• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Respect our values or Leave

57Chevy

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
0
Points
390
It's a much larger problem than what we see here in Canada, and apparently,
according to this article by Robert Fisk dated Sept 2010, it's a rapidly growing problem worldwide.
And worse yet, what is reported is only the tip of the iceberg.
(Article shared with provisions of The Copyright Act) (highlights mine)

'Honor' Killing: The Crimewave that Shames the World
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/09/07-1

It's one of the last great taboos: the murder of at least 20,000 women a year in the name of 'honor'. Nor is the problem confined to the Middle East: the contagion is spreading rapidly

It is a tragedy, a horror, a crime against humanity. The details of the murders - of the women beheaded, burned to death, stoned to death, stabbed, electrocuted, strangled and buried alive for the "honor" of their families - are as barbaric as they are shameful. Many women's groups in the Middle East and South-west Asia suspect the victims are at least four times the United Nations' latest world figure of around 5,000 deaths a year. Most of the victims are young, many are teenagers, slaughtered under a vile tradition that goes back hundreds of years but which now spans half the globe.

A 10-month investigation by The Independent in Jordan, Pakistan, Egypt, Gaza and the West Bank has unearthed terrifying details of murder most foul. Men are also killed for "honor" and, despite its identification by journalists as a largely Muslim practice, Christian and Hindu communities have stooped to the same crimes. Indeed, the "honor" (or ird) of families, communities and tribes transcends religion and human mercy. But voluntary women's groups, human rights organizations, Amnesty International and news archives suggest that the slaughter of the innocent for "dishonoring" their families is increasing by the year.

Iraqi Kurds, Palestinians in Jordan, Pakistan and Turkey appear to be the worst offenders but media freedoms in these countries may over-compensate for the secrecy which surrounds "honor" killings in Egypt - which untruthfully claims there are none - and other Middle East nations in the Gulf and the Levant. But honor crimes long ago spread to Britain, Belgium, Russia and Canada and many other nations. Security authorities and courts across much of the Middle East have connived in reducing or abrogating prison sentences for the family murder of women, often classifying them as suicides to prevent prosecutions.

It is difficult to remain unemotional at the vast and detailed catalog of these crimes. How should one react to a man - this has happened in both Jordan and Egypt - who rapes his own daughter and then, when she becomes pregnant, kills her to save the "honor" of his family? Or the Turkish father and grandfather of a 16-year-old girl, Medine Mehmi, in the province of Adiyaman, who was buried alive beneath a chicken coop in February for "befriending boys"? Her body was found 40 days later, in a sitting position and with her hands tied.

Or Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow, 13, who in Somalia in 2008, in front of a thousand people, was dragged to a hole in the ground - all the while screaming, "I'm not going - don't kill me" - then buried up to her neck and stoned by 50 men for adultery? After 10 minutes, she was dug up, found to be still alive and put back in the hole for further stoning. Her crime? She had been raped by three men and, fatally, her family decided to report the facts to the Al-Shabab militia that runs Kismayo. Or the Al-Shabab Islamic "judge" in the same country who announced the 2009 stoning to death of a woman - the second of its kind the same year - for having an affair? Her boyfriend received a mere 100 lashes.

Or the young woman found in a drainage ditch near Daharki in Pakistan, "honor" killed by her family as she gave birth to her second child, her nose, ears and lips chopped off before being axed to death, her first infant lying dead among her clothes, her newborn's torso still in her womb, its head already emerging from her body? She was badly decomposed; the local police were asked to bury her. Women carried the three to a grave, but a Muslim cleric refused to say prayers for her because it was "irreligious" to participate in the namaz-e-janaza prayers for "a cursed woman and her illegitimate children".

So terrible are the details of these "honor" killings, and so many are the women who have been slaughtered, that the story of each one might turn horror into banality. But lest these acts - and the names of the victims, when we are able to discover them - be forgotten, here are the sufferings of a mere handful of women over the past decade, selected at random, country by country, crime after crime.

Article continues at link with several reports and includes a comments section.


 

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
894
Points
1,040
57Chevy said:
It's a much larger problem than what we see here in Canada, and apparently,
according to this article by Robert Fisk dated Sept 2010, it's a rapidly growing problem worldwide.
And worse yet, what is reported is only the tip of the iceberg.
(Article shared with provisions of The Copyright Act) (highlights mine)

'Honor' Killing: The Crimewave that Shames the World
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/09/07-1

It's one of the last great taboos: the murder of at least 20,000 women a year in the name of 'honor'. Nor is the problem confined to the Middle East: the contagion is spreading rapidly

It is a tragedy, a horror, a crime against humanity. The details of the murders - of the women beheaded, burned to death, stoned to death, stabbed, electrocuted, strangled and buried alive for the "honor" of their families - are as barbaric as they are shameful ...


