What do you think of the incident in which a Chinese uncle touched a boy's genitals in New Zealand and the judge acquitted him because of cultural differences?

In short, "in the absence of malice, an old man made a relatively harmless offense because of his outdated and ignorant ideas."

I think the judge's judgment is very reasonable, but there is something wrong with the international image of Chinese people, which is a headache.

This case reflects a common problem in the practice of multiculturalism in contemporary immigrant countries: insisting on rigid multiculturalism sometimes hurts the disadvantaged groups in this cultural group. Moreover, the "cultural defense" of some misconduct may even create hatred between different ethnic groups.

What is the core of multiculturalism? "Each has its own beauty, beauty, beauty and * * *, and the world is a family." The difficulty lies in presupposing that every cultural tradition must be well-intentioned and that individuals in each cultural group accept this culture. But this is not the case. Every culture has its own dross.

According to the most basic liberal principle, an act can only be prohibited by public power if it causes harm to others. However, when an act infringes on the rights of others, dogmatic multiculturalism still uses cultural differences to defend the infringement.

Summarized as follows:

In my opinion, to achieve true multiculturalism, we must make clear the boundaries of rights: no matter what your cultural background, you can't infringe on another person's private rights, and you can't use differences to excuse the harm. This can also solve the dilemma faced by the disadvantaged groups in minority cultures: even if your cultural tradition is like this, you can't interfere with your personal independent choice.