above post you would have seen that the same Taliban that asserts that they are protecting women and family honor by basically restricting women to their homes most of the time are also engaged in human trafficking for forced prostitution. This is clearly about power and not about spirituality. There are very few ogres in the world who admit to being ogres just because they can be .... they always have a "good" reason for their actions. Sometimes its patriotism, sometimes its religion. Very rarely the reason given is simply "because I can and you can't stop me. "

They certainly ended up being about power and land/cash-grabbing, yes; that was one of the main reasons why they were ended, but they certainly didn’t start out that way:

BTW, its good form to provide a source for your quotes.

That being said, show me an example of where powerful people were accused of being witches and I might believe that it didn't start out that way. For example, in most republics that aren't corrupt anyone who is suspected of committing a crime will be investigated and if enough evidence is gathered, arrested and tried in court even if they are a powerful person or belong to a powerful family. So for example, One of Senator Ted Kennedy's nephews, William Kennedy Smith, was tried for rape. Martha Stewart was tried, convicted and served time for insider trading. Were powerful people belonging to powerful families convicted of being witches?

I did. In a nutshell it’s not conclusive; there’s just as strong an argument to suggest it’s something we quickly develop through learning, given there’s no evidence of it before 15 months.

There are scientific studies that show that even animals, including chimps, have a sense of fairness. I find the studies convincing, however a better place to discuss this would probably be in the science forum. Just want to add that its interesting how most nation's criminal laws have so much in common. Internationally, theft, kidnaping and murder are all considered illegal. I think part of it is due to just like some scientists have hypothesized that we have an instinct for language ... I think we have an instinct for fairness. I also think that there are benefits for treating people fairly and that societies that treat the majority of their citizens fairly do better overall than societies that don't. This has encouraged many societies to treat most of their citizens fairly and, over the past 200 or so years to be organized or reorganized as democracies in reality and not just in name. Currently just under half of the world's countries are democracies and they are the ones that tend to have a better standard of living. I don't believe that's a coincidence.

http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/peace/democracy_map/

 

[westprog]

I'm not sure about that. Reading the history, it seems that Great Britain was putting a great deal of pressure on other countries including the USA -- such as by stopping the slave trade over the Atlantic.

The external slave trade was banned in the USA long before the Civil War (though the law was much transgressed). British suppression of the trade was difficult to enforce due to international law. The Americans were nominally supposed to be assisting the blockade, but were generally far more interested in preserving their own sovereignty. It wasn't until the beginning of the Civil War that the US began to assist Britain, and the transatlantic trade was ended.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Originally Posted by SatansMaleVoiceChoir
It doesn’t matter who DIDN’T think it was a good idea – that’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that there WAS a desire for change from within the US, and change was not brought about mainly due to external pressure.

I'm not sure about that. Reading the history, it seems that Great Britain was putting a great deal of pressure on other countries including the USA -- such as by stopping the slave trade over the Atlantic.

Great Britain. Another Western culture, at that time probably only a few generations removed from their ‘American Cousins’. Hardly a vast cultural difference.

As per my last post it's clear that Middle Eastern women enjoy freedom, civil rights and dignity the same as most members of the human race do as indicated by past history and civil rights organizations that they have formed.

Ummmm… they do?

Politically powerful men who benefit by the current system are not in favor of change anymore than wealthy (U.S.) southern slave holders were in the 1800s. That is why I made the comparisons that I did.

Obvious statement is obvious.

Like I said – it doesn’t matter who DIDN’T want change, but that there was a climate for change within. Which there was.

Quote:
That’s smashing – it really is. But – once again – you’re not seeing what I am saying; We should not be imposing our cultural values and standards on other cultures just because we don’t like theirs. If there is a desire for change within,

Clearly there is.

Quote:
then I am all for helping.

That's great! How will you help?

I dunno; however I can, as and when I can.

Quote:
I have never said there is no desire for change within Middle Eastern countries, so you wasted 30 seconds.

You were concerned about outsiders imposing their unwanted foreign cultural values on a Middle Eastern culture. You have received enough information to have your concerns assuaged.

No, I was concerned about outsiders imposing their unwanted foreign cultural values on a Middle Eastern Culture that had no existing desire to change. I was shown pages ago that Pakistan has active anti-Honour Killing/Women’s Rights movements, and stated that in cases like this, I am happy to see external aid provided.

