Category: women’s issues

Comment worth noting: Peter Huston responds

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

If you are just arriving at RRW and don’t know what this is all about, please read last night’s post first, here.   Mr. Huston whose blog I quoted has sent this very thoughtful and interesting reponse to my post and our ‘comments worth noting’ category is especially appropriate for a comment such as this one that shouldn’t be lost in the bowels of this blog where readers might never see it. 

If I were to have a conversation in person with Mr. Huston it would be a long one because he says so many things that interest me, but I will have a few brief comments at the end.  Here is Mr. Huston:

Ann, 

First let me say that although I disagree with much of what you say, I think it’s good that you say it. As you said recently in your post where you introduced people to my blog, “Let the debate begin.” And the more debate, the more discussion there is, the more likely it is that a complete range of views and a full set of facts is likely to emerge. You write about important issues and you bring to light important problems, problems that I hope will be corrected in part through your efforts.

Secondly, let me say that although I disagree with many of Una Hardester’s opinions, and at times I do think she makes the mistake of presenting her opinions as facts and seeing them as such, I hope we will all agree that the world needs people who are willing to work and work hard to make things better. And, I think we will all agree that Una is such a person, just as you are.

Therefore let me just clarify that I am not an expert on the program or what happened with Artan Serjanej. I believe what I wrote is correct but my real interest in this case is how to prevent domestic violence against refugee women, as well as other domestic violence victims, male, female, foreign and domestic. Should people consider it important to find out what really happened with Mr. Serjanej and this program I expect that he should be easy to contact as he is an attorney and therefore should be licensed with the American Bar Association. I do not plan to do so, but suggest that anyone who actually wishes to judge this situation and evaluate it completely should make an attempt to get both sides of the story. I have never met Mr. Serjanej. I have never attended the program under discussion. I based my comments only the newspaper reports and Una’s responses and not on any particular insider knowledge.

My impression is that it would have been better to try to work with him, as a 43 year old former refugee turned attorney willing to volunteer does sound like a very valuable addition to a refugee center, particularly one with a high turnover rate among volunteers as this one does. But never having met the man, I cannot really say if that is the case or not. 

What I will say is that idealism is a double edged sword. Through idealism you get people like Una who are willing to work, work hard, and work for free to help refugees and make the world a better place. On the other hand, as someone who feels very strongly that the prevalence and form of domestic violence, like any other human activity, can and is shaped in part by culture, a statement that from what I understand Una disagrees with (Una correct me please if I mis-state your views here, as if I have to tell you . . . ), I also think that the very idealism that causes people to work with refugees sometimes gets in the way of them arriving at an accurate assessment of what is needed to help them. Which is why we need a constructive discussion as part of the debate on these issues and I thank you, Ann, for helping to foster one.

As I allude to briefly on my blog, when I was 23, and was an idealistic young peace activist, I went off to Taiwan to see the world and teach English. I found it an eye-openingly unpleasant experience in some ways. For instance, it forced me to realize that my political views were often naive and unrealistic. For instance, I actually remember having a mild argument with a young Costa Rican policeman who was in Taiwan for counter-insurgency warfare training to resist Sandinista incursions on his border. (Costa Rica is an unusual nation in that it has no army and therefore uses the police for this task.) I began by asserting that he could not possibly understand the political situation in Central America, a place I had never and still have not visited but where he lived, as he disagreed with my views which were the ones most intelligent people I knew home in the USA held and, furthermore, asserted that the Sandinistas could not be crossing his border and killing his people and they did not do such things. Make a long story short, he won by claiming to have seen the bodies, and we wound up getting drunk together and watching bootleg porno tapes that he had borrowed from a friend as a Costa Rican leftist woman insisted that these tapes were a sign of the corruption that America brought to the world but she got shouted down to as they were her tapes and she had brought them.

Which probably has nothing to do with anything at all but I hope you will agree makes an interesting story.

