The Religion of peace rides yet again… Just down the road from me here…. Lots of coverage available to me, but this is from the Toronto Star:
A 16-year-old girl is dead and her father has been charged with murder after an attack in a Mississauga home.
Aqsa Parvez, a student at Applewood Heights Secondary School, had been on life support in hospital since yesterday morning.
Police went to the family’s two-storey home on Longhorn Trail about 8 a.m. yesterday after receiving a 911 call in which a man allegedly claimed to have killed his daughter.
Paramedics found Aqsa with a faint pulse and rushed her to hospital. She was later transferred to a Toronto hospital and placed on life support.
Peel police said this morning that she died overnight.
Friends at the victim’s school said she feared her father and had argued over her desire to shun the hijab, a traditional shoulder-length head scarf worn by females in devout Muslim families.
Homicide investigators had been standing by, as it soon became clear the young girl wouldn’t survive the attack.
Muhammad Parvez, 57, has been remanded in custody and was to make his first court appearance today in a Brampton court.
…
School chums say Aqsa had been arguing with her family for months over whether she should wear the hijab.
Pal Ebonie Mitchell, 16, and other friends said Aqsa still wore the hijab to school last year, but rebelled against dressing in it this fall.
They said she would leave home wearing the traditional garment and loose clothing, but would often change into tighter garments at school.
She would change back for the bus trip home.
Well, I’ve got a solution… a slow, painful death for this unspeakable bastard. Something involving a pair of pliers and a cattle prod, capped off with choking the moron to death with his daughter’s old, rejected Hijab. That would be justice. Unfortunately, the country that provided for her death, in the name of ‘diversity’, will not provide justice for her killer, either… calling the lack of a death penalty ‘humanity’.
Make sense to you?
Fellow Swamp Stomper Blue Crab Boulevard has more. So does Mike Goldfarb, who says in part:
It’s a horrible story. But on the same day as this girl is murdered for her secularism, the left is busy defending the veil. See Danielle Crittenden’s piece at the Huffington Post, “Islamic Like Me: HuffPosters Defend the Veil.” Crittenden spent a week dressed in a full burqa just to see what it would be like–and surprise! she didn’t like it one bit. But her series for HuffPo earned her nothing but the animus of the site’s readers, and now she’s defending the piece:
I’m glad so many of you took the time to post comments. There were definitely some general themes among them: If a woman chooses to veil herself, shouldn’t we respect that as her individual choice? Isn’t the West just as oppressive towards women with its constant marketing of sex? Just because veiling is culturally different from our customs, why should we feel threatened by it?
I find it alarming that she should have to defend her piece, particularly in light of the story of Aqsa Parvez, from a band of leftists apparently intent on keeping women enslaved. But I find it a measure of the nonsense she was selling in her original article, when she comes up with lines like the last two she quoted.
First, no, Women of the west are not even on the same oppression scale. Anyone who considers the Bikini as oppressive as the Burkah, likely looks better in the latter. Oppressed? You’re kidding, right?Is Crittenden forced to perform sex acts for some reason she’s not telling us? (Somehow, I doubt it.) And Goldfarb’s answer to the second point is spot on:
We aren’t the ones threatened by the veil–the threat is to 16-year-old girls who don’t want to wear it, and risk death at the hands of their own family should they refuse to do so. “Culturally different from our customs” is, in this case, nothing more than a euphemism for barbaric.
Correct.
And the sad capper on this story is that Canada will not do justice here, considering that concept ‘Barbaric’.
Think about that one , today.
Tags: attack, BitsBlog, BO, Canada, change, Che, CHUM, islam, justice, Leftist, Life, Men, moron, Murder, NY, politics, religion, sex, themes, UN
December 12th, 2007 at 16:18
Ordinarily, I’m not big on wanting to know all the morbid details of murders, but reading through the Star’s write-up, I found myself curious about how he killed her. So I started looking, and I bet I read “murder†– just “murder†– in eight or ten stories before I finally saw the word “strangle†pop up.
Who knows what all that irritating circumspection – or just plain crummy reporting – was about? But whilst searching about for murder method, I found this snuggly little sympathetic hug for all the puzzled “immigrant†parents like Mr. Parvez, who sometimes need help to “adjust to raising children in a society with different values.†That’s so very stressful. But it doesn’t, of itself, bring about all this daughter-killing and stuff. No:
Patriarchy. It’s global, it’s lethal. And it’s probably what has so deranged and degraded my mind that I just . . . don’t even want to go see what those Huffposters can add to Ms. Simalchik’s insight.