I often find cause to disagree with Robert Fisk but not this time: tragedy, horror, crime against humanity and not confined to Muslims, either is spot on.

Two thousand plus years ago the Romans wiped out the Druids for the (probably real) "crime against humanity" of human sacrifice - we have to find a way to rid the world of "honour killings," too, although slaughter might be just a little wee bit over the top.


 
J

jollyjacktar

Guest
Would be effective, no?  After all one does not see any true Druids creeping about nowadays.
 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
30
Points
560
A good start would be to strike the term "Honour killing" from the lexicon. Cowardly domestic violence and murder are what is being described here (and the ongoing trial in Kingston is about mass murder BTW).
 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
30
Points
560
Here is another group that is attacking our Liberal Democratic values. Indeed, read the nature of the causes they are funding and ask yourself if this is different from groups like the Taliban in intent?:

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2011/12/20111218-083139.html

Foreign funds flowing to fight oilsands

    8:31 am, December 18th, 2011

DANIEL PROUSSALIDIS | PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU
OTTAWA - While debate rages about the Northern Gateway pipeline project to connect Alberta's oilsands to a tanker terminal in Kitimat, B.C., European financing is pouring in to environmental and aboriginal groups who lead the charge against the projects.

The stakes have never been higher.

A major University of Calgary study released Thursday concluded if pipeline capacity existed to take full advantage of the oilsands, Canada's economy would see a $131 billion boost between 2016 and 2030.

Yet opposition to the oilsands has been active for years, and now QMI Agency has learned Swiss and British money has been pumped into Canada, adding a new element to an issue that has focused on billionaire American foundations so far.

Janet Annesley with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) said oilsands opposition isn't all "grassroots."

"In reality, they're accepting cheques for hundreds of millions of dollars from foreign foundations," she said. "Canadians need to know who is behind these campaigns in order to think critically about what position they're putting forward."

Since 2007, Geneva-based Oak Foundation, set up by British billionaire Alan Parker, has divided almost $2.6 million among six groups for campaigns against the "tarsands."

While Oak did not respond to QMI Agency's interview request, the foundation's database of grants shows Greenpeace Canada has swallowed more than $860,000 "to create financial and political uncertainty" about the oilsands.

Tides Canada took money to stop "new infrastructure development" like pipelines, while Forest Ethics accepted cash to stop the Northern Gateway and for "creating a perception of economic risk" around the oilsands.

West Coast Environmental Law, Environmental Defence Canada, and the World Wildlife Fund Canada received Oak's anti-oilsands money, too.

The British government has gotten into the act, funding a recent Pembina Institute study critical of the oilsands, carrying on the kind of work former U.K. High Commissioner Anthony Carey would do in Canada.

"If we can't deal with (climate change) it is going to lead towards bloodshed and tremendous international tensions in the future," Carey said in 2008, as quoted by the Vancouver Sun.

Meanwhile, British conglomerate The Co-operative has used its profits to vilify the oilsands as "toxic fuel."

It's also become a gusher of funding for native activists like Respecting Aboriginal Voices and Environmental Needs (RAVEN), which aims to convince the Supreme Court to void more than 17,000 oilsands permits by arguing they infringe on aboriginal treaty rights.

The Co-operative has lavished approximately $400,000 on RAVEN, almost six times the individual contributions RAVEN lists in its annual report.

The Co-operative's Colin Baines sees nothing wrong with that since "there's hundreds of billions of (international) dollars being poured into the tarsands."

All the while, the $300 million in funding from billionaire American foundations, uncovered by researcher Vivian Krause, is influencing Canada's oilsands debate.

Tides Canada has tapped into American funds in a big way, taking in more than $13.6 million from the Hewlett Foundation alone between 2002 and 2007.

The chain of funding has financing from Tides finding its way to Forest Ethics.

Forest Ethics said it "played a role in registering close to 600 speakers" for public hearings on Northern Gateway, slowing down the review process.

If the debate has been skewed, though, CAPP doesn't acknowledge it.

Annesley said anti-oilsands activists' foreign cash has undermined their credibility with average Canadians.

