Canadian Honor Killings - Guilty

[just me]

I read that a couple of the daughters asked to be removed from the family and placed in protective custody. Why was this not done? What specifically has to be established before these types of requests can be granted? I think Western societies should work to make it easier for people to to be granted refuge if they feel threatened.

[just me]

Marquis Rex said:

I am an infidel afterall

When do you plan to extricate yourself from Mr. Castro?

[Mermaid]

carmonk said:

The Bible is an absolutely degenerate book but the key point here is that in the UK at least there is little violence or significant oppression committed in its name.

Not any more

carmonk said:

How many Muslims would report honour violence or their suspicions of honour crimes in their community to the police? Very few, I'm sure you'd agree. And why, because Muslims are evil? No, because Islam teaches them this is the way to behave..

That is the only way they know. That should be fine - in their own country. Westerners are expected to comply with local rules in these Muslim countries (how many white British people emigrate to Pakistan?) and these people must be compelled to follow the rule of law in this country with zero tolerance.


Notwithstanding our PM said,"We are different countries, we have different histories, different stages of development."

[just me]

Mermaid said:

That is the only way they know. That should be fine - in their own country.

Disagree. Respect for basic human rights should be a tenet of all cultures. Where it does not exist, the culture needs to change. Immediately.

[Mermaid]

just me said:

Mermaid said:

That is the only way they know. That should be fine - in their own country.

Disagree. Respect for basic human rights should be a tenet of all cultures. Where it does not exist, the culture needs to change. Immediately.

Do you know of a single individual who has grassed on his family/friends because they were abusing the human rights of Muslim women/family members? Or does the "honour" system kick in?

Other cultures have their issues too, but the Muslims seem to monopolise this turf. Or their offences are reported more often.

[just me]

Yes, I know of several instances where Muslims have chosen the law and morality over religion and family loyalty. I cannot tell you if it happens more or less in other religions, but it certainly happens within muslim households. They are, for the most part, no different from any other household.

[Mermaid]

just me said:

Yes, I know of several instances where Muslims have chosen the law and morality over religion and family loyalty.

& what were the repercussions for them? And what percentage do this people represent?

[just me]

Dunno about the stats. But no repercussions. Oh, one was recognized in a gathering and given a standing ovation.

[carmonk]

just me said:

You follow the same lines of reasoning as me, but you arrive at different conclusions. Perhaps because you are not muslim, and have not witnessed Islamic culture firsthand. Go to any muslim household in Britain or America, and tell me if you see women being denigrated or disrespected any more than in any non-white household.

Many of these households (every member, not just the men) have different values. The women cover their heads willingly. They don't date, because they think it is being promiscuous, not because daddy or big brother tells them not to. They don't wear revealing outfits, because they think it cheapens themselves. Is it programming? I don't know. Maybe. But there are plenty of households where the men don't like the women doing these things, but don't prevent them from following their interpretation of religion/code of how to live. There are plenty of families where one girl wears the headscarf, while the other one is perfectly happy in skirts.

So, I don't blame Islam.

But what you listed isn't Islam, it's Muslims, and a tiny sample at that. I have no doubt you've experienced what you say but we could trade anecdotes all day. I could counter your tales with my Muslim neighbour's wife who literally isn't allowed outside the house on her own - ever, or the fact that the last Muslim on these boards to vociferously protest against my view of women and Islam got banned - for saying women should be hit occasionally to put them in their place, or the evidence of honour crime specific to the Islamic community in the UK. The issue is Islam itself, which is very clear in its tenets and is blatantly abhorrant. If I said I had tea at a Ku Klux Klan member's house and he was very pleasant, would you concede that White Power philosophy was perfectly acceptable? OK, there's the leaflet on the table saying kill blacks and homosexuals but I got offered some lovely scones and not one black man died during my visit, so let's hear it for White Power.

just me said:

I have seen Jewish women with shaved heads. I don't blame Judaism. Somewhere there's a nutjob who suggested these things as a path to God. Somewhere, there's a weak-minded/ignorant individual who took it and ran with it.