On the other hand, this experience also opened my eyes to other things too. For instance at the time, should one wish, in Taiwan you could actually visit an area of Taipei where prostitution was legal and one could see the girls standing outside the brothels put on view for customers. And I choose the word girls consciously as they were often about 14 and, being Asian, looked even younger, and in some cases were. (When the brothel owners purchased a pre-pubescent girl, they would actually forcibly inject her with hormones to speed up the onset of menarche and the development of breasts.) Although this sort of thing is much less common in Taiwan today, and forced underground instead of being done openly, this is also among the actual fates and hazards that women refugees in southeast Asia face today.

And when I think that for each Burmese woman newly arrived in the United States who I’ve laughed, joked with and tutored in English there’s another one somewhere in the world who is in forced sexual slavery somewhere in a dark room in Southeast Asia, it makes me feel ill until I stop that thought and move on to something else.

Ann, I know we agree that the refugee resettlement system in the USA needs a closer examination and discussion, and I know you believe that the less money spent on resettling refugees the better, and I know you and I disagree over the numbers to bring here, but I hope we can focus our energies on how best to focus and guide the energies of young, idealistic volunteers to best give real assistance to the refugees who are here now instead of merely mocking them, a practice that I foolishly started on my blog because I was distracted by concern for someone who is in a bad situation.

Anyway, morals of the story (or stories):

1) I am not an authority on the problem between Serjanej and this program although I described events as I understood them.

2) I was very upset when I wrote that as someone I care about, a refugee, is still enmeshed in a domestic violence situation and I am concerned about her emotional and physical well-being and therefore was low on patience. I feel as though with you and Una Hardester and others focusing much energy on words that I wrote, many of which were poorly chosen and poorly typed, you are forgetting that there is an actual, living, breathing person out there who is in trouble and in a very ugly situation and that she is not alone and that there are many refugees who are in similar situations who are not aware of where to turn for help, and these things are difficult even when the people involved know where to turn for help. I hope you will join me in praying that all turns out well for her.

3) Yes, young idealists sometimes do foolish things but what would the world be like without them? Of course, they need guidance, but their drive and energy is unparalleled.

4) Don’t listen to Costa Rican leftist women when they insult your country for watching the bootleg American porno tapes which they owned, brought to the gathering and then personally placed in the V.C.R.

5) Please remember that although the issue is complex, and we must care for our own needs too, the refugees who come here come here because their previous situation was often worse that most Americans can imagine.

I hope we can assist each other in coming up with positive solutions and proposals for real complex problems. 

Peter Huston

Ann’s response:

I could write a book in response, but because I don’t have all week or even all morning, Mr. Huston’s comment gives me an opportunity to repeat some of my core beliefs on the refugee program.  It would be better if I could relate them to Mr. Huston’s points in his comment but since I am short on time, here they are:

First, culture matters, not everyone in the world wants to come to the US and be like us, many want to come and bring some very bad aspects of their culture here.   The problem is then compounded when many in the refugee industry have adopted this idea of cultural relativism.  A prime example of that in recent times has been the discussion on female genital mutilation.  Believe it or not, there are some supposed women intellectuals in the US who believe that the heinous practice is none of our business.  And beyond even the tolerance issue on our part is the issue that some cultures will simply refuse to accept our values.  Muslims, for the most part, are here to change America.

I bet the decision to shut down Mr. Serjanej’s program came from the top of USCRI because what he is saying doesn’t fit their political agenda—to hell with whether it might save some women from abuse.  And, by the way, this is the sort of thing that has puzzled me from day one—-refugee welfare is not the first concern of the big volags.

I also believe strongly that local American citizens have rights too—they have a right to say that they like the culture they grew up with and want to preserve it without being told they are “racists” or “xenophobes.”  They should be given a say about the direction some federal program is taking their community.