Quote:
Not sure what you mean. What do you think Western morals and values are fundamentally based on? What have I suggested they are based on?

Don't change the subject. How do you decide where the boundary lines are? Most people in this thread have said they have no qualms supporting moral or human rights. Your position seems to be that there is no way to objectively identify moral values from other cultural values and that its only OK for people who share the same culture to put pressure on each other.

And nobody seems to be able to justify why ‘The West’ has the right to police the world, other than “Because we can”, “Because we have the biggest stick”, “We have the 'best' morals”.

So how narrowly or widely do you define these cultural boundaries? Why not all Abrahamic religions as the boundary line? Or,if you want to have narrower boundaries where would you stand on Protestant vs Catholicism in Ireland, as an example?

Where would I stand? That in Northern Ireland there is an internal British problem with which Britain is dealing with internally. I certainly wouldn’t welcome the ‘forced’ input of a Middle Eastern country where it wasn’t asked for.

How do you decide how narrowly to draw your demarcation lines and how do you justify them?

By asking “How similar are the two cultures?”, and taking into account things like where the culture descended from, and general values and standards. I think even a primary schoolchild would agree that a strict Middle Eastern Islamic Culture is pretty much different from general American culture.

Quote:
Because I don’t see how they were relevant to a Western culture imposing its completely differing values and standards on a Middle Eastern one. Please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

I suggest you reread my post. I was showing that Western culture is not really that simple or homogeneous and that it has many influences and threads. <SNIP>

That’s great, it really is, but how similar is American culture, for instance, to that of an Islamic Fundamental Culture in Pakistan? Which is kind of the point I’m making.

Quote:
You seem to be determined to prove that it’s OK for us to dictate cultural values to a completely differing Middle Eastern culture by showing that Western cultures have influenced change in other Western cultures.

No. Reread my post.

I did. Sorry – still looks like that’s what you were doing. Maybe you want to expand a little more?

Quote:
You think? Maybe I was simplifying…



Really? I thought it was about family honour…

If you read the links in my above post you would have seen that the same Taliban that asserts that they are protecting women and family honor by basically restricting women to their homes most of the time are also engaged in human trafficking for forced prostitution.

This is clearly about power and not about spirituality. There are very few ogres in the world who admit to being ogres just because they can be .... they always have a "good" reason for their actions. Sometimes its patriotism, sometimes its religion. Very rarely the reason given is simply "because I can and you can't stop me. "

Nobody said the Taliban WEREN’T horrendous hypocrites, but at least they’re consistent with their reasoning behind Honour Killings, and they don’t use women from their OWN culture, thereby avoiding dishonouring their own women:

According to a report in Time magazine, government officials and witnesses have revealed that the Taliban routinely kidnapped women from Tajik, Uzbek, Hazara and other ethnic minorities to be trafficked and used as sex slaves.

I'm using a work computer, so I can't post a link at present.

Quote:
They certainly ended up being about power and land/cash-grabbing, yes; that was one of the main reasons why they were ended, but they certainly didn’t start out that way:

BTW, its good form to provide a source for your quotes.

That being said, show me an example of where powerful people were accused of being witches and I might believe that it didn't start out that way.

You were the one who said Witch Hunts were about power – don’t you believe that now?

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.

Quote:
I did. In a nutshell it’s not conclusive; there’s just as strong an argument to suggest it’s something we quickly develop through learning, given there’s no evidence of it before 15 months.

There are scientific studies that show that even animals, including chimps, have a sense of fairness.

From birth? Are they born with it? Do they have a sense of fairness before 15 months?

I find the studies convincing, however a better place to discuss this would probably be in the science forum. Just want to add that its interesting how most nation's criminal laws have so much in common. Internationally, theft, kidnaping and murder are all considered illegal.

Yes. Honour Killing is illegal in the UK, and if I killed my daughter for family honour, I could realistically expect to die in prison. In Pakistan Honour Killing is also illegal, however, I’d be back home after serving two months, apparently. Soooooooo much in common…

 

[joesixpack]

There is certainly an instinct to love and protect your off spring. That surely must be unlearned to want to kill them.

Actually, if you thought that the dishonor brought on your family by one child would threaten the lives of the remaining children, it wouldn't be much of a question of "overcoming" anything.

