NationStates Jolt Archive

Link 1 (http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=a30d4ec5-ab89-4934-85ea-1106ddd46a9e&k=75989)
Link 2 (http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=162281)
Link 3 (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071212.whijab1212/BNStory/National/home)

The tragic death of a Mississauga, Ont., teenage girl -- allegedly at the hands of her own traditionally minded Muslim father -- has sent shock waves across the world. Canadians are justified in raising concerns as to whether this is a sign of the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in their own backyard.

Aqsa Parvez, a sprightly 16-year-old, beloved of her friends and peers at Applewood Heights Secondary School, was only trying to be herself, was only wishing for a normal adolescence amid Canada's rich cultural mosaic. Her father has now been charged with murder, and his son with obstruction, while a young life has been snuffed out -- likely in the name of honour and Islam.

Police say Mr. Parvez called 911 Monday morning and told the dispatcher he had killed his daughter. When paramedics arrived at the family's Mississauga home, they found her in critical condition and rushed her to hospital. She died that night.

It is alleged that Mr. Parvez strangled his daughter.

Friends of Aqsa have said she argued with her father, a devout Muslim, about wearing a hijab, or head scarf, and that she was sleeping at friends homes to avoid her family.

This is disgusting...A similar situation happened to my cousin when we lived in Mississauga, she wasn't killed and my parents weren't telling her to wear a hijab or really do anything extreme...but it has created a rift between her and the rest of my family and we don't talk anymore...anyway

discuss

Damned fasiq -- he needs to learn that a GOOD muslim would act like this (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/12/subway.attack/index.html).

Ugh...

In before the rants saying shit like this is Standard Islamic Protocol.

Religious zealotry is bad, mmkay? Especially when it's based off backwards interpretations.

Damned fasiq -- he needs to learn that a GOOD muslim would act like this (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/12/subway.attack/index.html).

One member of the group allegedly yelled, "Oh, Hanukkah. That's the day that the Jews killed Jesus," she said.

And they say that Christians aren't smart.

In response to the Muslim father killing her daughter - This is anti-Islamic (seriously). I'm a critic of Islam, but I give my criticism where it is true and not where it isn't.

A Muslim is never to force a Muslimah (a woman who follows Islam) to wear a Hijab. Ever.

Honor Killings are part of the whole thing sadly. They have outlawed it in Turkey, but now they force the girl to commit suicide instead. The only reason these are not common in the US is that the vast majority of judges are not willing to pander to the so-called "Religious Tenets" of these extremists.

Sadly, if the girl is
Whistled at
Smiled at
Raped
Or seen in public without a guy she is not related to
Seen in Public wearing non-approved clothing
She can be honor killed.

Things we don't have much of in the US:

honor killings (despite many traditionally-minded Muslims)
happy slapping (despite many violent youths)
overt, public racism (despite many racists)
public exposure (despite many perverts)

Why?

Guns and police.

Oh wait, Canada has guns and police too, doesn't it. Never mind then.

I am not surprised about the Honor killing. I am surprised about about the muslim helping the jews, but it's a pleasant surprise.

So then, "hijab" is both a noun *and* an adjective? Egh.

So then, "hijab" is both a noun *and* an adjective? Egh.

"Hijab" means "veil" in Arabic.

Get the guy who did the honor killing, tie him to a chair, then give the guy who helped the Jews on the subway a wrench, and put them in a room together.

Get the guy who did the honor killing, tie him to a chair, then give the guy who helped the Jews on the subway a wrench, and put them in a room together.

Then it would just be covered on CNN and FOX News as "More Sectarian Violence."

Get the guy who did the honor killing, tie him to a chair, then give the guy who helped the Jews on the subway a wrench, and put them in a room together.

I think the guy with the wrench would wish him peace, possibly untie him, and leave.

"Hijab" means "veil" in Arabic.

Eh. Maybe, but I've heard the terms "good hijab" and "bad hijab" used to describe compliance and non-compliance. Unless it's just faulty translation.

Eh. Maybe, but I've heard the terms "good hijab" and "bad hijab" used to describe compliance and non-compliance. Unless it's just faulty translation.

I've heard that too. It gets annoying sometimes. "Good" Hijab for woman is supposed to be when she doesn't try to attract the attention of men and she has the Hijab correctly on. "Good" Hijab for men is the exact same (except men have to cover a different area of their bodies).

*sighs*. I really, really, really hate shit like this. It always kills my happy mood. Tell you what, because the father is probably some Taliban-wannabe, let's treat him like one and start punishing him severely if he slips up in his religion. Let his son strangle him this time around.

Religion can drive madness in any area. This isn't limited to just Islam. It's just more widely publicised because the media knows people will be more inclined to listen.

Further, it seems that culture may have also played a part here.

It doesn't matter in the end because no matter what you call it, it's still intolerance, it just comes in 54 flavours.

Religion can drive madness in any area. This isn't limited to just Islam. It's just more widely publicised because the media knows people will be more inclined to listen.

Plus if it was some other religion, people would just say "Oh, that's just a fringe loonie. Most (Religious People) aren't like that."

*sighs*. I really, really, really hate shit like this. It always kills my happy mood. Tell you what, because the father is probably some Taliban-wannabe, let's treat him like one and start punishing him severely if he slips up in his religion. Let his son strangle him this time around.

The son will be too busy memorizing Al-Qur'an to do any strangling. Whip him if he disobeys.

I love my Taliban side.

Link 1 (http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=a30d4ec5-ab89-4934-85ea-1106ddd46a9e&k=75989)
Link 2 (http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=162281)
Link 3 (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071212.whijab1212/BNStory/National/home)





This is disgusting...A similar situation happened to my cousin when we lived in Mississauga, she wasn't killed and my parents weren't telling her to wear a hijab or really do anything extreme...but it has created a rift between her and the rest of my family and we don't talk anymore...anyway

discuss

Honor killings (no matter what religion is used as an excuse for the murder) disgust me. I hope the guy gets life for his actions.

Damned fasiq -- he needs to learn that a GOOD muslim would act like this (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/12/subway.attack/index.html).

QFT. I followed the link. And you're absolutely right. If Muslims want their religion to be accepted as a reasonable and tolerant religion, they need to start acting like the man in the link you posted (and there is another thread here about that, which I have read), instead of the one about whom THIS thread was made (the one who allegedly killed his 16-year-old daughter).

Sadly, if the girl is
Whistled at
Smiled at
Raped
Or seen in public without a guy she is not related to
Seen in Public wearing non-approved clothing
She can be honor killed.

I suppose honour means something entirely different to me.

My initial reaction is that fathers with a lifelong patriarchal (Rule of the Father) conviction do indeed murder their daughters if the daughter starts acting like a independent adult.

It's fair enough to "link it to Islamic fundamentalism."

"Rise of Islamic fundamentalism in their own backyard" -- no.

I go read links now.

I am not surprised about the Honor killing. I am surprised about about the muslim helping the jews, but it's a pleasant surprise.

Agreed. QFT.

Agreed. QFT.

Take a look at Kontor's posting history before being so eager to Quote For Truth. That one might just turn around and reinterpret the words you just quoted.

Take a look at Kontor's posting history before being so eager to Quote For Truth. That one might just turn around and reinterpret the words you just quoted.

QFT

I like the cast so far. The subject is hard. This could be good.

Murder within families. Religious prescription, the role of government, immigration. Plus the girl is hot. Or ... was. :(

Could be a jolly old ding-dong ... the National Post (http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=162281) story is sensationalistic rubbish, the Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071212.whijab1212/BNStory/National/home) at least sent a reporter to the hearing, but the first link from the OP, the Vancouver Sun (http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=a30d4ec5-ab89-4934-85ea-1106ddd46a9e&k=75989), looks best from the first skimming. Editorial, addresses wider issue, but still.

I am Ho-Bot. I am shameless. I'm going to post the pic the Vancouver Sun used:

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/media.canada.com/e01c99e2-0752-408b-b71e-9f74d891718d/national_miss_parvez210.jpg?size=l

Is there an AP article on this? The article provided reeks of bias.

Welcome Kyronea. :)

Let's set the tone. I think this will be a long one.

BBC doesn't have it yet.

I am not surprised about the Honor killing. I am surprised about about the muslim helping the jews, but it's a pleasant surprise.

Agreed. QFT.

Oh, yes. Because who would have thought that a dirty, ebil Muslim would ever do something good? Everyone knows you have to be Christian to be a decent person. You know, like the Christians on that subway. :rolleyes:

Is there an AP article on this? The article provided reeks of bias.

Heh you mean when it said, "Canadians are justified in raising concerns as to whether this is a sign of the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in their own backyard?"

That part caught my eye too.

I like this article (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071212.whijab1212/BNStory/National/home), one of those (the third, I think), linked to in the OP. It is subjective, but it is honest.

I don't think it misrepresents any of the scanty facts. It represents the earnest investigations of a Reporter, and much of the subjectivity and vague phrasing can be penetrated to determine facts which the reporter is not supposed to mention, since the charges have not been finalized, let alone a trial begun.

I'm convinced it was written by the actual reporter who attended the trial, and for those of you looking for plain facts, I will quote first the last line of the article:

A publication ban has been imposed on court proceedings.

It might seem old-fashioned, but I like a reporter who doesn't rewrite what they saw and heard, to comply with 'insider' blogs or anonymous tipoffs. I like this article, and I'll show you all why:

Father denied bail in daughter's death

DAKSHANA BASCARAMURTY

Globe and Mail Update

December 12, 2007 at 3:01 PM EST

BRAMPTON, Ont. — Muhammed Shan Parvez and Ahtisham Parvez blinked back tears as they watched their father – accused of killing their 16-year-old sister Aqsa – enter a Brampton courtroom Wednesday in an orange prison jumpsuit and handcuffs.

"Blinked back tears" could be complete fabrication. But we've all seen it in real life or on TV. You see a person, their eyes are watery but the tears aren't flowing. They swallow a lot, blink in an exaggerated fashion.

