This makes mockery of the claim that Muslim women cheerfully don their scarves voluntarily, which I never believed anyway.

but haven't you read the Toronto Star?

According to a "Muslim youth" quoted there, the usual "tension" within Muslim families in Canada, revolves around the parents who DO NOT want their daughters to wear a face-cloak, while the latter actually DO.

Yes, that's the way it is.

RH

If they are torn between their new home and the old one, they should stay in the old one. Simple.

Whenever I hear someone say that a radical proposal will "just make the problem worse", I know it is a good idea that will actually work -- as opposed to one that will make everybody feel good and would be easier to do.

Damian, we don't need to encourage Islamists to retreat more into their community, they have done so already. Shunning those who don't adhere to Canadian values such as not murdering your daughter because she didn't cover her hair seems very reasonable. If we don't make them conform to our values, then this will only be the beginning.

I'd be tempted to see this as an isolated incident confined to one family, if it weren't for the fact that there have been very similar incidents in other places like the UK. Very disturbing.

We should engage, not shun - Kathy Shaidle is blinded by an angry hatred.

I don't like Islam. Nothing to do with Muslims, I feel sorry for them for being so repressed and manipulated by Islam. My neighbour is a Muslim from Turkey and we've become good acquaintances - she's become friends with a great many Canadians, and (of her own choice and without suggestion from me or anyone else) stopped attending her mosque. She told me excitedly in June or July that she'd just come from the Gay Pride weekend parade downtown and had had a really fun time.

Would shunning her have helped her in any way???

And please note what I actually said:

The conditions for shunning are that they decline to condemn child killers in their midst.

Really, is that such an outrageous tradeoff? We won't be nice to them if they can't be bothered publically disowning a man who kills his own child?

Honestly, the misplaced outrage here and around the blogosphere about this is hilarious and typically liberal.

Don't behead the messenger...

Speaking of which, wasn't Kathy supposed to be shunning us?

Has the twilight zone erupted around here lately?

Admittedly, I haven't been around as much as I used to be. But it used to be, I read this blog regularly and agreed with a lot of what was being said. Now it seems like I have to rub my eyes and blink at every second thing I read.

I'm glad that at least some people seem to realize how ridiculous Kathy Shaidle's reaction is. Sure, let's lump everyone of a certain background together, "shun" all of them, and pretend that we are "preserving our way of life". Yeah, cause that'll work. There's a word for that and it starts with an R. Not a very nice word.

This case is despicable and the father in question will surely be charged, given a fair trial under Canadian law and, if convicted, punished accordingly. What he did was murder, and last I checked, we have laws against that.

But to use this case as a pretext for trying to ban the hijab, well, all I can say is, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

This week, Quebec's labour unions came out for a law imposing a dress code for anyone working for a union, which would ban "any and all" elements of religious identification from one's clothing. Sure, you're prepared to ban your neighbour's hijab... but are you prepared to give up your right to wear a cross around your neck? What about the religious Jewish man down the block, who wants to wear a kippa to work? Or my little magen david necklace, that I wear proudly?

Freedom of religion and freedom from religion go hand in hand. The more we demand that people of other religions give up their freedoms, the more we give up our own. I wonder how many of you would want to live in a forced secular state, without the right to practice your religion as you see fit.

Let's not muddy the waters here. What this man did was a perversion of religion. Most women I know who wear the hijab do so voluntarily, and most are not extremist at all, merely religious or even only partly religious, or simply expressing their culture. (Or, in some cases, trying to piss off their parents... yep, teenagers are mostly all alike).

As France is finding out the hard way, banning religious symbols from school is merely pushing the religious out of the public school system. Banning them at work will have even worse effects, pushing Muslim women out of the workforce.

This man should be punished to the full extent of the law. I have nothing but sympathy for his daughter, who never got the chance to live in freedom. But let's not mix issues here.

segac.

Do you not understand, or are you trying to mislead the rest of us?

Let me point it out in case you're entirely clueless. The Quebec-union-dress issue is to restrict religious symbols because, for some reason, the morons in charge don't like religious symbols, although they'll surely cloak it in terms of not giving offense.

The hijab issue is because, as a case I heard about recently--hmmm, what was it, now, anyway, I'll recognize it when I hear it--there is NO CHOICE for the women. Or, to put it another way, their choice is wear the hijab or die.

If they are given the "choice" it means they wear it or the old bastards back in the hood will beat them or kill them. That's exactly the reason Ataturk forbade headcoverings for Turkish women so long ago. To take the power away from the fuckers and haters in the hood.

The two are not related. But you knew that, didn't you?

I see it's getting good and ugly already. At least the intolerance around here is consistent.

Richard, what you don't seem to understand is that you can't lump everyone who wears a hijab into the same category. This particular girl was tragically forced to wear it by her father, and when she rebelled, he reacted in the most extrem possible way.

But most people who wear the hijab in Canada are not doing so out of coersion. Most of the women have A CHOICE, just as you have a choice on what to wear each day or whether to express your faith, whatever it is or isn't, through your clothing.

The knee-jerk reaction around here is always along the lines of "oh, that just shows the evils of (insert other usually-Muslim) culture, so we should ban anything to do with it because it's foreign to us and besides, they're stuck in the middle ages, blah blah blah".

Forbidding a head covering is taking away a freedom, not adding one. The only way to deal with this issue is to allow freedom for all and to strongly prosecute anyone who tries to take it away through extreme means, even within his own family.

But then, you knew THAT, right?

I would like to state that the hijab is NOT required wear for Muslims. It is a choice and nowhere in the Koran states that it is obligatory. Over the past few years political Islam has begun to insist that women wear hijabs and that's why we have seen an increase in the wearing of religious garb. Political islam is funded by the radical sects in Saudi Arabia and funded by the Western world's use of oil. Political islam is what scares me the most. They were behind the movement to implement Sharia law in Ontario a few years ago. We must not allow political islam to influence the world. They are currently funding the building of schools and mosques globally and what is taught in those schools is more extremist and radical than before the funding was applied.

"As France is finding out the hard way, banning religious symbols from school is merely pushing the religious out of the public school system. Banning them at work will have even worse effects, pushing Muslim women out of the workforce."

What France found out the hard way was that allowing massive unrestricted immigration from a culture that has been antogonistic towards both Euorpe AND Christianity for 14 centuries is a complete disaster.

If French policies are to be blamed, then it is only those wonky immigration policies, cooked up by 60s inspired nutcases, handicapped by myopic cultural relativism that should be called on the carpet. It never occured to the superior frenchman that the colonial peasants would view French and western culture as inferior and not worth bothering with.

No one is pushing Muslim women out of the workforce; if they cannot abide by basic ground rules ie religious neutrality, then it is they who push themselves out of mainstream . They are in effect saying Islam trumps the concerns, tastes and values of civil society, and that if we cannot accept that superiority, then they'll pick up their toys and stomp off home.

Well, stomp off home I say, because we don't reject them, they reject us.

Were you to be involved in a civil dispute with a Muslim neighbour, Sari, and then found yourself in front of a hijab-clad judge who asked for a stay of proceedings in order to accommodate noon-hour prayers ( for both her and your neighbour), would you seriously expect fairness from an individual who obviously places Islam above most other concerns?

A good number of muslims are happy to exclude themselves from the mainstream, and indeed commend each other for having done so. They congregate in their own neighbourhoods, reduce interaction with the larger society to a strict minimum, refuse to participate in everything from sports activities to music class and then set about complaining that this self-imposed segregation is the result of islamophobia.

And who's talking about banning croses and pendants? If only religious expression were LIMITED to mere crosses and pendants in both the classroom and workplace, I'd be AUX ANGES.

This murder is an outrage, not because it was committed by the girl's father, but rather because it is clearly motivated by sick, perverse religious impulses.

She wasn't killed for being a slut, nor for bad grades or for having lost her cherry; she was killed because whe wouldn't obey the backward, retrograde diktats Islam had tried to impose on her.

This is not a 'mere murder' like a dope-deal, robbery or mugging gone wrong; this is a murder than can only be properly understood within islam's larger relgious context, it's horrific and oppressive misogyny that attempts to controle every aspect of a women's life, so please don't try and whitewash it.

Does the fact female relatives were present and yet DID NOTHING to stop it not tell you something?

Ni Putes, Ni Soumises!

A racist is a conservative who's winning an argument with a liberal. Being called a racist means no more to me than being called a zuccini.

