Multi-culti domestic abuse

I've been having a most exciting thread on my blog related to a post I did about the problems with multiculturalism. My point in that post was that multiculturalism is a bad thing for Western civilization, unless Western civilization's goal is the death of its own cultural norms. It now appears that multiculturalism is also a bad thing, a very bad thing, for women. How else can you describe the multicultural insanity that just reared its head in Australia. Australian police are now being told to treat Islamic wife abuse as "special," because Islamic tradition supports abusing women:

POLICE are being advised to treat Muslim domestic violence cases differently out of respect for Islamic traditions and habits. Officers are also being urged to work with Muslim leaders, who will try to keep the families together. Women’s groups are concerned the politically correct policing could give comfort to wife bashers and keep their victims in a cycle of violence. The instructions come in a religious diversity handbook given to Victorian police officers that also recommends special treatment for suspects of Aboriginal, Hindu and Buddhist background. Some police officers have claimed the directives hinder enforcing the law equally. Police are told: “In incidents such as domestic violence, police need to have an understanding of the traditions, ways of life and habits of Muslims.” They are told it would be appreciated in cases of domestic violence if police consult the local Muslim religious leader who will work against “fragmenting the family unit”.

I'm sure this deference is very comforting to Australian Muslim women who are at risk of being beaten to death. What's really strange about this news story is that I once used this scenario, years ago, as the reductio ad absurdum argument against the slavish deference to PC multiculturalism. That is, I argued that, when you come from another country to America, you should conform to American mores and not force America to conform to yours. (I also said that, to the extent that your cultural practices can coexist with American practices, America cannot and should not try to stifle you.) As examples of the type of practices that should not be allowed to continue in America, despite their approval in another's culture, I cited both culturally-sanctioned wife beating and honor killings. I'm not even arguing here that one cultural norm is better than another (although I state my personal opinion that a culture that does not have honor killings is better than one that does). I'm simply saying that, if you move to a country that does not legally allow whatever your cultural practice may be, by coming to that country, you have voluntarily elected to abandon that practice. I could, of course, argue that there is merit in forcing a culture to abandon practices that don't fit in with the highest Judeo-Christian ideals. I mean, I seriously wonder how many people today would argue that the British were wrong, when they took over India, to outlaw suttee, the practice by which a widow would immolate herself alive on her husband's funeral pyre. However, that's another argument altogether. My point is that, if you perceive that another country offers you a better life than your own country, and you voluntarily elect to come to that new country, you've also voluntarily abandoned those of your traditions that conflict with laws in the new country. And more to the point, if your country is a dead end and the new country is supposed to be better, what purpose is served by instantly attempting to turn the new country into that same dead end? Hat tip: Little Green Footballs UPDATE: Here's a little more on fundamentalist Islam's approach to multiculturalism.