How Canada let Aqsa down
BartSimpson @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:10 pm
How Canada let Aqsa down
From http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/sto ... ?id=165018
$1:
We have this week two news items of tragedies involving girl victims. Both will serve to reinforce the belief of many Canadians -- count me in -- that the alliance of feminism with multiculturalism has created a two-tier sisterhood.
The top tier, Western women, have achieved full equality rights. Any and all male aggression against a top-tier woman triggers a public outcry and a million lit candles. The second-tier women -- those from other cultures -- are not so fortunate. Feminists exploit multiculturalism to justify their moral abandonment of the women who most need them: girl victims of dysfunctional or socially unevolved cultures.
We begin in Australia, and the trial results of a 2006 rape of a 10-year-old aboriginal girl by a group of nine aboriginal men and adolescents. District Court Judge Sarah Bradley gave all of them probation or suspended sentences -- no jail time and no criminal records. Bradley concluded that the victim "was not forced and she probably agreed to have sex with all of you."
This girl had been a sexual pawn since the age of seven. She is the kind of human wreckage that should have inspired amongst anguished feminists a mass demonstration with candles, white ribbons and demands for life sentences for her attackers.
But the judge was a woman, the girl and her attackers from a minority culture, creating the perfect ideological storm.
How could any woman get it so wrong? It's like this: Indoctrinated in multicultural feminism, Judge Bradley is a moral and cultural relativist. Any sexual aggression against her own daughter would be anathema, but the cultural values of the Other are sacrosanct, and must be respected.
Thus, that judge didn't see a 10-year-old girl. She didn't see an individual. She saw aboriginal Others engaged in behaviours particular to their culture, and she assumed it would be wrong to impose her standards on them. Believe it or not, I am sure she thought she was
being sensitive to their "difference."
Back to Canada and, if appearances turn out to be reality, Canada's first honour killing. Sixteen-year-old Mississauga teenager Aqsa Parvez died on Tuesday of wounds suffered in an attack on her on Monday -- allegedly by her father. (A brother is also charged with the crime of obstruction.) Friends of Aqsa painted a picture of a young girl eager to integrate into Canadian society, in ongoing conflict with her conservative Pakistani father who insisted she wear the hijab, the Muslim symbol of sexual modesty.
Multiculturalists would have us believe that the hijab is merely a religious symbol, like the Sikh kirpan or the Christian cross, freely embraced by the girls wearing them. It isn't, as many Muslim commentators, including Tarek Fatah and Farzana Hassan in these pages yesterday, have frequently explained. The hijab is rather a public sign of supervised sexual modesty, and marks those wearing it as chattel, leashed to their fathers and brothers as surely as if they were wearing a dog collar.
But you'll never hear a feminist murmur a word of complaint about these girls' lack of autonomy, for the same reasons the judge in Australia couldn't imagine that an aboriginal girl should be treated with the dignity and respect her own daughter would take for granted.
The top tier, Western women, have achieved full equality rights. Any and all male aggression against a top-tier woman triggers a public outcry and a million lit candles. The second-tier women -- those from other cultures -- are not so fortunate. Feminists exploit multiculturalism to justify their moral abandonment of the women who most need them: girl victims of dysfunctional or socially unevolved cultures.
We begin in Australia, and the trial results of a 2006 rape of a 10-year-old aboriginal girl by a group of nine aboriginal men and adolescents. District Court Judge Sarah Bradley gave all of them probation or suspended sentences -- no jail time and no criminal records. Bradley concluded that the victim "was not forced and she probably agreed to have sex with all of you."
This girl had been a sexual pawn since the age of seven. She is the kind of human wreckage that should have inspired amongst anguished feminists a mass demonstration with candles, white ribbons and demands for life sentences for her attackers.
But the judge was a woman, the girl and her attackers from a minority culture, creating the perfect ideological storm.
How could any woman get it so wrong? It's like this: Indoctrinated in multicultural feminism, Judge Bradley is a moral and cultural relativist. Any sexual aggression against her own daughter would be anathema, but the cultural values of the Other are sacrosanct, and must be respected.
Thus, that judge didn't see a 10-year-old girl. She didn't see an individual. She saw aboriginal Others engaged in behaviours particular to their culture, and she assumed it would be wrong to impose her standards on them. Believe it or not, I am sure she thought she was
being sensitive to their "difference."
Back to Canada and, if appearances turn out to be reality, Canada's first honour killing. Sixteen-year-old Mississauga teenager Aqsa Parvez died on Tuesday of wounds suffered in an attack on her on Monday -- allegedly by her father. (A brother is also charged with the crime of obstruction.) Friends of Aqsa painted a picture of a young girl eager to integrate into Canadian society, in ongoing conflict with her conservative Pakistani father who insisted she wear the hijab, the Muslim symbol of sexual modesty.
Multiculturalists would have us believe that the hijab is merely a religious symbol, like the Sikh kirpan or the Christian cross, freely embraced by the girls wearing them. It isn't, as many Muslim commentators, including Tarek Fatah and Farzana Hassan in these pages yesterday, have frequently explained. The hijab is rather a public sign of supervised sexual modesty, and marks those wearing it as chattel, leashed to their fathers and brothers as surely as if they were wearing a dog collar.