John is right: they shun our mores, our language, our customs. So why can't we treat them the way they treat us? Why is that such a big deal? That's how any normal person who hasn't been brainwashed by the CBC would feel on any given day.

Normal people get outraged by this stuff. They don't write reasoned, polite posts about "how awful it is BUT..."

I'm sorry but where I come from, YOU guys are the weird-os.

It's too bad so many Canadians, right and left, feel obliged to engage in pissing contests to see who can hit the farthest multiculti target.

PS: i'm not sure why I should be impressed that any new Canadian, muslim or not, had a great time at a gay pride parade...

*Shakes head sadly*.

So crosses and pendants are okay because they represent "civil society", but hijabs are not because they represent "sick, perverse impulses"?

I don't even know where to start...

I think the best way to handle these "cultural sensitivity" arguments is the way General Napier handled the Hindu custom of sati:

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."

Further to the above, how many of these killings are in fact, related to conversion? We may never know in this case, but in the UK many 'honour killings' are driven by the decedent's conversion to another religion.

It is something I have seen during my time in the Gulf; it is now being exported abroad. Whilst the killing of someone over western values or dress is cultural, killing an apostate from Mohammedanism certainly is not.

[External Link]

Damian,

Mohamed Elmasry is not an elected official nor is the CIC an official organization. He is a guy who is trying to stake out the role of "Canadian Muslim Spokesman", and his past statements are worrying in that context. Unfortunately, every time he is quoted as the "Muslim point of view", as you and the reference articles have done, this only gives him more of the power and respect that he seeks.

His opinion is his own and should be of no more consequence than that of the student government of the victim's school. By trotting him out as a reference you're giving him credibility he doesn't deserve in any way. Not jumping to the premature conclusion of an honour killing should not need a spokesman and if it did, a better one should be found.

If it was an honour killing then it's first degree murder without remorse and I'd expect that he would receive the maximum sentence and have no chances with a parole board.

Taking Kathy's shotgun approach and knocking it down a couple of notches on the insane racism scale, I think we can be fairly certain that any opposition to the legal consequences of Parvez's actions will not be received with any sympathy from Canadians. There is, of course, no need for a door to door condemnation census to see which Muslims "qualify" to remain a part of society.

I wonder: in Kathy's strange world where maybe 51% of Muslims condemned the act, would that mean that she would give a pass to all Muslims or would there be a higher threshold? If that threshold were met but there were still dissenters, would the condemners get to wear buttons or patches that mark them as "fit to participate" or something?

Logistics sure do get confusing when you start listening to whackjob racists who want to "shun" or "deport" people. How many "camps" and where do you put them Kathy?

Kathy Shaidle -

I agree with you generally, but frankly on this issue, you’ve gone off the deep end.

Are you really saying that all Muslims migrants to Canada “shun us, our language, our customs”?

All of them, every last one?

Be realistic. The law should in no way tolerate violence directed at women (or anyone) in the name of religion; let’s be honest enough that, at the current moment at least, most religiously-inspired violence is coming from Muslims.

However, it is too much to say that Islam or Muslims are inherently violent. Heaven sakes, I’ve known a Mohammad who went around as “Moe” because he thought his name was too foreign; I knew a young guy named “Ozzie” – I thought it was a funny name until I glimpsed his paycheque and so his actual name was “Osama”.

C’mon off it replased…

I don't think Shaidle is racist.

I had no idea that Mohammedanism had become a 'race' of people. I am certain the Turks, Arabs, Egyptians, Berbers, Persians, Africans (of all stripes), Indonesians, Chinese, and Europeans would disagree.

There's a more practical objection to shunning. Devout Muslims are often encouraged to shun non-Muslims. By returning the favor you're just isolating them even further. The proper response to religion-based violence is that Canada has laws, and if you refuse to abide by them, or actively encourage others to break them, you will be punished, and, if appropriate, deported.

Premeditated murder is premeditated murder, whatever the motive.

Actually I find what Roundhead is saying almost more troubling than what Kathy is saying.

Hold your horses - let me explain.

Kathy's position is pretty clear. Extreme, but clear.

Roundhead, on the other hand, seems to have no problem with Muslims... as long as they're not "too" Muslim. So, "Mo" and "Ozzie", who wear jeans, listen to rock music, and watch hockey are fine with him. But Mohammed and Osama wearing traditional garb, praying, speaking a different language or following different customs (but still respecting Canadian law and living peacefully and productively within our society) are not.

This is just another variation on the same theme. The one that says that immigrants are fine, as long as they don't make people too uncomfortable by eating those weird foods or insisting on following those strange cultural traditions that so many people instinctively react negatively to, simply because they're different.

Xenophobia comes in all stripes and colours. And, to a greater or lesser degree, most new large-scale immigrant groups have encountered that at some point. From the Chinese "head tax" to the quota system in universities against Jews, Canadian culture hasn't exactly always adapted that well to change.

That's no excuse not to try, though.

"A good number of muslims are happy to exclude themselves from the mainstream, and indeed commend each other for having done so"

So, I guess "shunning them" will encourage them to adopt western values and approaches, integrate into our society, and contribute to our country. This is quite possibly the stupidest single suggestion I have ever heard outside of the rabble board - even ignoring the fact that the people you are really trying to affect don't give a damn about whether you "shun" them or not - in fact, they probably welcome it. The people in that religious group who actually give a damn about whether the locals treat them with respect are also the ones most likely to become good members of the community in time; so we show our support for that process with some kind of Junior High nonsense lifted from the Gossip Girls. Yup - a strategy that hurts and alienates our potential friends and doesn't affect our enemies - that sounds like a brilliant plan!

If I deal with a man or woman wearing religious identification - say a crucifix or a turban - I have the choice of treating them as an individual who happens to care about their faith, or as a member of a monolithic religious group. Automatically "shunning" them is putting the second choice into action. I have always seen respect for *individuals* and suspicion of group-identity and collective rights as a cornerstone of conservatism: I choose the first alternative. Frankly, I am disgusted by the people (and the number of people) who choose the second, and the vehemence with which they promote it.

Segacs, your interpetration of my remarks is bizarre.

I was trying to deflect Relapsed's point about Muslims "shunning" Canadian society... (?!)

I've also known Mohammads, Ahmeds, Walieds, Kasims, Zuhairs, etc. etc. and I don't have a problem with them either. (I shouldn't have to say this, but as a child my three best friends were Lebanese-born brothers).

You should hesitate before you get on your high horse. I don't want to shun anyone. You've gone off yet a different deep end than Kathy.

At least, that's the world I know !)

RH

Oh dear, now it's the "not ALL xyz" rhetorical gasp. Yes, sweetie, and Paul Revere rode through Boston shouting "SOME of the British are coming!"

Really now. Sigh. Generalizations make the world go 'round. We couldn't communicate without them. Do get a grip.

Funny I'm the bigot, because a lot of the huffing and puffing in this thread reminds me of Moynihan's warning against the "soft bigotry of low expectations."

Your the ones with low expectations of our new Muslim immigrants, not me. I don't think expecting them to publicly dissociate themselves from a child murderer in their midst is extreme in the least. Neither is speaking English etc.

Obviously a law against killing your kid made no difference to this particular Muslim and it will make no difference to other ones in future. They answer to "a higher law". Unless we express our pre-emptive disdain for their backward customs we risk welcoming more of them here.

If you find that extreme, you're the extremist not me.

But feel free to pick on me if it makes you feel smugly self-righteously patriotic.

Impotent male sarcasm is always a sign that I'm on to something, as are desperate references to "camps" and such. There are compelling arguments in favour of Japanese internment during WW2, and beside they ended up getting paid nicely for the trouble in the long run. Boo hoo. What their fellow Japanese did to GIs was way worse, but you don't dare bring that up, eh?


Oh and actually:

>*Shakes head sadly*.

>So crosses and pendants are okay because they represent "civil society", but hijabs are not because they represent "sick, perverse impulses"?

The short answer is Yes. But you are so ashamed of Western Civilization and so brainwashed and ignorant that you can't bring yourself to acknowledge a simple fact of history. That's what's really sad.

All you anonymous cowards remind me why I never come to this site anymore (Dara, I'm looking at you) and why I don't allow comments on my blog. If you have something to say, be a man and use your own name at least. What a bunch of wimps.

