UK: Police urged to reopen 'honour killing' cases

What 'asian' women? Say 'muslim' women and be done with it. Non-muslim asians - hindus, sikhs, buddhists, christians don't believe in murdering their daughters to protect family honor. They believe such murder defiles family honor.

And i'm surprised at the 117 figure. the true figure is much higher probably.

Although I am not an English native speaker, I love the following expression:"To call a spate a spate".

Why doesn't media in the UK call them "Muslims" or "Pakistani"?
South Asia? Do they mean Singhalese, Bengali, Sikhs, Tibetans, Nepalese...or something else?

It's like over here in Krautland: Who commited the crime? Of course a dark eyed, dark haired man with a moustache...what?? Did you say Turk or Albanian?...I'll kick your white a*se you damn bloody Nazi!!

Voletti & Nippon

You make excellent points. The stupidity of this phrase "Asian" that dumps Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Christian South Asians with Muslim Pakistanis is just abject.

If Muslims insist on asserting their difference and uniqueness on all forums and occasions they should not flinch at having issues like honour killing described as a Muslim problem, because that is what, with a few exceptions, it is.

To use the term Asian is a slap in the face of the Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist and Christian South Asian community. It is time we stopped lumping them together and time we had the guts to call a spade a spade.

BTW:

Here in Germany there are estimated hundreds of young girls suffering female circumcision and infibulation every year...but who is to be blamed for this?..German authorities which are blamed by the leftists and liberals and even Muslims.
If they do something then they get a slap in the face from the Greens and Muslims calling them "racists" and if they don't do something then they get a slap from the Greens for not having done the right...oh, I mean "good left" deed.

Hey I posted this link last night on jihadwatch.org.

it is always interesting to see how they use the generic 'asian' rather than muslim. Asian includes many groups that do not include this barbaric practice in their culture. This story reminds me of story about the British officer in India.

Of course this story is about Hindus, but they, like us have generally grown beyond such things, muslims have not.

http://www.adamyoshida.com/2003/12/on-american-imperialism.html

"When I hear someone prattling on about the ‘equality of all cultures’ I am often reminded of the story of a British officer in India who came upon the scene of a Suttee, a Hindu rite where a live wife is burned upon the funeral pyre of her dead husband. Told that such practices were an “Indian tradition”, the officer responded that it was a British tradition to hang people who did such things. We live in an uncivilized world. Where we can we have the ability and the obligation to bring a little light in and to safeguard the rights of others."

Of course this story is about Hindus, but they like us have generally grown beyond such things, muslims have not.

British Cluseau-clones will have a ball with this. Getting answers to questions about events in - say - Kashmir (suspected sad death of rebellious muslim daughter) using only a sharp pencil, and based in - say - Bradford, will produce nothing but sheets of paper, and a lot of laughs.

But to anyone with ears and eyes living in close proximity to these communities, the real problem is clear, and more extensive than the - moderately rare - murder case. The clue is the high suicide rate (real story - murder by family pressure) of young muslim women, as reported in this article. Girls are being groomed for marriage from an early age - its "culture" of course.

For muslim fathers in Britain, the bonus is that the dowry which would otherwise have to be paid for a daugher can be avoided: marry her off "back home" for a claim on residence rights, and maybe some cash too. Its a business venture.

It's about time this abominable practice was ended forever - I hope the UK aggressively addresses the safety of the women who are vulnerable to this violence.

I beleive, though it would be good to find out from Hugh and or Shiva, that suttee is originally a Moslem practice imported into India by the Moghuls.

I'd like to know one way or the other because, though I'm happy to slag Islam at every opportunity, I'd like to stay on solid ground. There's enough evil in the islam I know to disgust and outrage and infuriate any reasonable man without having to build up straw men for the fire.

