Muslim father chokes daughter to near death

[bush_cheney2004]

Black slaves are NOT original inhabitants of this land. The Natives are. in Canada we let the natives live. In the US most of them were killed off.

Nonsense...there are more tribes, bands, languages, and "Natives" in the USA than Canada.

Life as an Arab would suck in the US, having to constantly get treated as 3rd class citizen on flights and also being in fear of being reported as a 'terrorist' by your own neighbors.

There are also more Arabs in the USA.....by far. They immigrate by choice...like millions of others (including Canadians). You see, there are reasons why there are 300,000,000 Americans and only 35,000,000 Canadians.

[bush_cheney2004]

The US's own laws on the book make it illegal to speak any language other than English. It might have been changed in recent times in some states but for the longest time assimilation was the way in the US and English was promoted as the only language.....

Rubbish.....do you have a citation for US federal law requiring spoken English? Canada actually discriminates based on language in federal and provincial hiring.

Again, check your own backyard first. Your country is torturing humans at Guantanimo Bay in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions and your own laws on Bush's orders.

Do some homework on legal and illegal combatants and the Geneva Conventions.

Don't teach me about 'western culture'. I know all about it. I'm third generation Canadian and as Canadian as any white man in this land.

Does one have to be "white" to be a Canadian?

Before you and your boy Bush start to tell the rest of the world about democracy, why not explain how he wasn't really elected in 2000. Gore actually won the vote percentage.

See US Constitution.....it is about 200 years older than yours.

Edited December 27, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[cybercoma]

there are reasons why there are 300,000,000 Americans and only 35,000,000 Canadians.

Arctic-like winters and suffocating taxes?

[jbg]

Because of 9-11? 21 extremists don't represent 1 billion people. Did the world attack all of Christianity when Timothy McVeigh bombed Oklahoma?

No, but Christians arrested McVeigh, prosecuted him, judged him, and executed him. Can you say likewise for Pakistani and Yemeni prison officials who regularly let murderers such as the "people" who beheaded Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl "escape"?

The hijab is just a cultural belief that some muslims have.

You've totally confused me now. Is a hijab a "belief" or an artifact?

in Canada we let the natives live. In the US most of them were killed off.

Learn some capitalization. Also, the US and Canada have similar records of deaths in wars with natives. Your country has "residential schools" but I don't hold that against current Canadians. Why do you hold Americans responsible for activities that occurred more than 150 years ago? Taking actions for both Canadians and Americans out of context is grossly unfair. There may have been good reasons for each war, i.e. unprovoked attacks by Indians on settlers.

Life as an Arab would suck in the US, having to constantly get treated as 3rd class citizen on flights and also being in fear of being reported as a 'terrorist' by your own neighbors.

Arabs who go to work and act as Americans have nothing to fear.

He (Bush) also tried to overthrow democratically elected Venezuealan president Hugo Chavez using the CIA.

Chavez may have been "democratically" elected but as President he is acting as a dictator, squeezing the life out of the opposition and private industry. He is immiserating his own people in order to strut the world stage.

This same US has in the past taken over unilaterally countries like Grenada and Panama without any provokation. Even Iraq is in that category. It was all about the Oil.

Panama and Grenada have lots of oil. Oh yes. [/sarcasm]

Honour kilings are wrong. They don't represent all of Islam or other religions. These isolated incidents should not be used to tar entire religions as being bad.

As I've said over and over, notwithstanding whoever Tarek Fatah is, the silence of the Muslim world to these "isolated incidents" has been deafening, and this father has received a lot more covert sympathy than Picton has.

The US's own laws on the book make it illegal to speak any language other than English. It might have been changed in recent times in some states but for the longest time assimilation was the way in the US and English was promoted as the only language. Over here in Canada, French and English are equally official as languages and anyone can speak any other language they want.

The US has no official language at all, and no law mandating that anyone speak or not speak any language. The closest we come are laws requiring that documents used in Courts or tendered to the Government be in English.