And no, Damian's HaloScan robot, frankly I'm not "ready to submit".

Hey! Kathy, Sari; welcome back. Nice to see you ladies both making compromises to get along with the rest of us knuckle draggers here. :)

segacs:

Yes. The hijab ban is taking a choice away from the women. Presuming it's their choice.
It's also taking a choice away from the men. They don't get to have a reason to kill the women.
In this case, due to the issue, there are two responses the state can have to this situation. Each involves a reduction in choice. The state has, it seems to me, taken the most humane of the two.
As has been said over and over, the hijab is not religious. It is a cultural requirement which may or may not be genuinely accepted by the women wearing it. Thus, while restricting cultural choices is not good, this is not restricting religious choices, except to the extent the bleeping bleepers who want to use this to oppress women think it's their religious duty (privilege). But Canada is not required to go along with that sickness.

Some time from now, when there is no reasonable likelihood that a Muslim woman will be assaulted for choosing not to wear the hijab, the state can give the choice back.

Now, of course, there are too many chances that it's wear the hijab or die.

Richard; WE say the hijab is cultural not religious, but that's not necessarily what the advocates are telling their congregations. In the final analysis, who're the congregants going to listen to, us dissolute Western infidels or their own sage, devout, imams...?

Oh relapsed!

I'd forgotten what it was that so frustrating about you.

It’s basically this:

1. Stake out an extremist position on one point or another
2. If someone doesn’t agree with you, THEY’RE extremist
3. If they still don’t agree with you, they’re thus stupid.
4. If yet they still can’t see their wisdom, then you’re full of male testosterone or something.

It is entertaining, but really, do you think it wins you anything?

Thanks
Roundhead –
Ps – I am anonymous because I could be fired for blogging. However, if you wish to come to my web site and launch all the insults you wish, be my guest:
[External Link]

Uh - "Mississauga" IS NOT "TORONTO".

Hahahahahahahahahaha.

Sorry, I was going to formulate a lengthy reply, but I just can't seem to stop laughing.

By the way, I see that now, not only have I suddenly become male, but I've also become impotent.

Oh, and "generalizations make the world go 'round"? Who else votes for that to be the new slogan to teach kids in schools, right alongside "do unto others..."?

Okay, let's generalize. Robert Pickton was a sick serial killer. He was also a man. I vote we shun all men.

But Karla Homolka killed her own sister in cold blood. She was a woman. Let's shun all women, too.

After all, both male and female cultures must have perversions that make it necessary for us to shun everyone involved until they satisfactorally prove to us that they've stamped it out, right?

Roundhead: To clarify:

I was using your post as an example of something that's maybe less obviously objectionable as what Kathy wrote, but is still something that creeps into our discourse far too often and we need to be more aware of it.

I wasn't implying that you are racist by any means. And sorry for singling you out as an example.

It's just that many people claim to be fine with immigrants... so long as the immigrants act, behave, dress, speak, eat and worship *just like them*. I think it's important to be aware of that danger, that's all.

No offense meant.

slightly off topic...

I was listening to the CBC today (ahem) and they made reference to heart condition suffered by Aqsa's father. I'm no doctor, but I would think that a heart condition significant enough to be worth mentioning on the news, would also be a factor when performing certain activities. Such as strangling your own daughter to death. Unless of course such an act has been encouraged and premeditated enough to have significantly reduced the stress factor.

Which brings up another question ... what are the wait times like for prison infirmaries?

thanks Segacs - no offense.

Kathy Shaidle - what can you say about her? Unfortunately she seems to have gone around the bend.

RH

More to the point on generalizations: Many murders and abohrrent crimes have cultural roots. Street gang violence. Some machismo cultures that lead to "if I can't have her, nobody will" murders or terrible violence against women. Cultures where guns are extolled and therefore kept around the house waiting for some tragic accident. Cultures where cheating on your taxes is considered a normal way of life. Cultures where extortion is considered a normal way of life.

All of these cultures exist, to great or lesser degrees, within Canada - both among new immigrants and among people who've been here longer. In all cases, these are cultural reasons for crimes, but by no means cultural *excuses*.

We can punish murder, or violence, or rape, or kidnapping, or extortion, or even tax evasion. But we punish the perpetrators. We can't punish an entire group of people segmented by religion, race or skin colour for the crimes committed by a few.

I would've thought that would be obvious. Apparently not.

An example Kathy may relate to a bit better:

Shall we shun all Catholics until we're satisfied with the entire community's condemnation of priests who sexually molest children?

After all, it's the culture of the Catholic church that allowed for this widespread phenomenon, right?

I say we shun all of 'em and if they don't like it, they can go back to where they came from.

And hey, while we're at it, why not shut down all the Catholic churches, which will surely mean that less children will be at risk of being molested by priests. After all the religion doesn't say we *need* a parish priest in a church; it's merely a cultural tradition that some branches of religion suggest upholding.

People of the Catholic faith shouldn't be bothered by it, because it will afford more of them the choice NOT to be forced to go to church, anyway.

What do you say?

segacs - good points there.

But I think it's redundant in any case.

Relapsed's proposals are so stupid that no one is taking them seriously.
RH

Just try to find a Catholic who will defend child abuse by priests or anyone for that matter. The difference is there are actual Muslims who will defend the murder of this girl for the simple fact she wouldn't wear a piece of cloth on her head. Are you all too dense to understand this? There is no reason why we need to accommodate or tolerate these beliefs in Canada.

Mark -

I'm sorry, WHICH Muslims are saying the murder of this girl was OK? I must have missed that.

RH

When seagacs implies that being uncomfortable with child murder is equivalent to their funny foods, his/her argument ought to be the thing that's "shunned". There's no good faith there, and acting as if there is gives him/her a laugh. How we waste our time.

Most Muslim authorities, to the extent there are any, say that the hijab is not religiously required. Those morons who CHOOSE to go to mosques where whackjob imams tell them differently are setting themselves up for trouble. You know. Getting arrested for child murder. Hey. Anybody preparing to excuse acid-throwing? If it isn't here yet, it will be. Best be ready.

"and Paul Revere rode through Boston shouting 'SOME of the British are coming!'"

Actually he said "The Regulars are coming!" In 1775, the colonists still considered themselves to be British. Regulars were much-resented British soldiers garrisoned in Boston.

Bingo!

Kathy to the Right of us, Sari to the Left of us...we've become the political centre!? O.M.G...

"In this corner, wearing a blue and white tanga, Sari Stein! In the opposite corner, in the purple toga, Kathy Shaidle! I want a clean fight Ladies..."

Sorry. People are posting to quickly here for that last one to have made any sense.

Interesting thread. Fresh from blasting the Quebec unions, I arrive here to see the normally sensible Mark say "If we don't make them conform to our values, then this will only be the beginning." Make people conform to values? Name a value, and maybe we'll have a discussion. How many derogations from a particular value might be permitted, once we have them all written down and well defined? How do we police the observing of values? And then there's "identity." Not to mention "culture." Yikes.

So obviously I kept reading to the end. And the discourse here is such that even Roundhead is sounding downright sensible. The prize for analysis, however, goes to Segacs. No contest.

If this guy did what we all think he did, then he should be off to the pen for 25 years. But the notion of bringing a "community" to account is what's motivated me to enter the discussion. That's another of those words that seems to mean something until you squint a bit. Is there a Muslim "community" in Canada? Are there official spokespeople for it? (I'll see your Elmasry and raise you one Fatah.) Is it to be held accountable for every invidious action by any of its members?

Do we impose the same standards on "whites," or, as mentioned already, "Catholics," etc.? Did someone stand up on behalf of the white "community" and denounce Timothy McVeigh? Did anyone even suggest such a stupid thing?

The other matter that frankly falsifies this debate is the idea, implicit or expressed, that such atrocious acts are *examples* of something. Most Muslim fathers don't run around killing their daughters for not wearing hijab, and are likely as outraged as anyone else when it happens. But in the hands of the bigots, all Muslims are seen as *sympathetic" to that crap, unless they make public statements to the contrary and stop wearing those funny clothes.

More on the Quebec unions at my place, if anyone's interested.

[External Link]

Shoot, did I slam the wrong Mark? If that wasn't you, Collins, I apologize.

Using Shaidle's twisted logic, by shunning Catholics who wear a cross those damn priests will finally stop and desist from screwing 10 year old boys in the ass.