I do think that Moslems of the early period, after Timur, introduced some nasty practices into India, such as segregating women, and cetera. Also, that Akhbar the Apostate, maybe not such a bad Moghul as far as they go, tried to roll back some of the Islamic savageries. Then Aurangzeb's reactionary regime made it all worse by far. If anyone can recommend a good history of the period, let me know. I think Hugh did so but that i didn't make a note of it. Will pay closer attention.

sonofwalker

Sutee was a dark Hindu practice. The point is, it does not happen today, in the same way that witches are not burnt at the stake in Europe anymore, and in the same way that Jewish adultresses are not stoned any more.

In other words, the sign of a progressing civilisation is one that acknowledges its backwardness and discards those aspects and MOVES ON.

Compare this to the rancid stong age melodrama being played out by the followers of Islam, who refuse to accept the moderation and discarding of the brutal barbarian aspects of their religion because the Koran is the inviolable and eternal "Word of God".

Hence, slaughter of Kaffirs, Dhimmitude, the deep bred misogyny, the list is endless. Muslims have not even acknowledged the essential backwardness of their creed, they think it is great, the path to human happiness, and so on.

This is a taster of what they believe:

Some Signs of yawm al-qiyamah (Judgment Day):

*Women will conspire against men.
*Women will outnumber men.
*Women will dress like men.

When Muslim intellectuals start repudiating this sort of nonsense and begin widescale reform of themselves including extreme critical scrutiny of the Koran, like Hindu intellectuals have repudiated the backward aspect of their religion, including taking practical measures to check the remedial aspects of their societies, then we can say that Islam deserves respect as a civilisation.

Until that happens, we have to keep scrutinising them. for the sake of ourselves as much as Muslims oppressed by Islam.

Sonofwalker:

Sorry to disappoint you but what from what I know the barbaric practise of 'sati' as the Indians call it was probably an indigenous contraption, much like witch-burnings in Europe (doubtful if witch-burnings in that format were practised elsewhere).

Sati was opractise in select communities and castes, and in fact the vast majority of Hindu populace never subscribed to it.

If Muslims in the UK can convince their young daughters to commit suicide, convincing them to become suicide bombers may only be a step away.

From what I heard last time this came up, honour killings do occur amongst Sikhs and Hindus, but are far more common amongst Muslims. Proabably this is because Sikhs and Hindus adapt and move with the times, particularly when they come to a civilised country, whereas Muslims generally don't.

The left-wing idiots who insist that all cultures are equal should live in an Islamic milieu for a year and witness first-hand the intrinsic perversities of Islam. These deranged social engineers, who exist in a vacuum of grandiose idealism, deserve to be the human guinea pigs in their own theoretical social experiments. Their alacrity for cultural disparity might waver after they experience the realities of an alien culture, crushing their naive delusions of cultural equivalence.
When immigrants are tacitly encouraged to retain their own unique cultures, as Europe has done for thirty years, the resulting debacle shouldn't surprise anyone.
What is surprising is the meek acquiescence of the European people. In the U.K., they're still blaming themselves for muslim refusal to assimilate, when it should be crystal clear to everyone that muslims will never assimilate because they don't want to! With supercilious pomposity, muslims sneer at the indigenous culture and people, viewing themselves as superior denizens of a defective society, which they shun with contempt. Muslims have become the focus of government hand-wringing and appeasements while maintaining and strengthening their separate, segregated discreteness, and inexorably extorting more concessions. Their apologists are oblivious to the fact that these incongruous, devious, mendacious immigrants are exploiting their generosity with increasing insolence.
Muslims will never attempt to coexist in harmony with other cultures and faiths because that is not their desire or their goal. For now they demand separate but special treatment from host countries by fabricating nonexistent discrimination, Islamophobia, bigotry, etc. As soon as they reach critical mass, muslims will no longer try to conceal Islam's odious, grotesque, malevolent horrors from civililzed Europeans. This impending scenario will be portentious for all Western countries that unwittingly invited these alien invaders to infiltrate and ultimately destroy them.

very O.T.

Here is a piece from the BBC on British slaves, guess who the slavers were.