I've not seen moving pictures of these two men, but the description is plausible.

The slight Muhammad Parvez kept a steady gaze on Justice of the Peace Darlene Florence during most of his brief bail hearing, but his face crumpled when he made eye contact with his sniffling sons.

"Face crumpled" sounds emotive. But how else to describe an expression on a person's face? By contrast to "kept a steady gaze" there is a clear observation, perhaps exaggerated: Mr. Parvez does not respect a woman judge.

This could be written better, but it would take more words.

The 57-year-old was denied bail and will remain in custody. His next court appearance is scheduled for Jan. 29.

Fact, disclosed to the public. That's yer Habeas Corpus. Yay Canada.
Now, this bit is outside the gag on court proceedings:

Police say Mr. Parvez called 911 Monday morning and told the dispatcher he had killed his daughter. When paramedics arrived at the family's Mississauga home, they found her in critical condition and rushed her to hospital. She died that night.

Police "facts," released to the public.
I don't think Police should do this, since they have a close relationship with Prosecution. But that's just me, and they do the same in Aus.

It is probably not reasonable to expect that all details of a case can be kept from the public until verdict and sentencing. After all, some things are 'news' before they become a 'legal proceeding.'

It is alleged that Mr. Parvez strangled his daughter.

Note, not that he 'murdered' his daughter. I find fault here with the journalist, since 'strangling' is not AFAIK a crime.

Friends of Aqsa have said she argued with her father, a devout Muslim, about wearing a hijab, or head scarf, and that she was sleeping at friends homes to avoid her family.

Gold! This is why you send a journalist to the hearing. Aqsa's friends are easily recognizable: they are distraught, they are middle-teens like her, and they don't talk legalese. You don't stick the camera in their faces -- you give them confidentiality

This is the most reliable source of information we're going to get at this stage.
The girl's friends, who don't have a legal standing in the matter at this stage.

Now, the prosecution, who are still preparing their case:

Whether Muhammad Parvez will be charged with first-degree or second-degree murder in the death of his daughter is still unknown. Mr. Parvez's lawyer, Joseph Ciraco, said it would likely be second-degree murder.

And Mr. Parvez's lawyer, who is slightly more forthcoming.

And, one of the dead girl's brothers:

“It's bad to see him here,” said Muhammed Shan Parvez as he left the courthouse. “My dad is alive, but my sister passed away so I feel bad for my sister.”

My guess is that he's the older brother of "26 y-o Waqas", mentioned below. The journalist's paraphrasing of his words supports this. The journalist continues:

He added that his mother, who is diabetic, was having a particularly difficult time handling the situation. He said he had last seen his sister two weeks ago.

"Particularly". He was very distraught, probably not coherent, possibly sobbing.

Mr. Ciraco, said his client's sons are distraught.

“They are torn,” he said. “Their sister is gone and their brother and father are in jail.”

Muhammad Parvez's 26-year-old son, Waqas, has been charged with obstructing police in their investigation.

Lying to police? Refusing to disclose evidence of a crime? Denying access to the house after his father called the cops? There are many possibilities.
But it's clear that "obstructing police" is a subsequent charge, he's not accused of participating in the alleged crime. May still have been a witness. The journalist doesn't presume ... kudos.

Justice Florence instructed Mr. Parvez not to communicate with Waqas, who will appear in court on Friday for his own bail hearing.

Strongly suggests that Waqas is a witness.

Though Muhammad Parvez was automatically denied bail, Mr. Ciraco said his client's health conditions might overturn that.

He said his client may suffer from a heart condition. Justice Florence agreed that Muhammad Parvez's health would be monitored while he is in custody.

Screw that. He'll be just as healthy in custody -- in the event of heart attack, probably more so. Shutup lawyer.

"If there's an opportunity for bail, we'll proceed in the new year,” said Mr. Ciraco.

Muhammed Shan Parvez and brother Ahtisham Parvez appeared emotional before their father's hearing even began.

I've counted 3 brother so far. M. Shan, Ahtisham, and Waqas. Here's my guess: only Waqas was in the house when the crime occurred.

They arrived in court half an hour before the scheduled hearing time and paced down the hallways before sitting down in front of the surety office.

Not much information there. But can we be in any doubt that Bascaramurtya or a competent research assistant was there? At least half an hour before the hearing?

Ahtisham Parvez, who listed himself as his father's surety, absently flipped through a newspaper as he sat waiting, but his thoughts appeared to be elsewhere.

Now, this is just filler. "I was there, I saw nothing happen."

“This is a hard time,” said Muhammed Shan Parvez.

The journalist tried to speak to M. Shan P. He didn't want to talk. These may have been his only words.

A publication ban has been imposed on court proceedings.

I call that a valuable report, by a good reporter who has seen and tried to interview the most important players in the case.

It will be useful to other reporters, and form the basis of investigations into a case which will be obscured by legal bans for quite some time.

I commend it.

He gets a trial. If convicted, the fucker spends the rest of his life in jail(I'm pretty sure Canada has no death penalty).

That's it. His religion doesn't change the law. SOmething the Catholic Church needs to learn when it comes to pedophile priests.

And no, I don't agree with second-degree murder. First degree: you don't strangle someone by accident, any claim of "emotional distress" is hugely outweighed by "duty of care."

But then, I'm crazy: I don't believe in the Insanity defence. Crazy people have an obligation beyond Normal people, to monitor and regulate their own behaviour. Any crazy person knows this, and the law should recognize it.

He gets a trial. If convicted, the fucker spends the rest of his life in jail
Definitely a fucker. At least four children! :)

Having Religion does not constitute a defence of Insanity!

Thank you, my homeless friend, for that absolutely delightful examination of the article.

Frankly, I find the idea of an "honour killing" sickening, barbaric, and outdated. But that's what we get for tromping all over the Middle East for the past century ever since the Ottoman Empire fell apart. (It gave us all good excuses and we used them to their fullest.) The various nations and cultures haven't had the chance to advance like the rest of us have, so they're still stuck in older times. Of course we keep acting like fuckwads and persecuting them for it rather than trying to help them get past it. (Note that by this I mean the discrimination and utter condemnation of anything to do with the culture, not the punishment of actual crimes, which should continue of course.)

Thank you, my homeless friend, for that absolutely delightful examination of the article.

A keen young reporter detects and tries to put into words things that no editor will ever notice.

Luckily for them, most editors check the copy for swear-words or plagiarism, then go for the four-hour lunch with the advertising rep.

This based on six months in the business.
Like any other job, I couldn't follow the rules and got the sack.

Thank you, my homeless friend, for that absolutely delightful examination of the article.

Frankly, I find the idea of an "honour killing" sickening, barbaric, and outdated. But that's what we get for tromping all over the Middle East for the past century ever since the Ottoman Empire fell apart. (It gave us all good excuses and we used them to their fullest.) The various nations and cultures haven't had the chance to advance like the rest of us have, so they're still stuck in older times. Of course we keep acting like fuckwads and persecuting them for it rather than trying to help them get past it. (Note that by this I mean the discrimination and utter condemnation of anything to do with the culture, not the punishment of actual crimes, which should continue of course.)


Technically, they have advanced, and I don't think they're stuck in old times, need I remind you that in old times Muslims were scholars?

Plus if it was some other religion, people would just say "Oh, that's just a fringe loonie. Most (Religious People) aren't like that."

How sadly true.

Honor killings (no matter what religion is used as an excuse for the murder) disgust me. I hope the guy gets life for his actions.

He gets a trial. If convicted, the fucker spends the rest of his life in jail(I'm pretty sure Canada has no death penalty).

That's it. His religion doesn't change the law. SOmething the Catholic Church needs to learn when it comes to pedophile priests.

He won't get life. They may sentence him to life but he damn well won't serve it. The people who wind up serving are those who aren't going to reoffend and those who are later acquitted of their crime.

Robert Latimer, the man who is known in the Canadian media as the mercy killer was denied day parole because he refused to admit remorse for killing his daughter, Tracy, who was severely disabled and according to doctors, in pain. He was given life and he's served more than most people, including Karla Homolka who was part of the Scarborough Rapist incident; she was aided and abetted Bernardo, as well as murdered her own sister, yet she served only 7 years.

Parvez won't get life.

Parvez won't get life.

I know I should look it up, but what does "life" mean there? Is it a particular number of years, or some calculation based on age, type of crime, etc.?

I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean "until you die."

My initial reaction is that fathers with a lifelong patriarchal (Rule of the Father) conviction do indeed murder their daughters if the daughter starts acting like a independent adult.

It's fair enough to "link it to Islamic fundamentalism."

From the names, I am guessing the father is Pakistani descent/immigrant.

Feel sorry for the rest of the family though (assuming they were not part of the the father's decision to kill the daughter)- lost their girl and now the father will be jailed for a long time.

From the names, I am guessing the father is Pakistani descent/immigrant.

Feel sorry for the rest of the family though (assuming they were not part of the the father's decision to kill the daughter)- lost their girl and now the father will be jailed for a long time.

We won't hear much of that, I'm sure. But you are quite right.
I can only imagine what it's like to have a family member murdered (having one die of old age was bad enough).

I've had friends die young, and it gave me a feeling of persistent guilt: "I could have prevented that." I still feel that for one of them ...

Well, there's two more steps after that of how terrible they must feel. I really can't pretend to imagine it. And in particular the mother (moved away?)

It might be better if the father was dead, really. His sons would not be so torn then ... could abandon this "role model" as a dead relative, a warning of what not to do, not a tragic figure torn between two cultures.

(I don't see him as a 'tragic figure' btw ... just trying to imagine how a son would feel.)

If my father strangled my only sister (and yes, I have one father and one sister) I really don't know what I'd do. If I walking in and saw the act completed, I'd kill him. But in cold blood ... what good would it do? Another quarter of my family gone. Probably not.

This happened in my city, too. It's horrible.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean "until you die."

