Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Muslim Honor Killing in Kingston


Recommended Posts

honour killing is murder and the penalty should reflect that. at the same time, the acceptance and practice by some cultures and sub-cultures should be discussed and dissected. however, to make this another 'muslim' issue is nothing more than becoming a mouthpiece for the anti-muslim agenda.

Why does this issue have to be "dissected" any more than needed to determine if there's proof beyond a reasonable doubt though? We didn't drag people off the streets of Peshawar and force them to come to Montreal. If they can't or won't adapt to living in the West, don't let the door hit them on the ____ on the way out.

trying to paint a whole group of people (muslims) is as ridiculous as saying catholics are pedophiles and child rapists because some priests engage in raping children.

Is there something wrong with telling the "broad daylight" truth on an issue?

It's a sensitive topic surely. All part of having immigration from rural backwaters in the Middle East, where women are not emancipated, given contraceptives, equal rights or dignity as persons.

Maybe we should rethink immigration policies.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 893
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If we did know, what formula would you provide me to determine the value of an individual ? Do you have any idea how much of a problem this actually is ? Are those people who come here entirely unaware that Canada doesn't have the same laws as where they came from ?

These are some of the questions I have.

I can't deny that people will come to Canada with attitudes from their home countries, but what I can't buy into is the idea that one culture is mathematically and absolutely better than another. More specifically, that we are objective enough to look at any culture and objectively determine whether they are good enough to mix with the great Canadian race.

Are you saying that Canada has no right to say that it wants to remain Canada and not have its culture hopelessly diluted?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American Woman

I think this needs to be put out there:

Honor Killing ‘Un-Islamic’: Canadian Fatwa

"Those who think honor killing is OK are dead wrong," Soharwardy [founder of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada] said.

"There is no place for violence in Islam.

"A very small minority" of Muslims think this way and they "need to be corrected," he added. [...]

Though portrayed in the Western media as exhorted by Islam, honor killing is a cultural act and has nothing to do with the faith.

...the fatwa also aims to remind Muslim parents that they have a role to educate, inform and model good behavior to their children and not use force to instill religious beliefs.

One can recognize that it's a cultural problem within a religion without claiming that it's a problem with the religion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Peeves, you need to stay on topic. We were talking about honour killings in Canada. Globally, "honour killings" are an issue, just as much as domestic homicide is an issue. Some people in the West don't want to roll "honour killings" into domestic homicide because then you can't claim racial/ethnic superiority. You would have to admit that domestic violence is a problem all over the globe and is not limited to any single culture. Now if you want to sit here and say, "but misogyny is worse over there!" Have fun. But realize you're talking difference in degree, rather than kind.

B/S. I am on topic.

The topic is about a cultural practice in some immigrants and the practice globally where they originate from. If examples of hanging Black in the USA is on point, so am I. Stop your incessant whining.

Honor killing is no different if Canadian examples are used than if Afghanistan examples are used.

Now,of course you're not off point when you jump to domestic violence all over the world, but I am if I refer to honor killings all over the globe.

Honor killing is treated differently than domestic violence or abuse in many countries where it is rather commonplace femicide. PERIOD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Never ? I think I gave an example of someone who ended up murdering his daughter because she shamed her family

I saw no such example. I would be surprised if they were Canadians.

Right, it's illegal.

Technically.

The Soviet Union had a constitution which protected civil rights, too. It was meaningless.

You can go ahead and do so. I've already passed judgment on those systems of government elsewhere on here - I think they're inferior.

I'm not talking about a system of government. I'm talking about a culture. If a government doesn't bother to enforce murder it's not rarely because of a 'system of government'.

If we did know, what formula would you provide me to determine the value of an individual ? Do you have any idea how much of a problem this actually is ?

How about talking to them? How about doing a little background check on their attitudes? A friend of mine applied for a job at CSIS. They interviewed her family, her friends, and did their best to form a full and complete picture of what kind of person she was.

Are you telling me you can't tell the difference between the type of person you might want as a friend and the type of person whose values you would find repugnant?

I can't deny that people will come to Canada with attitudes from their home countries, but what I can't buy into is the idea that one culture is mathematically and absolutely better than another.

You have trouble with the idea some cultures are more socially advanced than others?

More specifically, that we are objective enough to look at any culture and objectively determine whether they are good enough to mix with the great Canadian race.

Why do we need to assume some kind of godly neutrality anyway? Have you forgotten the point of immigration is to serve Canada's needs? We can assess others based on whether they meet up to OUR cultural beliefs with impunity, and select only those who do.

The examples that have been quoted here in the past were pretty much picked apart as baseless

,

Riiiight. Sounds to me like the three monkey approach.

What do I say to people who have been brutalized by immigrants that *I* bring here - you're saying that *I* bring immigrants here ? You're emotionalizing this, which is usually what people accuse liberals of doing. Immigration is a numbers game, and an economics game. When Harper starts saying he's going to stop it, I'll pay attention.