And behind Islam is a nutjob too, he was called Muhammad. Behind every religion there's a nutjob, there's no important distinction to be made between a nutjob controlling via religion as opposed to any other method. Religion is a man-made pyramid with control freaks at the top and the weak-minded at the bottom. A broad-based pyramid at that.

just me said:

And Islam is evolving, whether the doctrine allows it or not. Look at how Muslims live today, and how they lived 100 years ago. I will be the first to agree with you that in some areas, it is not evolving quickly enough, and that is leading to a lot of conflict. But it is definitely changing.

There's no doubt that Islamic practice in Birmingham doesn't much resemble Islamic practice in Yemen (most of the time) but is that because Islam is evolving? Not really, it's more a case of devout Muslims understanding that they must trade off the fundamentals of Islamic practice against abiding by British law and taking advantage of all the benefits this country provides. If we turned round tomorrow and said right, all Muslim communities can live by their own laws then we'd soon see how far Islam has come.

I know what you'll say, that most Muslims aren't like that. I don't know about most but I'm happy to concede that many people who call themselves Muslims aren't true Muslims, they're cherry pickers and therefore are not representative of Islam as a religion. Just like I wouldn't be representative of the BNP if I joined up to support extra help for pensioners yet disagreed with their 'ship all the darkies back' policy.

just me said:

I don't blame Christianity for the Westbro Baptists either. Or Sikhism or Hinduism for what Sikhs and Hindus do in the name of their religion.

But you should. In fact, you do, because you just said it... "What [the religious] do in the name of their religion." If you do something in the name of your religion then that suggests you wouldn't otherwise have done it. Do the Westboro Baptists chant "Kill all fags" because they've all had bad experience with homosexuals when they were younger, or is it because the Bible tells them directly and specifically that homosexuals should be put to death? I think the answer is pretty obvious.

[just me]

carmonk, you need to calm down.

What you propose is interesting (allowing Muslims to live how they wish and seeing how many revert back). I wouldn't. Those I know wouldn't. Now you decry us as being not representative of the religion. Except, if the majority of Muslims are like this, then surely that is how Islam is today? Or are you saying that Islam/Christianity/etc. can only be viewed as interpreted in the most fundamental, extreme interpretation, by the smallest segment? Surely that's not right.

Next you bring up the nutjobs at the top of the pyramid. My simple response is that not everyone at the top of the pyramid is a nut.

When it comes to the entire pyramid, I am with you. It's an unnecessary, man-made construct, created to control people and for the weak-minded to find some comfort in. Religion should be abolished. Perhaps the commies were on to something?

You say to blame Christianity for Westbro Baptists. That's can't be right. If it was Christianity to blame, then all Christians would act like those nuts. That is clearly not true. So, same with Islam. Is it a religion of hate? I don't think so, unless you take some specific passages very literally. Most muslims see it as a code to live by, a code that preaches peace upon your fellow human being, first and foremost. That is not bad, you can't insist on highlighting the other parts and insist that they take priority for you in order to be a true Muslim. Religion is a personal thing, I know a lot of people look to Imams and priests to do the thinking for them, but is it the majority? I don't think so. So, you can't blame the religion for the acts of a minority of the followers.

Ku Klux Klan comparison--I don't know, it's not a religion, those following the principles are setting aside their (ostensibly peaceful) religion for an indoctrination into hate; I would equate that with wahhabism--forsaking the moderate, peaceful parts of Islam for militant hate-mongering. I think the KKK should be abolished, and so should the nuts who choose wahhabism.

Regardless of what you and I think, neither you nor I have the power to abolish Islam. You want to call it a religion of hate and protest against it, that's your right in a free society. Indeed, I appreciate you taking the time to tell me how you see it. I can only point out the truth about the vast, vast majority of Muslims and why I disagree with you on some things, though a few of them are quite fundamental.

About your neighbor...was she fit? :-) On a more serious note, I am sorry to hear that. I don't have a solution, except to spirit her away to a shelter, but I wonder if that is what she would want. How well-adjusted to the UK was she? How miserable was she? Do you even know? Genuinely interested.

Is there a religion based on sex and fast cars? That could be fun. I could be a prophet!

Edited by just me on Tuesday 31st January 22:53

[just me]

just me said:

I read that a couple of the daughters asked to be removed from the family and placed in protective custody. Why was this not done? What specifically has to be established before these types of requests can be granted? I think Western societies should work to make it easier for people to to be granted refuge if they feel threatened.