Dunno about Canada, but here life does mean life. However, the president and court of appeal may grant a pardon after several years. Even without pardon, they are given a parole hearing after 12 years. If the parole board is not convinced, another chance is 2 years after that, and so on. On parole you are usually obligated to carry a GPS locator at all times for several years.

The only two guys during my lifetime (37 years) that have served more are Juha Valjakkala, just paroled after 19 years, and Jammu Siltavuori who would have been sentenced for life but got 15 years instead due to partial insanity. Jammu is not in prison anymore, but he will most probably spend the rest of his life in a closed criminal psychiatric institution. Partly for his own protection, as he raped and murdered two 8 year old girls. He would be lynched in no time if set free.

Joona

Frankly, I find the idea of an "honour killing" sickening, barbaric, and outdated. But that's what we get for tromping all over the Middle East for the past century ever since the Ottoman Empire fell apart. (It gave us all good excuses and we used them to their fullest.) The various nations and cultures haven't had the chance to advance like the rest of us have, so they're still stuck in older times. Of course we keep acting like fuckwads and persecuting them for it rather than trying to help them get past it. (Note that by this I mean the discrimination and utter condemnation of anything to do with the culture, not the punishment of actual crimes, which should continue of course.)
Did the West "trample" over the part of the Middle East that is now the nation of Saudi Arabia?
No.

Is the nation of Saudi Arabia one of the most religiously repressive ones in the Middle East.
Yes.

So evidently the degree of Western interference can't have been the only factor holding some Muslims back in an old-fashioned mindset...

And I notice that the accused in this case, like the men convicted of several such crimes in the Uk during recent years, was apparently of Pakistani origins. Leaving aside the question of whether that counts as 'Middle Eastern', it was certainly never part of the Ottoman Empire and it had over a century of [relatively enlightened] British guidance rather than just "trampling"...

Did the West "trample" over the part of the Middle East that is now the nation of Saudi Arabia?
No.

Is the nation of Saudi Arabia one of the most religiously repressive ones in the Middle East.
Yes.

So evidently the degree of Western interference can't have been the only factor holding some Muslims back in an old-fashioned mindset...

And I notice that the accused in this case, like the men convicted of several such crimes in the Uk during recent years, was apparently of Pakistani origins. Leaving aside the question of whether that counts as 'Middle Eastern', it was certainly never part of the Ottoman Empire and it had over a century of [relatively enlightened] British guidance rather than just "trampling"...

Saudi Arabia is a Wahabist state that is premised on a philosophy completely at odds with the majority of Muslims. And while no one "trampled" through it, you can be sure as shit that soon as oil was discovered Saudi Arabia and Saud family became a whole lot more untouchable.

Things we don't have much of in the US:

honor killings (despite many traditionally-minded Muslims)
Well, don't forget all the non-muslims who kill for so-called honour.

Only difference is that the "western" honour killings usually end in the killer taking his own life as well. YOur typical family murder-suicide...


overt, public racism (despite many racists)
:p

You're silly :D

In Canada, a life sentence usually means life, with a possibilty of parole after 25 years, if I am not mistaken. There are other circumstances that can modify this.

This is disgusting...A similar situation happened to my cousin when we lived in Mississauga, she wasn't killed and my parents weren't telling her to wear a hijab or really do anything extreme...but it has created a rift between her and the rest of my family and we don't talk anymore...anyway

discuss

"alleged"

I know I should look it up, but what does "life" mean there? Is it a particular number of years, or some calculation based on age, type of crime, etc.?

I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean "until you die."

In Canada, a life sentence usually means life, with a possibilty of parole after 25 years, if I am not mistaken. There are other circumstances that can modify this.

Actually, it's 25, with a chance of parole after 1/3 of the sentence has been served if it can be proven you're not a likely re-offender. There are very few cases where life actually means life here. You can get concurrent life sentences, meaning two 25-year sentences to be served at the same time. I can really only think of one notorious convict who is likely never to face parole and it's Paul Bernardo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bernardo), known in the media as the Scarborough Rapist. His wife Homolka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bernardo) also got life but due to a deal she made with the Crown, she got a lesser sentence and a condition-free release despite being part to one of the most notorious crimes in Canadian history.

Canadians are ... raising concerns as to whether this is a sign of the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in their own backyard.

See, this is what I don't understand about so many countries. Why don't they have some kind of entrance-test for immigrants, just to check that they're not psychos?

Actually, it's 25, with a chance of parole after 1/3 of the sentence has been served if it can be proven you're not a likely re-offender.

Thank you. I was fairly certain that I was getting something wrong somewhere. I knew someone would come along and point it out eventually.

See, this is what I don't understand about so many countries. Why don't they have some kind of entrance-test for immigrants, just to check that they're not psychos?

Do you mean psychos or Islamic fundamentalists? Your post seems to be asking a different question than that which you quoted.

Do you mean psychos or Islamic fundamentalists? Your post seems to be asking a different question than that which you quoted.

I was using 'psychos' in a nontechnical way. I meant people who have beliefs that make them feel justified in such acts as 'honour' killings, etc.

I was using 'psychos' in a nontechnical way. I meant people who have beliefs that make them feel justified in such acts as 'honour' killings, etc.

So, you are asking why most western nations don't have some sort of entrance exam to separate people with such beliefs from those who don't?

Well, assuming that Canada and other nations don't have such an exam, I would hazard a guess that such situations are relatively rare and there are far more commonplace difficulties for potential immigrants that can be screened for more easily. Also, most Canadians aren't really concerned with Islamic fundamentalism. We have bigger issues to deal with.

So, you are asking why most western nations don't have some sort of entrance exam to separate people with such beliefs from those who don't?

Well, assuming that Canada and other nations don't have such an exam, I would hazard a guess that such situations are relatively rare and there are far more commonplace difficulties for potential immigrants that can be screened for more easily.
OK, fair enough. But (for my country at least) an exam could have more useful functions, like keeping gangsters out. If they had one like that, they might as well throw in my previous suggestion.

Technically, they have advanced, and I don't think they're stuck in old times, need I remind you that in old times Muslims were scholars?

I'm very much aware of the scholars and the benefits towards our society our Arabian brothers and sisters contributed, such as the number zero.

My point, though, was certain elements of the culture that would oppress women and minorities as well as enforce certain religious customs far too harshly, like the idea of honour killings, were still stuck in probably about the eighteenth century.

Besides, those elements were there even during the times of those scholars. Being a scholarly society does not mean the society does not possess bad qualities. We only have to look at our own modern society for enough supporting evidence for that.

Did the West "trample" over the part of the Middle East that is now the nation of Saudi Arabia?
No.

Is the nation of Saudi Arabia one of the most religiously repressive ones in the Middle East.
Yes.

So evidently the degree of Western interference can't have been the only factor holding some Muslims back in an old-fashioned mindset...

And I notice that the accused in this case, like the men convicted of several such crimes in the Uk during recent years, was apparently of Pakistani origins. Leaving aside the question of whether that counts as 'Middle Eastern', it was certainly never part of the Ottoman Empire and it had over a century of [relatively enlightened] British guidance rather than just "trampling"...

Western interference was exhibited in many more ways than one. I suggest you study your history a little bit better...Saudi Arabia was part of the Ottoman Empire before it fell apart after World War One. The Saudi family was instated so that Western governments could keep a hand on the oil and Western governments gladly looked the other way when the Saudi government oppressed and abused their pepople.

That said, you are right in that there are certain elements that were not directly Western influenced that are holding them back, but only because those elements came to light DUE TO the western influence. If given the chance we were I fully believe that things like honour killings would be but a sorry element of the past long since left behind.

Actually, it's 25, with a chance of parole after 1/3 of the sentence has been served if it can be proven you're not a likely re-offender.

Or:

Canada
Life imprisonment means that the offender will be under supervision, whether in prison or in the community, for the rest of his or her life. The maximum sentence is life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for 25 years, but this number can range from only a few years up to the maximum.

From The Religion that Brought you Things Like:


"If you do what is beautiful, you do what is beautiful to your own souls, and if you do what is ugly (asa), it is to them likewise." (17:7)


Verse 6:151 "kill not your children on a plea of want;- We(ALLAH) provide sustenance for you and for them;"


So if his culture is to kill his duaghter then it is sick and savage but not Islamic, I love how the media likes to do that a man does one sick act and a whole religion is on trial.


yesterday a guy Joel Epstein killed his wife because he was sick of her nagging.... so did jewish Joel Epstein do it?


or Did Christian Jeffery Dhalmer eat people? in Wisconcin?

these 2 hail from a culture of mysogny and glorifying killing but is that a representation of 300 million american people? the smart person will say these are acts done by sick people.

so word it that way.

Hold Fast..... Thats not Islam
A religion is whatever its members make it.

Also, most Canadians aren't really concerned with Islamic fundamentalism. We have bigger issues to deal with.

Pshaw....have you learned nothing from your sort of friendly southern neighbor? Islamic fundamentalism is the biggest issue in the history of issues that may or may not be big. I hear that if you don't turn your boots upside down at night, you might find an Islamic fundamentalist in them the next morning, ready to strike. :eek:

From The Religion that Brought you Things Like:


"If you do what is beautiful, you do what is beautiful to your own souls, and if you do what is ugly (asa), it is to them likewise." (17:7)

Pretty enough.

Verse 6:151 "kill not your children on a plea of want;- We(ALLAH) provide sustenance for you and for them;"

Very nice and all. Meaning depends heavily on "plea of want" , doesn't seem to be a blanket prohibition on killing one's children. Let's take more of it:

Kill not your children on a plea of want. We will provide sustenance for you and for them. Come not near shameful deeds whether open or secret. Take not life which God has made sacred except by way of justice and law. Thus He commands you that you may learn wisdom. (6:151)

"Come not near shameful deeds" is dynamite in this context. What do you do if the "shameful deed" is in your own house? What if the "shameful deed" is committed by a dependent minor? "Come not near" them?

But I digress. "Plea of want" is surely about being able to provide for your kids. Don't kill your kids just because you can't feed them ... and quite possibly, don't kill them for having a disability (ie, they are "wanting").