Here's more, by way of Kathy:

[External Link]

The fact that damned near every Muslim boy has a "Mohammed" in there somewhere (like "Joseph" and "Mary" for Catholics, at least when I was younger) is of less interest than another iteration of the "breed like rabbits" meme.

"So crosses and pendants are okay because they represent "civil society", but hijabs are not because they represent "sick, perverse impulses"?

I don't even know where to start..."

Let me help you.

The group 'Ni Putes Ni Soumises' recently held a march in a french city ( forget which). No sooner had they started out than a group of scarves and niqabs appeared and expressed a desire to join in the festivities.

They were flatly refused by the march's organisers, most of whom were Muslim women, because those organisers UNDERSTOOD that the request was NOT a gesture of solidarity, the way a duped western liberal would've interpreted it, but rather was an attempt to ambush, to co-opt and to smother what Islamists see as a dangerous (ie EMANCIPATORY) movement for muslim women.

And is it any coincidence or surprise that these same headscarves and niqabs are nowhere to be found when marches of solidarity for Iranian women are organised?

Where's Sheema lard-butt Khan on this one, eh?

Had you been at that french march, Sari, and to judge by what you've said above, you'd have waved 'em right on in and then prided youself on your tolerance, your inclusiveness and then held up your multi-culti credentials, ribbons and medals for all to see and admire.

This young Toronto girl and the horrible fate she underwent are the ultimate result of clueless liberals, women's rights advocates included, buying into the assinine view that headscarves are about "choice" and that, if needs be, even THEOLOGICAL ENSLAVEMENT can be viewed and *interpreted* as feminist self-realisation.

I'm sorry, Sari, your heart is in the right place, but you're defending the wrong group.

dawg-pyle, why don't you go burn some books?

Things were going just fine without you.

Most of the males posting here have been truly vicious about Kathy and Sari. Is this an extreme case of physician heal thyself? It does look though as if they are all wannabe Islamics who'd just love an excuse to put all of us uppity females into hijabs if only, if only.

"There are compelling arguments in favour of Japanese internment during WW2, and beside they ended up getting paid nicely for the trouble in the long run. Boo hoo. What their fellow Japanese did to GIs was way worse, but you don't dare bring that up, eh?"

Kathy, just out of curiousity, what did Canadians of Japanese descent do to warrant this?

My grandmother and great-aunts were in their tweens when they were interned. None of them had ever set foot in Japan. They were all born and raised in Canada, in the Anglican (not Shinto) tradition. She was no more "fellow Japanese" to Imperial Japan that you would be to the 1920s-vintage Old IRA.

How do their actions somehow merit internment? And how does one make the logical leap that because one's parents are descended from a particular geography, that all descendants must now and forever be complicit in anything that happens in that distant, several-generations-removed homeland?

Millie; you no not of which you speak (or something). Trust me, both Sari Stein (Segacs)[External Link]and Kathy Shaidle [External Link]are MORE than capable of dishing out as good as they get! They go waaay back, here. Both jumped ship because of, I believe the expression may have been, we "neanderthals". Anyone wish to amend that?

[Dara? If you're there I must apologize to you, I mistakenly attributed something to you in a post yesterday when it should have been to 'Dr. D.']

Dr Dawg: 'Twas not I.

Mark
Ottawa

Chris Taylor neglected to also point out the HUGE financial losses sustained by the internees whose land and fish boats were seized, and resold for pennies on the dollar. Also not mentioned was the disparity in treatment of European-Canadians of Axis nationalities, and the Japanese internees.

In Elmasry's words: "I don't want the public to think that this is really an Islamic issue or an immigrant issue," said Mohamed Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress. "It is a teenager issue."

[External Link]

No, the Canadian Islamic Congress would never rush to judgment:

[External Link]

"why don't you go burn some books?"

Back on your meds, now, there's a good boy.

Thanks, Dawg. Nice to see some sense on here for a change.

To clarify: I didn't "jump ship" because of anyone in particular. I just haven't been blogging much lately - I've been pretty busy with other stuff. Still, it's nice to see that I'm well remembered during my occasional visits.

And no, to wit, I don't feel like anyone's trying to force me into a burqa. I do wonder whether the same people trying to ban all Muslims from wearing headscarves would would come to the defense of a married religious Jewish woman's right to cover her hair... or, for that matter, my right to wear a Star of David around my neck.

Several years ago, the British cops announced they were revisiting over one hundred cases of missing Muslim women. They had gone easy for fear of inflaming the community.
It was not specified if the possibility of resistance and annoyance was only in the cops' minds, or if they'd actually encountered something.
Good for them for starting up again. But the kicker was that they encountered resistance in the Muslim community to the investigations.

Given that this case is pretty clear, tracking various folks around over issues a year or so old is unnecessary, and community resistance has little place to manifest itself.

Never. The. Less. This is a murder by one--or two--subhuman assholes of a child. It will be interesting to see what the reaction of the community is.

Certainly, the experience of the British police was not representative of every other Muslim except the perps being outraged.

Ditto the apostate who is moving so frequently to avoid her father who has sworn to kill her, and did, in fact, show up with a couple of dozen sympathizers at one place she was living.

It would be nice if the North American Muslim community was different.

Only about twelve percent of those polled thought the blow-up-the-Parliament scheme was a good idea. That leaves 88%.

It's one thing to say "not all". It's another to wonder if the rest are sufficient to be a matter of concern.

Segacs.

Of course we would. Because you are not at risk of being killed for choosing not to do so.

Seems you have a very hard time seeing the difference.

Or, perhaps you do but, for some reason insist on pretending there is none, and hoping to fool the rest of us.

dawg pyle - "back on your meds"

I'm sure you need a lot of them

RH

Richard, to begin with, I have no problem making distinctions, so maybe you need to stop repeating over and over again that I seem to be "unable to see the difference". If anything, it's you who can't see the difference between "all those folks wearing towels on their heads who sho' do look alike", right?

Second, most women wearing hijabs are not at risk of death if they don't wear them either. We're talking about one case here. You are making the assumption that every. single. woman. who wears a hijab does so because she feels afraid for her life. When in fact, it's anything but; most people do so out of choice. They're making a religious, or cultural, or political statement. And they're doing so legally, with the full protection of the law.

You know who doesn't have the full protection of the law? Murderers. And that's what this girl's father is. And guess what? He'll be prosecuted for it... according to the law.

I don't know how many more ways to repeat this. Clearly, you're not getting it. Ack!

(By the way, I love how I'm being pegged as "on the left". When, according to some people, I'm slightly to the right of Attila the Hun, too. In reality, it's neither. If this doesn't illustrate how flawed the left-right dichotomy is, I don't know what will.)

Sorry for the confusion dawg but that was not the Mark C who is a regular poster. But since you wanted values that we should impose, how about freedom of speech? Or freedom to dress how you like, or does female freedom only entail abortions on demand? How about the freedom to print facts in a book and not be sued? Can we agree on that?

Most Muslim women are not at risk of being killed for not wearing hijab.

But it's funny how women are always acted upon by men, not that they don't have their own agency. In some places, burqas and such are mandatory. Here, some people want to make NOT wearing them mandatory. It's the "mandatory" part that should offend us.

Some young women wear hijab as a marker of ethnicity, or as a political statement. Others are simply abandoning it, probably to the despair of their parents, most of whom react, I suspect, the very same way North American parents did decades ago when their young'uns started wearing miniskirts.

Whether you bring religion into this or not..

without generalising we couldn't distinguish

anything...we learn to generalise. .. It is

actually how we learn..it is inate...so.. in

general... I believe that "When Christians act

up, it is in SPITE of Christianity, not BECAUSE

of it."

" When muslims act up it is BECAUSE of Islam,

not in SPITE of it"

No prob, Mark not C. :) And yes, broadly speaking "we can agree on that."

I see that no one is reading Roundy's blog. God, that must burn.

"most women wearing hijabs are not at risk of death if they don't wear them either."

But how many are at risk of physical injury, or worse, for failure to wear garb deemed appropriate within the Muslim community? Do we have accurate figures?

How would a typical religious Muslim handle his apostate daughter? Doesn't the Koran address that pretty clearly?

awww, i'm burning!!!!

Actually, not the Koran itself but Surah 4:88-89. "but if they turn back then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or helper."

Bruce:

Which "Muslim community" do you mean? Do *you* have accurate figures?