Still curious about this. Anyone have any insight?

[carmonk]

just me said:

carmonk, you need to calm down.

What you propose is interesting (allowing Muslims to live how they wish and seeing how many revert back). I wouldn't. Those I know wouldn't. Now you decry us as being not representative of the religion. Except, if the majority of Muslims are like this, then surely that is how Islam is today? Or are you saying that Islam/Christianity/etc. can only be viewed as interpreted in the most fundamental, extreme interpretation, by the smallest segment? Surely that's not right.

Trust me, I'm not just calm I'm practically sedated. I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. Islam is Islam. All Muslims could convert to Buddhism tomorrow (that raises another point - saved for later) and not one Muslim could be left in the world and Islam would still be Islam. It's written down for us, in the Koran and somewhat more convolutedly in the haddiths and related Chinese whisper-type texts. I certainly don't advocate extremist interpretation but what I'm saying is that literal reading is more honest than cherry-picking. Would I rather live next to a cherry-picker than a fundamentalist? - you bet, but that doesn't alter what the religion itself is and what it demands of its followers.

Beyond that there are many Muslims even in the UK who harbour distinctly non-moderate views even though they might not act on them, and a smaller number who act them out too. All this can be traced back to Islam and culture arising from Islam - or more accurately, culture moulded and kept alive by Islam. I mentioned the polls earlier and I haven't got the links to hand, but even assuming a large error factor - and assuming too it's in the Muslims' favour - the results are still shocking. As for the questions themselves I did post a poll which had the stats beside each question but as I say I don't have it to hand right now, I'll try and find it later in the week.

just me said:

Next you bring up the nutjobs at the top of the pyramid. My simple response is that not everyone at the top of the pyramid is a nut.

Perhaps nut was the wrong word, after all, what better control method than religion has anybody dreamed up?

just me said:

When it comes to the entire pyramid, I am with you. It's an unnecessary, man-made construct, created to control people and for the weak-minded to find some comfort in. Religion should be abolished. Perhaps the commies were on to something?

You say to blame Christianity for Westbro Baptists. That's can't be right. If it was Christianity to blame, then all Christians would act like those nuts.

No, because of the two factors I mentioned. Social acceptability and cherry-picking. For example, you'll find plenty of Christians who are homophobic in the UK because that's what the Bible teaches them. It's not socially or legally acceptable to discriminate so it's not blatant, but it's there. Conversely, you won't find many Christians who support genocide, or offering your daughter to a group of strangers for them to rape, and that's because they disagree with such instructions and find them immoral. That's cherry-picking. They pick the nice parts and ignore the nasty parts and still call themselves Christians, then take issue with me when I attack Christianty because they personally don't reflect all its tenets. It's very disingenuous. Actually, when it comes to Christians most of them haven't a clue about the Bible so I think even cherry-picking gives them too much credence, they simply equate Christian with 'nice' and think there's a bloke in the sky whose garden they'll visit when they kick the bucket.

just me said:

That is clearly not true. So, same with Islam. Is it a religion of hate? I don't think so, unless you take some specific passages very literally. Most muslims see it as a code to live by, a code that preaches peace upon your fellow human being, first and foremost. That is not bad, you can't insist on highlighting the other parts and insist that they take priority for you in order to be a true Muslim. Religion is a personal thing, I know a lot of people look to Imams and priests to do the thinking for them, but is it the majority? I don't think so. So, you can't blame the religion for the acts of a minority of the followers.

I don't particularly think of religion as personal. If it were there'd be a different one for every person. If you believe in 'something more' or even a nebulous concept of god then I wouldn't say you're religious, but if you read the Bible every day yet don't attend church I would say you are. Regarding the parts taking priority, I don't think it's a case of that. We all know religious texts are contradictory yet a passage saying 'kill non-believers' is not rendered moot by another that says 'love your neighbour'. I could say hello to my neighbour every day but the moment I threaten him with death I'll be down the station and my decades of congenial greetings will count for nothing. Same with the scriptures. It doesn't take much hate or intolerance to sour the whole thing and define the nature of the message.

just me said:

Ku Klux Klan comparison--I don't know, it's not a religion, those following the principles are setting aside their (ostensibly peaceful) religion for an indoctrination into hate; I would equate that with wahhabism--forsaking the moderate, peaceful parts of Islam for militant hate-mongering. I think the KKK should be abolished, and so should the nuts who choose wahhabism.