 

[Kaylee]

The external slave trade was banned in the USA long before the Civil War (though the law was much transgressed). British suppression of the trade was difficult to enforce due to international law. The Americans were nominally supposed to be assisting the blockade, but were generally far more interested in preserving their own sovereignty. It wasn't until the beginning of the Civil War that the US began to assist Britain, and the transatlantic trade was ended.

I'm assuming based on the little I know about the history of the time, that Britain was the 800 lb gorilla of that era and used its power to convince other nations, including the US, to reluctantly sign treaties banning slave trade on the Atlantic and allow British navel officers to inspect ships and arrest slavers. But that because the other nations, including the US, weren't actually on board they did not cooperate.

From the BBC link posted earlier:

The Foreign Office had to persuade other nations to enter into treaties prohibiting the slave trade and empower British naval officers to arrest the slavers. As defects in the treaties became plain, yet more diplomatic manoeuvring was needed.

Ultimately, it took nearly 60 years of untiring diplomacy and naval patrolling to finally abolish the Atlantic slave trade.


<snip>


The task of enforcing the act was huge, quite beyond any one nation without the co-operation of all governments concerned. Unsurprisingly, this proved difficult to obtain. The French paid eloquent lip service to the idea, but, sensitive to any appearance of servility to the British, would not allow boarding parties to search their ships.

Nor would the Americans, who were in any case too dependent on slave labour to join the campaign in these early years with any real enthusiasm. The Spanish, Portuguese, and Brazilians continued their human trafficking openly, and their colonial economies were so bound with slave labour that they had neither the will nor the power to act effectively.

<snip>


The pursuit and capture of slave ships became celebrated naval engagements, widely reported back in peace-time Britain with its expanding print culture, and was often memorialised in souvenir engravings.

<snip> , the 'Electra' brought down a Carolina slaver with its human cargo in 1838, <snip>, to name just a few of the many sensationalised actions.

My guess is that the US became more cooperative with Great Britain when the North had its own reasons to enforce the treaty, starting shortly before the Civil War.

 

[Nessie]

Guys, the question wasn't "If there was some sort of universally agreed benchmark for whose culture was 'best', what would you think if North Korea won it?", but rather "If there was some sort of universally agreed benchmark for whose culture was 'best' and North Korea won it, would you be happy if North Korea began imposing its moral values on UK/USA?", but I think you knew that, and I think you know the answer.

Reading between the lines, you'd be happy for some sort of 'Universal Benchmark', but only if it were Western values (your values) that were used.

The answer is freedom of choice. North Koreans lack choice, as do Muslim women though there is variation from country to country.

If the women who live in an honour killing culture had a genuinely free choice and chose to keep a tradition that involves them being blamed for being raped and then they are killed, so be it. I suspect though they would be likely to chose not to have such a tradition continue.

The campaigns against honour killings are showing women they can start to chose not to be killed in such a manner. They will have to fight for that choice and I would like to see all assistance given to them.

 

[Craig4]

Guys, the question wasn't "If there was some sort of universally agreed benchmark for whose culture was 'best', what would you think if North Korea won it?", but rather "If there was some sort of universally agreed benchmark for whose culture was 'best' and North Korea won it, would you be happy if North Korea began imposing its moral values on UK/USA?", but I think you knew that, and I think you know the answer.

Reading between the lines, you'd be happy for some sort of 'Universal Benchmark', but only if it were Western values (your values) that were used.

You're missing the point. Nothing succeeds like success. Only successful cultural constructs would result in the data that would lead you to conclude that one culture is better than another. It's not that North Korea would succeed, it's that North Korea can't succeed. For a cultural construct to be successful the data supporting the social science has to be there.

 

[Craig4]

Seems as though they think that their values are the "Universal Bookmark" values.

Are you suggesting there aren't objective facts we can draw from a western liberal democratic culture and Pakistani tribal cultures about the happiness of fulfillment of their members and draw conclusions?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, that would be silly. Please stop hitting the strawman you've just made and point out where I was talking about 'emotions'. What I was discussing with you - the claim which you have failed to provide one shred of evidence for - is that we are born moral; that morals are already 'baked-in' to our brains at birth.

While you're at it you may wish to provide evidence for your claim that soldiers are able to overcome the inhibition to kill by thinking of the enemy as 'other than human'.

It's not a strawman, rather your lack of understanding how the brain experiences moral feelings is the problem.

