Deaths of four Afghan women in Kingston "an honor killing"
- Thread starter 40below
- Start date
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 12,706
- Points
- 1,140
Beltlink - no threats were intended. I'm just warning you that most of us....virtually all of us that post here regularly have a very....well we are like sheepdogs. We protect the flock or sheep, no matter who is in the flock. And as you know, sheepdogs don't like wolves very much.
My PM was intended to steer you straight.
Thank you!
My PM was intended to steer you straight.
Thank you!
Flawed Design said:
- Reaction score
- 4,393
- Points
- 1,160
Barbara Kay has an opinion, reproduced here under the Fair Deal provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s National Post, but I think it is poorly conceived:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/07/29/barbara-kay-honour-killing-is-not-domestic-violence.aspx
At the (continuing) risk of repeating myself: “honour killings” are not part of or condoned by Islam. Any Muslim who, even a “holy man” with a PhD in the topic who suggest that Islam does permit such a thing is, clearly, an ignoramus.
“Honour” killings are part and parcel of several cultures – and not just “foreign,” dark skinneedc cultures, either.
Ms. Kay gets close to the truth when she mentions our ”chivalric tradition of honour”, which is about 1,000 years old.
Other cultures have “codes of honour” related to a warrior class – including the Arabs, from whom European chivalry likely came, via Spain - but few (none of which I am aware) incorporated the ideas of “courtly love” and the “responsibility to protect” women that came to exemplify European chivalry by, say, 1,000 years ago.
One other factor is urban vs. rural societies.
Western Europe was, by 1,000, essentially a “settled” place. So were China, India and Japan. North Africa, the Middle East and West Asia were still nomadic – herding, raiding and trading societies, in the main. Women took increasingly important and “valuable” roles in settled societies, whether in the town or on the farm, as they “specialized” (see Adam Smith, et al) and their responsible roles gave them status and independence and made it important to protect them. Women were (still are) less critical in nomadic societies and there was, and still is, a tendency to “commodify” them and make them property – like the animals.
The cultural problem is that women are perceived, in some cultures, to lack value, except as ”reflections” of the status and “honour” of their the patriarchal families. When that happens it is too easy to remove their humanity and consider them as property rather than as “loved ones.” Religion has nothing to do with it, except for the fact that many of the “weak,” indeed inferior cultures in which such customs are common happen to be Islamic. The “strong,” superior cultures resisted Islam and turned it away when the opportunity arose and kept their superior values.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/07/29/barbara-kay-honour-killing-is-not-domestic-violence.aspx
At the (continuing) risk of repeating myself: “honour killings” are not part of or condoned by Islam. Any Muslim who, even a “holy man” with a PhD in the topic who suggest that Islam does permit such a thing is, clearly, an ignoramus.
“Honour” killings are part and parcel of several cultures – and not just “foreign,” dark skinneedc cultures, either.
Ms. Kay gets close to the truth when she mentions our ”chivalric tradition of honour”, which is about 1,000 years old.
Other cultures have “codes of honour” related to a warrior class – including the Arabs, from whom European chivalry likely came, via Spain - but few (none of which I am aware) incorporated the ideas of “courtly love” and the “responsibility to protect” women that came to exemplify European chivalry by, say, 1,000 years ago.
One other factor is urban vs. rural societies.
Western Europe was, by 1,000, essentially a “settled” place. So were China, India and Japan. North Africa, the Middle East and West Asia were still nomadic – herding, raiding and trading societies, in the main. Women took increasingly important and “valuable” roles in settled societies, whether in the town or on the farm, as they “specialized” (see Adam Smith, et al) and their responsible roles gave them status and independence and made it important to protect them. Women were (still are) less critical in nomadic societies and there was, and still is, a tendency to “commodify” them and make them property – like the animals.
The cultural problem is that women are perceived, in some cultures, to lack value, except as ”reflections” of the status and “honour” of their the patriarchal families. When that happens it is too easy to remove their humanity and consider them as property rather than as “loved ones.” Religion has nothing to do with it, except for the fact that many of the “weak,” indeed inferior cultures in which such customs are common happen to be Islamic. The “strong,” superior cultures resisted Islam and turned it away when the opportunity arose and kept their superior values.