Again, check your own backyard first. Your country is torturing humans at Guantanimo Bay in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions and your own laws on Bush's orders.

The countries where the Guantanamo inmates come from never tortured anyone? Do beheadings count?

Don't teach me about 'western culture'. I know all about it. I'm third generation Canadian and as Canadian as any white man in this land.

Sure could have foold me.

Before you and your boy Bush start to tell the rest of the world about democracy, why not explain how he wasn't really elected in 2000. Gore actually won the vote percentage.

Learn how US voting works. When you haven't tried my patience as badly I'll explain the formula that "we the people" worked out in 1787. It actually works.

[Alexandra]

This is discussion has been nothing but a launching pad for racists to attack islam and the immigration system.

Racism is a real thing in this country.

Yes, just ask Mark Steyn, et al.

Multiculturalism is entrenched in Canadian law and the constitution and is here to stay. Anyone got a problem with that can work on getting that legally changed. Multiculturalism that is in Canada means that people of different ethnic groups can keep their culture even amongst successive generations. They are under no obligation to assimilate.

This may come as a surprise to some people:

http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/edi...41-a7c1f8cf027e

This was the year that Canadians refused to do what they were told

John Martin, Special to The Province

Published: Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Year end always provides an opportunity to take stock of the previous 12 months and arrive at some general assessment of the year overall.

In this respect, 2007 was the year that Canadians asserted themselves and showed more independence than at anytime in recent memory.

Nowhere was this more evident than during a number of events where it became clear they have had their fill of official multiculturalism.

It was such a relief to witness Canadians refusing to reconfigure their collective values and cast aside laws and policies in order to accommodate every whim and peculiarity of every group that finds something untoward or offensive about Canadian society.

No longer willing to remain silent and tremble at the fear of being called "intolerant," Canadians blatantly defied the chattering classes who insist it is always our responsibility to make the necessary adjustments to appease newcomers and minority group interests.

Interesting that someone has been brave enough to actually put the aforesaid in writing.

Lastly, a lot of people have posted hate on this thread which is bordering on stuff that could be a violation of our hate laws. Please watch what you post. It doesn't take much for a complaint to be made and be charged for hate crimes.

If this is what it sounds like - a threat - where does it say anywhere on this Board you have the RIGHT to not be offended by the opinions posted here.

Quite frankly this racist labelling works both ways and from these posts I would suggest there is more than a little reverse racism being flung around at the 'white' posters. I don't see any of them making threats of filing complaints.

[Guest American Woman]

American Woman, before you get involved in stuff related to Canada why don't you watch your own backyard.

I'm capable of being "involved" in more than one thing at the same time. I can multi-task.

Honour kilings are wrong. They don't represent all of Islam or other religions. These isolated incidents should not be used to tar entire religions as being bad.

Yes, they're wrong. And I never claimed they represented "all of Islam..." because I realize that they don't. Furthermore, I'm not using "honor killings" to "tar and feather" Islam nor have I ever even insinuated that Islam is "bad." However, honor killings are far from isolated. It's a real problem, and until it's addressed, it will remain a problem that will only only get worse. Denying it doesn't make it not so.

Tarek Fatah, one of the leaders of the moderate Muslims in Canada has denounced it over and over already. Fundamentalist muslims will never say its wrong. That would be like asking the Pope to say AIDS, being Gay and pre-marital sex are ok. It is not going to happen.

We're talking about murder here, not a life-style. Furthermore, I don't think you'll find anyone that says "AIDs is ok." But since you say fundamentalist muslims will never say it's wrong, then one cannot separate honor killings from Islam. As long as Islamic nations let people get away with it, one cannot separate honor killings from Islam. As long as Muslims in other western nation are engaging in honor killings, one cannot separate honor killings from Islam.