Other foreign groups attempting to influence Canadian politics include Avaaz (a creation of MoveOn). If we are concerned about unassimilated immigrants ignoring our values and barbaric lawbreaking, then consider how disruptive "Progressive" groups with hundreds of millions in external funding promoting anti Canadian agendas can be.
 

Redeye

Banned
Banned
Subscriber
Reaction score
0
Points
0
This article has basically nothing to do with the far more interesting topic at hand. However,  I can think of a litany of differences and any rational person likely can. Transnational organizations take an interest in these issues because they're global issues. Maybe you haven't noticed, but there's also vast swathes of the Canadian population opposed to oilsands developments, it's not as though their development is some sort of universal Canadian value, because that's absolutely not the case. Further, much of the money powering the pro-oilsands lobbying effort is foreign in origin as well, given that oil's a global business and Big Oil will reap massive profits from the development of oilsands. It thus doesn't bother me in the least that the counterpoint trying to spur more public discussion and debate is also coming from global organizations.

Thucydides said:
Here is another group that is attacking our Liberal Democratic values. Indeed, read the nature of the causes they are funding and ask yourself if this is different from groups like the Taliban in intent?:

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2011/12/20111218-083139.html

Other foreign groups attempting to influence Canadian politics include Avaaz (a creation of MoveOn). If we are concerned about unassimilated immigrants ignoring our values and barbaric lawbreaking, then consider how disruptive "Progressive" groups with hundreds of millions in external funding promoting anti Canadian agendas can be.
 

ModlrMike

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
796
Points
960
Redeye said:
This article has basically nothing to do with the far more interesting topic at hand. However,  I can think of a litany of differences and any rational person likely can. Transnational organizations take an interest in these issues because they're global issues. Maybe you haven't noticed, but there's also vast swathes of the Canadian population opposed to oilsands developments, it's not as though their development is some sort of universal Canadian value, because that's absolutely not the case. Further, much of the money powering the pro-oilsands lobbying effort is foreign in origin as well, given that oil's a global business and Big Oil will reap massive profits from the development of oilsands. It thus doesn't bother me in the least that the counterpoint trying to spur more public discussion and debate is also coming from global organizations.


The "Robson Steet corridor" is hardly a vast swathe.
 

Redeye

Banned
Banned
Subscriber
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ModlrMike said:
The "Robson Steet corridor" is hardly a vast swathe.

There's quite a fair bit of dissenting opinion about oilsands production. It's certainly not something that is unanimously approved of. If it was, there wouldn't be the lobbying effort (the humourously nonsensical "ethical oil") necessary.
 

Infanteer

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Donor
Reaction score
3,158
Points
1,160
I must admit, I got a chuckle out of the "ethical oil" argument some girl was trying to put forth on TV.  She couldn't form an argument to save her life, but she sure had a good stock of one-liners to throw out, mostly stuff with terms like "evil" and the like.
 

vonGarvin

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
20
Points
430
Redeye said:
There's quite a fair bit of dissenting opinion about oilsands production. It's certainly not something that is unanimously approved of. If it was, there wouldn't be the lobbying effort (the humourously nonsensical "ethical oil") necessary.
Though I personal have no qualms if a dozen ducks were drowned in black sludge to get oil out of the ground, Redeye is quite correct.  "Oil" is no more ethical than swiss cheese.  This would make oil "amoral".  (Its extraction, its use, or whatever, may have an ethical value, but that's a different argument)

Given how perceptions are bandied about in the public forum, such words as "ethical" are thrown about by people who haven't a clue what they really mean.

Infanteer said:
I must admit, I got a chuckle out of the "ethical oil" argument some girl was trying to put forth on TV.  She couldn't form an argument to save her life, but she sure had a good stock of one-liners to throw out, mostly stuff with terms like "evil" and the like.

And as I go to put my response up, Infanteer amplifies what I mean.  But trust me, winning public opinion isn't about valid or sound arguments: it's about glitz and repeating the same truth or lie over and over again.
 

Sythen

Full Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Technoviking said:
Though I personal have no qualms if a dozen ducks were drowned in black sludge to get oil out of the ground, Redeye is quite correct.  "Oil" is no more ethical than swiss cheese.  This would make oil "amoral".  (Its extraction, its use, or whatever, may have an ethical value, but that's a different argument)

Correct me if I am wrong, but the ethical part of EthicalOil has nothing to do with environmental impact, but contrasting Saudi Values with Canadian. If America (or anyone else) is gonna buy oil, why buy it from a terrorist supporting regime that makes slaves and objects of women when you can buy it from a staunch ally, with one of the best human rights track records in the world?
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
738
Points
1,060
Sythen said:
Correct me if I am wrong, but the ethical part of EthicalOil has nothing to do with environmental impact, but contrasting Saudi Values with Canadian. If America (or anyone else) is gonna buy oil, why buy it from a terrorist supporting regime that makes slaves and objects of women when you can buy it from a staunch ally, with one of the best human rights track records in the world?

