Don't Mind the Elephant II

The father and brother of Aqsa Parvez have been charged with first-degree murder, a murder the police suggest was premeditated.

Aqsa Parvez was a sixteen year old girl strangled by her father.

Given that so-called honour killings are common in Islamic societies and the need for some in the West to brush over such incidences, it is not, therefore, surprising that a story like this will be downplayed.

The article at the beggining of this post refers to the motive as "an apparent clash of Muslim and Western cultures". That may be as honour killings in Western societies are practically non-existent. But even the euphemistically put "clash" still doesn't absolve what is inherent in cultures which practice this kind of killing. Honour killings are a part of Muslim culture. Will we who live in a "multicultural mosaic" accept this? What choice do we have? If we don't, we are imposing our values on a culture that deems it acceptable for a male family member to kill a female family member over any slight imaginable. Surely the Crown doesn't want to get involved in how a family disciplines its children, the way someone in Quebec did. Furthermore, our soft-serve racism that is multiculturalism is at stake. We can't call ourselves "multicultural" (all the while being woefully ignorant of other cultures) if we don't pat "lesser" cultures on the head, turn away, shrug our shoulders and mumble: "That's how they do it back home."

The true test of a culture is not on "some foreigner" but on citizens whose moral compass indicates the wrongness of willful murder.

I would comment on a completely unimportant minority in Toronto but I've decided to comment on researchers on the cusp of an enormous discovery. You know- people who truly deserve attention. I say good luck to these people.

Don't Mind the Elephant

Gillary Massa, renowned Israel-hater and free speech trumper, has again proven her ignorance and arrogance in this letter to the editor. Do read the whole thing but here are a few quotes:

The Centre for Bio-Ethical Awareness and its Students for Bioethical
Awareness front group at York University are wrong again. These groups organize
events disguised as debates in their campaign to eliminate women's access to
legal medical abortions in Canada. Student unions have an obligation to uphold
the rights of their members, including access to medical services.

I didn't realise abortions were performed on campus, nor of any underhanded scheme by anyone to not only speak about abortion but to actively ban it. Hhmmm....

At no point has the York Federation of Students tried to stifle free speech
or freedom of association.

But she has, that is why the student group in question can't get funding.

It has made the legitimate decision to take a position that is representative of
the majority of its membership who believes that reproductive freedom is a right
for all women in Canada. This right should not be eliminated based on the moral
opposition of a few.

These statements are presumptious, arrogant and foundless. One would think that she would research things before printing something that would be challenged openly by those on and off campus. Was she aware of the current public opinion on abortion and who holds it? Was she aware that there are those who hold pro-abortion opinions on campus who actually want Students for Bio-ethical Awareness to speak? Did she even ask?

What Miss Massa does not understand is that she and a handful of others are actively preventing a group from speaking, period. By assuming that everyone agrees with her obvious pro-abortion stance, as well as her refusal to accommodate the opposing side, and that there is a minority who feel a particular way, Miss Massa displays her arrogance (and ignorance) for all to see. Miss Massa also has the typical paranoid streak one sees in pro-abortion activists. Some believe that even speaking about abortion will ban it outright. Perhaps, but maybe not. Aren't laws are needed? Maybe if she had listened to an opposing voice she may have picked up that information. Miss Massa and a handful of others don't realise that there is no vast conspiracy, only a student body wishing to present their case to the public. If the media coverage means anything, they have.

On a brighter note, the complaint against Maclean's magazine has been dismissed. I guess fringe groups can't tie people up with frivolous charges.

Back On Its Feet

China, true to form, has found the resources to arrest parents whose children were killed in last month's earthquake. The parents accuse the authorities of corruption.

This story is not dissimilar to any other story on Chinese corruption, shoddy workmanship, arrest, terror, or how little the West will care.

I'm Not Laughing With You

Some brave yet anonymous person has emerged from the shallow end of the blog pool with this piece of insight for the previous post. I've muted out the cuss words but nothing else.

Who the f*** are you to judge anyone? Everyone is entitled to their own
oppinion, you f****** c***.