Yes, and the bible states that anyone who wears wool and linen together should be put to death. And that you must free your slaves every jubilee year.

(I'd use the homosexuality example here, but too many of you probably believe that one.)

Dr. Dawg,

Perhaps communities would be more accurate, but Muslims typically share common religious and cultural traditions, although these differ by brand of Islam, etc.

I don't have accurate figures, but neither do you. So to assert that coercion and violence isn't a problem is hand-waving.

I'm not for subjecting Muslims to special treatment or taking away their civil rights and liberties, but I don't assume away the problem, either.

We know enough about Islamic communities in European communities to know that violence and coercion can be a problem. And, as was pointed out earlier, Ataturk banned the hijab as part of his policy of emancipating women.

Bruce (people seem to be posting madly here, so we're all talking out of synch), that passage from the Koran refers specifically to a series of historical events: an early group of Muslims did not accept the true path, refused to go to Medina when invited, and made war on Mohammed's party. To turn that into a divine injunction to strangle one's daughter for not wearing a headscarf is a bit of a stretch.

I do hope we're not going to play that well-worn game of looking for particularly bloody passages in this or that holy book to explain why all believers of this or that creed are prone to evil acts.

Sari Said: "To clarify: I didn't "jump ship" because of anyone in particular. I just haven't been blogging much lately - I've been pretty busy with other stuff. Still, it's nice to see that I'm well remembered during my occasional visits."

And very much missed, in fact we were speaking of you only a few days ago. I note that you didn't deny the "neanderthal" characterization...(did I mention how smashing you look in that blue and white tanga?)
:)

"Yes, and the bible states that anyone who wears wool and linen together should be put to death."

You lose credibility when you make an argument like that. Christians and Jews don't kill people for putting wool and linen together. Can you say the same for killing apostates in the Islamic world.

Dr. Dawg,

I'm not going to argue with any religious group about the interpretation of their texts. I do know that Surah 4:88-89 is used to justify the killing of apostates, even if you disagree with that interpretation of their holy books.

Bruce:

I'm not wishing away the problem. There are clearly Muslim communities in, say, France, where violence is a problem generally. But this killing is a first for Canada.

I don't know what's going on behind closed Muslim doors in Canada (or the US). Neither to you. I still thinks it's rash to assume that evil deeds are a common occurrence in those private places. I don't think young hijab-wearing girls in my community are being beaten into it. I recall seeing one such person a while back with a head-scarf--and thigh-high boots!

DaninVan: You were talking about me? Where? (I'm a bit scared...)

Getting back to the point, we seem to have two broad schools of thought here:

Approach A: A Muslim man killed his daughter. The man was at fault. Punish the man.

Approach B: A Muslim man killed his daughter. Islam was at fault. Punish Islam.

I don't think there's any secret about which camp I'm in. Or what I think of the people who are in the other one.

"I do know that Surah 4:88-89 is used to justify the killing of apostates, even if you disagree with that interpretation of their holy books."

Bruce, some specifics, please. Who is doing that justifying? The passive won't do.

My interpretation is worthless. But there are Muslims who do not justify the killing of apostates, period. (Not that refusing to wear hijab is apostasy, by the way.)

[External Link]

segacs:

With respect to your bible quote; Christians and Jews haven't taken a literal interpretation of the bible (and I'm referring to excerpts advocating violence for abrogating various bits of dogma) for centuries. People are getting their knickers in a knot over dress, and similar issues, because Islam in general has a reputation of taking a mile when given an inch. While most of the trouble may be overseas, as seen in the recent case of the University of Toronto restaurant, it can happen here too.

I just love how this has devolved into a "my religion is better than your/their religion" pissing contest.

Cause that's sure gonna solve it. Uh, yeah.

"Bruce, some specifics, please. Who is doing that justifying"

Times (UK)
21 Mar 06 [External Link]

"'Whoever changes religion – kill him'
...
Muslim scholars are divided over how the texts on apostasy should be interpreted. Mufti Barkatullah said that some countries would follow the Shafi’i school of thought and eschew the death penalty for apostasy. But many, such as Afghanistan, adhere to the Hanafi tradition, and take a strict line on apostasy."

Times (UK)
11 Sep 07 [External Link]

"Young Muslims begin dangerous fight for the right to abandon faith
...
The Committee for Ex-Muslims promises to campaign for freedom of religion but has already upset the Islamic and political Establishments for stirring tensions among the million-strong Muslim community in the Netherlands.

Ehsan Jami, the committee’s founder ... has been forced into hiding after a series of death threats and a recent attack...

'Sharia schools say that they will kill the ones who leave Islam. In the West people get threatened, thrown out of their family, beaten up,' Mr Jami said. 'In Islam you are born Muslim. You do not even choose to be Muslim. We want that to change, so that people are free to choose who they want to be and what they want to believe in.'"

Bruce:

Your links simply make my point--Muslims are deeply divided on all this. And it seems to me that, once recognizing that fact, and disposing of the notion of a homogeneous "Muslim community," we should be allying ourselves with the peaceful ones.

Getting closer to home, if anyone has old copies of Saturday Night Magazine, about three years ago they published a good article about Muslims and apostates in Canada titled "Among the Unbelievers". Unfortunately it's not on-line anymore since the magazine's demise.

While not quite advocating the killing of apostates, another example of Muslim tolerance just in from the Maldives:

"Non Muslims are to be denied Maldivian citizenship in the new Constitution, after 78 members of the Peoples Special Majlis (Constitutional Assembly) voted on 19 November 2007 in favor to approve an amendment that requires all Maldivian citizens to be Muslims."

"Lawyers predicted that the new clause would deprive a number of current citizens of Maldivian citizenship, resulting in some Maldivians becoming stateless after the proclamation of the new Constitution."
[External Link]

I'm pretty sure that Sari's not trying to give the abuse of women and children a pass here. She's pretty clear that she's speaking on a case by case basis. The problem really is that the larger (Islamic) community hasn't come to grips with their issue. I say "their" because the Indo-Canadian community here on the West Coast has recognized that THEY have a serious problem in their culture, as a result of a number of murders and violent assaults on Indo-Can. women by Indo-Can. men. Those cases were diligently pursued by Law Enforcement, with the blessing of the Indo community, and cases are now before the court. This isn't ONLY an Islamic issue nor is it confined strictly to religious adherence.

"disposing of the notion of a homogeneous 'Muslim community,' we should be allying ourselves with the peaceful ones."

I don't favor allying the state with religious factions and against religious factions. If people choose to live in Canada (or the U.S.) they should abide by our laws, including those prohibiting violence. If they can't, they should be jailed or deported.

Bruce:

Don't misunderstand. I meant that those of us who are more humane in our values (not the state, but people) should make common cause with Muslims in our polity who share those values. But that, on reflection, is empty rhetoric. I think we should simply acknowledge that there are Muslims who share those values and raise that fact when bigots tell us they should all be shunned.

Sorry to be dumb, but who is "Sari?"

Dr Dawg.. France has a Muslim problem because they had a couple of Car-be-ques,...come on it was only two...don't generalze

Dr. D; 'Sari' ...[External Link]

"I agree that we have to speak out against practices which are incompatible with Canadian society and values " Western values.

Speak out? No: Act.

I see it this way: When a particular culture is inherently sexist in the extreme and intolerant in the extreme, and in reality sees itself as superior and duty-bound to dominate others', is it incumbent upon surrounding cultures to tolerate its presence? Nazis, say? Hardly. Shunning won't work. Can't.

"If they are torn between their new home and the old one, they should stay in the old one. Simple."

Kathy has a point, but I think rather she doesn't carry it far enough. Those who seek sharia law should emigrate to a country where such is the law of that jurisdiction. I believe it the duty of the host country [Canada] to actively DEPORT said atavistic practitioners should they wish to impose sharia practices upon their families and others.

There simply is no excuse for the killing of a young girl or for Western toleration of the values that lead, logically, year-in and year-out to the treatment of women as mens' property, to be disposed of as seen fit. I really don't give a damn whether it's a "perversion" or an orthodoxy, a religion or just a sickness. Those who hold to such values properly belong elsewhere. "Make it happen", as they say in business.

Shunning is not the answer, but I do think all people of conscience must stand up and be heard on the matter of basic, universal human rights. When did it become politically incorrect to stand for something so very, very basic?