December 12th, 2007 at 17:13
I am sceptical, if not down right hostile, to the legitimacy of women’s studies. As I do not subscibe to women studies, I require evidence and Joan Simalchik didn’t provide any for a very wide accusation.
Granted you can label as Patriarchal any social concept that holds men and women are different. Yet the fact is that men and women are different. So by Simalchik logic life is patriachal.
However even if one were to adopt the pure redneck philosophy that women should be barefoot and pregnant, it does notd follow that one favors killing them.
The gender feminist beef with parriachal society is not they are killing women, but rather tha they are protecting them too much. It is the gender feminist who favor putting women into front line infantry. It is the gender feminsts who want the right to kill their daughters, even before they are born. Say what you will abour a parrichal society, it does not pose the threat to women’s lives. Yes their careers but not their lives.
Simalchik I suspect has adopted the Larry O’Donnel view that attacking western civilization is safe, but questioning non-wewtern socities is simply not safe. AFter I don’t recall any teacher being jailed for calling a doll Jesus. Do you?
December 12th, 2007 at 20:54
Linda;
There’s a problem with labeling such people “immigrants”. At least, in the terms of what we understand, today. That problem is simple; by definition, an immigrant will want to adopt the culture of his or her new country.
Clearly, that did not happen in this case. He was still judging his daughter rather severely as a result of not having divorced himself from the culture of his old country. This is precisely why I have been saying for some time now, that cultural assimilation of immigrants is vital, if we intend to survive as a culture ourselves.
As to your questions about the crummy reporting, I can only say this; and this is Canada we are talking about. Their particular handbasket to socialism hell is a Rocket sled by comparison to that of these United States. you need to understand the politics up there a little bit better, to truly understand my anger with that situation up there. in all likelihood, given the state of the law is up there, if the news articles that you’re pointing to and come any closer to the truth, they would likely be sued by the provincial government as participating in a hate crime.
By the way, that offer I made you some months ago, still goes.
David;
I share your skepticism. Further, I would suggest to you that it’s situations like this which give lie to the entire “oppressed woman” myth. Tt’s only on those occasions when happenings like this come along, that we truly understand the word “oppressed”. as to your comments about a patriarchal society, I submit to you there is patriarchal, and then there’s patriarchal. One is not necessarily equal to the other. Here again, as with the argument that I had with Bruce over at Q&O, what we’re talking about is a matter of degree here.
December 12th, 2007 at 23:21
Bithead, I couldn’t agree more regarding the importance of accepting as immigrants only those persons demonstrating willingness to adapt to our predominant cultural mores — and certainly to civilized behavior generally.
In addition to being problematic in that way, the use of “immigrant” here is a plainly ridiculous euphemism for Muslim newcomer, much as “Asian” means Muslim in England and “youth” is code for Muslim in France.
Your speculation about the press’s caution in reporting the murder details — and the police’s caution in conveying that information — is my take exactly. Just a few minutes ago, I searched for the terms Parvez and honor-killing in Google News. One hit and it was an Austrian paper quoting someone as saying the murder was not an honor-killing. I changed the spelling to honour-killing and got only 3 hits, with just 2 in the Canadian press. One of them, however, was absolutely dead-on:
DavidL said:
What the heck kind of patriarchal nonsense is that?
December 12th, 2007 at 23:43
Joan Simalchik takes an Islamic honor killing and uses it not to condenn Moslem culture but rather to condemn all cultures, to include western culture of patriarachal crimes. Simalchik did not make a case for her leap from a Moslem crime to a condemnation of all cultures. As she presented no evidence, I don’t accept her argueent.
December 13th, 2007 at 8:42
Linda;
I would mildly suggest that one could take he first para of your most recent response, and apply it to illegals from Mexico, and it would still be true. UNderstand; I hold each as destructive to our culture as the other, the only difference being one uses explosives.
December 13th, 2007 at 9:39
David, even if her career in academia depended on it – and of course it never will – I doubt Simalchik could conceive of any crime as something other than a symptom of a nefarious and overarching patriarchy, which to her and her students is likely the defining feature of western civilization. Murder, mayhem, demands for evidence and most every unpleasant and inconvenient thing – what but oppressive patriarchy could produce all this?
That women’s studies and gender studies programs aren’t just laughed off the campuses they squat on portends nothing good for our future. That they attract, mold and celebrate women who write books like this one telegraphs their uselessness – even danger – to kids like Aqsa and to all women who try to escape the very real oppression of Islam.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:43
We as humans should not make the assumption that nature will conform to the limits of our understanding. Gender feminists don’t seem to seek answers, only vent their rage. So few, so loud.
December 13th, 2007 at 18:08
The first sentence of your most recent response, David, is a classic. I think it deserves to be put in the quip of the moment.