What do you think morals are? It's the emotional experience of certain rights and wrongs. Normal people know it is not right to murder. It's not fear of punishment that creates that emotion. Animals have a demonstrated sense of fairness that can lead them to act against their own best interest. This has been demonstrated in non-human primates. Very young children have no problem breaking a rule like, no eating in the classroom, if told the rule had changed but the same age children do no readily hit an animal when told the rule of no hitting no longer applies. That experiment was done.

How about you explain what you think moral thought is. Do you think we behave a certain way because we learned right and wrong on a blank slate? Think we behave morally because we fear punishment?

Yes. Why would Christians waste one of Ten Commandments on "Thou shalt not kill" if it was already built in?

Seriously? That's your argument? Are you also under the misconception atheists would just go round on murderous rampages if there wasn't a law against murder?

Morals don't come from religion. A few behavior rules might, like the arbitrary taboo against pork or the claim that homosexual acts are sins. But people fit their religion to their moral beliefs, not the other way around.

 

[Kaylee]

Great Britain. Another Western culture, at that time probably only a few generations removed from their ‘American Cousins’. Hardly a vast cultural difference.



Ummmm… they do?



Obvious statement is obvious.

Like I said – it doesn’t matter who DIDN’T want change, but that there was a climate for change within. Which there was.



I dunno; however I can, as and when I can.



No, I was concerned about outsiders imposing their unwanted foreign cultural values on a Middle Eastern Culture that had no existing desire to change. I was shown pages ago that Pakistan has active anti-Honour Killing/Women’s Rights movements, and stated that in cases like this, I am happy to see external aid provided.




And nobody seems to be able to justify why ‘The West’ has the right to police the world, other than “Because we can”, “Because we have the biggest stick”, “We have the 'best' morals”.



Where would I stand? That in Northern Ireland there is an internal British problem with which Britain is dealing with internally. I certainly wouldn’t welcome the ‘forced’ input of a Middle Eastern country where it wasn’t asked for.



By asking “How similar are the two cultures?”, and taking into account things like where the culture descended from, and general values and standards. I think even a primary schoolchild would agree that a strict Middle Eastern Islamic Culture is pretty much different from general American culture.




That’s great, it really is, but how similar is American culture, for instance, to that of an Islamic Fundamental Culture in Pakistan? Which is kind of the point I’m making.



I did. Sorry – still looks like that’s what you were doing. Maybe you want to expand a little more?



Nobody said the Taliban WEREN’T horrendous hypocrites, but at least they’re consistent with their reasoning behind Honour Killings, and they don’t use women from their OWN culture, thereby avoiding dishonouring their own women:



I'm using a work computer, so I can't post a link at present.




You were the one who said Witch Hunts were about power – don’t you believe that now?

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.



From birth? Are they born with it? Do they have a sense of fairness before 15 months?



Yes. Honour Killing is illegal in the UK, and if I killed my daughter for family honour, I could realistically expect to die in prison. In Pakistan Honour Killing is also illegal, however, I’d be back home after serving two months, apparently. Soooooooo much in common…

I suspect that you have a bet with yourself as to how long you can keep this thread going. FWIW, I started doubting that you are debating sincerely shortly after the thread began, but I also now believe that this thread has gone past the point where it can provide useful data or points of view to anyone who is lurking and sincerely looking for that kind of information.

But before I end my participation in this thread, for those possible lurkers, I also suggest reading this Wiki article on the Taliban^WP.

Some cut and pastes:

The Taliban and their allies committed massacres against Afghan civilians,[28][29][30] denied UN food supplies to 160,000 starving civilians[31] and conducted a policy of scorched earth burning vast areas of fertile land and destroying tens of thousands of homes during their rule from 1996-2001.[32][33] Hundreds of thousands of people were forced to flee to United Front-controlled territory, Pakistan and Iran.[33]

<snip>

According to the United Nations, the Taliban and their allies were responsible for 75% of Afghan civilian casualties in 2010 and 80% in 2011

<snip>

Several Taliban and Al-Qaeda commanders ran a network of human trafficking, abducting women and selling them into sex slavery in Afghanistan and Pakistan.[162] Time Magazine writes: "The Taliban often argued that the brutal restrictions they placed on women were actually a way of revering and protecting the opposite sex. The behavior of the Taliban during the six years they expanded their rule in Afghanistan made a mockery of that claim."[162]