Ellen R. Sheeley, Author
"Reclaiming Honor in Jordan"

Though not involving murder, perhaps some of our disdain should be directed at Bountiful:
[External Link]

And at the Charter. I still prefer "The Man (sorry) on the Clapham Omnibus":
[External Link]

But that criterion still requires basic common values and attitudes in a society.

Mark
Ottawa

Segacs.
You really have a problem comprehending the written word.
I did not say "all" Muslim women are at risk.

The point is that many of them are. And the community--see the Brits and the disappeared girls for one example--is "divided" on the subject.
I submit that any community "divided" on that subject ought to be watched and what can be done to reduce the risk to the vulnerable ought to be done. That could include banning the hijab.

If you're so good at distinctions, why did you ask so foolishly if those who favored banning the hijab would object to your wearing religious symbols?
Yeah, you're good at distinctions, except when it suits your purpose to pretend they don't exist.

Dan, if you're still around I hadn't noticed your error but now I'm curious and will do some searching, the libel suit is in the mail ;)

Ran, what do you do with the ones who were born here and don't want to leave? What about the ones nobody will take? Sounds like you're going to need some camp counselors too.

I think henceforth any ideas involving kicking people out of our society over their beliefs should come with a brief explanation of how you're going to handle the basic logistics without going to the Nazi playbook. It's really tiresome to continually hear that kind of heavy handed demographic control soft peddled as a rational response to a dead girl, or ten dead girls.

I have a question for history buffs that I'm really curious to know the answer to. I despise statistics in general but I think this one could have some worth:

What is the lowest death rate ever experienced by an identifiable group which has been expelled from a region?

Who did the best work? Who went the quietest? What kind of performance based on past efforts can we expect?

Just some rough figures will do.

Dara.
Few favor mass deportation.

However, we have an unprecedented situation. A minority, determined to retain its separateness, includes a number of people willing--claiming to be acting as their religion dictates--to commit murder, even mass murder, in an attempt to remake our society. In the meantime, some of them use threats and violence to maintain their homogeneity.

The American internment of the Japanese-Americans is often condemned on the grounds that "they didn't do anything", which seems to be true. It means no individuals of the group worked against the US in WW II. That is, in our circumstances, unfortunate. Because it implies the validation of the reverse. If they (some individuals) do "do something", does that legitimate some action against the group? If not, why was the lack of action so imporant ref the Japanese Americans?

We have never had in North America a vigorous movement preaching against our culture and society.
If there is to be talk of deportation, let it be the Saudi-funded Wahhabi imams.

It would also be interesting to ask a question of Muslims. Why is any Wahhabi mosque not an echoing, empty waste of money? Why does anybody attend? What is attractive about it? What would happen if you left and started your own? Why don't you? How can you expect to be considered moderate when you support the anti-western, terror-supporting mosques? Do what you like, but don't claim the privilege of being considered moderate when your worship patterns indicate something else.

A guy in Tulsa wrote an op-ed saying Islam should eschew terror. He was thrown out of his mosque and threatened with violence. The interesting thing is, nobody went with him and joined him in trying to start an alternative congregation. He may be let back in if he apologizes for whatever it was that annoyed his coreligionists.

I agree that pointing to ancient texts is useless. The actual question is, what is happening now? The answer to that is an indication of why some people prefer to argue about ancient texts.

Dara, just a guess but likely the Bikini natives ;)
[External Link]

Re the lawsuit; I think you have to find me first...lol

"Sounds like you're going to need some camp counselors too." Painful experience, Dara??

You tell me what to do with these people. Buy them subscriptions to The Nation? Your beloved Star?

There are many, many Muslims who would rather modernize their practices and live with us and share with us the prime values of Western society. They need our support and they'll need our active assistance and active protection. It is the Muslim Modern who is the future... IF we will only be there for them.

Just talking and writing letters to the editor or besmirching posters (ahem) isn't going to be enough for the next generation of young women such as Miss Parvez. They'll need big, strong guys such as you (?) to step in and actually come between them and those who would objectify them, enslave them or kill them.

You up to that?

The thing about Shaidle's position is that she has the advantage.

Sari and Dawg seem unawares that they're putting their butts on the line defending what is indefensible. As time goes by and more and more incidents of this type make the news ( as is the case in France), both Sari and Dawg will sound increasingly desperate as the constituency they defend betrays, through their actions, every defense western liberals mount to defend them.

If you're going to take up a cause at least pick one that has chance of being successful. The way things stand now, though, both of you are careening at 100 mph towards a brick wall

Just two streets from where I'm writing these lines there is a mosque.

It has two entrances, one for the men and one for the women.

The Men's entrance is at the front and has double oak doors fitted with gleaming brass handles.

The women's entrance is at the back, in the basement, through a cramped doorway once used to haul in coal during the 19th century.

Would Sari and oh-so senstivie Dawg care to ponder the implications of this dazzling *diversity* for just a moment. Is this practice acceptable and is it compatible with western notions of rights and equality?

Of course it isn't, but since those engaged in this are neither white ( boo-hiss!) nor Christian (boo-hiss!) it becomes a charming exotism that should be tolerated.

People like I and Shaidle would denounce this, but others merely make an exception and blame such Islamist inspired misogyny on mere "cultural attributes", attributes that will most surely disappear as integration continues apace.

Fat chance.

This misogyny is the bottom line for everyone because as some Canadian citizens, Muslim women, have their rights wittled away, we ourselves lose a small part of what we'd worked so hard to obtain; namely equality between men and women.


"Xenophobia comes in all stripes and colours. And, to a greater or lesser degree, most new large-scale immigrant groups have encountered that at some point. From the Chinese "head tax" to the quota system in universities against Jews, Canadian culture hasn't exactly always adapted that well to change."

How very noble! However, the most virulent form of Xenophobia is that which regularly employs the term "Kuffur".

What liberals fail to grasp, and what Islamists are very adept at doing, is alluding to past injustices as a means to play the victim card and to further an agenda of islamisation.

Sometimes Muslim leaders will present the community as *the new Jews* and in the next breath, and depending on circumstances and intelligence of audience, they become the new Japanese!

Many Muslims, including nearly all "community" leaders and spokesmen, aren't interested in integrating at all. They have nothing but contempt for all things non-muslim. Their aim is to remain separate and apart (purity please!)until such time as Muslims become numerous enough to demand and obtain separate courts and a separate legal systeme.

And the hijab, by the way, is NOT just an article of clothing; it is also a political symbol as well as a subtle means of passive-aggression; a statement of supremacism, if you like.

Hijab is the new *swastika* and woe to those too dumb and/or too cowardly to see that.

the genius dawg-pyle:

"Duhhhh.... who's Sari? Duh"

"What is the lowest death rate ever experienced by an identifiable group which has been expelled from a region?"

"Who did the best work? Who went the quietest? What kind of performance based on past efforts can we expect?"

I suggest you watch Europe in twenty years time.

Ran,

So no logistics then. I see. I stand by my "besmirchment" in that case.

What would I do with those who want to objectify, enslave, and kill women?

Well to go after the objectifiers would be a quixotic task. You'd end up walking down Madison Avenue with a machine gun and nobody wants to be THAT guy.

Those that enslave and kill? Don't we already have laws against that? In fact, I already pay a lot of money to fund the enforcement of those laws. Bruce made the point quite adequately with his "gallows beside the pyre" example. We also have hate crime laws which can be used against anyone espousing that evil.

We do need to make a stand against barbaric practices but we need to make that stand from a moral high ground, which we would lose shortly after starting to deport people.

John B, if the US can't sort out its debt problems I'll be watching from a front row seat.

Dara.
The problem with the laws is that they need to be enforced.
Between PC and multiculturalism and some of the excusing we see on this thread, the possibility is that the laws won't be enforced.

What laws should be enforced if Ontario had caved to the request that shari'a law be allowed for Muslims? In your view, whatever shari'a allowed/demanded would be okay, because it's a law.

You'll note it was Muslim women who opposed the move. Does that mean anything?

Thought not.

John Palubiski:

It would really help the discussion along if your opponents' arguments weren't strawmanned in this fashion.

A lesson I learned long ago: you can't*make* people be good, just punish badness. It's hard enough erasing sexism from my own culture. It would be quite the challenge for me to try erasing it from someone else's. If people could make the distinction between cultural relativism and moral relativism, that would be helpful too--otherwise us cultural relativists might end up accused (hypothetically)of defending Nazism on the basis of its being an expression of German culture during a period in history. Indeed, it was just that, but that obviously doesn't entail approval by any means. The one deals with description and understanding; the second falls within the realm of moral judgment. And I'm not slow to make moral judgments.

