Human Rights and Cultural Relativism

There are so many interesting questions about how many of the rights won by past generations of feminists, - human and animal rights workers have to be violated because we admit Muslim theocrats and others to this country as immigrants without insisting they learn and respect those rights.

These questions include the acceptance of less than equal rights in the United States by allowing women's faces to be masked in public -in Courts and while at places of employment; the acceptance of less than equal rights for women in general; the acceptance of honor murders and female genital mutilations when the girls are sent to a foreign country to have the "operation" and murders performed, secret polygamy and now refusal of seeing eye dogs and the acceptance of animal abuse in the name of religion.

It is not enough to stop the flood of illegal wage slaves being imported by the wealthy into this country, it is time to have frank discussions of legal immigration and what standards must be accepted for the right to live in this country as a alien or a citizen. Because somehow, the immigrant admittance classes are not getting the message across.

Instead of huge classes for every different culture, classes need to target specific cultures and identify what, in their culture, is not acceptable under our law based on the practices observed by citizens. Certainly, the legal system is under the impression that immigrants are allowed special lee way in the violation of our laws.

The civil liberty law organizations no longer work for the civil rights of US citizens if they ever did. Now they defend illegal immigrants, terrorists and the Man/Boy sex associations. So unless there are US entrance requirements, immigration will be used to degrade the rights of legally defenseless women, children, disabled and animals and citizen wage workers.

None of the organizations we built will defend us, not NOW or the Unions or the civil rights organizations. They are now bought by the wealthy and keep their mouths shut except to call us racist when we bring up inconvenient truths of our life experiences. As our wages go down the struggle to survive will prevent us from defending our own rights. The wealthy know this and use our desire to embraced the poor of the world against us.

Acceptance of OUR culture needs to be a requirement of our acceptance of their immigration. The rich who want to exploit these people for cheap labor will tell you I am a racist for saying this out loud.

This is not racism or whatever else the rich boys in the universities convince you to believe. These are violations of hard won rights. These are degradations of our society. These are rights paid for with the lives of working people,- women. Now someone says "racist" and children are willing to be duped into discarding them like used tissue. It is not racist to say this society is not some 6th century theocracy. Did you know the Supreme Court approved animal sacrifice for Santaria in the same term they outlawed peyote for Native American religious ceremonies?

The below excerpt is from Phyllis Chesler's blog - go there to read the whole article, especially how the behavior described below is being duplicated in convenience stores.


http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/phyllischesler/
...Nevertheless: Aqsa Parvez’s father Muhammed, who honor-murdered his daughter because she refused to wear an Islamic headscarf worked as a taxi driver in Mississauga, a suburb of Toronto. Yasir Said, who murdered his two teenage daughters, Amina and Sarah, because they had become too western, was also a taxi driver in Dallas.

Taxi drivers in England have been known to constitute a network in which they spy on and actively return girls and women who are trying to escape being honor murdered. According to a just-released report, UK teachers and police officials are “afraid to take action against so-called honour crimes for fear of being accused of racism.” The Daily Mail notes that, in addition, “Researchers say taxi drivers, police and government workers of Asian origin are returning women to the domestic abuse they want to escape.” Taxi drivers again!

In 1997, in New Orleans, a blind woman tried to enter a taxi with her seeing eye dog. The Muslim taxi driver physically attacked her and further injured an already-broken wrist. At trial, the judge described the driver’s behavior as a “total disgrace” and sentenced him to 120 days of community service at the Lighthouse for the Blind. In 1999, a Muslim taxi driver in Cincinnati refused to transport a blind female passenger with a seeing eye dog. The woman complained; CAIR defended him as having acted in accordance with his religious beliefs. (Dogs are considered impure and contact with them is considered to render a Muslim ritually unfit for prayer).In 2000, in Edmonton, Canada, a blind woman tried to enter a cab with her seeing eye dog. The driver first claimed “allergies,” but then stated that “taking a dog conflicted with his religion.” At trial, he failed to produce the necessary proof from an allergist. However, the case against him was dismissed because it had been improperly filed.

We also know that in 2005 and 2006, some Muslim taxi drivers in Minneapolis refused to pick up airport fares whom they suspected of transporting alcohol or pork. In 2007 the Metropolitan Airport Commission of Minnesota they unanimously voted to crack down on such drivers who “declined to transport passengers with alcohol or pork” ).

What next? Will Muslim taxi drivers refuse to transport “naked” women? “Naked” as in with their faces showing? But, what’s true of some Muslim taxi drivers is also true of some Muslim convenience store owners....

http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/phyllischesler/

See also:

Church of Lukumi Babalu Ave., Inc. v. Hialeah, 113 S. Ct. 2217 (1993)
City's ban on killing animals for religious sacrifices, while allowing sport killing and hunting, was unconstitutional discrimination against the Santeria religion.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/santeri1.htm

The U.S. Supreme Court's Decision of April 17, 1990 in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith
http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/dmstree/uipl/uipl90/uipl_4290.htm


0 Comments:

Links to this post:

Create a Link