Muslim Honor Killing in Kingston

CANADIEN · July 26, 2009

Just because you'd gladly turn Canada into the planet's garbage dump doesn't mean everyone else is behind you. Many Canadians are a little sick of all this culture shock at OUR culture's expense. Maybe you thought P.E.T. was a hero. To me he was just a big douche-bag that wouldn't go away.

I was under the misguided impression that we were talking about people here, not garbage.

CANADIEN · July 26, 2009

Others have said clearly why the "let's ban all Muslim immigration" is a bad idea. I will not repeat their logical arguments, but I'll add another one.

Experience with generation after generation of immigrants show that every new group meets with distrusts, when it is not just plain hatred, that about every societal ill is blamed on them. More importantly, experience has shown that the children and the grandchildren of immigrants have more often than not integrated our society. When that has not happened, economic conditions (poverty) and discrimination is more often than not the reason.

Large scale Muslim immigration is a recent phenomenum. It is too soon for any claim that the second and third generation will not integrate into Canadian society.

Of course, they will be some that will say that their attitudes and values are too far away from those of most Canadians. the same was said about past groups of immigrants. And quite frankly, there is not much difference between those and some of the attitudes and values advocated in forums like this.

OF COURSE, this is not to say that we should just let anyone and everyone enter the best country on Earth. Those who have committed crimes have no place here. Those who publicly advocate crimes do not either.

Argus · July 26, 2009

Argus,
Where is the cold hard fact that establishes that the value, rather than something in the individual produces, or causes, the crime ?

You are misquoting me. I said I operate out of cold hard logic, which is certainly helpful in the absence of "cold hard facts".

The Muslims are extremely misogynistic. Their religion, their culture, their behaviour all shows this with a fair degree of consistency. Whether it's girls chased back into fires in Saudi Arabia, women beaten by religious police in Iran for showing hair and makeup, young girls having acid thrown in their faces in Afghanistan for daring to go to school, or schoolgirls machinegunned in Algeria. Or, in fact, entire extended families, including uncles, aunts and cousins, getting together to hang a teenage girl from a tree in Jordan because she disgraced the family by getting raped.

Where is the cold hard fact that says that these groups cling to their culture more than others on the whole ?

The problem with the Muslims is that their religion IS their culture. The Koran lays down a complete lifestyle, everything you are to do and how you are to behave during every eventuality, all day, all week, all your life. It also lays down laws and a style of government. Muslims are more, for want of a better word, entwined in their religion. What do the majority of Indians study in university? Computers. What do the majority of Americans or Germans or French or South Africans or Venezualans study at university? I couldn't say offhand without research, but I know it's not the bible. However, in every Muslim nation - as far as I'm aware - by far the most important and widely studied university subject is the Koran. So you're, in essence, not telling people to leave simply their culture behind, as you would if they were Italians or Ukrainians, but to abandon their religion. Or at least - to change the interpretation of their religious texts. Now we underwent that sort of exercise over the past few centuries, but they never did. Furthermore, as the final interpretation of the Koran is considered divine, even questioning it can get you sent to prison in many Muslim nations for heresy. So you don't have a lot of internal dialogue in that community about redefining their beliefs.

and in fact it's almost impossible to do so without cultural bias in these cases as I've stated.

Cultural bias? Why would you imagine I would care if my viewpoints towards their culture is culturally biased in light of my own upbringing? I'm aware it is but so what? If people's behaviour is antithetical to mine then I will judge them accordingly. This is my country and I have a right to judge foreigners' behaviour based on my cultural standards.

Do you seriously want to start doing "social accounting" on these issues, adding one honour killing per year to the "costs" column and "contributing to Canada's economy" in the "benefits" column ?

As far as I'm concerned we have a product which is in high demand. We should ask as much as we can for that product. We shouldn't price it too low, which is what we've been doing. Any idiot can come to Canada, and many seem to be doing so. I would restrict immigration, cut it in half, at least, and only take those people who seem likely to make the best immigrants; those who will contribute both economically and socially. And that would mean very few Muslims. It isn't merely honour killing which causes me to think this. I dislike their cultural attitudes on a variety of issues.

Argus · July 26, 2009

No. That doesn't differentiate them at all.
'Other types of familial violence' are also often percieved as justified where they occur, and also remain supported by altogether too many within the broader community.

