Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Muslim Honor Killing in Kingston


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 893
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Dumb thread hijack.

"Honorable" is still the title of our prime ministers.
Canadian prime ministers are "Right Honourable" because a Canadian PM is automatically a member of the British Privy Council.
"Hon." is also the title of our Senators.
Honourable is the generic title/term used in England for a commoner. All members of the UK House of Commons are "Honourable Members", unless as UK cabinet members they become members of the British Privy Council and a "Right Honourable".

Americans admirably adopted this title and so Kennedy, Bush (both) and Obama are Honorables - as well as the Governor of the Great State of Oregon, for example, and a State Senator in Louisiana. In America, all politicians are"honorables". What a country!

----

Since this thread is about domestic violence and "mistreatment" of women, the following point seems appropriate.

Stephen Harper and Jean Chretien are both Right Honourables but, to my knowledge, Jean Chretien is the only Canadian Right Honourable to have a son convicted of sexual assault.

Edited by August1991
Link to post
Share on other sites
In Canada, democracy is articulated on monarchy. Monarchism is all about forcing women into marriages.

Which gets us back to radical Islam, and it's violent mistreatement of women.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One honour killing is one to many in Canada. A female who didn't fry the bacon to an abusive man's satisfaction being beaten to death is one to many. A women beaten and left dead in a ditch for merely being pregnant with a female fetus is one to many. Women in Canada fought hard to make domestic abuse a criminal offense, and then the bleeding hearts inacted Multicultural Policies and told new comers to continue practicing their cultures even when that culture is seeping with misogynistic subjugating practices. Mosque allow books to be placed in their libraries describing how to "Beat Women" and is it really a stretch to assume they also teach from the pulpit it's okay to harm women who refuse to be submissive and subservient? I for one am extremely angry at the flippant response by women who simper "It's just domestic abuse" well I beg to differ forcing the court of public opinion to tolerate the intolerable for twenty years has brought Canada to a tipping point. Either we stop tolerating and allowing immigrants to espouse anti-western female hatred or we own up that we created the atmosphere that currently exist that empowers these men to abuse and kill women in the name of their religion or culture.

Link to post
Share on other sites
One honour killing is one too many in Canada.

So what measures do you prose we take to present these rare events. How do we stop them without discriminating against everyone?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Your point?
In a thread about honour killings, domestic violence and violence against women that strayed into the definition of "honourable", it seemed justified to mention that even the son of a Canadian PM (a right honourable) was found guilty of sexual assault:
He was convicted of sexually assaulting a Montreal woman, who said he took her home from a bar, cut off her clothes, tied her up and forced her to have sex.

Chrétien was sentenced to three years for the crime.

CBC

Scorpio, you can draw any point you want.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the relevant point is that attempting to equate the "honorable" duels of swordsmen or gunfighters of days gone by with fathers killing teenaged girls is clearly moronic. Someone attempting to create such an analogy to suggest that honor-killings are a long-standing part of western civilization is clearly suffering from mental impairment of the most severe kind.

How can one even address such stupidity? The only rational response to that comment is pure, blinding hatred.

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites
In a thread about honour killings, domestic violence and violence against women that strayed into the definition of "honourable", it seemed justified to mention that even the son of a Canadian PM (a right honourable) was found guilty of sexual assault:CBC

Scorpio, you can draw any point you want.

I don't see a point either. If the son was an "honourable", maybe.

But he wasn't. His behaviour is his own, and has nothing to do with his father.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the relevant point is that attempting to equate the "honorable" duels of swordsmen or gunfighters of days gone by with fathers killing teenaged girls is clearly moronic. Someone attempting to create such an analogy to suggest that honor-killings are a long-standing part of western civilization is clearly suffering from mental impairment of the most severe kind.

How can one even address such stupidity? The only rational response to that comment is pure, blinding hatred.

-k

In such duels, one can easily imagine young men acting just like you in the defense of young unwed girls unfairly terrorized by their abusive fathers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Now that's amusing. First, I'm not sure you can even spell those words without resorting to your spell checker.
:lol:
Second, while I constantly argue from the point of view of cold (which is your real problem) hard logic, your responses are replete with emotional whiny complaints about my being mean to this or that group.

In fact, I have a point of view which tends to be conservative. And I judge every individual and group irrelevant to their national origin, religion or ethnic identity based on that point of view. If, according to my standards, they act, think and behave like morons, then I tend to dismiss them as such

My most sincere apologies. I shoud have specified I was talking about the other Argus. I am so glad to see that you would never, let's say, treat Muslims like if they all thought and acted the same. You would never peddle around negative stereotypes about immigrants like if it applied to all of them. You would not resort to drivel everytime you join a discussion about gays and lesbians. You would not wax nostalgically on how your neighbourhood was once better andmore white.

Because you know, OF COURSE, that the mesure of an individual is that individual's actions and words, not that of other people who may share the same skin colour, the same country of origin or the same religion. That, you will readily admit, is the start of logic and common sense.

Edited by CANADIEN
Link to post
Share on other sites
That's complete nonsense. "Honor" has never been a preeminent western value. It's always been more of an eastern or mid-eastern preeminent value (ie Japan).

You're tying yourself in knots in order to make excuses for radical Islam. Stop the insanity.

And I thought that Sicily was part of the Western World. As well, I wasn't aware that Argentina, where the law impose lesser sanction for murder when a husband kills his wife, has stopped being a country founded to a large extent on European immigration.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Because you know, OF COURSE, that the mesure of an individual is that individual's actions and words, not that of other people who may share the same skin colour, the same country of origin or the same religion. That, you will readily admit, is the start of logic and common sense.

But, we should not forget that the basis of individuals' self-respect is in large part made of a social context.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In such duels, one can easily imagine young men acting just like you in the defense of young unwed girls unfairly terrorized by their abusive fathers.

Given the opportunity, I'd be proud to have attempted to defend these girls. Honored, even.

With 2 years of boxing and 20 years of judo at my command, I'm confident that I would turn that fat old bastard's face into a crimson mask of anguish.

However, protecting someone from murder is about as opposite as it gets to the sort of "honor killing" being discussed.

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see a point either. If the son was an "honourable", maybe.

But he wasn't. His behaviour is his own, and has nothing to do with his father.

That's correct, but lost on August. He'd rather go into attack mode with an irrelevant and polticial driven smear on P.M. Chretian, a tactic perfected by their beloved leader.

Link to post
Share on other sites
DogOnP,

By 'ours' I guess you mean Canada 1967. Well, you indeed have gone indeed farther than HydraBoss - who wants to restrict Muslim immigration.

You, Dog, want to only allow immigration from Canada.

Just because you'd gladly turn Canada into the planet's garbage dump doesn't mean everyone else is behind you. Many Canadians are a little sick of all this culture shock at OUR culture's expense. Maybe you thought P.E.T. was a hero. To me he was just a big douche-bag that wouldn't go away.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TrueMetis
Just because you'd gladly turn Canada into the planet's garbage dump doesn't mean everyone else is behind you. Many Canadians are a little sick of all this culture shock at OUR culture's expense. Maybe you thought P.E.T. was a hero. To me he was just a big douche-bag that wouldn't go away.

lol What culture Canada doesn't have anything that could be defined as it's own culture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...