Regardless of what you and I think, neither you nor I have the power to abolish Islam. You want to call it a religion of hate and protest against it, that's your right in a free society.

Unfortunately that's not the case. Religion, Islam included, is still protected to an extent by law. and certainly by social perception. I am told continually that I must respect people's religious views and not discriminate on the basis of religion and I don't think that's reasonable at all. Are the religious ever told they must respect the views of Atheists? Could they be arrested for saying that Atheism is wicked and vicious? Clearly not because last time that vile beast the Pope alighted his paedophile-protecting bulk on our shores at the taxpayer's expense the first thing he did was blame Atheists for the holocaust and I didn't see any handcuffs in evidence.

just me said:

Indeed, I appreciate you taking the time to tell me how you see it. I can only point out the truth about the vast, vast majority of Muslims and why I disagree with you on some things, though a few of them are quite fundamental.

Always up for a debate, especially where religion is concerned. I must say it's refreshing to debate someone from the religious side who makes reasoned points and doesn't descend into hysteria or abuse within two pages.

just me said:

About your neighbor...was she fit? :-) On a more serious note, I am sorry to hear that. I don't have a solution, except to spirit her away to a shelter, but I wonder if that is what she would want. How well-adjusted to the UK was she? How miserable was she? Do you even know? Genuinely interested.

Honestly, I don't know if she's fit. Full burqa with mesh over the eyes. Oddly enough her husband wears whatever he likes. Once every two months or so I'll see her being hussled over to the car. He'll warm it up first, then turn it around and leave the engine running, then go back for her so that she's not out of the house for more time than is strictly necessary. She's never spoken to any of my neighbours to the best of my knowledge - or more accurately, been allowed to speak.

just me said:

Is there a religion based on sex and fast cars? That could be fun. I could be a prophet!

I think it's called being an Evangelist.

[heebeegeetee]

just me said:

I don't know why the Canadians are committing to providing these animals with 25 years of food, water and shelter, to be followed by freedom. There is something fundamentally wrong with that picture.

It's because these people were made by God, and anybody who destroys what God made or indeed covers what God made is going to go to hell.

[just me]

heebeegeetee said:

It's because these people were made by God, and anybody who destroys what God made or indeed covers what God made is going to go to hell.

Do you have proof?

[Finlandia]

heebeegeetee said:

It's because these people were made by God, and anybody who destroys what God made or indeed covers what God made is going to go to hell.

Aren't Texans rather religious, yet they have death sentencing? How does that work then?

[heebeegeetee]

just me said:

Do you have proof?

No, none whatsoever and I don't believe it either.

But if I did believe that God made man in His image, I certainly would fear retribution if I destroyed what God made, or decreed that God's work should be covered from head to toe.

There's no way I'm going to hell because it must already be filled by religious people.

[MX7]

carmonk said:

I must say it's refreshing to debate someone from the religious side who makes reasoned points and doesn't descend into hysteria or abuse within two pages.

Eh??!!!

just me said:

You seem retarded. No one is excusing anything. Personally, I think a 25 year sentence is far too light for 4 murders. Personally, I think anyone who agrees with the notion of honour killings should be removed from the gene pool.

How long ago? It happens today, if you could only get past your hatred of Muslims and open your eyes.

Moron.

I must say, I'd be quite interested to find examples of Judaism and Christianity committing honour killings today, particularly when Dr. Shahrzad Mojab is clearly talking in the past tense, but I have little hope of any cognitive discussion with someone who resorts to ad homs with such ease.

[carmonk]

MX7 said:

carmonk said:

I must say it's refreshing to debate someone from the religious side who makes reasoned points and doesn't descend into hysteria or abuse within two pages.

Eh??!!!

I was only talking from a personal perspective

[RDMcG]

They do ,however., get to keep their millions and to run their affairs ,even from jail..........

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/290608/20120131/ho...

[MX7]

RDMcG said:

They do ,however., get to keep their millions and to run their affairs ,even from jail..........

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/290608/20120131/ho...

As long as their wealth wasn't gained directly from their crime, I see no reason why it should be otherwise.