Then there is the question of sheer numbers, we simply cannot absorb the millions who wish to come here without destroying what we have, so those few we do invite should be people eager to take advantage (advantage in the best sense of the word) the many opportunities a free society offers.  Please watch the NumbersUSA link at the top of this page to see what I mean.

The third core point I want to make is that the Refugee Resettlement Program is seriously flawed.   It is not good government policy to hand out millions of tax dollars each year to unaccountable non-profit groups.  We plan at RRW to continue to show examples of the fraud and corruption that I believe is woven throughout the program to the detriment of the refugees and the taxpayer.

And, finally, there is some bigger motive afoot here.  This isn’t just a bunch of do-gooders at the highest levels of government pushing for more immigrants to get into the US because they themselves love America and want to share it with the world.  Those true humanitarians working in the refugee community are being duped and the refugees are the pawns.  This is about doing away with borders and creating a world government—ostensibly a socialist one where ‘brilliant’ elitists will tell all of the rest of us riffraff how to live our lives. And, they, the elitists, are happy to keep us busy talking about who is being a good person to whom.   Ask Una’s big boss at USCRI, she knows what I’m talking about.

Mr. Huston, heartfelt thanks for your comment!

Lawyer tells it like it is and gets the heave-ho from refugee workers

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

Correction:  Una Hardester reports that Mr. Serjanej is not a Muslim, so I have made that correction.  She reports that he gave workshops to both Congolese and Iraqi refugees on this subject of violence to family and pets and that such behavior was unacceptable in America.  Thus some members of those ethnic groups he was trying to reach may be other than Muslims. 

Be sure to read Mr. Huston’s comment to this post—a comment which I have posted here as well.

 

Just now I was going through old e-mails and assorted alerts not planning to write anything else today and looking forward to my summer reading of Ayn Rand when I saw that someone was writing about us—RRW.  Well, it wasn’t much about us.  It was mostly about young naive refugee workers not wanting to hear the truth when it didn’t suit them— didn’t fit their politically correct notion of how the world should be! 

Here is what blogger Peter Huston had to say: 

Now Americans tend to be very ethnocentric, idealistic people and therefore the way they deal with people who tell them things they don’t wish to hear, particularly if these things don’t fit their ethnocentric ideals is often interesting. At times, they will go so far as to argue with people about things they know nothing about if these people have experiences that don’t meet their idealistic view of the world.

The lawyer in Peter Huston’s* post is a man I wrote about here last summer.  He is an Albanian who I had fun writing about when he told his audience of new immigrants and refugees that it wasn’t acceptable to beat their wives and dogs in America even if that was something  one grew up with in one’s own Islamic culture.

Artan Serjanej was a 43 year old former refugee who put himself through law school and then volunteered at the local refugee center to teach refugees about their rights in the USA as well as the importance of not beating one’s wife or dog.

His remarks got my attention as I mentioned, and prompted my “not necessarily nice comments” as Huston says.  Of course I was commenting on male dominated (often Islamic) culture that doesn’t sit well with us—conservative women with our world view.  Liberal women, on the other hand, seem to be able to chalk it all up as cultural relativism when they aren’t busy trying to hide the reality of Muslim misogyny altogether.

Anyway this is how we get drawn into this post:

He made some comments to the local newspaper to the effect that some refugee men came from places like he came from (the Muslim country of Albania), where it was acceptable to beat one’s wife or children and that therefore he was doing his best to tell them it wasn’t acceptable here and keep them out of trouble.

Sadly, the Daily Gazette in Schenectady now has a paid-only reading policy but if you’d like you can read the comments he was quoted as making here at Refugee Resettlement Watch: HERE! Now, Refugee Resettlement Watch is an interesting blog that contains much useful information but they clearly have an anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim agenda. Therefore this article is also mixed in with the bloggist’s interesting but not necessarily very nice comments.

If you are now saying, o.k., get on with the story, this is the part that has me rolling on the floor laughing.