I'm not really disagreeing with your point, I just think we should be careful not to simply ignore the reason given and only read the first four words. The longer passage could be taken to mean just about anything if you do that.

Correct me if I've wred it wrong, and "plea of want" has some specific meaning I've missed.

So if his culture is to kill his duaghter then it is sick and savage but not Islamic, I love how the media likes to do that a man does one sick act and a whole religion is on trial.

We can find fault with a culture which includes "honor" killing, but would we be satisfied if the father had adapted to the laws of his new country to the extent of not killing his own daughter, yet still used other means (corporal punishment, verbal abuse, deprivation of liberty, deprivation of food -- all grey areas where parental 'guidance' is often acceptable) to compel her to wear the veil ...?

(and yes, I know that that "reason" is only an allegation. I put a hypothetical for your consideration.)

I think we would. The man might quite easily get away with beating his daughter, trying to make her comply with his standards of decent behaviour, particularly if his sons take his side. There's no need even to hit her, to be compelling her. Parents do that plenty, and there are standards which almost anyone agrees with of what is acceptable to discipline a child. Grounding, for instance. Withdrawing luxuries like sweets or entertainment. Not hitting/spanking (at least, for a 16-yo), and definitely not killing or the threat of killing.

It seems to me this guy was losing control over his daughter, and he'd probably been trying to compel her in various ways. Not news until he goes too far and kills her. Just another abusive family, another kid who's got to get out of there even without a good alternative ... possibly one of the millions of homeless young people. No-one really cares much.

He kills her, and suddenly it's a huge story because he's a Muslim. That is kinda wrong ...

yesterday a guy Joel Epstein killed his wife because he was sick of her nagging.... so did jewish Joel Epstein do it?

Valid comparison, though an adult wife is rather different, she can leave or (better) he could have left. It's simpler and less puzzling, it's a plain-out murder and can't be described as "discipline gone too far."

or Did Christian Jeffery Dhalmer eat people? in Wisconcin?

Point taken, though the example is really stretching it.

these 2 hail from a culture of mysogny and glorifying killing but is that a representation of 300 million american people? the smart person will say these are acts done by sick people.

so word it that way.

I disliked the wording too. Trials can be very depressing, the truth of crimes is often horrifying or deeply sad.
But when that truth makes people so angry that they start thirsting for vengeance, want to destroy someone or something, things get even worse. Someone's private nightmare released on the world, infecting people with the sickness which IS violence.

Sometimes it seems to me best that justice be done in secret. We don't trust government to do that, though ... :confused:

What were you referring to with the phrase "misogyny and glorifying killing" ...? Judaism and Christianity ...? If so, that would seem to undermine your point about crimes being individual ...

Pshaw....have you learned nothing from your sort of friendly southern neighbor? Islamic fundamentalism is the biggest issue in the history of issues that may or may not be big.

Absolutely, someone is trying to threadjack the 21st Century!

I hear that if you don't turn your boots upside down at night, you might find an Islamic fundamentalist in them the next morning, ready to strike. :eek:

Damn right. Reds under the Bed used to keep them in check, but we got rid of those! ;)

I never understand why people call the police to admit committing a homicide. What ever happened to covering it up and going on vacation for a year?

And no, I don't agree with second-degree murder. First degree: you don't strangle someone by accident, any claim of "emotional distress" is hugely outweighed by "duty of care."

But then, I'm crazy: I don't believe in the Insanity defence. Crazy people have an obligation beyond Normal people, to monitor and regulate their own behaviour. Any crazy person knows this, and the law should recognize it.

Second-degree murder only means that it wasn't planned before hand. Accidental death is something entirely different. To get a first degree murder charge they'd have to have evidence that he actually waited for his daughter to come home and planned out how he was going to kill her. That is very very unlikely to happen without someone confessing.

And no, I don't agree with second-degree murder. First degree: you don't strangle someone by accident, any claim of "emotional distress" is hugely outweighed by "duty of care."

But then, I'm crazy: I don't believe in the Insanity defence. Crazy people have an obligation beyond Normal people, to monitor and regulate their own behaviour. Any crazy person knows this, and the law should recognize it.
That's not a particuliarly brilliant or insightful post. Have you ever thought that if crazy people were capable of monitoring and regulating their own behavior we might have a different name for them? Like.... I don't know..."normal people?"

"alleged"

ummm...no


Police say Mr. Parvez called 911 Monday morning and told the dispatcher he had killed his daughter. When paramedics arrived at the family's Mississauga home, they found her in critical condition and rushed her to hospital. She died that night.

I never understand why people call the police to admit committing a homicide. What ever happened to covering it up and going on vacation for a year?

I know, back in my day when we killed someone...

From The Religion that Brought you Things Like:


"If you do what is beautiful, you do what is beautiful to your own souls, and if you do what is ugly (asa), it is to them likewise." (17:7)


Verse 6:151 "kill not your children on a plea of want;- We(ALLAH) provide sustenance for you and for them;"


So if his culture is to kill his duaghter then it is sick and savage but not Islamic, I love how the media likes to do that a man does one sick act and a whole religion is on trial.


yesterday a guy Joel Epstein killed his wife because he was sick of her nagging.... so did jewish Joel Epstein do it?


or Did Christian Jeffery Dhalmer eat people? in Wisconcin?

these 2 hail from a culture of mysogny and glorifying killing but is that a representation of 300 million american people? the smart person will say these are acts done by sick people.

so word it that way.

The guy who did this is from a country where there are plenty of honor killings there. To the order of 100s every year. His countrymen insist they are Islamic. Very Islamic. So Islamic that they partitioned and created a country to practice their Islamic ways. It even has the Islamic republic in front of the country's name. :p

I haven't read through any of the responses beyond this page. Wanted to weigh in as a Muslim and will make it quick. Make an example of this guy and calls for an old fashioned public hanging. Make sure it is broadcast far and wide so people like him can see.

She shouldn't have been killed but lets be honest, if she would have worn the Hijab as she should have, this wouldn't have happened.

She shouldn't have been killed but lets be honest, if she would have worn the Hijab as she should have, this wouldn't have happened.

Let it be noted that this man does not speak for all, or even the majority, of muslims. I will leave actually responding to older and wiser folks.

Agreed, though what do you mean by responding?

Possibly vigilante justice.

Let it be noted that this man does not speak for all, or even the majority, of muslims. I will leave actually responding to older and wiser folks.

Agreed, though what do you mean by responding?

Agreed, though what do you mean by responding?

I meant responding to his post, and dismantling it like the rubbish it is.

She shouldn't have been killed but lets be honest, if she would have worn the Hijab as she should have, this wouldn't have happened.

If muslims weren't so stupidly resistant to western culture, this wouldn't have happened ether. If he doesn't like it he should have moved back to Iran or whatever middle eastern nation he came from. We (Canadians) can give his place to someone who treats women with respect, rather then property.

I meant responding to his post, and dismantling it like the rubbish it is.

Unless you can prove she wouldn't have been killed had she worn the Hijab, you can't really call my post rubbish.

Unless you can prove she wouldn't have been killed had she worn the Hijab, you can't really call my post rubbish.

I would debate you, but I'm doing homework. Which is why I left the debating to older and wiser folk.

If muslims weren't so stupidly resistant to western culture, this wouldn't have happened ether. If he doesn't like it he should have moved back to Iran or whatever middle eastern nation he came from. We (Canadians) can give his place to someone who treats women with respect, rather then property.

Most Muslims do accept the parts of western culture that don't directly conflict with important aspects of Islam. ie, women wearing hijab.

She shouldn't have been killed but lets be honest, if she would have worn the Hijab as she should have, this wouldn't have happened.

What he did was wrong, that simple. The burden is not on the victim.

If muslims weren't so stupidly resistant to western culture, this wouldn't have happened ether. If he doesn't like it he should have moved back to Iran or whatever middle eastern nation he came from. We (Canadians) can give his place to someone who treats women with respect, rather then property.

If you had read more about the case, perhaps you could at least discern what country he is from, so clearly you have not. How was he treating her as property? And do you consider Islam contradictory to western culture?



Unless you can prove she wouldn't have been killed had she worn the Hijab, you can't really call my post rubbish.

Perhaps, if he had not been so violent, and more reasonable, he might have been able to convince his daughter to wear it.

What he did was wrong, that simple. The burden is not on the victim.

I agree. But I wasn't putting the burden on victim or blaming her, I was merely pointing out that if she had dressed appropriately, this likely wouldn't have happened. I liken it to a person who doesn't buckle their seatbelt and gets in an accident and dies. If they had worn their seatbelt they probably wouldn't have died, but do you blame them for getting into the accident? No, of course not, that would be foolish. The same principle applies here.

Unless you can prove she wouldn't have been killed had she worn the Hijab, you can't really call my post rubbish.

You can, since it has the same implications as "she shouldn't have been raped, but she was definitely asking for it".

And while I would agree that the way the rape victim was dressed may not have helped any, the fault lies not with her. Nor does it lie with the victim in this case.

I agree. But I wasn't putting the burden on victim or blaming her, I was merely pointing out that if she had dressed appropriately, this likely wouldn't have happened. I liken it to a person who doesn't buckle their seatbelt and gets in an accident and dies. If they had worn their seatbelt they probably wouldn't have died, but do you blame them for getting into the accident? No, of course not, that would be foolish. The same principle applies here.

Wearing a seatbelt is an idea that is intrinsically good and serves a mechanical purpose to protect someone. That's slightly different than wearing some article of clothing merely so some fanatic won't butcher you.

I agree. But I wasn't putting the burden on victim or blaming her, I was merely pointing out that if she had dressed appropriately, this likely wouldn't have happened. I liken it to a person who doesn't buckle their seatbelt and gets in an accident and dies. If they had worn their seatbelt they probably wouldn't have died, but do you blame them for getting into the accident? No, of course not, that would be foolish. The same principle applies here.

