Blue Like You

Quick update to the tragic story of Aqsa Parvez if you had been following it.

As you may recall, Aqsa had allegedly been strangled to death by her father for refusing to wear a hijab. Her brother had been originally charged with obstructing justice, but now we learn that Peel police have charged 27-year-old Waqas Parvez with first degree murder.

As Tarek Fatah and Farzana Hassan observed in their Dec. 12/07 Post article, The deadly face of Muslim extremism:

…Radical Muslim men consider themselves ultimately responsible for the conduct of the womenfolk. This outlook is rooted in a medieval ethos that treats women as nonpersons, unable to decide for themselves what they should wear, where they must go and what they must accomplish in life. If their conduct is seen as contravening this austere religious outlook, they are invariably subjected to abuse…

It’s sad that this tolerant society of ours only intervenes after such a tragedy has occurred.

* * * *

Related: Excellent article for background information - Honor killings: When the ancient and the modern collide.

Do we have a Canadian law against polygamy or not? And if evidence surfaces that the law is being broken, is it not incumbent on the police to investigate ?

I suppose that if you live in a province that has a two-tiered justice system, and prefers to busy itself with little bans on law-abiding citizens’ rights rather than concentrating on more important issues like the flagrant abuse of women in certain ethnic communities, then you can’t expect anything else.

A letter in today’s Post responds to John Turley-Ewarts’ June 2 editorial (Sharia by Stealth) with a suggestion:

It is regrettable that neither the Ontario Provincial Police nor the Ontario government appears to have the backbone to enforce their own polygamy laws. However I do not believe the situation is hopeless for these ladies.

I cannot believe that any woman would want to continue in a relationship with a man who has behaved in the manner described in this article. Therefore the logical course of action would be for these women to sue for divorce. That would bring the issue into the provincial courts, where they could claim the maximum possible for alimony, child support, division of family assets, etc.

I am sure the prospect of the possible financial consequences of their polygamous tendencies would have a salutary effect on any Muslim men contemplating this course of action and put an end to the practice.

Michael Edwards, Bloomfield, Ont.

Yes, well, all good in theory. However, the reality is that this type of divorce would be highly emotional and very expensive. Yes, perhaps the duplicitous husband could end up paying the bills, but there are no guarantees. Meanwhile, the woman and her children have to undergo a grueling divorce process.

And what about the emotional abuse inflicted on the poor woman when a powerful religious figure warns her:

“You will have to stand beside [your husband] in these difficult times,” Hindy told her. “You should stop causing problems to him. You will not get anything by divorce except destroying your life.”

Where is the feminist outrage, ladies?

Here’s a novel idea. How about we actually enforce the law so that this type of abuse does not continue? If an actual consequence is seen to be likely, perhaps it would discourage such men from even entertaining the idea in the first place.

Either that, or let’s strike down the law.

* * * *

Update: Gee, I wonder what’s next ?

This one’s from a few days ago - Tory MPP pushes for Ontario polygamy probe.

Barbara Kay also had a few words to say, as did Macleans’ Chris Selley

Saturday Update : This story makes Europe News - Harems and Hypocrites.

Originally published in Front Page Magazine. BTW, this is a MUST-READ!!!

Via a reader - British police support worker Philip Balmforth has been removed from his duties, and faces a disciplinary meeting for talking to the press about Asian girls in the school system who go missing and often end up in forced marriages - Policeman who exposed forced marriages faces sack for ’shaming’ his city.

So the ‘honour’ and image of the city is more important than trying to lessen the incidence of abduction and rape? And if we don’t hear about it, then it doesn’t happen?

Meanwhile we get a lesson here in how our poor Western morals make us ‘hypocrites’ for suggesting that forced marriages with children are anything but noble.

Canada should take note.

Today’s letters to the Editor alerted me to an item I had completely overlooked in yesterday’s National Post - They had reprinted one of the infamous Danish cartoons.

I had read both articles on the page regarding the arrest of three men who had plotted to murder the Danish cartoonist, as well as the one about Soharwardy dropping his HRC complaint against Levant, and not even noticed the accompanying graphic of Mohammed with the bomb in his turban.

Which all goes to show that either I am a very unperceptive reader, or else this whole issue has been blown out of proportion to a ridiculous degree.

By way of contrast to the moxy of the Post, consider Ezra’s observation of how the Mothercorps handled the cartoon - pixellated! Yet no holds barred when it comes to depicting anything that might offend Christians.

Normally I would say to purchase your media carefully, and yet when it comes to the CBC we have no choice. Our taxes fund it whether we agree with their editorial viewpoint or not.

Something has to change.