British Slaves on the Barbary Coast
By Robert Davis

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/society_culture/protest_reform/white_slaves_02.shtml

This is the first page of the above mentioned story.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/society_culture/protest_reform/white_slaves_01.shtml

This is slightly off thread to the later posts here but on the subject of the insistence in the UK to call Moslems,"Asians". A woman I know, from Singapore of Chinese parentage applied for a job advertised "Asian nurse wanted ". I think it was for a battered wives centre or similar in one of the areas exempt by the Race Relations Act. She was refused interview for being "the wrong type of Asian" They wanted Bangladeshi or Pakistani and she apparently is defined as Chinese. And China and Singapore are not in Asia to their way of thinking.
A petty thing to post perhaps but the incident still rankles with me.

Back to the main thread I think the figure of 117 is very low. But what can we do when you hear women on the streets, talking with local accents, Cockney or Yorkshire, about last nights television, through their full face veil and black cloak? How do we raise them from their slave mentality? Or more to the point, we know how to do it, education, education, education, but how do we re-develope a climate where they are encouraged to challenge Islam? Althought I do think I detect a sea change.

I can just hear the screams of Islamophobia
by Muslim groups,and when the proof show Islam was responsible for the deaths the next cry will be the usual rant "They weren't TRUE Muslims and don't blame Islam for the actions of non-Muslims"
which is the normal reactions from people that have paranoia and denial for their perceptions of reality.

NO ISLAM - NO MERCY-KILLINGS

And in spite of all the evidence about the horrible traditions rampant in Muslim communities, we get this from ABC News today!

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=289575&page=1

As Muslim Populations Increase, 'Islamophobia' Rises in Europe

Nevertheless, Europewide opinion polls show an alarmingly high level of intolerance toward Muslims within the European Union. One recent poll found 14 percent of EU citizens admitted to being "intolerant" of minorities, while another 25 percent said they were "ambivalent" toward them.

Islamophobia? Okay then. Is reasonable to tolerate a population that wants to bleed you dry, both financially and literally? Is it unreasonable to be afraid of a person who will cut your throat for expressing a dissenting opinion?

As Muslim population rises, Islamophobia rises in Europe. Oh yes of course, blame the Europeans, not the Muslims for this reaction. Heaven forbid we be 'intolerant' of honour killings, FGM, artists being murdered on the street, politicians being threatened with death, attacks on Jewish kids, no-go zones in our own cities, higher crime rates, increased welfare bills supporting their large families, watching their women being denied equal rights and treated like chattel, their hateful preaching from their mosques, etc. How dare we be intolerant of all that wonderful cultural diversity. And even being 'ambivalent' about them is not good either. No, we're supposed to adore the things Muslims have brought to our societies.

Seems bizarre that police need to be urged to look into honour killings. So all along, they've just been sweeping this under the carpet, have they? Just calling it a regular homocide, or a suicide? Not surprising, for to call a spade a spade, and to call attention to this predominantly Islamic abomination, would be 'insensitive' and 'Islamophobic'. Nope, don't look too closely, don't dig too deeply, nothing to see here, move along. Heads in the sand.

In reference to the antiquity of the ceremony of Sati, it may be observed that the first European colonisers into India in recorded history, the Ancient Greeks, chronicled the ritual in great detail which they charicterised as an "unheard-of crime, and abhorrent from Grecian laws and customs." This account can be found in "Narrative of the Expedition of Elexander the Great into India", (Diodorus Siculus, BC. 314). Pre-Islamic.
However, the Muslims were guilty of MANY crimes in India. Their civil wars were endless, thousands of Hindus died making the Taj Mahal and entire cities were put to the sword. Take for example Bengal's Siraj-Ud-Dowla. Even Muslim historians and his French allies wrote that used to sink ferry boats full of people for the fun of watching them drown. He used to slit open the bellies of pregnant women to see the unborn babies within. His spies were always out and about kidnapping good-looking Hindu women, who he then raped. His short yet bloody reign was cut short in 1758.
(His forces attacked Calcutta, without provocation, and he was responsible for the infamous Black Hole of Calcutta. A tiny British force of 950 soldiers and 1250 Hindus met Siraj's army of 50,000 at Plassey, West Bengal. Despite being backed by French artillery and armoured war elephants, the Muslim force was routed for the loss of one British soldier).
Modern Bangladesh (which formed a small part of Siraj's former kindom) considers Siraj one of its greatest national heros.