That's the way I read it also.

Besides, the rest of it, who's right and who's wrong, the offshore funding, the oh so puritanical orgs like Greenpeace ( ::) ), et al, boils down to one thing and one thing only.

Who can get the biggest share of the market.

Morals and 'good for the earth and human race' only count if you can't see past the first floor, street level side of the whole thing.

It's all about the buck and how much you can get. Nothing more, nothing less.
 

MJP

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
648
Points
1,010
Redeye said:
but there's also vast swathes of the Canadian population opposed to oilsands developments,

Outraged environmentalists and the rabid far left are not 'vast swathes", just vocal minorities.  Most Canadians don't give a crap either way.  Sadly we all know what the focus is for the Canadian MSM.
 

Jed

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Tom T. Hall had it right... Faster horses, younger women, older whiskey and more money.

Its all about the dollar in the end.
 

Redeye

Banned
Banned
Subscriber
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The Ethical Oil clowns take whatever angle works - both about Iran and Saudi Arabia's treatment of women and gays to the environmental angle, if it suits. I find it rich that they'd like to vilify Saudi Arabia, despite it being (awkwardly) America's most important ally in the region. At the end of the day, the distinction is rather foolhardy given that oil is a fungible commodity. Where the oil comes from is irrelevant, consumers care solely about one thing: price. As I understand it, oilsands products don't easily lend themselves to gasoline production at economically. So lighter oils are always going to factor in until such time as we find an alternative.

I'm reading with some interest the debate currently unfolding over the Keystone XL pipeline in the US. The claims about the number of jobs it would create seemed wildly inflated to begin with, but there's also been some interesting discussion about the destination of the refined product, which may not be US markets, but export markets.

As for the claim that most Canadians don't care either way, perhaps. But enough care and make enough noise that it's worth discussing.
 

Redeye

Banned
Banned
Subscriber
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ModlrMike said:
Still with the name calling I see.

Unfortunately, they come across that way. As Infanteer noted and I agree, any time I've seen their spokespeople, they lack any real depth. And they're fronted by Ezra Levant, and contempt doesn't adequately capture my opinion of him. So, yes. That's my opinion of them. They're pitching an argument that it's possible to pick up a turd by the clean end, and it's fairly easily seen through.
 

GAP

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
20
Points
380
Whoa...wait one....and there's no slant to your POV?
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
1,401
Points
1,060
Redeye said:
Unfortunately, they come across that way. As Infanteer noted and I agree, any time I've seen their spokespeople, they lack any real depth. And they're fronted by Ezra Levant, and contempt doesn't adequately capture my opinion of him. So, yes. That's my opinion of them. They're pitching an argument that it's possible to pick up a turd by the clean end, and it's fairly easily seen through.

Only to you. I'm sure you'd hate to hear everyone call the naysayers on Keystone "clowns" as well.
 

Redeye

Banned
Banned
Subscriber
Reaction score
0
Points
0
PuckChaser said:
Only to you. I'm sure you'd hate to hear everyone call the naysayers on Keystone "clowns" as well.

Some of them, quite frankly, are. And generally for the same reason, they're making arguments they can't really back up, that are emotional rather than factual. From a purely economic standpoint, seeing it built means a lot of money coming in, which of course is a good thing for the economy of Alberta (and that will feed into growth in many jurisdictions. I've also seen some great information on how much the production process has improved in ecological/remediation terms, which is good to because ultimately we don't have an adequate alternative to petroleum yet. Hopefully we will before long, but for now, we don't.

The problem lots of Americans in particular have with KXL is its route through a major aquifer, and the fact that there have been spills from such pipelines, with the worry being the contamination of a massive aquifer in important agricultural land. The second interesting line of argument they use concerns the possibility that the products will just be exported, torpedoing the "energy security" argument. Given that there's a lot of high powered lobby money flooding into the debate, with a cynical public, it's making for a lot of interesting reading during debates. I've no idea how it will turn out, but it's fascinating to read up on.
 
Top