Harper is a political whore who will do what's popular most of the time. The reason he supports immigration is because so many people, mostly almost entirely knowledge-free of the subject, support immigration.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw no such example. I would be surprised if they were Canadians.

You mean if they were Canadian citizens ? They were. Alternately, how do you define Canadian ?

f a government doesn't bother to enforce murder it's not rarely because of a 'system of government'.

Garbled sentence.

How about talking to them? How about doing a little background check on their attitudes? A friend of mine applied for a job at CSIS. They interviewed her family, her friends, and did their best to form a full and complete picture of what kind of person she was.

I doubt that people haven't though of these things before. It's a little more difficult than job interviewing, I suspect, but there's certainly nothing wrong with the idea.

Are you telling me you can't tell the difference between the type of person you might want as a friend and the type of person whose values you would find repugnant?

Well, friends disappoint us all the time but it's not a comparison to what the Immigration ministry has to do to interview citizens.

You have trouble with the idea some cultures are more socially advanced than others?

These questions of yours keep using different words... 'advanced' and 'progressive' have a few alternate meanings - there's advanced in terms of time, evolution, and there's advanced in terms of superiority. I don't see the value in consciously passing judgment on entire societies, or in other words moralizing over such things. Our culture has perhaps traveled further in time, though.

Why do we need to assume some kind of godly neutrality anyway? Have you forgotten the point of immigration is to serve Canada's needs? We can assess others based on whether they meet up to OUR cultural beliefs with impunity, and select only those who do.

I am very much about the practicality of immigration, especially economically - which is why I have asked for the formula. You can choose to not be neutral if you like, but I am focused on Canada's needs not a subjective idea of what I or others "like".

Riiiight. Sounds to me like the three monkey approach.

Debate and discussion is 'see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil' ? Really ? And you write this on a discussion board ?

Harper is a political whore who will do what's popular most of the time. The reason he supports immigration is because so many people, mostly almost entirely knowledge-free of the subject, support immigration.

Sorry that you think so little about our PM. I didn't vote for him, nor did I support him but I trust that he is motivated by his own vision of what is best, not by what is popular.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But they are in some other countries, and I think that's the point being made.

once again, you failed to backup another false claim.

since you can't find any country where honour killing is legal, you have no point, right?

Edited by bud
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I think this needs to be put out there:

Honor Killing ‘Un-Islamic’: Canadian Fatwa

"Those who think honor killing is OK are dead wrong," Soharwardy [founder of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada] said.

"There is no place for violence in Islam.

"A very small minority" of Muslims think this way and they "need to be corrected," he added. [...]

Though portrayed in the Western media as exhorted by Islam, honor killing is a cultural act and has nothing to do with the faith.

...the fatwa also aims to remind Muslim parents that they have a role to educate, inform and model good behavior to their children and not use force to instill religious beliefs.

One can recognize that it's a cultural problem within a religion without claiming that it's a problem with the religion.

This is a knotty issue, AW. While it is true that the majority of muslims abhor the practice of honour killings it still can't be denied that there are vast areas, perhaps entire countries! where honour killings are part of the mainstream culture.

I'm thinking of Afghanistan and at least large chunks of Pakistan, for a start.

Most Muslims in western countries don't hold such primitive views simply because they aren't primitive! That being said, there ARE more primitive countries with more primitive aspects in their culture!

When we defend Islam as a whole we should not forget there are parts that are dangerous. Even Christians were dangerous in certain cultures in certain days of history.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this needs to be put out there:

Honor Killing ‘Un-Islamic’: Canadian Fatwa

"Those who think honor killing is OK are dead wrong," Soharwardy [founder of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada] said.

"There is no place for violence in Islam.

"A very small minority" of Muslims think this way and they "need to be corrected," he added. [...]

Though portrayed in the Western media as exhorted by Islam, honor killing is a cultural act and has nothing to do with the faith.

...the fatwa also aims to remind Muslim parents that they have a role to educate, inform and model good behavior to their children and not use force to instill religious beliefs.

One can recognize that it's a cultural problem within a religion without claiming that it's a problem with the religion.

This Fatwa is the same stuff that makes gardens grow . BULLSHIT.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough.

First hand experience is as valuable or more valuable than statistics, academic studies and so on IMO. However, it is also subjective. What we have in Toronto, to my viewpoint, is a melting pot more than anything else. This effect happens naturally, and goes both ways: counter to multiculturalism, and aligned to multiculturalism.

That's what I can't jump to - how you come to that conclusion. Other countries in the world look to Canada as a model. We don't have frequent race riots (though we have had them) nor is it even acceptable to convey bigoted opinions in mixed company.

I'm not going to ask you for a cite, nor will I give one: Based on my observations, I think it's succeeding.

The status quo for 2012 is what I'm talking about. Maybe I would actually do something differently, namely to monitor attitudes towards race and multiculturalism especially as the economy falters.

Is it a road to nowhere ? It's a way to grow the economy, and our PM is an economist who doesn't seem to be changing anything to do with immigration.

Look at multiculturalism in another light.