When I went to primary school in Manotick, Ontario, there were two entrances, one for the girls and one for the boys. That's not in place currently (I checked it out). So mosques have two entrances that signify unequal gender relations among some Muslims--what would you have us do? Make equal-access mosque design a matter of law?

Better to expect (and I do) that our lifeways in Canada are already exerting an influence over fundamentalism of all stripes. Indeed, the tragic event in Toronto indicates precisely that: there are almost certainly many more young Muslim girls rejecting hijab, getting stern reactions from their parents, but forging ahead with their lives anyway. You are far less optimistic, obviously, but so far all you've presented is a lot of suppositions. (They're not going to change. They're xenophobic so-and-so's, and that's that.) This just isn't what I'm observing.

"And the hijab, by the way, is NOT just an article of clothing; it is also a political symbol as well as a subtle means of passive-aggression; a statement of supremacism, if you like."

Well, it's more complicated than that. It's a political statement, certainly, at least in a lot of cases, but it's one often being made by the wearer, within the current context of debates over "reasonable accommodation," proposals for shunning, and taking the actions of one cab-driver in Toronto as a metonym for Islam as a whole.

"What laws should be enforced if Ontario had caved to the request that shari'a law be allowed for Muslims? In your view, whatever shari'a allowed/demanded would be okay, because it's a law."

Could we please put this canard to bed? The "demand" was that Muslims would be able to use shari'a precepts in settling civil disputes under the Ontario Arbitration Act--just as Jewish Halachic law, for example, was already being used. McGuinty, in my opinion, did the right thing, moving to "de-recognize" any religious arbitration system. Now, if only he'd move to a single public education system.

Dr. Dawg,

And did the Muslim women oppose the move to use Muslim law? If so, why?

What do they know we ought to know?

"One cab driver." You mean there are no more examples of Islamic fundamentalism causing violence? Seems there was a moderate Muslim who tried to start a paper in Canada. Didn't work out well, although he's not dead. Yet. I think. But he got death threats.

Better, Dr. D, that you had said, "few". That way, people would know you're not trying to put them on.

When I went to primary school in Manotick, Ontario, there were two entrances, one for the girls and one for the boys. That's not in place currently (I checked it out). So mosques have two entrances that signify unequal gender relations among some Muslims--what would you have us do? Make equal-access mosque design a matter of law?

In primary school?

Well my primary school had two entrances as well, but by the time I got to high-school both boys and girls were expected to be mature enough to use the same door. And of coures, even in grade school the girls entrance wasn't at the back, in the basement, now was it?

So you see nothing wrong with women entering a building by a dingy basement backdoor?

You should. And you should be even more alarmed to learn that this type of shitty, Bronze Age misogyny is an expression of "god's wisdom", and cannot therefore be challenged.

When there are a sufficient number of individuals on Canadian soil holding such beliefs, you'll see progressive ideals flushed down the toilet as women's rights and gay rights etc are parceled off and sold by the slice, parsimonously, in an effort to buy social piece.

I'm, a good deal older than you, Dawg, and grew up listening to feminists complain about gender issues, and I generally agreed with their complaints.

But it all seems so romantic these days, and the gripes expressed almost childish.

Now, just when things are starting to get really bad, and when the position of women in society is seriously threatened, these same feminists are nowhere to be found.

I'm very glad the QFL came out against the wearing of religiously mandated clothing in both the courtroom and the classroom. At least québecois nationalism is good for something.

Should we pass a law enforing an equal-entrance mosque rule?

Of course not.

But your sarcasm misses the point that gender apartheid is built right into Islam despite the heated denials of various islamists and their apologists

That mosque in Montréal North constitutes very powerful, undenialable and tangible proof that in this "relgion" women haven't the value of a curvy goat. It's presence in the neighbourhood, especially the crudly drawn pictograms out front indicating the women's entrance, are seen as both an insult and an obscenity to many of the people living there.

It's like 1930s Alabama! "Blacks" to the back of the bus! Whites and coloureds, you know?

No, we shouldn't pass a law mandating mosque design, but shaming the individuals who run these disgusting outfits, and forcing them to examine their conscience would perhaps be a good idea.

And if they have tax-exempt status, then that status should be re-examined, as well.

But then, who gives a shit about women's equality if the struggle for that equality no longer affords the opportunity to bash the straight, white, western male?

Geeze, Richard, if you can't tell the difference between a Sikh and a Muslim, we don't have much more to discuss.

[External Link]

John, stop being so damned disingenuous. My point was very clear. There used to be these entrances, and they aren't there any more. In case I failed to mention it, I think that's a good thing. And that's how things are progressing here. Those who come here become part of that wider trend. They don't live in cocoons or sensory deprivation tanks.

I doubt if you're older than I, by the way.

John B., Richard, everyone else -

Quit arguing with this ridiculous Dr. Dawag. His arguments are always in bad faith; he's someone who thinks he knows more than anyone else, likes to demonstrate his alleged knowledge, but he really comes off just sounding like a dink. His only goal is to draw you into circles with one sophistry after another...

Here's a guy who tried to argue that an anti-semitic cartoon in `Le Devoir' was somehow a result of the `right-wing' (`Le Devoir' right wing, yeah right...)

RH

Poor Bonehad--no one's paying any attention to him. But he doesn't get to lie publicly without being called on it:

[External Link]

"And Le Devoir, it appears, is simply reverting to its old traditions."

All this was in reaction to the stupid claim that the publication of anti-Semitic cartoons in the Quebec press was a manifestation of "Left racism."

"Between PC and multiculturalism and some of the excusing we see on this thread..."

Richard Aubrey
Could you point to a comment here that "excuses" the killing of one's daughter, on any grounds? Name and time / date posted, please.

Arguing that illogical, stupid, and ineffective responses to a crime should not be implemented, while the crime itself can and should be punished under existing law is a far cry from "excusing" anything. Of course, when setting up a strawman, it doesn't do to make it of anything solid, like references to what people have actually said, does it?

"So no logistics then. I see. I stand by my "besmirchment" in that case." Of course you do, Dara. Not terribly convincing, but hey, makes you happy.

To the question of logistics, did you stop to think that perhaps Muslim moderns will police members of their own community once we start showing support?

Hell, the Irish kicked IRA ass in Ontario when I was a kid... I'm talking Catholics trashing Bernadette Devlin and turning-in locals to the RCMP who sent cash to the IRA. That's my reference point. I'll assume that Muslims too can kick ass.

"We do need to make a stand against barbaric practices but we need to make that stand from a moral high ground, which we would lose shortly after starting to deport people."

LOL!! "moral high ground." Thanks... Gawd, that was good.

Ran,

My reason for asking for logistics is explained above. You have to come up with a plan that isn't going to turn into a humanitarian catastrophe for me to believe that you aren't indifferent to said catastrophe happening, thus invalidating any moral high ground you might think you have.

"To the question of logistics, did you stop to think that perhaps Muslim moderns will police members of their own community once we start showing support?"

If by "showing support" you mean dragging families from their houses, then I wouldn't expect much participation. In fact I think that you'd be hard pressed to find many volunteers of any religion to do that kind of job.

Besides, the Germans had local help when they were adjusting Warsaw's demographics, but that didn't turn out too well for anyone.

If you don't mean dragging families out of houses then you need to further explain "deportation".... and we're back to the logistics that you, Kathy, or albertanator would not discuss again.

If you, lad, were a foreign-born sod preaching IRA violence, I'd have you deported from whence you came. The Irish community would offer me a tartan.

If you were a foreign-born twit preaching White-Supremicist hate, I'd have you sent back to the out-house from which you'd crawled. Your immigrant relatives would nominate me to The Order.

But... if you're a "religious" sort preaching the inferiority and subjugation of Women, Christians, Hindus, Jews, Apostates... WHOA! I can't - mustn't - risk losing the moral "high ground" with deportations, can I? Even if your teachings and actions are a danger to members of your own community, who all of them to a man and girl support your actions. GMAFB.

John P., Dan, swat me will ya, upside the head, for doing it again!! It's nearly 10:00. Night, all.