It does look like although Serjanej’s comments are undoubtedly the truth as he sees it, and I’m quite inclined to accept his opinion in this matter as he undoubtedly knows more about Albanian culture than I do, they could have been better chosen.

In response to these comments, Una Hardester, 22 year old idealist activist, and her companions, insisted that since Serjanej’s comments should not have been voiced as they were not consistent with the view of the world or the view of refugees that they wished to promote. Therefore they did not invite him back to participate in any more programs. Their programs were now sanitized and politically correct. The cultural gap between some refugees and the young American activist community was again preserved! Oooooh Rah! Mission accomplished!

Seriously, did it ever occur to you humanitarians that by silencing Serjanej you may now be responsible for violence to some women and children whose husband’s and father’s do not get his message about what behavior is unacceptible in America.

*I see we mentioned Peter Huston’s blog here in June.

Honor killing and polygamy in Canadian Muslim community

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

This story of the tragic death of three teenaged girls and one of the murder suspect’s wives is being so thoroughly covered elsewhere, here at Jihad Watch and at Atlas Shrugs (here), I hadn’t posted on it.  But, it occurs to me that some of our readers may be coming to RRW for other reasons and might not normally see the many excellent blogs that are part of the growing anti-jihad movement.

Mark Steyn has a bit more information here at National Review Online.

See our ‘women’s issues’ category for all of our posts on polygamy, female genital mutilation, and honor killings.

Obama may be opening the door to millions of asylum applicants

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

Update July 21st:  For readers wanting more details on this decision by the Obama Administration, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) has a discussion with links here (scroll down to the third item).  Hat tip:  Paul

The New York Times reported on Wednesday:

The Obama administration has opened the way for foreign women who are victims of severe domestic beatings and sexual abuse to receive asylum in the United States. The action reverses a Bush administration stance in a protracted and passionate legal battle over the possibilities for battered women to become refugees.

In addition to meeting other strict conditions for asylum, abused women will need to show that they are treated by their abuser as subordinates and little better than property, according to an immigration court filing by the administration, and that domestic abuse is widely tolerated in their country. They must show that they could not find protection from institutions at home or by moving to another place within their own country.

The case that is in question is that of a Mexican woman seeking asylum, fearful of being murdered by her common-law husband. He forced her to live with him, stole her salary, repeatedly raped her at gunpoint and tried to kill her. Last year Bush administration officials argued in court that her case did not meet the legal standard for asylum. Now the Obama administration is reversing that stance.

The question of asylum for battered women has been around since 1996, when

a Guatemalan woman named Rody Alvarado was granted asylum by an immigration court, based on her account of repeated beatings by her husband. Three years later, an immigration appeals court overturned Ms. Alvarado’s asylum, saying she was not part of any persecuted group under American law.  

Apparently that case is not yet resolved.

Since then Ms. Alvarado’s case has stalled as successive administrations debated the issue, with immigration officials reluctant to open a floodgate of asylum petitions from battered women across the globe. During the Clinton administration, Attorney General Janet Reno proposed regulations to clarify the matter, but they have never gone into effect. In a briefing paper in 2004, lawyers for the Department of Homeland Security raised the possibility of asylum for victims of domestic violence, but the Bush administration never put that into practice in immigration court, Professor Musalo said.

Now Homeland Security officials say they are returning to views the department put forward in 2004, refining them to draw conditions sufficiently narrow that battered women would prevail in only a limited number cases.

It’s a thorny problem. Whose heart doesn’t go out to a woman with a story like the Mexican asylum seeker? But domestic violence (what a sterile term!) and sexual abuse are so common around the world that, as Phyllis Chesler points out,

Fellow Americans: Prepare to receive the entire female population of Pakistan sometime soon. And that’s just for starters. I don’t oppose this—but I honestly don’t know if we can economically afford to do it. Given the recession/depression, I rather doubt we can. But get ready for something like this to happen anyway.