That is complete drivel. Tell me just where in this country family violence is supported by "many" in the broader community.

The difference is quite clear. Domestic violence is the action of one man or woman either driven to the edge, or habitually violent and usually alcoholic. Yes, some feral, jealous asshole might plot and stalk his ex-wife and eventually kill her, but it's still the crime of a lone person on the edge of sanity.

I guess what really gets me about this honour killing stuff is just how cold it is. It's not desperate individuals acting irrationally, it's groups of people acting in concert to discuss, plan and carry out the murder of family members, usually young girls, out of some insane idea that they've damaged the "family honour" because they were perhaps seen walking together with a male. I find that bizarre to the point of almost being inconceivable. And, in fact, I would not have believed it prior to my becoming acquainted with the barbarism of Muslim behaviour.

And after they kill her, the community quietly congratulates them on assuaging their family honour and repairing its damage. Unbelievable.

Would it really surprise anyone if this clown gets a visit from his local imam who tells him that he's done the right thing in God's eyes?

Argus · July 26, 2009

So what measures do you prose we take to present these rare events. How do we stop them without discriminating against everyone?

We cut back drastically on the number of immigrants we take in. That's easy enough to do as we take in too many as it is. We don't need this many immigrants and most of them are not doing well in Canada anyway.

Being more selective, we can pick and choose better just what kind of people we let in. And I would suggest limit the number of people who are religious wackos.

DogOnPorch · July 26, 2009

Others have said clearly why the "let's ban all Muslim immigration" is a bad idea. I will not repeat their logical arguments, but I'll add another one.
Experience with generation after generation of immigrants show that every new group meets with distrusts, when it is not just plain hatred, that about every societal ill is blamed on them. More importantly, experience has shown that the children and the grandchildren of immigrants have more often than not integrated our society. When that has not happened, economic conditions (poverty) and discrimination is more often than not the reason.

Large scale Muslim immigration is a recent phenomenum. It is too soon for any claim that the second and third generation will not integrate into Canadian society.

Of course, they will be some that will say that their attitudes and values are too far away from those of most Canadians. the same was said about past groups of immigrants. And quite frankly, there is not much difference between those and some of the attitudes and values advocated in forums like this.

OF COURSE, this is not to say that we should just let anyone and everyone enter the best country on Earth. Those who have committed crimes have no place here. Those who publicly advocate crimes do not either.

Preston Manning got branded a racist when he suggested Canada take more care with its immigration program...reducing intake to a mere (lol) 150,000 from 250,000+ per year. The bad thing about Canada and its incredible rate of immigration (#1 in the World per capita)...other than culture-shock and iconoclasm...is that it won't end when things (aparently) work out economically*...it'll end when it f**ks up our country permanently.

There's a reason many Western women aren't having 7.5 babies...it's called birth control combined with women's rights. They are no longer just baby making machines in our culture. However, the vast majority of the planet doesn't use birth control and consider women to be defacto property. They ARE going to have 7.5 kids (with automatic Canadian citizenship) and in a few generations theiy will hold more and more political power turning back women's rights in the process.

As for Muslims and intergration...we have all sorts of examples over across the pond of what happens when Islam feels it has some muscle over the situation.

I was under the misguided impression that we were talking about people here, not garbage.

Canada is the world's whore. A cheap one at that.

*That's the reason given, afterall. We need all these guys or Canada won't (gasp) grow.

Argus · July 26, 2009

My most sincere apologies. I shoud have specified I was talking about the other Argus. I am so glad to see that you would never, let's say, treat Muslims like if they all thought and acted the same.

I know it's a horrendous concept for you PC types to even consider that when discussing a culture one would generalize, but there you have it. We are not discussing an individual but a culture and the violence towards women which is inherent in that culture. Only an imbecile would try to do that while adding "but of course I don't mean every single solitary Muslim" at the end of every sentence.

You would never peddle around negative stereotypes about immigrants like if it applied to all of them.

Yes, when discussing a group you discuss group behaviour, and group traits. Again, entirely logical.

You would not resort to drivel everytime you join a discussion about gays and lesbians.

Why on earth would you think I would care what your opinion of my opinion was? I mean, I don't think I could make it any more obvious within the rules of this forum just how low my opinion is of your politically correct sniveling.

