Islamic [In]Justice (on Sharia courts in Western countries)

"That is exactly the problem with the racist concepts of multi-culturalism and cultural relativism. It promotes tolerance and respect for so-called minority opinions and beliefs, rather than and often times instead of respect for human beings. Human beings are worthy of the highest respect but not all opinions and beliefs are worthy of respect and tolerance. There are some who believe in fascism, white supremacy, the inferiority of women. Must those beliefs be respected? There is a big difference between the two.

Multi-culturalism always gives precedence to cultural and religious norms, however reactionary, over the human being and her rights. And it always sees communities as having one homogeneous belief and opinion – often times taking the most reactionary segment of that community – the imams and elders’ beliefs - as the belief and culture of the whole.

Multi-culturalism’s promotion of respect for beliefs and opinions is so strong that even when rights are violated, women mutilated and killed, girls victimised, respect for those beliefs and norms take precedence over individual and universal rights. There is a real contradiction between cultural relativism and multi-culturalism on the one hand and individual rights on the other."

***

Smart Fraction Theory II: Why Asians Lag

"The spectacular visuospatial ability of NE Asians, while accounting for their high IQ scores, does not necessarily make them good capitalists. Hunting strategies have little to do with wealth production. And a new tool, irrespective of point of origin, is now soon available worldwide. The structure of NE Asian intelligence did not come about in response to pressures to be attorneys or editors or production managers or copywriters or salesmen or programmers or systems analysts or insurance adjusters or purchasing agents or account executives. The harsh prehistoric Siberian climate did not select for capitalist alleles."

I'm trying to decide if this is supposed to be a joke.

***

Ego trumps equity

"In 1996, Nominated Member of Parliament, Kanwaljit Soin, made a valiant attempt to equalise the alimony law between men and women. PAP members of parliament either kept quiet or resisted. The Minister for Community Development, Abdullah Tarmugi, could not offer anything but the lamest excuse why he would not accept her proposal which might even have saved taxpayer money.

It's interesting to revisit this episode as it reveals a lot about the mindset of our ruling party and government...

The minister indicated his disagreement. He said, "Call me old fashioned if you will; call me a male chauvinist if you must, but my upbringing and my background tell me that it is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife."

... a PAP member of parliament, Kenneth Chen, spoke against her proposal. He said that "in Singapore, husbands are deemed to be the head of the family and are responsible for looking after the welfare for their wives and children."

A number of PAP backbenchers chorussed their agreement.

Then Abdullah Tarmugi, the Minister for Community Development, once again refused her suggestion, saying that when the Women's Charter was first passed in 1961, "maintenance for husbands was never in the Act and nobody made any squeak about it," implying that she should shut up now, and that "the general view is that.... it is the husband's duty to maintain his wife morally and legally."

"And I think this is shared by many men outside this House," he added for emphasis."