- Joined
- May 5, 2007
- Messages
- 11,207
Ok so I recently wrote an essay on a subject which to me raises an interesting debate over the extent to which one is tied to the duties of their state as opposed to duties to culture.
Ok so basically I will use the case of "female circumcision" to illustrate my point as that is the topic I chose for my essay. Basically in Australia, legislation passed in 1996 making it illegal for female circumcision (referred to as Female Genital Mutilation, hence forth known as FGM) to be performed from "non medical reasons" sparking a wave of controversy in Australia. As a liberal democratic state, Australia offers freedom of the individual as one of its guaranteed rights (though admittedly Australia is still the only English founded democracy in the world without a formal Bill of Rights), as such it can be argued that people have the right to practice their beliefs.
My personal belief on the matter goes along the line of philosophers Locke and Rousseau that man is born with human rights which he can choose to exchange for civil and political rights should he choose to do so. We know that as social beings, humans are stronger in number than they are alone thus we come together and form societies, should you choose to enjoy the benefits and security of society you must be willing to live by the collective rule. If the law is a formal representation of the collective morality of society then shouldn't a change in law by a democratically elected government mean that the majoritty of society agrees that this is the right thing to do. Afterall punishment is merely the formal representation of societies moral outrage.
Furthermore, in the case of FGM this surgery is performed at a very young age (around 5) without the girl understanding the procedure not to mention the fact that she is not given a choice. I ask you, how can you argue for your freedom to violate the rights of another? The very nature of the opposing argument creates a paradox unto itself.
FMG is by no means an isolated case, take arranged marriages for example, should such a practice be allowed? After all the very nature of arranged means that the people to be married lose their autonomy to choose a partner, does such an argument outweigh freedom of the individual/ freedom of religion?
I don't mean for this to be a topic to discuss FGM only, that was just an example. Rather this topic is meant to be a place to debate law versus multiculturalism.
Ok so basically I will use the case of "female circumcision" to illustrate my point as that is the topic I chose for my essay. Basically in Australia, legislation passed in 1996 making it illegal for female circumcision (referred to as Female Genital Mutilation, hence forth known as FGM) to be performed from "non medical reasons" sparking a wave of controversy in Australia. As a liberal democratic state, Australia offers freedom of the individual as one of its guaranteed rights (though admittedly Australia is still the only English founded democracy in the world without a formal Bill of Rights), as such it can be argued that people have the right to practice their beliefs.
My personal belief on the matter goes along the line of philosophers Locke and Rousseau that man is born with human rights which he can choose to exchange for civil and political rights should he choose to do so. We know that as social beings, humans are stronger in number than they are alone thus we come together and form societies, should you choose to enjoy the benefits and security of society you must be willing to live by the collective rule. If the law is a formal representation of the collective morality of society then shouldn't a change in law by a democratically elected government mean that the majoritty of society agrees that this is the right thing to do. Afterall punishment is merely the formal representation of societies moral outrage.
Furthermore, in the case of FGM this surgery is performed at a very young age (around 5) without the girl understanding the procedure not to mention the fact that she is not given a choice. I ask you, how can you argue for your freedom to violate the rights of another? The very nature of the opposing argument creates a paradox unto itself.
FMG is by no means an isolated case, take arranged marriages for example, should such a practice be allowed? After all the very nature of arranged means that the people to be married lose their autonomy to choose a partner, does such an argument outweigh freedom of the individual/ freedom of religion?
I don't mean for this to be a topic to discuss FGM only, that was just an example. Rather this topic is meant to be a place to debate law versus multiculturalism.