DCard.
The "excusing" I was referring to was the propensity to give certain of the "Other" a break on cultural practices which would, when not practiced by the "other" be condemned.
I do not see an excuse for murder.
I think the reaction of the Muslim community will be interesting. As in the reaction of the Brit Muslims to investigations into missing girls, or the help the father of the apostate had in threatening his daughter.
I think the excusing we'll see will be the second-hand stuff. No excusing murders, except now and then, but plenty of excusing the community's anger at the investigation. In this case, there doesn't need to be one.

But, for example, the community did not spit out the Parliament plotters. They should have. Anybody addressed that?

Aubrey:
Name and time posted, remember?
You are constructing a hypothetical - "the excusing we'll see..." after expressing distaste for an actual event: "the excusing I see on this thread." If you'd like, I can wax indignant about the things I claim you are *going* to do - but I prefer not to play the fool.

In any event, I generally don't worry too much about someone else's cultural practices as long as they don't affect anyone other than that person - call it "excusing" if you'd like: I call it respect for their autonomy. Kindly point to a post that "excuses" practices that have a third-party impact.

As long as you guys are going to stay up for two nights straight (Ran, you sober enough to go for a beer run?) you might as well chew on this piece [External Link]

rcard.
You're welcome to not worry about cultural practices which only affect the practitioner.
I don't think any of those have been being discussed on this thread.

Unless you figure being murdered is a cultural practice sort of like murdering.

Where do you stand on cabbies not picking up blind people because they have dogs with them?

Your response is incoherent, Dawg.

My point is this; our brave anti-fascist campaigners haven't a clue as to what the trends are.

If you can broker a world-view that treats women much the same, if not worse, than blacks in the old south, then we are indeed headed towards a new dark age­.

If find it hilarious that those who've taken on the task to defend liberty and democracy are clearly unable to extract and identify the salient points of a fascist mind-set the moment that fascism is represented and promoted by non-western, non-white individuals.

Just sport a smart head covering, speak with an accent and possess a less-than-white skin and the hitlerian-style ideas you promote suddenly become not just exotic, attractive and desirble, but also something that "anti-fascist" strugglers are morally obliged to defend.

To utter the term *islamophobe* is tantamount to accusing someone of being a hitlerphobe.

That's where we're at.

Can you not see that?

Ran,

Preaching violence is against the law, so yes no problem there.

Getting rid of foreigners isn't a problem either, if they're committing a crime and they have an address where we can return to sender then off with them.

Of course, you're still ducking and dodging since I specifically asked about homegrown Muslims and people with no country to return to.

But you have expressed this deportation as a generalization to all religious Muslims, further evidenced by your line:

"who all of them to a man and girl support your actions."

Which has been nothing but disproved by the reaction to the event which is prompting your call for mass deportation.

Dara; three items...
-mandatory language competancy (Eng. or Fr.) BERORE applying for citizenship. A time limit of 5 years maximum to begin the process. (Otherwise you revert to 'Visitor' status. Period.)
-mandatory expulsion for falsifying (lying) citizenship and/or IMMIGRATION applications
-a complete rebuild of the Immigration Dept. ESPECIALLY at the pointy end in foreign countries.
...to many 'mistakes ' cropping up.

Just my take on it.

John Palubiski:

I would say that your straw man is threatening to topple. I'd get out of the way if I were you.

1) On the sexist treatment of women: I have defended no such practices by anyone, and indeed expressed the expectation that such practices will erode.

2) I can't recall ever using the "Islamophobic" label.

You're obviously having an argument with someone else. Please direct your comments to him or her.

I think Canadians are being confused by the emphasis that the press has given the hijab in this story.

This was an honor killing, not a hajab killing.

Usually honor killings are about holding girls captive and making sure that they have a solid reputation for being completely chaste. Researchers have pointed out that families will kill a girl they know to be chaste, because the goal is for the family to have a perfect reputation not to punish the girl. So it doesn't matter if she's innocent of sexual behavior or intentions, she can still be guilty of having a reputation through no fault of her own. This is about reputation, not justice.

Some honor killings are about religion too - Islam mandates the slaughter of apostates and converts. Some family killings may be in obedience to Islam. As one Jordanian politician said when he voted against a bill that would have outlawed honor killings "this is a matter of religious freedom" by which he meant that if Muslims can't murder then they're not free to follow Islam.

By the way, the culture, the history, behind honor killing is easy to understand - it comes from the economics of buying wives.

In Afghanistan, I recently read that the average cost of a wife is about the average of THREE YEARS SALARY.

Now a young man can't have saved 3 years salary, he can only afford a wife if his extended family will give him the money - and if his extended family isn't well off, then they can only afford this expenditure because they're selling their own girls as wives.

But if a girl has a reputation for not being "pure" and chaste, then not only is she worth nothing on the market for wives, but her family will get a reputation for not controlling the attitudes and sexuality of their girls - the market value of all of the girls in the family will go down.

And because of this, the young men in the family will suddenly no longer be able to afford to buy a wife.

You see how the logic works? If a girl has a boyfriend or even a rumor of having one, the family has to kill her, to raise it's reputation as a seller of girls, in order to protect their investment. And the men will have a VERY strong incentive - the choice between having a family and being forced to be single.

Keep in mind that all of the wealthy men will buy more than one wife, so it really hurts to be too poor this way, men will be forced to be single.

Now I don't know how many Arab societies still do things exactly the way the Afghanis do, but they clearly have a culture that holds the attitude where a family owns and sells its girls as wives - we might fairly call them sex-slaves. Certainly the need is strong to control them exactly the way anyone else running a slave business does - you kill any merchandise that would give your business a poor reputation and lower the price of your stock.

By the way, the word that is translated as "honor" in "honor killing" is a mistranslation.

There is a different Arabic word that means honor in the sense we're used to.

This word, however, means "chastity" or "reputation for chastity".

Some of you guys said that wearing the veil was not a religious mandate... Well, there is precedence of Mohemmed putting women in veils... and in Islam ANYTHING that Mohemmed did is worthy of emulation (and anything he forbade, should be avoided). Islamic jurispudience includes not only the Koran, but also the Hadith. Most people know this... but there is also a third component, and that is the Sira.. The sira are biographies of Mohemmed that have been sacrilized. This textual trinity forms the Sunnah.

Qur'an 33:59 "Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters and all Muslim women to draw cloaks and veils all over their bodies (screening themselves completely except for one or two eyes to see the way). That will be better."

(If you think this is out of context, go get a Koran and read it in context)

Bukhari:V4B52N143
V5B59N523 "When we reached Khaybar, Muhammad said that Allah had enabled him to conquer them. It was then that the beauty of Safiyah was described to him. Her husband had been killed, so Allah's Apostle selected her for himself. He took her along with him till we reached a place called Sad where her menses were over and he took her for his wife, consummating his marriage to her, and forcing her to wear the veil.'"

Qur'an 24:31 "Say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty except what (must) appear; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display them except to their husbands..."


So those Muslims who tell stupid Westerners that it is not in their religion to cover up women are either liars or ignorant. Now its true obviously that most Musliims dont cover their women, however, all the instructions are in Islam are there for any pious Muslim to take seriously.

There are "moderate" Muslims but there is no moderate Islam. The moderation of a Muslim is to the extent that he ignores the rules.

Can all the fairminded leftists on here please inform us from an Islamic point of view, why these folks are incorrect in the understanding of their religion?
:


Guilty Pleas Seen in Calif. Terror Case
By GILLIAN FLACCUS
Associated Press Writer

SANTA ANA, Calif. (AP) - Two of four men accused of plotting attacks on Southern California military sites and Jewish targets have agreed to plead guilty to terrorism conspiracy charges, prosecutors said.

...

"This incident is the first in a series of incidents to come in a plight to defend and propagate traditional Islam in its purity," James allegedly wrote. "We are not extremists, radicals or terrorists. We are only servants of Allah."

...

Washington, Patterson and Samana - who attended the same Inglewood mosque - allegedly conducted surveillance of military sites, synagogues, the Israeli Consulate and El Al airline facilities in the region as well as Internet research on Jewish holidays, prosecutors said in 2005.

James preached that JIS members should target for violent attack any enemies of Islam or "infidels," including the U.S. government and any supporters of Israel, according to court documents.

Prosecutors say he also created a document he called the "JIS Protocol," which advocated the establishment of an Islamic caliphate in the U.S. that followed Shariah law, a strict form of Islam observed by the Taliban in Afghanistan.

[External Link]