The difference however is that her father should be able to control himself, and not kill his own daughter. If he cannot control himself, he is either insane, or unfit to be a parent.

I agree. But I wasn't putting the burden on victim or blaming her, I was merely pointing out that if she had dressed appropriately, this likely wouldn't have happened. I liken it to a person who doesn't buckle their seatbelt and gets in an accident and dies. If they had worn their seatbelt they probably wouldn't have died, but do you blame them for getting into the accident? No, of course not, that would be foolish. The same principle applies here.

No....no, it isn't the same. When you get into a car and decide not to wear a seatbelt, you are making a person choice and accepting all the associated risks. When a person acquiesces to some religious requirement, one that is actually more of a cultural thing than a religious thing since the hijab is just supposed to cover a woman's chest if interpreted literally from what I've been told by a number of Muslims, it's a completely personal act and has no bearing on anyone else but the person involved.

No....no, it isn't the same. When you get into a car and decide not to wear a seatbelt, you are making a person choice and accepting all the associated risks. When a person acquiesces to some religious requirement, one that is actually more of a cultural thing than a religious thing since the hijab is just supposed to cover a woman's chest if interpreted literally from what I've been told by a number of Muslims, it's a completely personal act and has no bearing on anyone else but the person involved.

This is why I didn't respond. I knew others would do it much better than me.

Most Muslims do accept the parts of western culture that don't directly conflict with important aspects of Islam. ie, women wearing hijab.

So if Christians said that all women MUST be home makers you would be ok with that? After all its an important aspect of Christianity. (not, but I am making a point)

So if Christians said that all women MUST be home makers you would be ok with that? After all its an important aspect of Christianity. (not, but I am making a point)

Well actually yes, he probably would be. A better example would be to ask him what he would think if Christians thought all men had to be home makers.

Ah Islam, spreading the word of peace and brotherhood wherever you go. (http://thereligionofpeace.com/)

Ah Islam, spreading the word of peace and brotherhood wherever you go. (http://thereligionofpeace.com/)

Hey look, a christian somewhere killing someone based on his beliefs! All of Christianity must be evil!


Sarcasm, in case you couldn't tell

*sigh* that idiotic website is up there with Stormfront and other trash. Do yourself a favor and get a book instead of hurting your own brain development by viewing the asshole of the internet (or a component of the asshole of the internet....there are other sites that are just as bad so maybe it's just that the internet has many assholes...which makes sense because of all the shit that is spewed out of it).

If you had read more about the case, perhaps you could at least discern what country he is from, so clearly you have not. How was he treating her as property? And do you consider Islam contradictory to western culture?

Islam is contradictory to western culture; it's not just a religion, and people keep forgetting that, it's a political agenda.

Modern Western Culture is based on the idea that people are equal (whether or not this plays out is irrelevant) and yet the Islamic religion has made it perfectly clear time and time again that they're not going to accept such ideas.

I honestly don't like any religion, but things like Islam, Christian fundamentalism, and Scientology are, to me, the among biggest problems facing the modern world.



Perhaps, if he had not been so violent, and more reasonable, he might have been able to convince his daughter to wear it.

Reasonable? Don't make me laugh. It's pretty clear that their was no room for such things in his household. I'm not even sure how you could possibly think that someone who kills their daughter over a piece of fabric could have such a trait as reasonable.

Most Muslims do accept the parts of western culture that don't directly conflict with important aspects of Islam. ie, women wearing hijab.
So, according to you, if my religion demanded that I care around a nuclear warhead in my back pocket, I should?

I agree. But I wasn't putting the burden on victim or blaming her, I was merely pointing out that if she had dressed appropriately, this likely wouldn't have happened. I liken it to a person who doesn't buckle their seatbelt and gets in an accident and dies. If they had worn their seatbelt they probably wouldn't have died, but do you blame them for getting into the accident? No, of course not, that would be foolish. The same principle applies here.

Why not liken it to people not wearing kevlar vests everyday, so when they get shot, it's on their head?

Most Muslims do accept the parts of western culture that don't directly conflict with important aspects of Islam. ie, women wearing hijab.

Just as a observation I have made in my travels. Morocco and Egypt have a hijab rate of less then 50% of the women. Of the women that wore a hijab that I saw the majority were the older women. Young women don't seem to be picking up the habits of the older generations. Give this one more generation in some of the more progressive nations and you will see less then a 25% rate or lower.



My observations in the middle east however were limited to desert warfare so I didn't get to see the regular populations.

Islam is contradictory to western culture; it's not just a religion, and people keep forgetting that, it's a political agenda.
You betray a fundamentally poor understanding of the history surrounding Islam. Islamic political thought has gone through a number of transformations in different periods history in different regions of the world. There really is little reason to believe that Islam is anymore contradictory to western culture than any other religion. If you want to argue that religion, in general, is contradictory, that has a bit more of a basis, but this increasingly common idea that Islam, as some weird aggregate borg-like thing, is at odds with the West is just simply ignorant of, well, a lot of things.
Just as a observation I have made in my travels. Morocco and Egypt have a hijab rate of less then 50% of the women. Of the women that wore a hijab that I saw the majority were the older women. Young women don't seem to be picking up the habits of the older generations. Give this one more generation in some of the more progressive nations and you will see less then a 25% rate or lower.
One of my professors is from Morocco and, from conversations I've had with him, that seems to be a pretty fair estimate. Had an Arabic professor saying that Cairo, Egypt has similar rates of women wearing hijabs....but he was kind of a crazy guy so I really take that with a grain of salt (by the way...what the hell does that expression even mean? What do salt grains have to do with the verifiability of a statement?).

One of my professors is from Morocco and, from conversations I've had with him, that seems to be a pretty fair estimate. Had an Arabic professor saying that Cairo, Egypt has similar rates of women wearing hijabs....but he was kind of a crazy guy so I really take that with a grain of salt (by the way...what the hell does that expression even mean? What do salt grains have to do with the verifiability of a statement?).


The grain of salt bit is just "take it with a bit of skepticism."

The grain of salt bit is just "take it with a bit of skepticism."

Yea, I get what it means in a colloquial sense but...grain of salt? What the hell? There has got to be some weird historic/cultural/superstitious/whatever reason for the expression but I can't even begin to fathom what it's origin would be.

Yea, I get what it means in a colloquial sense but...grain of salt? What the hell? There has got to be some weird historic/cultural/superstitious/whatever reason for the expression but I can't even begin to fathom what it's origin would be.

Possibly to make something palatable?

Possibly to make something palatable?

Well, wouldn't the expression be more like "take that with a bag of salt," then? It's not like a grain of salt is going to do much to affect a meal's taste. Other than some odd superstition that I don't know about, I can only think of perhaps when salt was used as a commodity of trade to the degree that it was nearly a currency, thus having to "bribe" someone to accept the information? Dunno. Someone help! This is the most important dilemma ever presented on NSG!

Well, wouldn't the expression be more like "take that with a bag of salt," then? It's not like a grain of salt is going to do much to affect a meal's taste. Other than some odd superstition that I don't know about, I can only think of perhaps when salt was used as a commodity of trade to the degree that it was nearly a currency, thus having to "bribe" someone to accept the information? Dunno. Someone help! This is the most important dilemma ever presented on NSG!

There is an odd tradition of throwing a dash of salt over the shoulder for good luck. You may be on to something with the commodity bit.

But alas the Internet comes through:

There are several explanations as to the origins of the phrase "take
it with a grain of salt" and it's interesting that you use the word
"grain" in your question, I usually use "pinch" however the phrase has
the same meaning:

"Dear Word Detective: Please help me! I have been looking forever for
the origins of the phrase "Take that with a grain of salt." I was
hoping you could help. -- Bethany Lankin, via the internet."
"To "take something with a grain of salt," of course, means to not
entirely believe a story, or to view it with a healthy degree of
skepticism. It doesn't mean that you think the person recounting the
story is completely crazy or making it all up. It just means you don't
want to be close enough to get caught under the net his keepers are
fixing to drop on him.

It's fitting that you've been looking for the origin of this phrase
"forever," because "with a grain of salt" has been around nearly that
long. It's actually a translation of the Latin phrase "cum grano
salis." There seems to be a bit of a debate about the significance of
the Latin phrase, however. Etymologist Christine Ammer traces it to
Pompey's discovery, recorded by Pliny in 77 A.D., of an antidote to
poison which had to be taken with a small amount of salt to be
effective. Everyone else seems to bypass that explanation and trace
"with a grain of salt" to the dinner table, where a dash of salt can
often make uninspired cooking more palatable. "With a grain of salt"
first appeared in English in 1647, and has been in constant use since
then."

There is an odd tradition of throwing a dash of salt over the shoulder for good luck. You may be on to something with the commodity bit.

But alas the Internet comes through:....

Huh, cool thing about the Latin origin. There more you know! *does the PSA wave type thing*

That's not a particuliarly brilliant or insightful post. Have you ever thought that if crazy people were capable of monitoring and regulating their own behavior we might have a different name for them? Like.... I don't know..."normal people?"

It's hobos, BK. He was drunk, and indeed not very brilliant ... sorry that the "I'm crazy" statement didn't tip you off. I'm perplexed why other people are held to a standard of "don't be a bigot" or "try to at least think about it" ... but you are apparently not satisfied with anything less than brilliance and insight from NH.

I stand by "monitor." Traditional psychiatric treatment is essentially long repetitive talks with an accepting and understanding person. The idea is to allow the patient to become aware of themselves and their habits of thought. The patient is the person best able to change that, but first they need to be aware of what they're doing already.

Despite the hyperbole, my sober self can still see sense in the statement. Let's tone it down thus: people with mental health conditions need to make more effort to regulate their behaviour, they need to be more careful. And this is a statement based in my own experience. My life is limited, I must deny myself things (anything which causes stress, really) for my own mental health. I don't like paranoid episodes, and I've learnt how to avoid them. I don't like acute depression -- I have to trade off some of the good times.