The targets for human trafficking were especially women from the Tajik, Uzbek, Hazara and other ethnic groups in Afghanistan. Some women preferred to commit suicide over slavery, killing themselves. During one Taliban and Al-Qaeda offensive in 1999 in the Shomali Plains alone, more than 600 women were kidnapped.[162] Taliban as well as Arab and Pakistani Al-Qaeda militants forced them into trucks and buses.[162] Time Magazine writes: "The trail of the missing Shomali women leads to Jalalabad, not far from the Pakistan border. There, according to eyewitnesses, the women were penned up inside Sar Shahi camp in the desert. The more desirable among them were selected and taken away. Some were trucked to Peshawar with the apparent complicity of Pakistani border guards. Others were taken to Khost, where bin Laden had several training camps." Officials from relief agencies say, the trail of many of the vanished women leads to Pakistan where they were sold to brothels or into private households to be kept as slaves.[162]

<snip>

To PHR's knowledge, no other regime in the world has methodically and violently forced half of its population into virtual house arrest, prohibiting them on pain of physical punishment.[164] —Physicians for Human Rights, 1998
The Taliban were condemned internationally for their brutal repression of women.[64][165] In 2001 Laura Bush in a radio address condemned the Taliban's brutality to women.[166][167] In areas they controlled the Taliban issued edicts which forbade women from being educated, girls were forced to leave schools and colleges. Those who wished to leave their home to go shopping had to be accompanied by a male relative, and were required to wear the burqa, a traditional dress covering the entire body except for a small screen to see out of. Those who appeared to disobey were publicly beaten.[168] Sohaila, a young woman who was convicted of walking with a man who was not a relative, was charged with adultery. She was publicly flogged in Ghazi Stadium and received 100 lashes.[169] The religious police routinely carried out inhumane abuse on women.[170] Employment for women was restricted to the medical sector, because male medical personnel were not allowed to treat women and girls. One result of the banning of employment of women by the Taliban was the closing down in places like Kabul of primary schools not only for girls but for boys, because almost all the teachers there were women.[171] Taliban restrictions became more severe after they took control of the capital. In February 1998, religious police forced all women off the streets of Kabul, and issued new regulations ordering people to blacken their windows, so that women would not be visible from the outside.[172]

<snip>

The Taliban were criticized for their strictness toward those who disobeyed their imposed rules. Many Muslims complained that most Taliban rules had no basis in the Qur'an or sharia. Mullah Omar's title as Amir al-Mu'minin was criticized on the grounds that he lacked scholarly learning, tribal pedigree, or connections to the Prophet's family. Sanction for the title traditionally required the support of all of the country's ulema, whereas only some 1,200 Pashtun Taliban-supporting Mullahs had declared Omar the Amir. "No Afghan had adopted the title since 1834, when King Dost Mohammed Khan assumed the title before he declared jihad against the Sikh kingdom in Peshawar. But Dost Mohammed was fighting foreigners, while Omar had declared jihad against other Afghans."[199]

Another criticism was that the Taliban called their 20% tax on truckloads of opium "zakat", which is traditionally limited to 2.5% of the zakat-payers' disposable income (or wealth).[199]

<snip>

The Taliban were very reluctant to share power, and since their ranks were overwhelmingly Pashtun they ruled as overlords over the 60% of Afghans from other ethnic groups. In local government, such as Kabul city council[201] or Herat,[205] Taliban loyalists, not locals, dominated, even when the Pashto-speaking Taliban could not communicate with the roughly half of the population who spoke Dari or other non-Pashtun tongues.[205] Critics complained that this "lack of local representation in urban administration made the Taliban appear as an occupying force."[206]

The Taliban are Pashtun and per the wiki Pashtun people ^WP article:

In Afghanistan, they make up an estimated 42% of the population according to the CIA World Factbook.[3] Some sources give 50–60%[32][33][34][35][36][37] because the exact figure remains uncertain in Afghanistan, and are affected by the 1.7 million Afghan refugees that remain in Pakistan, a majority of which are Pashtuns.[38]

And I have to respond to what you said here:

Nobody said the Taliban WEREN’T horrendous hypocrites, but at least they’re consistent with their reasoning behind Honour Killings, and they don’t use women from their OWN culture, thereby avoiding dishonouring their own women:

So, since the Pashtun decide that non-Pashtun Afghani women are fair game for the sex trade market, according to your viewpoint, non-Afghanis or perhaps even non-Pashtuns should not offer any assistance because its not their culture? That is really sickening... and I'm am now finished with this thread.