- Reaction score
- 4,393
- Points
- 1,160
The cultural proclivity to treat women as private property - imposed modesty being, in fact, a way to enhance that ”privacy” - and to enforce that status through both mosques and law courts is alive and well in Sudan as this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s National Post, illustrates:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Woman+accused+immodesty+wearing+pants+braves+lashes/1843576/story.html
I take minor issue with one tiny bit of the story. My understanding, at it may be flawed, is that most of Southern Sudan is animist rather that Christian but that’s just a quibble.
The issue is slavery. That is what too many “inferior” cultures still practice. Slavery is still common in Sudan and that reinforces the idea that women can be private property, too.
The end* of slavery in the West followed our enlightenment. Slavery still persists in China and, I think in other parts of Asia, but Confucians, especially, have long condemned the idea of people as property even they accept that bondage might be a “natural” state of misfortune.
The point is that most African, Middle Eastern and West Asian cultures are in dire need of some enlightenment that, based on our experience, may not be possible until there has been a religious reformation.
Reformations, again based on our experience, in the West, are usually long lasting and very violent events.
--------------------
* But not as early as we usually think. Indentured servitude (which might as well have been slavery) persisted, in Canada, well into the late 19th century.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Woman+accused+immodesty+wearing+pants+braves+lashes/1843576/story.html
I take minor issue with one tiny bit of the story. My understanding, at it may be flawed, is that most of Southern Sudan is animist rather that Christian but that’s just a quibble.
The issue is slavery. That is what too many “inferior” cultures still practice. Slavery is still common in Sudan and that reinforces the idea that women can be private property, too.
The end* of slavery in the West followed our enlightenment. Slavery still persists in China and, I think in other parts of Asia, but Confucians, especially, have long condemned the idea of people as property even they accept that bondage might be a “natural” state of misfortune.
The point is that most African, Middle Eastern and West Asian cultures are in dire need of some enlightenment that, based on our experience, may not be possible until there has been a religious reformation.
Reformations, again based on our experience, in the West, are usually long lasting and very violent events.
--------------------
* But not as early as we usually think. Indentured servitude (which might as well have been slavery) persisted, in Canada, well into the late 19th century.
Slavery in its' many forms is still alive and well in the West....we just put a polite face on it and call it something else....from the asians who come over as indentured servants to the Nannies who live a life of restriction by their "employers"....
- Reaction score
- 1,132
- Points
- 940
Peter Worthington's comment in The Sun
Some ‘honour’
A characteristic of honour killings is that the accused has no right of defence
Article Link
Why do they call it “honour killing”? It’s anything but honourable.
Then again, it’s like dictatorial tyrannies calling themselves “peoples’ democracies” when they’re neither for the people nor democratic.
The possible honour killings of four women found dead in a car in the Rideau Canal near Kingston would be only the latest manifestation of this obscenity.
The alleged perpetrators have been charged (including the father, mother and the girls’ brother), and if found guilty will be due for a long stay in Canada ... in prison. Some “honour”!
So-called “honour killings” are a worldwide phenomenon, if not epidemic, peculiar mainly to the Mideast and Asia, where a family member (usually female) has supposedly brought dishonour to the family or clan that can only be expunged by the person’s death.
Human rights and women’s groups point out there’s nothing in the Qur’an that dictates the murder of women for transgressions — usually sexual, but not necessarily.
Often, under-age boys in the offended family are assigned to kill the female offender because as minors they will be treated more leniently.
Too often there’s no penalty for the murderer(s). In some countries (Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq) men who “honour” kill their wives (or daughters or sisters) for adultery, may be “exempt” from penalty.
Thousands of women are killed every year for reasons ranging from refusal to wear head coverings, to having a love poem written in their name, to having arguments over clothes.
There have been bizarre cases where a husband dreamed his wife was unfaithful, and so was thought justified in killing her. A girl in Turkey had her throat cut when her name was mentioned in a love poem on the radio.
National Geographic recalls that a mentally retarded girl in Pakistan who was raped, was subsequently executed because she supposedly brought shame to the tribe. A conservative estimate has three women per day subjected to honour killings in Pakistan.
