Creeping Islam is making its way to the once civilized nations of the world where even the prohibition against rape is being questioned. We shouldn’t be surprised. Moral absolutes were given up a long time ago unless they are part of a leftist agenda. Then and only then are there rules and procedures that cannot be broken without severe legal retribution.
The latest fallout from the reign of moral relativism is rape and the Muslim male. A Muslim man in Australia was arrested on the charge of rape. An Afghan refugee would drive around the city “at night searching for drunk, vulnerable young woman to prey on.” He would then pick them up and rape them. What was the young Muslim’s defense? The defendant’s attorney argued that his client “was uneducated, illiterate, inexperienced in forming relationships with women, and was confused about the nature of consent. He is in Australia on a permanent protected visa. “
The first judged rejected the argument. But this didn’t stop the rapist and his lawyer from looking for a judge who would accept the notion that differing cultural mores constituted a valid argument for certain types of behavior that are considered illegal in western cultures.
Given the flexible nature of law these days where prohibitions dealing with sexual acts are coming down, is it any surprise that courts are considering that cultural differences should be considered? Cultures evolve at different rates and in different ways. One culture cannot impose its belief system on another culture. And who’s to say that one culture is better than another?
The same type of cultural morality defense was used when Nazis were put on trial after World War II.
After the defeat of Hitler’s Third Reich, war-crime tribunals were set up in Nuremberg, Germany. The purpose, of course, was to judge those who had participated in the grossest of atrocities, the planned extermination of the Jewish race and other “crimes against humanity.” If they are only crimes against humanity, then only men determine what’s criminal, a very shaky premise for justice. John Warwick Montgomery explains the problem the tribunal faced:
“When the Charter of the Tribunal, which had been drawn up by the victors, was used by the prosecution, the defendants very logically complained that they were being tried by ex post facto laws; and some authorities in the field of international law have severely criticized the allied judges on the same ground. The most telling defense offered by the accused was that they had simply followed orders or made decisions within the framework of their own legal system, in complete consistency with it, and that they therefore could not rightly be condemned because they deviated from the alien value system of their conquerors.1
The defense attorney for the Muslim rapist used the Nazi Nuremberg defense. The men who were standing trial argued that the commands that they carried out were morally acceptable because they were developed “within the framework of their own legal system, in complete consistency with it.”
An alien moral code had been imposed on them from an outside authority. The only reason they were on trial was because they lost the war.
The Nuremberg judges were in something of a moral dilemma since they did not have a universal law to which they could appeal. Germany and the rest of the so-called civilized world had rejected the view that there are universal moral absolutes because every western nation had adopted evolution as the explanation for the way the world is and operates.
The Muslim rapist was being judged by an alien law. Harold Bolt, writing in the Australian Herald Sun, issues a much needed directive:
“If Afghan men have a culture which leaves them more likely to rape, and our courts have a culture of being more lenient as a consequence, I suggest Australian women have an interest in stopping the boats until we get this sorted out.”
The problem remains, however, since there is no longer any way to justify or account for “cultural norms.”
Randy Thornhill, a biologist who teaches at the University of New Mexico, and Craig T. Palmer, an anthropologist who teaches at the University of Missouri-Columbia, attempt to demonstrate in their book A Natural History of Rape2 that evolutionary principles explain rape as a “genetically developed strategy sustained over generations of human life because it is a kind of sexual selection — a successful reproductive strategy.”
- John Warwick Montgomery, The Law Above the Law (Minneapolis, MN: Dimension Books/Bethany Fellowship, 1975), 24–25. [↩]
- Randy Thornhill, and Craig T. Palmer, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000). [↩]
Become an insider!
Sign up for the free Godfather Politics email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.