The US's own laws on the book make it illegal to speak any language other than English. It might have been changed in recent times in some states but for the longest time assimilation was the way in the US and English was promoted as the only language. Over here in Canada, French and English are equally official as languages and anyone can speak any other language they want.

Fyi, anyone can speak any language they want in the U.S. too. It was never "illegal to speak any language other than English" or there would have been one helluva lot of people breaking the law. If, for the longest time "assimilation was the way," I would say it was because immigrants wanted to assimilate. They came to our country because they wanted to be a part of it, and they took pride in 'being American.' No one "forced" them to assimilate. How would one do that exactly?

Again, check your own backyard first. Your country is torturing humans at Guantanimo Bay in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions and your own laws on Bush's orders.

As I said, I'm capable of multi-tasking, so no need to repeat yourself-- unless you can't refute the issue I raised, which is the fact that honor killings are a growing problem in the western world; a problem that needs to be addressed. Is that it? Rather than address the issue you simply attempt to divert?

Don't teach me about 'western culture'. I know all about it. I'm third generation Canadian and as Canadian as any white man in this land.

Evidently you don't "know" about the problem of honoring killing. As for how "Canadian" or "white" you are, I couldn't care less.

Before you and your boy Bush start to tell the rest of the world about democracy, why not explain how he wasn't really elected in 2000. Gore actually won the vote percentage.

No thank you. I'd rather continue discussing the topic of this thread, which is why I'm posting in this thread. Perhaps you could make an effort to stay on topic too?

Edited December 27, 2007 by American Woman

[jbg]

Quite frankly this racist labelling works both ways and from these posts I would suggest there is more than a little reverse racism being flung around at the 'white' posters. I don't see any of them making threats of filing complaints.

The majority has always been a bit supine at asserting its right not to be victimized by reverse racism. Just ask English-speaking Quebeckers or even Ontarians or New Brunswickers.

[Rue]

I'm capable of being "involved" in more than one thing at the same time. I can multi-task.

Lol. Considering half the posts on this forum are from Canadians criticizing US issues its absolutely ludicrous for someone to question you simply because you are American and the issue at hand happened in Canada.

Using this logic only people from Brampton, Ontario should be able to comment?

He obviously just does not get the point that violence against women is an issue without borders.

The idea Canadians can't take criticism from Americans or anyone else is as snively as it gets. Trust me YankeeWoman some of us North of the US can handle it. A nation that is responsible for Celine Dionne must be accountable for its actions and the devastation her singing that friggin Titanic song over and over has caused throughout the world.

[Rue]

The majority has always been a bit supine at asserting its right not to be victimized by reverse racism. Just ask English-speaking Quebeckers or even Ontarians or New Brunswickers.

I think the word reverse racism is a misnomer myself. If someone is being racist, its racist, period.

Violence is violence. Does violence provide a pretence to respond with equal violence? I mean that is the question you really are raising. Well in an ideal world we respond but we don't engage in the same violence-we use justifiable and reasonable force needed to protect ourselves and let the law deal with the rest. Right?

The problem is if we become the very thing we are fighting we get caught in the cycle of never ending violence.

Now mind you there are plenty of spectators judging the abused and telling them they should show restraint-that's what arm chairs and distorted safe distance from the conflict fuels.

What I say is, somehow we need to find a way to intercede once the violence occurs to prevent it from happening again and preventing the need for the abused to have to fight back in the first place.

Of course that's all ideal and in the real world people are left to fend to themselves as laws take too long and often bog down with technical rules that allow the abusers to evade responsibility for their actions.

Solution? There is none of course but to me I think the best we can do is apply the same consistent standards to all situations and not set up excuses and rationalizations to allow some privileges others can not have.

So then there is the arguement, what about the disabled or people who feel they need assistance since the playing field is not even? Well yah, that then becomes another issue because what we are really then talking about is how do people get judged on their merit not preconceived negative generalizations.