…. Studies show that 50-90% of Pakistani women are routinely beaten, even when they are pregnant, and that daughter-beating and wife-beating are not considered crimes. Pakistani men will sometimes publicly gang-rape a young girl in order to falsely “avenge” another crime committed by a member of their own clan; be-head, throw acid at, or burn alive a girl or woman who has offended their family or political-religious honor; they will marry a ten-year-old daughter to a fifty-year-old man in order to settle a debt, or to receive a small sum of money. In Pakistan, most honor killings of girls and women are not prosecuted either. In one study, my own, first published in Middle East Quarterly, almost half the honor murders perpetrated in the West were perpetrated by Pakistani men or Pakistani families.

 Even if Homeland Security drew narrow guidelines, there would still be plenty of eligible women just in Pakistan, and many more in other Muslim countries, plus those in other countries. Chesler seems to be suggesting that it would be a good idea to open our doors to battered women, but not their batterers, if we weren’t in a recession. She makes this excellent point:

Male domestic violence is a global phenomenon. Why single out one country—isn’t that “racist” or “Islamophobic” and doesn’t that suggest that all Pakistani Muslims are batterers or tend to batter women more than, let’s say, Christian-American men do?

But they do. They are trained to do so. Their culture has normalized woman-battering while the Big Bad West has actually gone and criminalized it, tried to shelter its victims and prosecute their persecutors. True, we have done so rather late in the day and in an imperfect way. But this level of progress does not exist in the Arab Middle East, Africa, or central Asia where even honor murders are accepted, rarely reported as such, even more rarely prosecuted, and where reduced sentences apply to this but to no other crime.

I’m sorry, Phyllis, and I’m terribly sorry for all those women, but it would be impossible to provide asylum to the millions of deserving women around the world. Of course, just because it’s impossible doesn’t mean Obama mightn’t try to do it. Not because he’s such a great humanitarian, but because it would overload the system and cause that much more chaos.

This issue bears watching.

Special gym times to accommodate Somali women

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

This is a good time to re-read an article we posted last September from reader Avi in which he tells us about the quiet jihad in Minnesota.   Although it may seem innocuous  to some of you, here is an article from AP about special accommodations in a community center in Minneapolis for Muslim girls, prohibited supposedly by Islam to be seen by men without head coverings and long dresses. 

MINNEAPOLIS – Nearly every day, Somali boys and young men gather at the Brian Coyle Center in the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood to shoot hoops in the gym.

But there are times when the boys are locked out — and the gym is set aside just for the girls.

In a single-sex environment, the high school students and young women can learn basketball, cut loose a little, and they don’t need to wear scarves and long skirts for religious modesty.

I’m not opposed to some single-sex opportunities for meetings, classes, gym times, but I wonder whether they can do it for specific religious reasons.  Could a group of Catholic girls ask for the same privilege?   I don’t know.

The Brian Coyle Center

This center located in the Cedar-Riverside section of Minneapolis  (same neighborhood where some of the missing youths resided) has figured many times in posts we have written.  It was the location where community meetings were held to discuss the murders of Somali youths in gang violence nearby, it was involved in questions about voter fraud on Nov. 4th,  and its director testified recently at the Senate hearing on Somali terrorist recruitment.

The Brian Coyle Center is funded by a supposed non-profit group Pillsbury United Communities.   The PUC employs 200 full and parttime staff, but like virtually all non-profits these days gets taxpayer funding.   Its 2007 Form 990 lists government grants of $3,427,318, about a quarter of its approximately $12 million in funding for that year.   Can they take public funding and then allow special religious accommodation in a public facility?   Does anyone know?

An aside:  We hear so much these days about the Obama Administration bringing socialism to the business community, but while we were all busy running our lives, these leftwing non-profits (like PUC) have gradually begun receiving taxpayer funding.  The line between government and leftwing policy promoters is gone, and adding insult to injury we pay for it!