CANADIEN · July 26, 2009

The Muslims are extremely misogynistic.

.

Not a few, not some, not a majority. them all. I suppose this is not from the Argus who treat people regardless of their race, religion, etc.

However, in every Muslim nation - as far as I'm aware - by far the most important and widely studied university subject is the Koran.

Interesting. workplace is located on a University campus. I see quite a number of Muslim students (mostly women) on that campus every day. And that university does not have a Koran program.

Cultural bias? Why would you imagine I would care if my viewpoints towards their culture is culturally biased in light of my own upbringing? I'm aware it is but so what? If people's behaviour is antithetical to mine then I will judge them accordingly. This is my country and I have a right to judge foreigners' behaviour based on my cultural standards.

This is my country, and your set of values (or more exactly, the way your prejudice dictate your opinions) is anithetical to my values and to common sense. Difference is, I will not judge your third-door white neighbour on the basis of your drivel, but of his opinion. THAT is what is called judging people regardless of their culture, race, etc.

As far as I'm concerned we have a product which is in high demand.

Canada is a country, and Canadian citizenship is a set of rights, priviledges and responsibility. Not a product.

Any idiot can come to Canada, and many seem to be doing so.

And many idiots are born in this country too. You know, like people who believe that a woman who is beaten or raped deserved it. pastors who tell wives to obey their husband because it is in the Bible. Seems that this kind of attitude is a problem to you only it comes from non-Whites. Feel free to prove me wrong (and btw, no, I have no reason to date to believe that you have that kind of opinion.

Recently, you made a fool of yourself by comparing Muslims to the KKK. You did not see fit to respond when I asked how you would welcome KKK members. So I am asking again, how would you?

Argus · July 26, 2009

lol What culture Canada doesn't have anything that could be defined as it's own culture.

Yeah, I hear this a lot from people who will swoon emotionally about the joys of other people's cultures.

You think we have no culture for the same reason you think our English has no accent.

To put it another way, you might feel nothing around you, but shoot up a few miles where there's no air and you suddenly realize - oh yeah, there was.

Argus · July 26, 2009

That's correct, but lost on August. He'd rather go into attack mode with an irrelevant and polticial driven smear on P.M. Chretian, a tactic perfected by their beloved leader.

August in attack mode? What are you smoking?

DogOnPorch · July 26, 2009

Yeah, I hear this a lot from people who will swoon emotionally about the joys of other people's cultures.
You think we have no culture for the same reason you think our English has no accent.

To put it another way, you might feel nothing around you, but shoot up a few miles where there's no air and you suddenly realize - oh yeah, there was.

:lol: Well said...

CANADIEN · July 26, 2009

Preston Manning got branded a racist when he suggested Canada take more care with its immigration program...

I won't comment on what other people said. I thought the Reform original platform was racist when it called for stopping non-white immigration.

Canada is the world's whore. A cheap one at that.

If this what you think of Canada, let me help you pack.

CANADIEN · July 26, 2009

I know it's a horrendous concept for you PC types to even consider that when discussing a culture one would generalize, but there you have it. We are not discussing an individual but a culture and the violence towards women which is inherent in that culture. Only an imbecile would try to do that while adding "but of course I don't mean every single solitary Muslim" at the end of every sentence.

I used to find your bigoted drivel hilarious. I still do. It pales, in comparison, though, with the way you then turn around and claim that you treat people separately regardless of their race, religion, etc., or that you are not targetting all Muslims when you actually say "THE Muslims" every third sentence.

By the way, I do not believe in political correctness. I believe in common sense. You know, don't that concept you know nothing about.

Edited July 26, 2009 by CANADIEN

Argus · July 26, 2009

Others have said clearly why the "let's ban all Muslim immigration" is a bad idea.

No, actually, no one ever has.

Experience with generation after generation of immigrants show that every new group meets with distrusts, when it is not just plain hatred, that about every societal ill is blamed on them.

We were not a particularly sophisticated people in the "past", and were a much, MUCH more homogenous society. Of course every new group would be greeted with suspicion. But we are now a multicultural society with people from all over the planet. Not all of these newcomers are being treated with suspicion and not all of them are accumulating "blame" for societal ills.