McGuinty wants to drop the Lord’s Prayer at Queen’s Park, or else have rotating prayers from different faiths.

Do atheists have their own prayer? And what about the environmentalists?

This is actually not news, but Ontario (and especially Toronto) tax payers should be aware that “hundreds of GTA Muslim men in polygamous marriages — some with a harem of wives — are receiving welfare and social benefits for each of their spouses, thanks to the city and province…”

Today’s Sun features a report (Harems pay off for Muslims) that explains how Canada is “way ahead of Britain in this respect.”

I’m just so proud.

Darcey has a fascinating discussion going on at DMB about so-called ‘Honour Killings’.

Author Ellen R. Sheeley has left a comment that is well worth the read:

Imam Shakir is being disingenuous and playing to the cultural/moral relativists, of which there seem to be plenty.

Aqsa Parvez’s death was an “honor” killing, and “honor” killings will never be properly addressed if people aren’t even willing to admit to what they are. They are a form of domestic violence, but a very specific form, with different roots, different triggers, different modus operandi, and different ways of preventing them…

I am planning to pick up this thread sometime in the near future, since these issues now appear to be affecting Canada.

To some people, the hijab is a symbol of faith, culture and a means of modesty in an increasingly secular, anything-goes Canada.

To others it is a symbol of oppression; even though some hijab-wearers insist it is more liberating because women are judged for themselves rather than their looks.

But all this hinges on the assumption of choice.

Such does not appear to be the case with a 16-year old girl who is now in critical condition after being choked by her father; who apparently was enraged by his daughter’s desire to wear Western clothing - Were clothes behind the attack on teenager? (Post)

Her condition is so grave that police have not yet charged the man arrested at the scene until they know whether it will be a charge of murder or attempted murder. He was scheduled to appear in Brampton court today.

This article is a real eye-opener. I wonder how many other Canadian girls are out there in similar circumstances. They must eventually either give in to the intimidation or face abuse of some kind.

A frightening situation for a country that considers itself so advanced in the area of Human Rights.

Interesting juxtaposition of viewpoints here between the Post’s George Jonas and the Star’s Haroon Siddiqui, who attended the same conference, but the impressions they take away with them couldn’t be further apart.

This reminds me of what Penny said at Red Tory’s:

We are once again developing Two Solitudes in this country, both of whom rattle on about freedom and democracy, but which are terms that have totally different meanings, depending on which pole one is sitting on.

(11:58 P.M.)

Very profound, isn’t it?

Anyway, Jonas sees multiculturalism as a negative; keeping us apart and muddying whatever is left of our ‘Canadian culture’.

Instead of a unique and unified Canada, multiculturalism has ended up promoting a xenolith: a fragmented patchwork of separate communities, each upset about the supposed privileges of the other segments, while viewing its own privileges as entitlements. Multiculturalism has perpetuated old solitudes within Canada, and created new ones. This may not have been anyone’s intention; but it is the result.

Siddiqui, on the other hand, sees multiculturalism as a ‘great success’ and quotes quotes pollster Michael Adams who assures us that:

“Groups that live in ethnic enclaves are more economically successful than groups who do not live in ethnic enclaves. This was true for the Jews and the Italians and it is true for the Chinese and the South Asians today. This is a good sign, not a sign of disastrous balkanization.”

I have a few thoughts on this, but am pressed for time at the moment. If anyone would care to start the debate, please feel free. Thanks.

Continuing with the theme of religion on this Easter weekend, George Jonas has a very thought-provoking column in today’s Post (Throwing the Holocaust down a memory hole).

It actually ties in very nicely with yesterday’s discussion about Michael Smith’s essay, Religion in a Secular Society. If I can simply Smith’s argument, it is that a true secular society allows the free discussion of all viewpoints; not the exclusion of faith itself.

This is all related to political-correctness and multiculturalism, which George Jonas seems to feel has gone way over board trying to appease the ever-increasing influence of Muslim immigration and population growth. And if we look to Britain, we can see the writing on the wall for Canada.

Jonas points to a recent Daily Mail article citing a study that shows that British schools are “dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils“.

It found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.

There is also resistance to tackling the 11th century Crusades - where Christians fought Muslim armies for control of Jerusalem - because lessons often contradict what is taught in local mosques.

Jonas likens this situation to Orwell’s famous novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, where “past events that didn’t sit well with Big Brother went into a memory hole”.

Michael Smith notes:

The trend in our country and elsewhere to consign religious communities to the private realm is, in fact, a drift toward intolerance, despite claims to the contrary.

Religious communities must continue to speak and act in the public realm and to propose policies for the common good.

Will Britain’s problems become ours someday?

If we allow ourselves to be goaded into silence, I fear that may well be the case.