In some African tribes it is the law to kill any first born Female at the time of birth.

Same goes for some others--- if the mother is touiched by a snake the baby is deemed to be cursed & is to be killed when born.

These are the beliefs of these people and, as murder is for us, for them it is a "sin" not to follow the rule/

Who would be wrong, morally, in this case?

By the way--- don't think we've seen the last of the idiocy of honour killing--- it's not gone & won't be till the "old folk" of these barbaric so-called religions have died.

Maybe the next generation will be more civilized.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at multiculturalism in another light.

In some African tribes it is the law to kill any first born Female at the time of birth.

Same goes for some others--- if the mother is touiched by a snake the baby is deemed to be cursed & is to be killed when born.

These are the beliefs of these people and, as murder is for us, for them it is a "sin" not to follow the rule/

Um.

What tribe is this exactly ?

Who would be wrong, morally, in this case?

What is the purpose of this stupid exercise ? Are you really trying to get me to "admit" that murder is wrong ?

By the way--- don't think we've seen the last of the idiocy of honour killing--- it's not gone & won't be till the "old folk" of these barbaric so-called religions have died.

Maybe the next generation will be more civilized.

A small measure of concession to change there, but still a measure. Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm not saying that.

Of course that's what you're saying. That's what you always say, or at the very least imply. You refuse to engage in anything that is arbitrary or subjective. Determining that likelihood of success of a candidate for immigration to Canada on the basis of his or her political orientation, religious identity, or other cultural values and beliefs is simply too political sensitive for you to even think of. You refuse to define Canada in any cultural or political manner, and therefore refuse to even fathom the idea that Canada's immigration policies should implement screening inquiries that go beyond requests for financial information and a criminal record check (often falsified). For heaven's sake, we're barely requiring medical examinations anymore! It is entirely because of people like you that our immigration authorities cannot interview immigration candidates about their political views, their attitudes towards freedom, their religious perspectives, and other subjective matters. So, we keep importing plenty of trash to sit in subsidized-housing projects and hospitals. 4

When the government made a symbolic move towards addressing Canadian grievances about contemporary immigration policies by releasing a new "citizenship guide", we saw the usual moral outrage from the left. I remember Justin Trudeau stating that he felt "uncomfortable" with the new guide's description of honour killings as "barbaric". Really, Justin? What adjective would he have preferred - "controversial", perhaps? Yeah... honour killings are "controversial".

This is your nature, Michael Hardner. Your brain short-circuits as soon as subjectivity factors into an equation, even when this involves an easy moral judgment for a normal person to make. The funny thing is that you seem to think this is an endearing character trait.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is entirely because of people like you that our immigration authorities cannot interview immigration candidates about their political views, their attitudes towards freedom, their religious perspectives, and other subjective matters. So, we keep importing plenty of trash to sit in subsidized-housing projects and hospitals. 4

Hardner wrote and implemented (not to mention oversees) the immigration manual? Wow, he must be talented

Dont worry about Canada bob, those that live here will do that just fine. You can worry about where you live thanks.

Edited by guyser
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hardner wrote and implemented (not to mention oversees) the immigration manual? Wow, he must be talented

Dont worry about Canada bob, those that live here will do that just fine. You can worry about where you live thanks.

My implication was certainly understood by others - that Michael Hardner's ideological counterparts that refuse to engage in anything subjective because of "politically correct" considerations are the cause for the failures of Canada's contemporary immigration policies, leading to the importation of plenty of trash into Canada. I certainly didn't state, let alone imply, that Michael Hardner is public policy formulator at Citizenship and Immigration Canada (although he'd fit right in).

Edited by Bob
Link to post
Share on other sites

My implication was certainly understood by others -

Gauged how bob?

By the two posters who responded after? Michael Hardner and I ?

Kinda rich bs coming from you bob. Dont worry about Canada bob. We are doing just fine. You worry about all the trash where you live.

Edited by guyser
Link to post
Share on other sites

My implication was certainly understood by others - that Michael Hardner's ideological counterparts that refuse to engage in anything subjective because of "politically correct" considerations are the cause for the failures of Canada's contemporary immigration policies, leading to the importation of plenty of trash into Canada. I certainly didn't state, let alone imply, that Michael Hardner is public policy formulator at Citizenship and Immigration Canada (although he'd fit right in).

Thanks for the referral Bob.

I don't think I would ever characterize my responses as being modified because of politically correct considerations. That's a hidden agenda/conspiracy theory point of view. If you want to find out my motivations for discussing something, you can ask me because I'm on here too.

Whether PC considerations are at the root of Canadian policy is an interesting question, but I reject that as we've had a change of regime at the top and our PM - who is an economist - doesn't seem to be changing much at all.

Of course, there are those who say that he can't because if he did he'd be drummed out of office yadda yadda... so there's no beating the theory, as it is with most conspiracy theories.

Listen, if immigration was an economic drain on Canada then Stephen Harper would be making noises to reduce or eliminate it. They're talking about changing it, but I haven't heard anything that indicates that it will be eliminated.

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...