In fact, only a few groups can make that claim. So what sets those groups apart? Is it not possible there is actual justification for ill feelings and suspicion being cast on those specific groups?

More importantly, experience has shown that the children and the grandchildren of immigrants have more often than not integrated our society.

Yes, but they had little choice in the past. First, they weren't all that different from the mainstream culture. Second, their old homelands were lost an infinite distance away. An occasional letter from home wasn't sufficient to really keep one attuned with the old homeland's culture. Third, their kids attended schools with Canadian kids, and of course, Canadian notions rubbed off on them.

Contrast that to today. Muslim cultures are FAR different from ours, and are often supported and required by elements of their religion. They are no longer far from home. Instead, they get satellite TV from home so they and their kids can watch it every night. They take frequent flights home to visit. They get newspapers and movies from home. And the culture is no longer homogeneous. There is a plethora of cultures, so there is far less pressure to start to accommodate. In fact, we told them not to bother accommodating. Their kids go to schools where, for the most part, the immigrants and children of immigrants greatly outnumber Canadian kids, and tend to hang around together in ethnic groupings. There is far less likelihood that the habits and cultures of their Canadian schoolmates will rub off on them.

All of this is entirely different from the past and so we have no assurance that these Muslims or their kids or their grand kids will actually adapt Canadian values. This is especially so given how many of these people send their sons and daughters back "home" to get married to a "proper" mate.

DogOnPorch · July 26, 2009

I won't comment on what other people said. I thought the Reform original platform was racist when it called for stopping non-white immigration.
If this what you think of Canada, let me help you pack.

I guess you were one of them. This would come from the RP's blue paper of 1991 that stated they didn't believe in immigration for immigration's sake nor that it should be made up of racial quotas. We take only the best and tell the rest thank-you for applying but you don't have the job. Colour actually had nothing to do with it until some of his more BNP-like members put their various feet in Preston Manning's mouth.

BTW...Canada is OUR country...not YOUR country.

Argus · July 26, 2009

Not a few, not some, not a majority. them all. I suppose this is not from the Argus who treat people regardless of their race, religion, etc.

Yes, I don't feel the need to apologise for generalizing when discussing a mass of people.

I realize how that makes your little PC mind squirm with discomfort. But does not dissuade me. In fact, it pleases me. Squirm little PC. Squirm!

Interesting. workplace is located on a University campus.

Oh there's a shocker.

I see quite a number of Muslim students (mostly women) on that campus every day. And that university does not have a Koran program.

There are no Koran programs in Canada. There are individual courses that will offer studies of the Koran from a Canadian perspective, but that is far from what is offered in Muslim nations.

This is my country,

As viewed form your college campus.

and your set of values (or more exactly, the way your prejudice dictate your opinions) is anithetical to my values and to common sense

.

My heart bleeds.

Difference is, I will not judge your third-door white neighbour on the basis of your drivel, but of his opinion. THAT is what is called judging people regardless of their culture, race, etc.

Canada is a country, and Canadian citizenship is a set of rights, priviledges and responsibility. Not a product.

My. Can you possibly right in a more pompous, self-righteous manner?

Recently, you made a fool of yourself by comparing Muslims to the KKK.

There was nothing foolish about it. I was fairly clearly pointing out that we would not welcome people with terrible attitudes about Blacks and Jews, and thus wondering why we welcomed people with terrible attitudes about women and Jews. Perhaps you need to take further ESL classes to improve your comprehension skills.

You did not see fit to respond when I asked how you would welcome KKK members. So I am asking again, how would you?

I don't always have time to respond to every stupid thing you say. But I believe I did respond to that one. I see no need to respond twice to the same stupid question. Perhaps you could come up with a different stupid question for me to respond to. The available supply of stupid things for you to say appear to be without limit.

Michael Hardner · July 26, 2009

Argus,

You are misquoting me. I said I operate out of cold hard logic, which is certainly helpful in the absence of "cold hard facts".
The Muslims are extremely misogynistic. Their religion, their culture, their behaviour all shows this with a fair degree of consistency. Whether it's girls chased back into fires in Saudi Arabia, women beaten by religious police in Iran for showing hair and makeup, young girls having acid thrown in their faces in Afghanistan for daring to go to school, or schoolgirls machinegunned in Algeria. Or, in fact, entire extended families, including uncles, aunts and cousins, getting together to hang a teenage girl from a tree in Jordan because she disgraced the family by getting raped.