To me the answer to that is in getting to children young enough before they set up their thinking processes that define people in preconceived negative general terms. The key-teach people to be flexible, open-minded and creative and not afraid to constantly question, challenge, change and adjust to situations.

Yah I know, wishful thinking.

[jbg]

I think the word reverse racism is a misnomer myself. If someone is being racist, its racist, period.

**********

To me the answer to that is in getting to children young enough before they set up their thinking processes that define people in preconceived negative general terms. The key-teach people to be flexible, open-minded and creative and not afraid to constantly question, challenge, change and adjust to situations.

Yah I know, wishful thinking.

I use the term "reverse racism" to mean prejudice by formerly persecuted minorities against the majority.

[kengs333]

As a Jew believing in free speech, I stood with Zundel as far as fighting for his right to advocate Holocaust denial. What I don't know is why he was held on a security certificate. I suppose there were other good reasons to deport him.

You're disgusting. The way you go around painting people as antsemites and holocaust deniers just because they have issues with Israel's record of human rights violations and then you make this kind of comment trying to pass yourself off as some sort of champion for everybody's right to "free speech". People like you really concern me and have done more to erode the ability for people express themselves freely.

[kengs333]

In regards to Keng's reference to the Amish amd Mennonite communities as being ideal Christian ones without domestic violence or sexual abuse you may wish to refer to:

http://www.state.in.us/ilea/2528.htm (unreported crimes)

http://www.in.gov/ilea/2528.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2365919&page=1

http://www.mennoweekly.org/FEB/02-21-05/AMISH02-21.html

http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/January...bi_janfeb05.msp

http://www.nerve.com/dispatches/mckelvey/secretsandlies/

http://www.wherestheoutrage.org/articles/art_153.php

In fact the isolation and dettached, segregated life of closed societies including certain Amish and certain Mennonite sects precisely because of its religious fundamentalism has t led to demostic violence, incest and rape.

So once again Keng makes references to a subject and societies he assumes he understands but does not.

Let's see, all three links that I checked dealt with the same well-known incident, isolated incident. It's absolutely preposterous that someone would hold an isolated, extremely rare incident such as this as being indicative of the norm. It's almost Nazi-like in its rationale, and I can't think of a better example of how you yourself clearly have some sort of problem.

Anyone who has dealt with Amish or Mennonites will tell you what the truth of the matter is when it comes to the stability of families. The Amish and Mennonite tend to have large families, and they do tend to be interconnected to a great degree (which I assume is what spawned the slur about "incest"); these communities are the typical rural communities where everybody knows everybody and all their affairs, which tends to lessen the ability for such things to happen. And they are also deeply committed to living peaceful, non-violent lives.

The fact that you would make such comments is the most odious and blatant display of hatred that I've seen on this forum. Shameful.

[kengs333]

As Canada was during WW II with Jews.

How so? Canada had allowed c. 150,000+ Jews to enter the country prior to WWII. The turning away of a boatload of refugees, regardless of who they were, is something Canada had the right to do, and still does--although now it's done individually and with no fanfare. Nobody cares because the people who are denied entry don't suit an agenda. It's clear why you're so outraged by that incident, just as it's clear why you're not outraged by the refusal of others to enter this country, or, for that matter, the fact that Christians are being beaten, mutilated, raped, murdered throughout the Middle East and the government of Canada is doing NOTHING about it either. So please spare us your biased indignation, your constant slagging and disrespecting of Canada.

[kengs333]

If this is what it sounds like - a threat - where does it say anywhere on this Board you have the RIGHT to not be offended by the opinions posted here.

I'm trying to find where that "threat" was made and who made it. I find it quite disturbing, and I think that it is indeed a threat as you say. This is already something that was done to me by the now banned "Posit" and I kind of suspect that someone else has already contacted a certain group about me. It's frightening how these people work, and yet they genuinely can't believe why people always seem to have issue with them.

[Guest American Woman]

I'm capable of being "involved" in more than one thing at the same time. I can multi-task.