 

[tsig]

I suspect that you have a bet with yourself as to how long you can keep this thread going. FWIW, I started doubting that you are debating sincerely shortly after the thread began, but I also now believe that this thread has gone past the point where it can provide useful data or points of view to anyone who is lurking and sincerely looking for that kind of information.

But before I end my participation in this thread, for those possible lurkers, I also suggest reading this Wiki article on the Taliban^WP.

Some cut and pastes:



The Taliban are Pashtun and per the wiki Pashtun people ^WP article:



And I have to respond to what you said here:


So, since the Pashtun decide that non-Pashtun Afghani women are fair game for the sex trade market, according to your viewpoint, non-Afghanis or perhaps even non-Pashtuns should not offer any assistance because its not their culture? That is really sickening... and I'm am now finished with this thread.

My synopsis:

SMVC: I'm against honor killings but I don't think we should impose our values on others by force;

Opposing Choir: how can you defend honor killings, how barbaric, have you no sense of decency

SMVC: Once again, I'm against honor killings but I don't think we should impose our values on others by force

OC: Clearly we have superior values and they suit us very well, how can you defend honor killings (gruesome details) have you no sense of decency.


And on and on and on and on.

 

[TimCallahan]

I think I unwittingly opened a whole can of worms regarding the dilemma of honor killing. The dilemma is this: We want to stop the practice honor killing. However, enforcement of such a prohibition from without tends to provoke a counter-reaction within those cultures, often only making things worse. On the other hand, we can hardly stand by and do nothing while atrocities are committed. Let me propose a number of possible strategies, none of which I see as decisive, but all of which might be useful.

1) Modernization: Keep infecting these societies with the internet and other aspects of western technology that will break down their traditional culture.

2) Ant-Poverty Programs: These would include education. Where we find tribal resistance in one tribe and far less in another, increase the aid to the receptive tribe and help them prosper at the expense of the resistant tribe.

3)Enforcement: Keep cracking down on human trafficking, slavery, etc., brutally punishing those who have anything to do with the slave trade. I really don't care, in this regard, if we step on some toes and provoke outcries over infringing on national sovereignty. I think we pretty well did that when our Navy Seals killed Osama bin Ladin.

We should also lean heavily on the governments of countries where honor killings occur, pressing them to treat the perpetrators of such murders harshly.

4) Exposure: We should broadcast the excesses of human trafficking, slavery, forced prostitution, mutilation and honor killings in those parts of the world where they occur and shame those cultures and their leaders in the public media. We should not shy away from this just because someone feels their culture or religion is being dissed. This effort should also include pressure on Islamic religious authorities and spokespersons to justify their beliefs and practices to the rest of us.

 

[Kaylee]

My synopsis:

SMVC: I'm against honor killings but I don't think we should impose our values on others by force;

Opposing Choir: how can you defend honor killings, how barbaric, have you no sense of decency

SMVC: Once again, I'm against honor killings but I don't think we should impose our values on others by force

OC: Clearly we have superior values and they suit us very well, how can you defend honor killings (gruesome details) have you no sense of decency.


And on and on and on and on.

How long do you think honor killings would exist if they weren't implemented by force? Who volunteers to get murdered or even have acid thrown in their face or have parts of their bodies amputated? It makes a big difference whether the victims have any choice in the matter.

And if you look into the various links about the Taliban in Afghanistan, it's clear that they were a fringe group put into power and financed by outsiders who could care less about Afghanis and a great deal about their own finances and political desires.

 

[Kaylee]

Those sound like good recommendations Tim. I'd like to add one more. Our govts should think more carefully about what allies we support. Sometimes the enemies of our enemies are not friends, but just more enemies that shouldn't be supported.

While reading about the Taliban, I found it very distressing to see this:

The United States supported the Taliban through its allies in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia between 1994 and 1996 because Washington viewed the Taliban as anti-Iranian, anti-Shia and pro-Western.[271] Washington furthermore hoped that the Taliban would support development planned by the U.S.-based oil company Unocal.[272] For example, it made no comment when the Taliban captured Herat in 1995, and expelled thousands of girls from schools;[273] the Taliban began killing unarmed civilians, targeting ethnic groups (primarily Hazaras), and restricting the rights of women.[181] In late 1997, American Secretary of State Madeleine Albright began to distance the U.S. from the Taliban. The next year, the American-based oil company Unocal withdrew from negotiations on pipeline construction from Central Asia.[274]

How powerful would the Taliban had been if the US govt hadn't had done that? What a really bad call by the Clinton administration -- though I suppose its possible that they may have decided to allow a decision made during the Bush administration to be executed. I assume it takes a while for foreign policy to get formulated and implemented. Regardless of why it was made -- what a horrible decision.