A characteristic of honour killings is that the accused has no right of defence. There is no need to prove guilt — the accusation alone is enough to bring dishonour that can only be removed by execution.
According to UNICEF, some 5,000 brides in India are killed annually because their dowries are too small. In Latin America, when women are murdered in “crimes of passion,” it often results in a lesser penalty for their killers compared to other murders.
The UN’s Human Rights Commission has recorded “honour killings” in Britain, Canada, the U.S., throughout Europe, Bangladesh, Ecuador, Brazil, Egypt, Italy, Morocco, Sweden, Turkey, Uganda.
In some countries, honour killing is a cultural institution — Iran, Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan (where 1,000 women a year are victims).
It’s difficult to determine the number of honour killings, since they can be disguised and the community often closes ranks. In India, young women who have supposedly dishonoured their family have been set on fire.
In theory, honour killings also apply to men, but are much more rare. In sexual offences, women are usually blamed for tempting men, or provoking their illicit sexual behaviour.
Strangely, perhaps, it is often women themselves who justify honour killings. Similarly, some defend the burka or hijab as a matter of choice, and not as a symbol of subservience or male dominance.
If the murders of the four women in the submerged car in the Rideau Canal, which shocked the nation, were indeed honour killings, they are neither unique nor unusual among those familiar with the despicable practice, which shows few signs of being curtailed.
Some ‘honour’
A characteristic of honour killings is that the accused has no right of defence
Article Link
Why do they call it “honour killing”? It’s anything but honourable.
Then again, it’s like dictatorial tyrannies calling themselves “peoples’ democracies” when they’re neither for the people nor democratic.
The possible honour killings of four women found dead in a car in the Rideau Canal near Kingston would be only the latest manifestation of this obscenity.
The alleged perpetrators have been charged (including the father, mother and the girls’ brother), and if found guilty will be due for a long stay in Canada ... in prison. Some “honour”!
So-called “honour killings” are a worldwide phenomenon, if not epidemic, peculiar mainly to the Mideast and Asia, where a family member (usually female) has supposedly brought dishonour to the family or clan that can only be expunged by the person’s death.
Human rights and women’s groups point out there’s nothing in the Qur’an that dictates the murder of women for transgressions — usually sexual, but not necessarily.
Often, under-age boys in the offended family are assigned to kill the female offender because as minors they will be treated more leniently.
Too often there’s no penalty for the murderer(s). In some countries (Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq) men who “honour” kill their wives (or daughters or sisters) for adultery, may be “exempt” from penalty.
Thousands of women are killed every year for reasons ranging from refusal to wear head coverings, to having a love poem written in their name, to having arguments over clothes.
There have been bizarre cases where a husband dreamed his wife was unfaithful, and so was thought justified in killing her. A girl in Turkey had her throat cut when her name was mentioned in a love poem on the radio.
National Geographic recalls that a mentally retarded girl in Pakistan who was raped, was subsequently executed because she supposedly brought shame to the tribe. A conservative estimate has three women per day subjected to honour killings in Pakistan.
A characteristic of honour killings is that the accused has no right of defence. There is no need to prove guilt — the accusation alone is enough to bring dishonour that can only be removed by execution.
According to UNICEF, some 5,000 brides in India are killed annually because their dowries are too small. In Latin America, when women are murdered in “crimes of passion,” it often results in a lesser penalty for their killers compared to other murders.
The UN’s Human Rights Commission has recorded “honour killings” in Britain, Canada, the U.S., throughout Europe, Bangladesh, Ecuador, Brazil, Egypt, Italy, Morocco, Sweden, Turkey, Uganda.
In some countries, honour killing is a cultural institution — Iran, Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan (where 1,000 women a year are victims).
It’s difficult to determine the number of honour killings, since they can be disguised and the community often closes ranks. In India, young women who have supposedly dishonoured their family have been set on fire.
In theory, honour killings also apply to men, but are much more rare. In sexual offences, women are usually blamed for tempting men, or provoking their illicit sexual behaviour.