I did misquote you, and I missed the difference between 'facts' and 'logic'. However, to follow you in your thinking: logic needs to be based on facts, or at least reasonable assumptions. As I have pointed out, it's difficult to build a logical case on facts such as these without falling into the trap of cultural bias. This doesn't mean that we discount violence against women, but it also means that we don't focus on one attribute of a culture - whatever it is - and determine that the group is inhuman because of it.

If you are indeed using cold, hard, logic then you need to be objective in determining whether your methodology is correct. We don't have an absence of facts here, but instead have some reports of incidents, and some statistics.

The onus on you, as someone who has declared himself to be a logical person, to use logic in order to come to your conclusions.

My assertion is that individual news stories don't do the trick.

The problem with the Muslims is that their religion IS their culture. The Koran lays down a complete lifestyle, everything you are to do and how you are to behave during every eventuality, all day, all week, all your life. It also lays down laws and a style of government. Muslims are more, for want of a better word, entwined in their religion. What do the majority of Indians study in university? Computers. What do the majority of Americans or Germans or French or South Africans or Venezualans study at university? I couldn't say offhand without research, but I know it's not the bible. However, in every Muslim nation - as far as I'm aware - by far the most important and widely studied university subject is the Koran. So you're, in essence, not telling people to leave simply their culture behind, as you would if they were Italians or Ukrainians, but to abandon their religion. Or at least - to change the interpretation of their religious texts. Now we underwent that sort of exercise over the past few centuries, but they never did. Furthermore, as the final interpretation of the Koran is considered divine, even questioning it can get you sent to prison in many Muslim nations for heresy. So you don't have a lot of internal dialogue in that community about redefining their beliefs.

You're talking about some Muslim peoples in some jurisdictions. It remains to be seen that the environment you described will be prohibitive in terms of allow these people to integrate their culture into the Canadian mix. There is more of a change for them than Italians and Ukranians, who came from Christian nations into predominantly Christian nations. And then there are the moderates, and non-religious people who come here to start anew.

But, at the core, you're assuming more than what is stated here, I think. It seems to me that you're assuming that they will cling to their religious texts more than other groups would and that assertion is in my opinion unprovable and unknowable. I have known Muslims, Jews and Christians who were raised religious but didn't retain their religion, and still retained aspects of their culture. At the core, they were similar people.

I ask in good faith whether you know Muslims, and what you experiences were with them.

Cultural bias? Why would you imagine I would care if my viewpoints towards their culture is culturally biased in light of my own upbringing? I'm aware it is but so what? If people's behaviour is antithetical to mine then I will judge them accordingly. This is my country and I have a right to judge foreigners' behaviour based on my cultural standards.

Because if you're admitting to be biased, then you're admitting to not pursuing an objective investigation of the proper approach to the problem. You're not being logical in that case, but being selfish.

You can't have it both ways. If you say "I have the right to judge foreigners based on my cultural standards." then you can't expect your arguments to carry any universal weight, that is - you can't expect your arguments to convince anyone but those you carry all of the exact same cultural standards.

In effect, you're admitting to arguing a personal opinion rather than something that others can be convinced of. It's like you trying to logically convince me that "cake is delicious" when I know that I don't like cake.

As far as I'm concerned we have a product which is in high demand. We should ask as much as we can for that product. We shouldn't price it too low, which is what we've been doing. Any idiot can come to Canada, and many seem to be doing so. I would restrict immigration, cut it in half, at least, and only take those people who seem likely to make the best immigrants; those who will contribute both economically and socially. And that would mean very few Muslims. It isn't merely honour killing which causes me to think this. I dislike their cultural attitudes on a variety of issues.

Canada is in "high demand", it's true - but by people that you don't seem to want to come here.

I'm curious, though, as to how the Canadian (Conservative, btw) government sets immigration limits for various countries.

Anyone have an idea ?

CANADIEN · July 26, 2009

No, actually, no one ever has.

Michael hardner (for one) must have written on a completely different Web site.

We were not a particularly sophisticated people in the "past", and were a much, MUCH more homogenous society.

Some have not grown out of it, but I digress.