Mandating treatment to psychotics and schizophrenics makes sense ... because we can't rely on their self-interested fear of punishment to make them follow laws. Beyond a certain point (a level of risk if you like) a court should be able to require a person to be monitored in their life, restricted from certain activities which are generally allowed, or even imprisoned even before they commit a crime.

I imagine this "court" would be modified to consider such cases. Clearly they would not be based on adversarial cases, and the court staff would need to be medically trained at least. They would be making decisions about treatment, based on psychiatric assesment.

Those, like myself, who respond to treatment and are prepared to "regulate" themselves (and yes, I stand by that word even for quite disturbed people) wouldn't require any intervention.

Or we could just bring back asylums. Certainly cheaper and simpler. Ick.

We can't punish the real nutters because they are "not responsible for their actions." Someone else must take responsibility for their actions in that case. Having creatures with all the lethality of a human, among us as equals, but not held to a human standard of responsibility is simply unacceptable.

Western interference was exhibited in many more ways than one. I suggest you study your history a little bit better...Saudi Arabia was part of the Ottoman Empire before it fell apart after World War One. The Saudi family was instated so that Western governments could keep a hand on the oil and Western governments gladly looked the other way when the Saudi government oppressed and abused their pepople.

Okay, so because of being in a hurry I simplified the situation slightly.... I do know the history, actually, and in fact only a couple of weeks ago I read a book -- by John Bagot Glubb, alias 'Glubb Pasha' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bagot_Glubb), of whom you may have heard -- that was partly about the rise of the House of Saud. To look at the matter in more detail, modern Saudi Arabia actually consists of four distinct areas_

1. Nejd, in the eastern interior, which was the actual homeland of the Ibn Saud dynasty (since at least the 18th century) and the birthplace (in the late 18th or early 19th century) of Wahhabism: Never really controlled by the Ottomans, although the Ibn Rashid dynasty -- bitter rivalries of the Ibn Saud dynasty, and based further north than the Ibn Sauds -- sometimes acknowledged Ottoman control on a fairly nominal basis. Saud finally smashed the Ibn Rashids during, or just after, the First World War.
2. Al Hasa, along the eastern coast (south of Kuwait), which is where the oil is. Ruled by a local dynasty for quite a while, briefly under Saudi control during the early 19th century but then taken over by the Ottomans. Seized from the Ottomans by Saud either during or just after the First World War, and never under Western control.
3. Hejaz, along most of the western coast, including the cities of Mecca and Medina: Ruled by the Ottomans before the First World War, although their control over it was very shaky, through a local leader called the 'Sharif' of Mecca who chose to side with the British during the war (and from whom the subsequent Kings of Iraq, and Emirs and Kings of TransJordan/Jordan were descended). Conquered by Saud early in the 1920s.
4. Asir, a relatively small area to the south of Hejaz, which was actually part of Yemen (and thus very nominally under Ottoman overlordship until the War), conquered by the Saudis at some point after they took Hejaz.

None of these lands were ever under Western occupation, and the Saudi dynasty basically managed to take them over through its own efforts (and those of its supporters) rather than being installed by the West... and had already done so before any significant deposits of Oil were discovered there. Admittedly there was a little bit of British aid to Saud during the First World War, but that was very minor in scope especially after it became obvious that he wasn't going to launch an outright attack on the main Ottoman forces in the region. If we had been going to install a ruler for the whole area then we'd have preferred the Sharif of Mecca, who was rather more civilised and who relied much less than Saud did on fanatical fundamentalists for his support.

As far as the Western governments looking the other way while the Saudis oppressed their people is concerned, what was the West supposed to do? Take the place over, and institute 'regime change', by force?

It's hobos, BK. He was drunk, and indeed not very brilliant ...

Looks like a joke to me. "I'm crazy, so I know that crazy people aren't really crazy, they just need to get a grip"

It was neither brilliant nor insightful. I was just drunk ... but thanks for the defense. You tightass teetotaler you! ;)

=============

Soviestan: wtf? You have said exactly nothing about the perpetrator of the crime (self-confessed already). You instead think it is significant what the victim said or did, matters on which we have far less evidence.

Say what you think of the actions of the father in the case of this thread!

This was a murder. The father reported "killing his daughter" and it was no accident. He strangled her, apparently. That's murder. Your dismissal of this as "an event" is ... well ... not very nice.

apologies if posted before.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07ali.html
Islam’s Silent Moderates
By AYAAN HIRSI ALI

The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, flog each of them with 100 stripes: Let no compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. (Koran 24:2)

IN the last few weeks, in three widely publicized episodes, we have seen Islamic justice enacted in ways that should make Muslim moderates rise up in horror.

A 20-year-old woman from Qatif, Saudi Arabia, reported that she had been abducted by several men and repeatedly raped. But judges found the victim herself to be guilty. Her crime is called “mingling”: when she was abducted, she was in a car with a man not related to her by blood or marriage, and in Saudi Arabia, that is illegal. Last month, she was sentenced to six months in prison and 200 lashes with a bamboo cane.

Two hundred lashes are enough to kill a strong man. Women usually receive no more than 30 lashes at a time, which means that for seven weeks the “girl from Qatif,” as she’s usually described in news articles, will dread her next session with Islamic justice. When she is released, her life will certainly never return to normal: already there have been reports that her brother has tried to kill her because her “crime” has tarnished her family’s honor.

We also saw Islamic justice in action in Sudan, when a 54-year-old British teacher named Gillian Gibbons was sentenced to 15 days in jail before the government pardoned her this week; she could have faced 40 lashes. When she began a reading project with her class involving a teddy bear, Ms. Gibbons suggested the children choose a name for it. They chose Muhammad; she let them do it. This was deemed to be blasphemy.

Then there’s Taslima Nasreen, the 45-year-old Bangladeshi writer who bravely defends women’s rights in the Muslim world. Forced to flee Bangladesh, she has been living in India. But Muslim groups there want her expelled, and one has offered 500,000 rupees for her head. In August she was assaulted by Muslim militants in Hyderabad, and in recent weeks she has had to leave Calcutta and then Rajasthan. Taslima Nasreen’s visa expires next year, and she fears she will not be allowed to live in India again.

It is often said that Islam has been “hijacked” by a small extremist group of radical fundamentalists. The vast majority of Muslims are said to be moderates.

But where are the moderates? Where are the Muslim voices raised over the terrible injustice of incidents like these? How many Muslims are willing to stand up and say, in the case of the girl from Qatif, that this manner of justice is appalling, brutal and bigoted — and that no matter who said it was the right thing to do, and how long ago it was said, this should no longer be done?

Usually, Muslim groups like the Organization of the Islamic Conference are quick to defend any affront to the image of Islam. The organization, which represents 57 Muslim states, sent four ambassadors to the leader of my political party in the Netherlands asking him to expel me from Parliament after I gave a newspaper interview in 2003 noting that by Western standards some of the Prophet Muhammad’s behavior would be unconscionable. A few years later, Muslim ambassadors to Denmark protested the cartoons of Muhammad and demanded that their perpetrators be prosecuted.

But while the incidents in Saudi Arabia, Sudan and India have done more to damage the image of Islamic justice than a dozen cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad, the organizations that lined up to protest the hideous Danish offense to Islam are quiet now.

I wish there were more Islamic moderates. For example, I would welcome some guidance from that famous Muslim theologian of moderation, Tariq Ramadan. But when there is true suffering, real cruelty in the name of Islam, we hear, first, denial from all these organizations that are so concerned about Islam’s image. We hear that violence is not in the Koran, that Islam means peace, that this is a hijacking by extremists and a smear campaign and so on. But the evidence mounts up.

Islamic justice is a proud institution, one to which more than a billion people subscribe, at least in theory, and in the heart of the Islamic world it is the law of the land. But take a look at the verse above: more compelling even than the order to flog adulterers is the command that the believer show no compassion. It is this order to choose Allah above his sense of conscience and compassion that imprisons the Muslim in a mindset that is archaic and extreme.

If moderate Muslims believe there should be no compassion shown to the girl from Qatif, then what exactly makes them so moderate?

When a “moderate” Muslim’s sense of compassion and conscience collides with matters prescribed by Allah, he should choose compassion. Unless that happens much more widely, a moderate Islam will remain wishful thinking.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former member of the Dutch Parliament and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of “Infidel.”

"Saudi Arabia, Sudan and India" - what a great company to be *dies in shame*.

apologies if posted before.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07ali.html


"Saudi Arabia, Sudan and India" - what a great company to be *dies in shame*.

Arya, with respect to your sense of relevance, I'm getting tired of the way you let news sources speak for you.

It kind of defeats the point of having a forum. Speak for yourself, link to support your opinion if necessary. And ... please don't die of shame! You are not your country.

Arya, with respect to your sense of relevance, I'm getting tired of the way you let news sources speak for you.

It kind of defeats the point of having a forum. Speak for yourself, link to support your opinion if necessary. And ... please don't die of shame! You are not your country.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali also has a huge chip on her shoulders, letting her personal experiences with fundamentalist assholes translate into an '3b1l m05l3mz' outlook that caters well to a ready and willing Western audience. She even wrote a book that was just one giant '3b1l m05l3mz' rant that was a best seller.

And it's no secret that Aryavathya is a part of NSG's demographics that enjoys crying '3b1l m05l3mz' whenever they get the chance.