Strangely, perhaps, it is often women themselves who justify honour killings. Similarly, some defend the burka or hijab as a matter of choice, and not as a symbol of subservience or male dominance.
If the murders of the four women in the submerged car in the Rideau Canal, which shocked the nation, were indeed honour killings, they are neither unique nor unusual among those familiar with the despicable practice, which shows few signs of being curtailed.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Are we fighting and dying in Afghanistan in order to protect these people and their culture? We already know that young men handed over to Afg. authorities are routinely raped, the voting is rigged, and women still are property of men regardless of Taliban influence, so what are we really doing there? All these people know is death - to hell with them.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Well, how about not meddeling in their business for a start? How arrogant to think we can change them in the first place.Overwatch Downunder said:
- Reaction score
- 4,965
- Points
- 1,060
templeton peck said:
So, we should stand idly by while women and children are killed, maimed and their human rights denied while being treated as slaves by uneducated
Sorry, the sky is blue in the world I inhabit, and if, as your profile suggests, you are in the recruiting phase, you best read this lesson On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs before you engage, with us, in this honourable profession of ours.
- Reaction score
- 4,393
- Points
- 1,160
templeton peck said:
Itr becomes my business, Canadian society's business and, as a matter of law, the Queen's business when someone's unacceptable cultural proclivity bumps into the rights and freedoms of people in Canada. No one has any right to kill someone for their
I have pointed out before that "honour killings" are not a religious issue. There is no religious "justification" for them - anyone who tries to argue for that case, based on any of the "great religions," is an ignorant fool - even if they are priest, rabbi or iman.
"Honour killings" are barbaric; those who do them are barbarians; their cultures do not belong and must not be allowed to take root in a civilized place like Canada.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Overwatch Downunder said:And to think you want to be a Member, and artillery at that.
I've said enough :(gags)
Edits to say 'great attitude'.
OWDU
Veteran.
Very sorry to have an opinion different from yours downunder! I am getting the impression that an army.ca poster with a differing opinion from the rest of the herd has less freedom of speech than a woman Afghanistan, geez!
- Reaction score
- 4,965
- Points
- 1,060
templeton peck said:
You can have any opinion you want as long as you can morally defend it. Please remember the site you are posting on, and be prepared to defend any post you make. Please also respect that this site is full of sheepdogs (you read that link didn't you?) and that we find it hard to abide with those that would sit on the sidelines and oppose our logic of protection.
Lastly, please don't demean those Afghan women, whom you refuse to acknowledge or defend, by comparing them to your own personal plight.
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 430
Since the topic under discussion has devolved into trading of insults between members, this thread is locked. It may be reopened by staff for the addition of factual content based on the original news story.
Milnet.ca Staff
Milnet.ca Staff
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
Article Link
Shafia jury finds all guilty
A Montreal couple and their son were all convicted Sunday of first-degree murder in the deaths of four family members.
Mohammad Shafia, his wife Tooba Yahya and their son Hamed had pleaded not guilty.
They were accused of killing Hamed's three sisters and their father's childless first wife in a polygamous marriage.
The bodies of Zainab, 19, Sahar, 17, and Geeti Shafia, 13, along with Rona Mohammad Amir, 50, were found dead in the family’s Nissan, submerged in the Rideau Canal on June 30, 2009.
The verdict came after about 15 hours of deliberations, less than 48 hours after they were first charged by the judge in the case, Justice Robert Maranger.
They were each handed an automatic life sentence with no chance of parole for 25 years.
'Twisted notion of honour'
Meranger said it is difficult to imagine a more "heinous crime" than two parents convicted of killing three of their own daughters for "an apparent notion of honour that has absolutely no place in any civilized society."
"The apparent reason behind these cold shameful murders was that four (victims) offended your twisted notion of honour," the judge said.
Each of the Shafia family members addressed the court, denying their invovlment. Hamed said in English, "I did not drown my sisters anywhere, while Yahya said "I am not a murderer." Her husband echoed that, with "I did not commit any murder."
One of the female jurors started crying after the verdict was read, wiping her eyes. Hamed grabbed a hold of the prisoners' box for support, his parents rubbing his back as each juror affirmed that guilt was their verdict.