Of course every new group would be greeted with suspicion. But we are now a multicultural society with people from all over the planet. Not all of these newcomers are being treated with suspicion and not all of them are accumulating "blame" for societal ills.

In fact, English and Scottish immigrants were usually treated a lot better than other groups. Today, there are some who would give a free press to immigrants of European backgrounds. Not different.

BTW, nice try using a concept you dislike (multiculturalism).

Yes, but they had little choice in the past. First, they weren't all that different from the mainstream culture.

You tried that one before, and it still falls flat on its face. To a Canadian-born in the mid-19th, irish immigrants were a bunch of savages. To a Canadian-born in the 1950's, Italian immigrants were backwards. The attitude was the same as the one you have towards Muslims today.

Second, their old homelands were lost an infinite distance away. An occasional letter from home wasn't sufficient to really keep one attuned with the old homeland's culture.

Yet, most immigrant groups retained elements of their cultures. Today's communications make integration a more complex problem, that's for sure. But do you actually believe for one second Joe McCaffey in 1870's or Guiseppe Cafra in 1956 would have been less enclined to seek a wife in the old country than Youssuf Khalifa in 2008 if they have had the Internet and airplanes?

Third, their kids attended schools with Canadian kids, and of course, Canadian notions rubbed off on them.

We'll pass on the culturally biased education, and the taunting that immigrant children had to endure. A dual school system (English and french) would be nice. But we cannot say on one hand "private schools for the rich are find, and the Roman Catholic system in Ontario is kind of OK, but Muslims and Jews and Sikhs cannot have their own private school".

Their kids go to schools where, for the most part, the immigrants and children of immigrants greatly outnumber Canadian kids, and tend to hang around together in ethnic groupings. There is far less likelihood that the habits and cultures of their Canadian schoolmates will rub off on them.

Either you get all the kids together, or you don't.

All of this is entirely different from the past

One thing that hasn't changed is that some people will find excuses for prejudice.

DogOnPorch · July 26, 2009

Because if you're admitting to be biased, then you're admitting to not pursuing an objective investigation of the proper approach to the problem. You're not being logical in that case, but being selfish.

Bias works both ways.

Argus · July 26, 2009

I used to find your bigoted drivel hilarious. I still do. It pales, in comparison, though, with the way you then turn around and claim that you treat people separately regardless of their race, religion, etc.

As you have not the slightest notion of how I treat people individually in my life I think I can safely dismiss your opinions there. On the other hand, you can compare the way I respond to your ultra politically correct whiny postings with the greater respect I show to other posters who disagree with me. I may be less polite and less respectful at times, depending on their atttiudes, but I am rarely as disdainful and contemptuous of their opinions as I consistently am of yours.

See how I am treating you as an individual? I trust you are pleased?

scorpio · July 26, 2009

August in attack mode? What are you smoking?

This is an attack by insinuation on a former Prime Minister: "Stephen Harper and Jean Chretien are both Right Honourables but, to my knowledge, Jean Chretien is the only Canadian Right Honourable to have a son convicted of sexual assault"

CANADIEN · July 26, 2009

Yes, I don't feel the need to apologise for generalizing when discussing a mass of people.
I realize how that makes your little PC mind squirm with discomfort. But does not dissuade me. In fact, it pleases me. Squirm little PC. Squirm!

Correction, that makes me squirm with laughter.

There was nothing foolish about it.

There was. Islam is not a secret criminal organization whose MEMBERS are pledged to commit acts of violence to advance their objectives. The KKK is.

DogOnPorch · July 26, 2009

Correction, that makes me squirm with laughter.
There was. Islam is not a secret criminal organization whose MEMBERS are pledged to commit acts of violence to advance their objectives. The KKK is.

Sorry...but that's not what the KKK was, either.

CANADIEN · July 26, 2009

As you have not the slightest notion of how I treat people individually in my life

You're right. All I have, after all, is what you say about Muslims, immigrants in general, the poor, gays and lesbians.

On the other hand, you can compare the way I respond to your ultra politically correct whiny postings with the greater respect I show to other posters who disagree with me. I may be less polite and less respectful at times, depending on their atttiudes, but I am rarely as disdainful and contemptuous of their opinions as I consistently am of yours.

Submit that one to YUK! YUK! They'll find you a job very quickly.

Edited July 26, 2009 by CANADIEN