Okay, so because of being in a hurry I simplified the situation slightly.... I do know the history, actually, and in fact only a couple of weeks ago I read a book -- by John Bagot Glubb, alias 'Glubb Pasha' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bagot_Glubb), of whom you may have heard -- that was partly about the rise of the House of Saud. To look at the matter in more detail, modern Saudi Arabia actually consists of four distinct areas_

1. Nejd, in the eastern interior, which was the actual homeland of the Ibn Saud dynasty (since at least the 18th century) and the birthplace (in the late 18th or early 19th century) of Wahhabism: Never really controlled by the Ottomans, although the Ibn Rashid dynasty -- bitter rivalries of the Ibn Saud dynasty, and based further north than the Ibn Sauds -- sometimes acknowledged Ottoman control on a fairly nominal basis. Saud finally smashed the Ibn Rashids during, or just after, the First World War.
2. Al Hasa, along the eastern coast (south of Kuwait), which is where the oil is. Ruled by a local dynasty for quite a while, briefly under Saudi control during the early 19th century but then taken over by the Ottomans. Seized from the Ottomans by Saud either during or just after the First World War, and never under Western control.
3. Hejaz, along most of the western coast, including the cities of Mecca and Medina: Ruled by the Ottomans before the First World War, although their control over it was very shaky, through a local leader called the 'Sharif' of Mecca who chose to side with the British during the war (and from whom the subsequent Kings of Iraq, and Emirs and Kings of TransJordan/Jordan were descended). Conquered by Saud early in the 1920s.
4. Asir, a relatively small area to the south of Hejaz, which was actually part of Yemen (and thus very nominally under Ottoman overlordship until the War), conquered by the Saudis at some point after they took Hejaz.

None of these lands were ever under Western occupation, and the Saudi dynasty basically managed to take them over through its own efforts (and those of its supporters) rather than being installed by the West... and had already done so before any significant deposits of Oil were discovered there. Admittedly there was a little bit of British aid to Saud during the First World War, but that was very minor in scope especially after it became obvious that he wasn't going to launch an outright attack on the main Ottoman forces in the region. If we had been going to install a ruler for the whole area then we'd have preferred the Sharif of Mecca, who was rather more civilised and who relied much less than Saud did on fanatical fundamentalists for his support.

Investigation of your sources reveals you are correct. I bow to your superior knowledge of history.

As far as the Western governments looking the other way while the Saudis oppressed their people is concerned, what was the West supposed to do? Take the place over, and institute 'regime change', by force?

Condemn it through the U.N.? Do something to show their displeasure, like boycotting Saudi oil or something?

My point is that they don't even really acknowledge it but continue to buy the oil nonetheless, which is rather self-serving.

XXXXX XXXXX XXX also has a huge chip on her shoulders, letting her personal experiences with fundamentalist assholes translate into an '3b1l m05l3mz' outlook that caters well to a ready and willing Western audience. She even wrote a book that was just one giant '3b1l m05l3mz' rant that was a best seller.

You are talking about the article, which I didn't even read. I'm familiar with the name of the author and know what to expect.

And it's no secret that Aryavathya is a part of NSG's demographics that enjoys crying '3b1l m05l3mz' whenever they get the chance.

My point had absolutely nothing to do with Aryavatha's views. I was quite scrupulously avoiding getting the poster or the content confounded with the style of the post, and was referring only to the latter.

I was just saying: links should support a point which the poster makes in their own words. In this case, the text was quoted (not linked to) and the post was only a comment. Arya does that too often, and it's starting to look like cut-and-paste spam.

If everyone did that, the forum would be worthless. Nothing more than a review of a limited and repetitious range of sources.

I am hugely unimpressed with you taking my post as an opportunity to reopen your personal feud with "the demographic that enjoys crying 'ebil moslemz' ". You should have left my post alone, it was entirely neutral on that subject. And yes, this post is another NH Form-over-Substance quibble. ;)

ummm...no

Ummmm... yes.

The motive is "alleged", and the police have refused to comment on it.

The crime is also "alleged", though - what with the "innocent until proven guilty" thing you might have heard about. But it was the motive I commented on.

You betray a fundamentally poor understanding of the history surrounding Islam. Islamic political thought has gone through a number of transformations in different periods history in different regions of the world. There really is little reason to believe that Islam is anymore contradictory to western culture than any other religion. If you want to argue that religion, in general, is contradictory, that has a bit more of a basis, but this increasingly common idea that Islam, as some weird aggregate borg-like thing, is at odds with the West is just simply ignorant of, well, a lot of things.


I did say that I felt that all religions where bad for such things as rational discussions on topics, democracy, and politics in general; I just feel that Islam (along with Scientology, and fundy Christians,) are the biggest threats to western culture, and political ideology.

I did say that I felt that all religions where bad for such things as rational discussions on topics, democracy, and politics in general; I just feel that Islam (along with Scientology, and fundy Christians,) are the biggest threats to western culture, and political ideology.

So only Christian fundamentalists are bad, while all Muslims are bad? And what threat does Scientology pose by the way?

Wearing a seatbelt is an idea that is intrinsically good and serves a mechanical purpose to protect someone. That's slightly different than wearing some article of clothing merely so some fanatic won't butcher you.

Actually Hijab is intrisically good and design to protect someone as well.

"So only Christian fundamentalists are bad, while all Muslims are bad? "
If such a thing as "non-fundamentalist Muslims" existed, that would not be so bad. But even "moderate" Muslims do not seem to be able to say that "the Qur'an is WRONG on some things". Jews and Christians can say "The books in the Bible were written about God by men who were striving to understand, and had some great insights, but were also from a primitive time, and made some errors" without losing their whole faith; but Muslims seem to need to say "The Qur'an was written by God, period". All the "book-worshippers" are hopeless.

Actually Hijab is intrisically good and design to protect someone as well.

Do you wear a Hijab, then?

"So only Christian fundamentalists are bad, while all Muslims are bad? "
If such a thing as "non-fundamentalist Muslims" existed, that would not be so bad. But even "moderate" Muslims do not seem to be able to say that "the Qur'an is WRONG on some things". Jews and Christians can say "The books in the Bible were written about God by men who were striving to understand, and had some great insights, but were also from a primitive time, and made some errors" without losing their whole faith; but Muslims seem to need to say "The Qur'an was written by God, period". All the "book-worshippers" are hopeless.

Please, that doesn't mean jack. And many Muslims actually take the same tactic many Jews take, interpretation of their holy book as allegorical rather than literal. Also, many of the more controversial issues are with the hadeeth which is a different subject.

"So only Christian fundamentalists are bad, while all Muslims are bad? "

If such a thing as "non-fundamentalist Muslims" existed, that would not be so bad. But even "moderate" Muslims do not seem to be able to say that "the Qur'an is WRONG on some things". Jews and Christians can say "The books in the Bible were written about God by men who were striving to understand, and had some great insights, but were also from a primitive time, and made some errors" without losing their whole faith; but Muslims seem to need to say "The Qur'an was written by God, period".

That doesn't deserve an answer really, but here:

Compare like with like. Mohammed is to Muslims as Jesus is to Christians. So your statement should read "Even 'moderate' Muslims do not seem to be able to say that 'the Prophet is wrong on some things.' But some Christians can say 'Jesus was wrong on some things.' "

If you will put it in such even-handed terms, it might deserve a full answer.

"Book-worshippers" isn't going to become a red-hot meme anytime soon. Both "book" and "worship" have too many other meanings.

Compare like with like. Mohammed is to Muslims as Jesus is to Christians.
More precisely, the Qur'an is to Muslims as Jesus is to Christians, the "Word of God". It is the book itself, not the spokesperson, which is treated as divine and unquestionable.
So your statement should read "Even 'moderate' Muslims do not seem to be able to say that 'the Prophet is wrong on some things.' But some Christians can say 'Jesus was wrong on some things.' "

Christians can, and often do, say that the words attributed to Jesus in the NT are wrong on some things (assuming that the "real" Jesus didn't actually say them).

More precisely, the Qur'an is to Muslims as Jesus is to Christians, the "Word of God". It is the book itself, not the spokesperson, which is treated as divine and unquestionable.

And so? Like I said, that doesn't mean it isn't open to interpretation. Judaism is fairly similar. Christianity isn't a religion of law so it isn't comparable really.

Do you wear a Hijab, then?

well no, but I'm not a girl...

Ayaan Hirsi Ali also has a huge chip on her shoulders, letting her personal experiences with fundamentalist assholes translate into an '3b1l m05l3mz' outlook that caters well to a ready and willing Western audience. She even wrote a book that was just one giant '3b1l m05l3mz' rant that was a best seller.

And it's no secret that Aryavathya is a part of NSG's demographics that enjoys crying '3b1l m05l3mz' whenever they get the chance.

The 232112!@#E(#@ and the kimchi references are getting rather old.

"It is the book itself, not the spokesperson, which is treated as divine and unquestionable. --
And so? Like I said, that doesn't mean it isn't open to interpretation."
The problem isn't with the parts of the Qur'an that are unclear, and subject to various interpretations; the problem is with the parts that are quite clear, and just WRONG. That is what Muslims cannot bring themselves to say.

" Judaism is fairly similar."
There are certainly orthodox Jews who believe in Torah min-ha-Shamayim (the Torah from Heaven) that I would consider to be just as hopeless as Muslims. Most Jews I meet, however, have no problem at all accepting that a lot of things in the old book are just primitive myth-making, superstition, and old prejudices, and think that the core of their tradition is its ability to evolve and adapt, not some slavish adherence to whatever got written down long ago.

" Christianity isn't a religion of law so it isn't comparable really."
Depends. There are a lot of fundamentalist Christians (especially around where I am) who are as legalistic and book-bound as any Muslims. I agree that what Jesus was trying to teach was the opposite of that, but there is no way of convincing those people.

The 232112!@#E(#@ and the kimchi references are getting rather old.

The second you and a bunch of people accept that Islam is a religion with its share of extremist fruitcakes and the moderate and sensible majority doesn't have to go through a 24/7 global apology festival for the crimes of the few which other religions are conveniently exempt from having to make, then you'll stop seeing the comparisons to the Kimchiteers.

Actually Hijab is intrisically good and design to protect someone as well.

Do you wear a Hijab, then?

well no, but I'm not a girl...

Hijab is not inherently good. If it were, everyone would be better for wearing it, men, women and children.
Hijab does not protect "someone", it only protects girls. (From you, presumably. They could walk down the street naked and have nothing to fear from me.)

So rephrase the statement.

Let's see if you can come up with some form of words which doesn't come across as sickeningly patronizing and sexist. I doubt it.

