They should be marching on Parliament to tell all MP's that "honour" killings are a crime against all women. They have not, and they will not. They are hypocrites. Women's rights, as long as you don't step on any "middle eastern" male toes. I should add that "honour" killings are a cultural/tribal thing as much as a "religious" thing. All cultures are equal aren't they ladies? Right???? HA! Just what I thought, they are hiding behind their multicultural metrosexual males.
Why wouldn't they be supporting Tooba? She was obviously railroaded by her husband to commit the murders. Or don't they like her because she was what they would call a "breeder"?
"My body, my choice" as long as it doesn't mean that baby girls are being targeted for the "scrape". They are forced to embrace ALL abortions, for ANY reason because of they hypocrisy. They refuse to admit that abortions kill human babies. Abort a baby at 40 weeks? Perfectly legal in Canada. They have a problem now that these same lack of laws allow female babies to be aborted just because they happen to not be what those of other cultures/tribes want... females!
It is a sad statement when women, who profess to be in support of all females, are reduced to defending the killing of females, be it in "honour" killings or selective abortions.
20 comments:
Nice straw man argument...NOT! You are arguing with yourself!!
Hahahahhahahhhh
And SQ continues to whistle while walking past the graveyard of radical Islam.
You always drag the "straw man" out of the closet too. I don't know how many times I've seen you do that here when faced with a moral question.
Typical lefty.
Also typical lefty:
when no facts support your case, argue ad hominem.
Of course the feminists aren't going to speak out against honour killings. They are anti Christian not anti Islam.
Actually it's worse than that, Joe. A leftard would sooner side with radical head-hacking stone age Islam than to actually agree with a conservative on a moral issue.
They are content to feed the alligator (kowtow to radical Islam) in hopes that it won't eat them.
Useful idiots.
Correction: useless idiots.
I consider myself a conservative feminist but know I would be disowned by most of the sorority. My position is unequivocal: real fathers and brothers would die for their daughters and sisters, not kill them.
With cuts coming to lots of departments, I suggest cutting funding to these feminist groups, starting with the SOW.
Feminists love the cultural misogyny of the "other". Feminists ain't for the weak and powerless. Cheers.
Speaking of feminists, did you see who won the PC nomination for Calgary-Varsity?
Ezra Levant did a post about her years ago.
You can read it at: http://ezralevant.com/2009/03/donna-kennedyglans-liberal-sab.html
The full scale take over of the PC Party by flaming Liberals is in full swing
Blame Crash, if the provincial PC's move any further to the left, I fear that that NDP leader, Ralph Kramden...er...Brian Mason will be asking Redford to cool it with all of the socialist rhetoric as of late.
Think I'll give my local Wildrose office a call. It's time to get out of the house a bit more!
So is it actually your premise that people on the left and feminists wish these killers were acquitted, and they should be excused for murder? Is that actually your position, hunter?
So is it actually your premise that people on the left and feminists wish these killers were acquitted, and they should be excused for murder?
No, he just pointed out that leftists and feminists fall silent when forced to confront real threats to human rights and real abuses of power.
What nonsense. This was murder plain and simple. Domestic violence. They were found guilty, they will go to jail and then be deported when they have done their time. This has nothing whatsoever to do with feminism, hence the straw man argument.
Clearly S.Q. you do not understand the difference between "honour killings" (a tribal/cultural practice) in which only women are targeted, and "domestic violence" which involves both males and females abusing their partners.
Honour killings are gender specific --domestic violence is not.
SQ, what it has to do with feminism is that when the topic of honor killings is at hand, it's the feminists (and leftists in general) that are always silent and will only offer up a weak "but of course this is murder" when pressed on the issue.
THAT is why we view feminists and leftists as cheering for the wrong team.
A few years ago one of SOW's former leaders declared that Canadian women aren't "safe in their own kitchens". What a load of twaddle. While domestic violence is very real here in Canada, to hear claptrap like this is almost comical. Especially when these same SOW's fall silent over stories of female genital mutilation and honour killings. Typically they will offer up some lame moral equivelency comparison between western and Islamic "cultures", but only when pressed hard for an opinion.
Typically they will offer up some lame moral equivelency comparison between western and Islamic "cultures", but only when pressed hard for an opinion.
Bullshit. Show us an example, *ANY* example of a SOW claiming that murdering your children is ok because it happens in some other culture.
This is like claiming that when someone tries to figure out why Picton killed those women, that the mere trying to understand the killer's motivation is the same as condoning it. It is not, and you are simply using this horrific crime to bash people whose political views you don't like. Shameful.
The left wing has NEVER EVER been at the forefront of denouncing radical Islam and it's propensity to treat women only slightly better than animals.
Tune into an episode of Rutherford. He's been banging his head against the wall for years trying to get the feminazis from SOW to admit they're too uncomfortable to denounce radical Islam and the death sentence to women known as Sharia. It kind of takes away their thunder of trying to force sensitivity training on men in the workplace because a few crotchety old hags in the secretary pool may have overheard a dirty joke in the lunch room.
Excellent discussion everyone! We didn't solve the problem of "honour" killings, but at least the lefties admitted that it was murder. Small steps.
The tragedy of the _news stories_ is that they allow you to debate the conclusion-- "are honor killings bad? Does Islam permit honor killings?"-- and slyly get you to accept the form of the argument: "this is an honor killing."
This wasn't an honor killing. I'm not saying they don't happen, nor am I condoning them.
In order for this to be an honor killing in the traditional sense-- note the words honor and traditional-- the purpose of the killing has to be to remove shame from the family. In this logic, an honor killing is not simply punitive but a selfless act, because it puts the murderer at risk of punishment (and grief) so that his descendants may live with honor. It is for the sons so that they can grow up and marry without carrying the shame of their mother or sister's actions; for the surviving daughters so they won't be thought of as whores like their sister.
So this would make perfect sense:
"Prosecutors said the defendants killed the three teenage sisters because they felt they had dishonoured the family by defying its strict rules on dress, dating, socialising and using the internet."
The problem is that this isn't why the women were killed, it is the post-hoc rationalization for why they were killed....
Another Honor Killing That Isn't About Honor
If you want to understand the psychology correctly, you have to do the work.
Post a Comment