Was I judging anyone? Perhaps I was. I mean, surely the person who lacks the intestinal fortitude to actually face someone and tell them why they are withholding privileges they would give to anyone else simply because they can't face a seasoned debate deserves a smattering of indignation.

Is everyone entitled to their own opinions? Yeah, I guess so. I haven't withheld others' "oppinions".

Fair play is fair play.

The Case of the Purloined Backbone

The York University student union, among others, has proven that it lacks the personal, as well as intellectual courage to face a group opposing abortion. A meeting all but secret held after the majority of the student body left for the summer, the failure to secure the opinion of the student politick at large and the utterly infantile reasons for disallowing pro-life groups advantages the student union affords other groups points to a clear and undeserved bias.

Personally, I don’t think any special-interest group has a place on campus. A post-secondary institution is a place, ostensibly, for higher-learning, not for youthful malcontents alienating the rest of the student body over white males using whales to cut down trees, or whatever the hell it is people are mad at these days. That being said, free debate does have a place on campus and should not be stifled by special-interest groups or a radical professor, a throwback from the ‘60’s (and what a grand failure that era was).

To decipher the reasons for York University’s student union’s decision is to wade through tired old mantras (apparently, the student union also voted out originality). If their contention that the abortion debate was long resolved and pointless and that they were doing the student body a favour by shutting out one of the groups involved, their words gave them away.
The word “anti-choice” has been used deliberately, as if being opposed to abortion for any reason is somehow impinging on the rights of women. The word “sexist” is thrown into the mix in order to cement the belief that opposition to abortion equals misogyny. People holding a pro-abortion opinion (this word I use deliberately for people do support it) use certain words (as those who hold pro-life opinions do) in order to shade how pro-lifers are seen. If pro-lifers are radicals who have no place in modern society then it is easy to discount their views. If a pro-lifer is an Everyman, then his opinions hold more sway. How can you disbelieve the guy next door whose lawn-mower you’ve borrowed, or the woman whose son goes to school with your son, or a vegan whose eco-friendly word-view can be wedged into a pro-life ethic that is both biodegradable and not tested on animals? If the issue itself isn’t meat enough (no offence to vegetarians wherever they may be), then the debater must be impeachable. York University has done quite the job to not only brush this issue under the rug but forget who populates pro-life groups (i.e.- Margaret Fung) or the current opinion of abortion in the country, and who holds those opinions. Hardly sexist.

On top of this, the student union waited until everyone had left for the summer to make its irrational decision. It did not gauge- or care- that others, regardless of their opinions on the issue, may support free debate on any topic, including the one Miss Gilary Massa (she also thinks Israel is an apartheid state) thinks is closed to all future discussion- discussion which can only concern women. See here.

"I think it's outrageous that they do this when students are away for the
summer and when they can't really do anything about it," said Michael Payton, a
York student who argued the pro-choice side of the March debate. "This isn't the
right of the student government to be deciding what students are allowed to
hear."

Though Miss Massa claims support, it is clear from this quote that she does not have it. Yes, she doesn't want a well-rounded debate on the abortion issue, as free speech does not apply there. She is shocked, however, that referring to Israel as an apartheid state would be verboten:

In a letter to McMaster's provost and the Students Union Executive, Ms. Massa
said she was shocked and dismayed to hear that the administration and McMaster
Students Union had banned the use of the phrase "Israeli Apartheid" on
campus.
The letter called for the ban on the phrase to be rescinded "in
accordance with a basic commitment to freedom of expression and organization in
the democratic context of the public university."
The letter added, "This strange and unprecedented ban is a blatant violation of democratic freedoms of speech and dissent, and an attack on students' right to organize. It is the position of the YFS and GSA [Graduate Students] that universities are sites where discussions and debates about difficult geopolitical questions should be promoted, not stifled. International controversy about use of the phrase
'Israeli Apartheid' cannot be resolved through repression, but through ongoing
intellectual exchange."

Miss Massa can have it both ways. I'm surprised she wouldn't support the banning of any words. That's what she has done in York University.

This ignorance and arrogance will not appear only once. It stands to reason that if one group can be banned, so too can any group. Will Miss Massa and the rest of the student union tire of a Jewish group, or an environmental group? Maybe not- at least not publicly.

It would be bad relations if they did.