Lol. Considering half the posts on this forum are from Canadians criticizing US issues its absolutely ludicrous for someone to question you simply because you are American and the issue at hand happened in Canada.

Using this logic only people from Brampton, Ontario should be able to comment?

He obviously just does not get the point that violence against women is an issue without borders.

The idea Canadians can't take criticism from Americans or anyone else is as snively as it gets. Trust me YankeeWoman some of us North of the US can handle it. A nation that is responsible for Celine Dionne must be accountable for its actions and the devastation her singing that friggin Titanic song over and over has caused throughout the world.

Thanks, Rue; and I have to say, I got a kick out of "YankeeWoman." But -- are you ready for this? -- (you might want to sit down) -- I like Celine Dion.

It does kind of amaze me when Canadians get all snively (I like that description) when an American dares to have a view on anything "Canadian." Usually it's the same people that spend a good deal of their time criticizing the U.S. and Americans. Guess when the shoe is on the other foot it doesn't fit so good.

But you're right. Women's issues are a concern worldwide, and it appears that honor killings and violence towards women is not being limited to the cultures/nations that 'accept' it, but becoming a problem in the western world as well. While we cannot conceivabley do anything about it outside of our world, I do think it's something that we should be recognizing and addressing in the western world.

[Drea]

But you're right. Women's issues are a concern worldwide, and it appears that honor killings and violence towards women is not being limited to the cultures/nations that 'accept' it, but becoming a problem in the western world as well. While we cannot conceivabley do anything about it outside of our world, I do think it's something that we should be recognizing and addressing in the western world.

The Sikh and Hindu communities here in Southern BC have been getting together to discuss this issue in light of the women murdered by family members. I noticed that the audience was at least 50% men which is a very good thing. If the men of these cultures don't get involved in saving the lives of women nothing will change. We need the men on side.

[Carinthia]

The Sikh and Hindu communities here in Southern BC have been getting together to discuss this issue in light of the women murdered by family members. I noticed that the audience was at least 50% men which is a very good thing. If the men of these cultures don't get involved in saving the lives of women nothing will change. We need the men on side.

There are women all over this country who have been murdered by white, non religious men. Men who obviously thought it was their supreme right to get rid of a wife who refused to conform to something or other. Eastern men who have lived in Canada for any length of time and then cry religion after they lose it and kill their wife or daughter, would kill their wife or daughter no matter what race or religion they were. They pull out the religion card, or WE assume it's ethnic beliefs that prompted it. The fact that 50 or so men attended an anti violent forum tells me a lot about how the majority of these men feel. Probably no different than the majority of Canadian men who would not be capable of killing their wives or daughters.

[Rue]

Let's see, all three links that I checked dealt with the same well-known incident, isolated incident. It's absolutely preposterous that someone would hold an isolated, extremely rare incident such as this as being indicative of the norm. It's almost Nazi-like in its rationale, and I can't think of a better example of how you yourself clearly have some sort of problem.

Anyone who has dealt with Amish or Mennonites will tell you what the truth of the matter is when it comes to the stability of families. The Amish and Mennonite tend to have large families, and they do tend to be interconnected to a great degree (which I assume is what spawned the slur about "incest"); these communities are the typical rural communities where everybody knows everybody and all their affairs, which tends to lessen the ability for such things to happen. And they are also deeply committed to living peaceful, non-violent lives.

The fact that you would make such comments is the most odious and blatant display of hatred that I've seen on this forum. Shameful.