To return that verdict of first-degree murder, the jury had to be satisfied with six elements beyond a reasonable doubt including, that the accused caused the death of the victims, the accused caused the deaths unlawfully, the accused had the state of mind required for to commit murder and that the murders were planned and deliberate.
Three-month trial
During the nearly three-month-long trial, the Crown maintained the family road trip was part of a plot to kill the four because they had tainted the family’s honour. The Crown alleged the family's patriarch was upset that his two eldest daughters wanted boyfriends, betraying his traditional Afghan values.
The Shafias moved to Canada in 2007. They fled their native Afghanistan more than 15 years earlier and had lived in Dubai and Australia before moving the family to Montreal and applied for citizenship.
At the time of the deaths, they were all permanent residents, except for Amir Amir who had only a visitors’ visa.
Shafia jury finds all guilty
A Montreal couple and their son were all convicted Sunday of first-degree murder in the deaths of four family members.
Mohammad Shafia, his wife Tooba Yahya and their son Hamed had pleaded not guilty.
They were accused of killing Hamed's three sisters and their father's childless first wife in a polygamous marriage.
The bodies of Zainab, 19, Sahar, 17, and Geeti Shafia, 13, along with Rona Mohammad Amir, 50, were found dead in the family’s Nissan, submerged in the Rideau Canal on June 30, 2009.
The verdict came after about 15 hours of deliberations, less than 48 hours after they were first charged by the judge in the case, Justice Robert Maranger.
They were each handed an automatic life sentence with no chance of parole for 25 years.
'Twisted notion of honour'
Meranger said it is difficult to imagine a more "heinous crime" than two parents convicted of killing three of their own daughters for "an apparent notion of honour that has absolutely no place in any civilized society."
"The apparent reason behind these cold shameful murders was that four (victims) offended your twisted notion of honour," the judge said.
Each of the Shafia family members addressed the court, denying their invovlment. Hamed said in English, "I did not drown my sisters anywhere, while Yahya said "I am not a murderer." Her husband echoed that, with "I did not commit any murder."
One of the female jurors started crying after the verdict was read, wiping her eyes. Hamed grabbed a hold of the prisoners' box for support, his parents rubbing his back as each juror affirmed that guilt was their verdict.
To return that verdict of first-degree murder, the jury had to be satisfied with six elements beyond a reasonable doubt including, that the accused caused the death of the victims, the accused caused the deaths unlawfully, the accused had the state of mind required for to commit murder and that the murders were planned and deliberate.
Three-month trial
During the nearly three-month-long trial, the Crown maintained the family road trip was part of a plot to kill the four because they had tainted the family’s honour. The Crown alleged the family's patriarch was upset that his two eldest daughters wanted boyfriends, betraying his traditional Afghan values.
The Shafias moved to Canada in 2007. They fled their native Afghanistan more than 15 years earlier and had lived in Dubai and Australia before moving the family to Montreal and applied for citizenship.
At the time of the deaths, they were all permanent residents, except for Amir Amir who had only a visitors’ visa.
- Reaction score
- 5,594
- Points
- 1,360
Folks,
lets start this topic off right. I'm sure we can all agree on what should be done to these folks but this is not a forum for vengeance or just for spouting off hatred.
If there is to be a discussion, then it will be about the TOPIC.
Bruce
Staff
lets start this topic off right. I'm sure we can all agree on what should be done to these folks but this is not a forum for vengeance or just for spouting off hatred.
If there is to be a discussion, then it will be about the TOPIC.
Bruce
Staff
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
I don't particularily like talking about court trials/decision etc because no matter what on a forum:
No one knows the true facts and evidence of the trial
People come up with their own assumptions and theories
People disagree or agree with outcomes of trials without interior knowledge of the trial
I am not talking about just this court case but all of them.
That's why I am steering clear.
No one knows the true facts and evidence of the trial
People come up with their own assumptions and theories
People disagree or agree with outcomes of trials without interior knowledge of the trial
I am not talking about just this court case but all of them.
That's why I am steering clear.
- Reaction score
- 4,965
- Points
- 1,060
The jury got it right. Guilty of Honour Killings First Degree Murder
Similar threads
