Misapplied multiculturalism and its effects
The end of liberalism: The ignorance of dangers of religious extremism have been ignored by so-called liberals in the US and Europe in the name of tolerance. However, I wouldn't call these people liberals, I'd call them "people who misapply multiculturalism". You don't simply "accept all cultures as equal". They aren't. We're talking about culture, which is, by definition, a human construct. It's not an inherent quality, and is therefore open to criticism and rejection. Many ignorant people attempt to conflate inherent qualities (skin color, facial features, gender, etc.) and acquired ones (religion, political stance, etc.) and call them equivalent. There is no equivalence. Inherent qualities are not open to criticism (beyond aesthetics), and acquired ones are (if they violate rights, don't involve self-only behaviors, or violate the harm principle). We cannot simply accept cultures which violate human rights, civil liberties, and equality. These cultures are not "equal" to ones that don't. They're beneath it. Way beneath it. That's not imperialism, it's a part of protecting human rights. Some cultures need to be taken out. Whether it's the growing or extant United States or Iranian theocrat culture, the authoritarian post-communist culture in China, or the wanna-be theocrat cultures of Hamas, Hezbollah, or Al-Qaeda, they're all a problem, and are worthy of destruction. As a radical liberal, you easily start to see parallels between these groups. Simply compare what they espouse and do to the UDHR and you start to see frightening similarities: women as second-class citizens; anti-LGBT and anti-sexual freedom stances and laws; use of torture and arbitrary detention; crackdowns on freedom of speech and the right to criticize; and in the case of the religious ones, the right to live free of religions and their laws. Should Nazi culture been "left alone"? How about "apartheid culture"? That's right, they were opposed and eventually destroyed because they were deemed destructive. How should it be done? Multilaterally, via the UN HRC. As I said in a previous post, the UN needs some serious teeth when it comes to this stuff. Every single country should have human rights monitors in it and agree to follow the UDHR. If you kick them out or violate the UDHR, the follow happens (in this order): you get reprimanded, you get threatened, you get sanctioned, you get invaded. End of story. The UN should have its own "Human Rights" force, with potentially millions of troops ready to respond at any time. None of this "wait for 8 months while we figure out what to do" nonsense. You make women 2nd class citizens, open a Guantanamo Bay detention center, or commit genocide? BOOM, the "Human Rights Defense Process" kicks in and you're dealt with. How long can the UN dawdle and treat violators with kid gloves?So what about those "liberals"? I don't count myself among them, or rather I don't consider them liberals at all. "The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." - John Stuart Mill. It's easy to see how people didn't take the obvious corollary to this: "Taking away the rights of others falls under 'harm'. These same rules apply to both state actors and individuals, and violations by either should not be tolerated". Those who would allow violations of human rights in the name of respect of culture aren't liberals; they're cowards.
No trackbacks:
Trackback link:
Please enable javascript to generate a trackback url