Again your attempt to manipulate and try pose as a persecuted victim is transparent. The point I made and obviously you did not read what I posted because they did NOT refer simply to one incident, is that in ANY community that subscribes to religious fundamentalism there is the potential for domestic violence and sexual abuse using this fundamentalism as a pretext. That was the point. Nowhere in my response did I insult or suggest anything hateful about the Amish. Nothing in what I posted attacks or questions their beliefs. In fact the Amish despite their desire to be private and segregated and reluctant to seek help for internal sexual violence and domestic abuse victims have turned to the police and hospitals and particular dosctors who protect their privacy for assistance. All of us in every society face this issue. It was a point a few posters were making a while back. That when we discuss this issue its not particular to one religion but yes religions can fuel it, i.e.,incite intolerance if used in a particular manner. All religions must be criticized equally if they condone sexual violence, etc.

Your attempt now to try hide behind them and make it seem you and they are together in this victimhood is

hilarious. The Amish would want nothing to do with you. Having worked with them I can assure you Keng they would find your beliefs repugnant and terrifying.

Edited December 29, 2007 by Rue

[Rue]

There are women all over this country who have been murdered by white, non religious men. Men who obviously thought it was their supreme right to get rid of a wife who refused to conform to something or other. Eastern men who have lived in Canada for any length of time and then cry religion after they lose it and kill their wife or daughter, would kill their wife or daughter no matter what race or religion they were. They pull out the religion card, or WE assume it's ethnic beliefs that prompted it. The fact that 50 or so men attended an anti violent forum tells me a lot about how the majority of these men feel. Probably no different than the majority of Canadian men who would not be capable of killing their wives or daughters.

That is the point. That no one religion, no one ethnic or religious group has a specific monpoly to violence against each other, women, etc.

[Rue]

I'm trying to find where that "threat" was made and who made it. I find it quite disturbing, and I think that it is indeed a threat as you say. This is already something that was done to me by the now banned "Posit" and I kind of suspect that someone else has already contacted a certain group about me. It's frightening how these people work, and yet they genuinely can't believe why people always seem to have issue with them.

Keng these attempts to try manipulate people by playing the role of a pesecuted, threatened martyr are transparent. Stick to the issues being debated. Your refereces to "threats" and "these people" and "certain group" and only add to your lack of credibility and lend to the appearance you are fabricating conspiracy theories.

What is at issue are the words you have and continue to place on this forum. I for one will challenge you each and every time you say something that I believe is intended to incite hatred and prejudice.

In this series of posts you made a sweeping statement that martriarchal societies feature women manipulating men with sex. Your comments are already posted Keng. Its what you do. Make sweeping generalized statements without any reference or basis that simply incite hatred against the people you utter your remarks against.

Your negative generalizations about matriarchal societies, once again demonstrated you have no clue of anthropological studies of matriarchal societites but think if you come on this forum and disparage women and suggest they are evil and manipulate men with sex, you can couch it by saying you are referring to matriarchal societies. It was no different then when you chose earlier on to make a sexually disparaging comment about the sexual position of women during a thread about the murder of a young girl.

The issue remains Keng you chose to use this topic to make disparaging sexual comments about women in response to a domestic violence murder and your now trying to play the victim doesn't change that.

This topic is about men who use religion or fundamentalism or any rigid views to impose themselves on others and the disasterous results it can lead to-something you saw fit to ridicule and use as a platform to suggest to people Christianity allows Christians to limit women to particular roles and if women to not conform to these roles, they are sinners, not victims of violence.

Edited December 29, 2007 by Rue

[cybercoma]

People like you really concern me and have done more to erode the ability for people express themselves freely.

With all of your posts condemning homosexuals and advocating the oppression of women, you are really in NO position to chastise someone for allegedly eroding others' ability to express themselves freely.

[cybercoma]

How so? Canada had allowed c. 150,000+ Jews to enter the country prior to WWII. The turning away of a boatload of refugees, regardless of who they were, is something Canada had the right to do, and still does--although now it's done individually and with no fanfare. Nobody cares because the people who are denied entry don't suit an agenda. It's clear why you're so outraged by that incident, just as it's clear why you're not outraged by the refusal of others to enter this country, or, for that matter, the fact that Christians are being beaten, mutilated, raped, murdered throughout the Middle East and the government of Canada is doing NOTHING about it either. So please spare us your biased indignation, your constant slagging and disrespecting of Canada.