Hijab is not inherently good. If it were, everyone would be better for wearing it, men, women and children.
Hijab does not protect "someone", it only protects girls. (From you, presumably. They could walk down the street naked and have nothing to fear from me.)

Or you could have said, a naked woman could wake into a gay bar and none of the men would care. How would a hijab protect her then? Heh!

Modedit Trollquote

So is every one else pretty much so your point is moot.

Modedit Trollquote

Odd, most women of Islam wouldn't fit a traditional definition of whore. What makes them a whore exactly?

Modedit Trollquote

I will tell you that you're wrong, and I'll also tell you your spelling and grammar is atrocious.

Modedit Trollquote

Exactly why is a 16-year old girl awful? It sounds like she just wanted to fit in and live free of her religion, which kind of negates your earlier point.

You lose, troll.

The second you and a bunch of people accept that Islam is a religion with its share of extremist fruitcakes and the moderate and sensible majority doesn't have to go through a 24/7 global apology festival for the crimes of the few which other religions are conveniently exempt from having to make, then you'll stop seeing the comparisons to the Kimchiteers.

Oh give the soapbox and the strawmen a rest. After a while I really stopped reading what you write. It is the usual 12121^%^!%@...I am the knight in shining armor defending innocent muslims against genocidal hitlers of NSG blah blah.

IOW, STFU plz. :)

Oh give the soapbox and the strawmen a rest. After a while I really stopped reading what you write. It is the usual 12121^%^!%@...I am the knight in shining armor defending innocent muslims against genocidal hitlers of NSG blah blah.

Yeah, nothing says you stopped reading like this reply. You're tired of the posts I write arguing against punishing a religion as a whole for the sins of a few, yet not only do you never complain about the threads that lump every single member of a religion together, you do fly-bys with random news articles that bolster such arguments.

There's a shocker.

:rolleyes:

And you're the one who came up with the Godwin bullshit, not me. Let's not pretend you wouldn't be part of the people who'd be more happy to see Muslims sent off to American style internment camps either.

IOW, STFU plz. :)

Physician, Heal Thyself. This is a public forum and within the rules I can post whatever the damn hell I please.

Or you could have said, a naked woman could wake into a gay bar and none of the men would care. How would a hijab protect her then? Heh!

Mm, sort of. The presumption that all women need protecting, whether they think they do or not, is the core of what I'm objecting to. It's born out by the use of the word "design"[ed]. There is an intent, and it is applied to women.

If hijab protects women, it only protects them the way the Mafia 'protects' businesses it extorts money from. It protects them from an injustice (presumably rape or harassment) which they should be protected from by law.

Unless Sovie wants to be more precise about what hijab protects anyone from, I will assume the above applies.

A more pedantic objection would be "if only girls need hijab, then grown women needn't bother"

(An interesting counter has occurred to me. It's still a mainstream custom in the west for a minimum standard of decency to apply unequally to the sexes. Men can bathe in only briefs, but women are expected to cover their breasts as well. That's often enforced by law, too.)

EDIT: Oh, I posted to your ... other thread.

I really do want to hear an answer from Soviestan, and the word "sickeningly" I regret.

Don't confuse culture with religion.

One can be a pig shit ignorant half witt and a Muslim, just like someone can be pig shit ignorant and a Christian.

Its unfortunate that there are half witts out there with an IQ barely above room temperature giving the rest of the Muslims a bad name. Someone needs to inform the father than its the 21st century - time to join modernity and stop thinking he lives in a village out in the middle of no where.

Don't confuse culture with religion.
One can be a pig shit ignorant half wit and a Muslim, just like someone can be pig shit ignorant and a Christian.Of course. All followers of the abrahamic religions are inherently pig shit ignorant. Their religion is a culture of ignorance.

Of course. All followers of the abrahamic religions are inherently pig shit ignorant. Their religion is a culture of ignorance.

I'd disagree, I'd say all member of humanity (regardless of race, creed, religion) are inherently pig shit ignorant.

Of course. All followers of the abrahamic religions are inherently pig shit ignorant. Their religion is a culture of ignorance.

Based on what evidence; you're claiming that even some of the greatest minds of the last 2 centuries are pig shit ignorant?

Of course. All followers of the abrahamic religions are inherently pig shit ignorant. Their religion is a culture of ignorance.

Even if that were true (and it's not, I know followers of all three such religions who make me look quite ignorant) ... I'd be interested to know why?

Even if you want to qualify the statement to "almost all", you must surely have some explanation for the strong correlation you claim exists?

Does ignorance lead to religion? Does religion lead to ignorance? Do they have a common cause (like, oh I don't know, not enough leafy veg)?

And no, I don't agree with second-degree murder. First degree: you don't strangle someone by accident, any claim of "emotional distress" is hugely outweighed by "duty of care."

But then, I'm crazy: I don't believe in the Insanity defence. Crazy people have an obligation beyond Normal people, to monitor and regulate their own behaviour. Any crazy person knows this, and the law should recognize it.

If it was first degree murder, the father would have planned to kill his daughter in advance of strangling her. Considering he called the cops himself and didn't try to cover up the evidence, a jury would find it hard to believe the murder was pre-planned.

Second degree murder is for crimes of passion. He was arguing with his daughter, she refused to obey him and in a blind rage he strangled her. A far more likely scenario and much easier to get a conviction for.

If it was first degree murder, the father would have planned to kill his daughter in advance of strangling her. Considering he called the cops himself and didn't try to cover up the evidence, a jury would find it hard to believe the murder was pre-planned.

Second degree murder is for crimes of passion. He was arguing with his daughter, she refused to obey him and in a blind rage he strangled her. A far more likely scenario and much easier to get a conviction for.

Roger that. Nice to see you're reading the thread, and shortly after the post you reply to you will see me corrected thusly.

We don't have first and second degree murder in Australia. There's a range of mitigating or aggravating circumstances, and that "premeditated" factor doesn't get such a starring role.

I was just wrong there.

Actually Hijab is intrisically good and design to protect someone as well.

1. You don't kill someone for refusing to protect themselves.
2. If it's true that Hijab would protect this woman in any way, it's the men that has a problem that needs to be dealt with.
3. Hijab shouldn't be used, in my opinion. It is used as a tool of repression - however, it is up to the women to choose. As this woman had. She should not have been punished for it, if it's indeed true that it set her killer off.

... I really like my Occam's Razor,...

Hijab or no hijab,... this is just another case of domestic violence,... in this case a mentally unstable father strangling his own rebellious daughter.

Wheter his religion, culture and tradition has to do with it is not on trial, only his actions.

... I really like my Occam's Razor,...

Hijab or no hijab,... this is just another case of domestic violence,... in this case a mentally unstable father strangling his own rebellious daughter.

Wheter his religion, culture and tradition has to do with it is not on trial, only his actions.
At least that father won't go to muslim heaven for sure.

At least that father won't go to muslim heaven for sure.

You gotta ask Big G to know for sho. I ain't pimp nuff to know.

You gotta ask Big G to know for sho. I ain't pimp nuff to know.

Peep now, tha's Mo's turf. Baby ganstas don't go dissin that.

... I really like my Occam's Razor,...

IIRC, it goes something like "where two explanations are equally good, prefer the simpler" ... but isn't it more for abstract questions, like metaphysics?

People and their actions are multi-layered. The more different explanations (non-exclusively, considered as possibilities perhaps) we consider for a person's actions, the better we understand that person. (Not of course that we have enough information to say we know Mr Parvez. You need to interact with someone to say you know them really.)

Occam's Razor applied to people leads to great explanations like "they're just an asshole."

If Occam's Razor leads to a lack of understanding, why use it? Except to sever discussion you don't like, of course ... ;)

Hijab or no hijab,... this is just another case of domestic violence,... in this case a mentally unstable father strangling his own rebellious daughter.

Wheter his religion, culture and tradition has to do with it is not on trial, only his actions.

In a court, his actions will be on trial. Is it our purpose to judge him here? Can we apply punishment? Will doing so deter future such crimes? I should say not.

Relating news stories to fact is always ... problematic.

IIRC, it goes something like "where two explanations are equally good, prefer the simpler" ... but isn't it more for abstract questions, like metaphysics?

It isn't prefer the simpler, it's that when you begin an experiment, start from the hypothesis that requires the least superfluous rules possible, or something similar. Occam's Razor, in and of itself, doesn't deny complicated answers...it's just a principle regarding where to start an experiment. I think...it's probably the most misquoted thing in history, to be honest, so I'm not %100 confident in my own explanation of it.

It isn't prefer the simpler, it's that when you begin an experiment, start from the hypothesis that requires the least superfluous rules possible, or something similar. Occam's Razor, in and of itself, doesn't deny complicated answers...it's just a principle regarding where to start an experiment. I think...it's probably the most misquoted thing in history, to be honest, so I'm not %100 confident in my own explanation of it.

I think we should just keep giving our own interpretations of Occam's Razor until someone comes and flattens one or both of us with the arcane knowledge from WikiP.

You know, it gives noobs a chance to shine, and we might entice a real scholar of epistemology into the thread.

I think we should call our version Occam's Disposable Razor. Now with five blades!

... plus, we bumpf the thread so Soviestan can't ignore it ...

Except to sever discussion you don't like, of course ... ;)



Oh shi-, you found out.:)

I think we should call our version Occam's Disposable Razor. Now with five blades!

I would buy that disposable razor. It would have to only allow for a perfectly smooth and clean shave, though, no silly styling of the facial hair with Occam's Disposable Razor, it's either prepubescent smooth or mountain man hairy. Though the last line might be bordering slogans for gay porn, too, and you do NOT want to get sued by the gay porn industry. =\

Canadian Muslim girl not killed over hijab: report
2 days ago

OTTAWA (AFP) — A Canadian Muslim girl murdered this week by her father was not killed for refusing to wear a hijab, her second family said, according to a National Post report Saturday.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ioxQCcrYz3_wBL2s1tnfnkzK_i4g