 

[TimCallahan]

How long do you think honor killings would exist if they weren't implemented by force? Who volunteers to get murdered or even have acid thrown in their face or have parts of their bodies amputated? It makes a big difference whether the victims have any choice in the matter.

And if you look into the various links about the Taliban in Afghanistan, it's clear that they were a fringe group put into power and financed by outsiders who could care less about Afghanis and a great deal about their own finances and political desires.

There are two things here that, while linked, are still separate. One is the body of atrocities carried out by the Taliban. This is something we should combat, even after we leave Afghanistan. For example, an international force of volunteers who have a zeal to combat slavery, human trafficking and forced prostitution could and should remain active.

Unfortunately, the matter of honor killings will be quite a bit harder to deal with. In most of the countries where these occur the entire culture supports such behavior. Otherwise, these atrocities would fade away. We cannot, in all practicality, enforce a ban on honor killings from without. Constant pressure on these cultures to change there ways would be one way to force an eventual end to these abominable practices.

An idea occurs to me that might save lives. Western countries could set up places in which to receive women, girls and others who could be exiled and considered dead to their families. We could then educate, westernize and transport these exiles to more enlightened societies. They would effectively cease to exist in their old communities, satisfying the honor code until we can implement enough change to end it.

 

[tsig]

My synopsis:

SMVC: I'm against honor killings but I don't think we should impose our values on others by force;

Opposing Choir: how can you defend honor killings, how barbaric, have you no sense of decency

SMVC: Once again, I'm against honor killings but I don't think we should impose our values on others by force

OC: Clearly we have superior values and they suit us very well, how can you defend honor killings (gruesome details) have you no sense of decency.


And on and on and on and on.

How long do you think honor killings would exist if they weren't implemented by force? Who volunteers to get murdered or even have acid thrown in their face or have parts of their bodies amputated? It makes a big difference whether the victims have any choice in the matter.

And if you look into the various links about the Taliban in Afghanistan, it's clear that they were a fringe group put into power and financed by outsiders who could care less about Afghanis and a great deal about their own finances and political desires.

Kaylee, it's customary on forums that when you quote another poster your answer will have something to do with the quoted post, you however, decided to just sing another chorus in the OC.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

My synopsis:

SMVC: I'm against honor killings but I don't think we should impose our values on others by force;

Opposing Choir: how can you defend honor killings, how barbaric, have you no sense of decency

SMVC: Once again, I'm against honor killings but I don't think we should impose our values on others by force

OC: Clearly we have superior values and they suit us very well, how can you defend honor killings (gruesome details) have you no sense of decency.


And on and on and on and on.

Except we said over and over, no one was talking 'force'. Then he went on saying that only people within the country have the right to say anything. And we all said one could make a value judgement and exert pressure without being part of the culture.

So you kind of missed some details.

 

[Kaylee]

Kaylee, it's customary on forums that when you quote another poster your answer will have something to do with the quoted post, you however, decided to just sing another chorus in the OC.

Except we said over and over, no one was talking 'force'. Then he went on saying that only people within the country have the right to say anything. And we all said one could make a value judgement and exert pressure without being part of the culture.

So you kind of missed some details.

What Skeptic Ginger said, and also I couldn't help but point out the absurdity of being concerned about using force (which like SG said no one had suggested) when the only ones using force are the people doing the honor killings.

 

[westprog]

I'm assuming based on the little I know about the history of the time, that Britain was the 800 lb gorilla of that era and used its power to convince other nations, including the US, to reluctantly sign treaties banning slave trade on the Atlantic and allow British navel officers to inspect ships and arrest slavers. But that because the other nations, including the US, weren't actually on board they did not cooperate.

That's pretty much the case. Sweet Water And Bitter is an excellent book about it. The strange thing is that Britain, in spite of many shameful activities in its past (and indeed future) seemed to be driven by a genuine moral imperative, in spite of being one of the leading slaving nations.