First of all, why do only Christians deserve our government's intervention?

And about the Jews, how dare you compare keeping Jews out of Canada today to denying entry to refugees who were trying to escape genocide during WWII?

In 1941 wartime statement of policy, Frederick Charles Blair (the man responsible for keeping Jews out of Canada) said, "Canada places greater emphasis upon race than upon citizenship."

How about in 1943/44 when the United States offered 4000 open visas to orphaned Jewish children in France, but when Canada was asked to take 1000 of them, we didn't even bother to reply? Do you think that was the right thing to do? Or do you support what Mackenzie King's idea that we should, "keep this part of the continent free from unrest and too great an intermixture of foreign strains of blood."

According to Will Ferguson's book Bastards & Boneheads:

During the 12 years the Nazis ran rampant (1933-45), the United States allowed 200,000 Jewish refugees to enter. The United Kingdom took in 195,000, of whom 125,000 were rerouted to British held Palestine. Argentina gave asylum to 50,000. Brazil 27,000. And Canada, a sparsely inhabited nation in need of skilled craftspeople, investment and immigrants? Canada allowed in fewer than 5,000 refugees.

But you're right. Canada had all the right to turn away whomever they chose. It should also be glaringly obvious that this was the WRONG decision. Comparing turning away the refugees of WWII Nazi concentration camps to turning away individuals requesting entry into Canada today, is horrifyingly idiotic and you should be seriously ashamed of drawing such a comparison.

[jbg]

But you're right. Canada had all the right to turn away whomever they chose. It should also be glaringly obvious that this was the WRONG decision. Comparing turning away the refugees of WWII Nazi concentration camps to turning away individuals requesting entry into Canada today, is horrifyingly idiotic and you should be seriously ashamed of drawing such a comparison.

Kudos and congratulations on that post!! Even though we sometimes disagree, you're bang on here.

[Guest American Woman]

The Sikh and Hindu communities here in Southern BC have been getting together to discuss this issue in light of the women murdered by family members. I noticed that the audience was at least 50% men which is a very good thing. If the men of these cultures don't get involved in saving the lives of women nothing will change. We need the men on side.

That's really good news. Very heartening. I hope more communitites will follow suit.

"Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope... and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance." ~Robert F. Kennedy

Edited December 30, 2007 by American Woman

[Argus]

There are women all over this country who have been murdered by white, non religious men. Men who obviously thought it was their supreme right to get rid of a wife who refused to conform to something or other.

What arrogant drivel. As if the decision was made out of arrogance and indignation that a mere woman refused to conform. In most of the cases I'm aware of it was made out of the madness and despair of having been betrayed, or at least, feeling betrayed, lost, and unable to continue on in life without this woman they had built their life around. Most of the men who kill their wives then go on to kill themselves. This is not an act of mere arrogance at a woman not knowing her place, it is the act of a broken heart and broken mind, often fueled by drugs and/or alcohol.

Eastern men who have lived in Canada for any length of time and then cry religion after they lose it and kill their wife or daughter, would kill their wife or daughter no matter what race or religion they were. They pull out the religion card, or WE assume it's ethnic beliefs that prompted it. The fact that 50 or so men attended an anti violent forum tells me a lot about how the majority of these men feel. Probably no different than the majority of Canadian men who would not be capable of killing their wives or daughters.

I imagine that would be true in most cultures. However, there is a colossal arrogance about the culture of the Muslim world in its treatment of women. I don't know that all of it or even most of it comes strictly from Islam, but women are often considered chattel, mere possessions in a rigidly patriarchal society. And their treatment is far below what western cultures would consider acceptable in many ways, including the violence directed towards them. You cannot simply dismiss this and pretend that it plays no part in violence towards women from that part of the globe, as if all cultures were equal in their treatment of women.