But you'll never hear a feminist murmur a word of complaint about these girls' lack of autonomy, for the same reasons the judge in Australia couldn't imagine that an aboriginal girl should be treated with the dignity and respect her own daughter would take for granted.
Excerpt - go the link for the full article.
BartSimpson @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:11 pm
$1:
The hijab is rather a public sign of supervised sexual modesty, and marks those wearing it as chattel, leashed to their fathers and brothers as surely as if they were wearing a dog collar.
Beautiful comparison.
Wullu @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:19 pm
Barbara Kay hammered the points and hypocrisy home for sure. Not that that will stop some folks, The Star and CBC come to mind, from inflicting this with their moral relativism.
ridenrain @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:07 pm
That's definately not Canada's first honour killing.
There are a handfull of Sikh woman who die every year in BC. Some might be accidents, some might be dowery scams and others are honor killing. Some of the BC East indian community is opening up but the old school folks are too far gone to change.
The dog collar is a perfect comparison.
sandorski @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:03 pm
It is a Religious symbol. Just like the Head Scarves worn by the Hutterite Christian Sect in Northern Alberta.
I agree though that it is ultimately demeaning to women, but can we dictate Religious Practice and still consider our Nation as having Freedom of Religion?
maple_leaf1 @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:28 pm
sandorski sandorski:
It is a Religious symbol. Just like the Head Scarves worn by the Hutterite Christian Sect in Northern Alberta.
I agree though that it is ultimately demeaning to women, but can we dictate Religious Practice and still consider our Nation as having Freedom of Religion?
Describe religion and you should be able to answer yourself...
I agree though that it is ultimately demeaning to women, but can we dictate Religious Practice and still consider our Nation as having Freedom of Religion?
sandorski @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:31 pm
maple_leaf1 maple_leaf1:
sandorski sandorski:
It is a Religious symbol. Just like the Head Scarves worn by the Hutterite Christian Sect in Northern Alberta.
I agree though that it is ultimately demeaning to women, but can we dictate Religious Practice and still consider our Nation as having Freedom of Religion?
Describe religion and you should be able to answer yourself...I agree though that it is ultimately demeaning to women, but can we dictate Religious Practice and still consider our Nation as having Freedom of Religion?
??
maple_leaf1 @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:36 pm
sandorski sandorski:
maple_leaf1 maple_leaf1:
sandorski sandorski:
It is a Religious symbol. Just like the Head Scarves worn by the Hutterite Christian Sect in Northern Alberta.
I agree though that it is ultimately demeaning to women, but can we dictate Religious Practice and still consider our Nation as having Freedom of Religion?
Describe religion and you should be able to answer yourself...I agree though that it is ultimately demeaning to women, but can we dictate Religious Practice and still consider our Nation as having Freedom of Religion?
??
sasquatch2 @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:38 pm
Religious?
What religion might that be oh great pretender to all wisdom and knowledge?
What religion?
maple_leaf1 @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:43 pm
sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
Religious?
What religion might that be oh great pretender to all wisdom and knowledge?
What religion?
What religion might that be oh great pretender to all wisdom and knowledge?
What religion?
wtf you been smokin?
sandorski @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:50 pm
maple_leaf1 maple_leaf1:
sandorski sandorski:
maple_leaf1 maple_leaf1:
sandorski sandorski:
It is a Religious symbol. Just like the Head Scarves worn by the Hutterite Christian Sect in Northern Alberta.
I agree though that it is ultimately demeaning to women, but can we dictate Religious Practice and still consider our Nation as having Freedom of Religion?
Describe religion and you should be able to answer yourself...I agree though that it is ultimately demeaning to women, but can we dictate Religious Practice and still consider our Nation as having Freedom of Religion?
??
Is it? Religion is many things and one of those things is often involving Clothing. Other limits to Personal Freedom in Religion involves Sexual Practices, Food (including alcohol consumption), and even Activities(work on Holy Days for eg). Religion almost always limits the Freedom of its' followers.
sasquatch2 @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:29 pm
Wearing a hijab is as islamic as burning witches is a christian practice.
This honour killing etc is the domain of the illiterates...........
opinion of educated Muslim women
sandorski @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:17 pm
sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
Wearing a hijab is as islamic as burning witches is a christian practice.
This honour killing etc is the domain of the illiterates...........
opinion of educated Muslim women
This honour killing etc is the domain of the illiterates...........
opinion of educated Muslim women
True enough, but various Sects of various Religions often adopt practices the original Religion never had in mind.
BartSimpson @ Fri Dec 14, 2007 6:24 pm
sandorski sandorski:
It is a Religious symbol. Just like the Head Scarves worn by the Hutterite Christian Sect in Northern Alberta.
I beg to disagree. How many Hutterite women have been murdered for not wearing their little hats?
That would be none.
Ever.
sandorski @ Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:08 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
sandorski sandorski:
It is a Religious symbol. Just like the Head Scarves worn by the Hutterite Christian Sect in Northern Alberta.
I beg to disagree. How many Hutterite women have been murdered for not wearing their little hats?
That would be none.
Ever.
moot to the point.