Timbo

Good post. But as I said, the fact that Hinduism has rejected the evil practice of Sutee shows how Hinduism has reformed itself and brought itself into modern civilisation. Now, as you say, Muslim psychopaths like Siraj-ul-Dowla are national heroes in Muslim countries, and they revere the fact that the Muslims rulers killed so many infidels. In short, they refuse to bring their religion into the civilised world.

btw, do you have a book reference for that information on Siraj-uk-Dowla??

Kaffir Boy...

This is all very "off point" and I hope the "powers that be" and other readers will forgive this. There is a British/Indian/Muslim side to this I suppose. The British Empire being why so many Pakistanis are in the UK.

Check out "Robert Clive of India by Nirad C. Chaudhuri" as this might be difficult to find I'll add a few things.

I have seen about ten spellings of Siraj-ud-Dowla ["lamp of the state"] by the way. He was sometimes called Sir Roger Dowler by his British enemies.

In 1778, the highly respected Robert Orme wrote of him:

"Mirza Mahmud [Siraj], a youth of seventeen years, had discovered the most vicious propensities, at an age when only follies are expected from princes. But the great affection which Allaverdy [Ali Vardi - the previous ruler of Bengal] had borne to the father was transferred to this son, whom he had for some years bred in his own palace; where instead of correcting the evil dispositions of his nature, he suffered them to increase by overweening indulgence: born without compassion, it was one of the amusements of Mirza Mahmud's childhood to torture birds and animals; and, taught by his minions to regard himself as of a superior order of being, his natural cruelty, hardened by habit, rendered him as insensible to the sufferings of his own species as of the brute creation [animals]: in conception he was not slow, but absurd; obstinate, sullen, and impatient of contradiction; but notwithstanding this insolent contempt of mankind, innate cowardice, the confusion of his ideas rendered him suspicious of all those who approached him, excepting his favourites, who were buffoons and profligate men, raised from menial servants to be his companions: with these he lived in every kind of intemperance and debauchery, and more especially in drinking spiritous liquors to an excess, which inflamed his passions and impaired the little understanding with which he was born. He had, however, cunning enough to carry himself with much demureness in the presence of Allaverdy, whom no one ventured to inform of his real character; for in despotic states the sovereign is always the last to hear what it concerns him most to know."

Although conveniently proclaimed as a freedom fighter in modern India, historians of the period, British, French and Indian, tell us that Siraj was nothing but an opportunistic degenerate braggart. Two contemporary Muslim historians speak of him. Ghulam Husain Salim, author of Riyaz-us-Salatin, wrote:

"Owing to Siraj ud Dowla’s harshness of temper and indulgence, fear and terror had settled on the hearts of everyone to such an extent that no one among his generals of the army or the noblemen of the city was free from anxiety. Amongst his officers, whoever went to wait on Siraj ud Dowla despaired of life and honour, and whoever returned without being disgraced and ill-treated offered thanks to God. Siraj ud Dowla treated all the noblemen and generals of Mahabat Jang [Ali Vardi Khan] with ridicule and drollery, and bestowed on each some contemptuous nickname that ill-suited any of them. And whatever harsh expressions and abusive epithet came to his lips, Siraj ud Dowla uttered them unhesitatingly in the face of everyone, and no one had the boldness to breath freely in his presence."

Another great Muslim historian of the period, Ghulam Husain Tabatabai had this to say about him:

"Making no distinction between vice and virtue, he carried defilement wherever he went, and, like a man alienated in his mind, he made the house of men and women of distinction the scenes of his depravity, without minding either rank or station. In a little time he became detested as Pharaoh, and people on meeting him by chance used to say, ‘God save us from him!'"

A French ally in his court, by the name of Law, gave the following brief yet insightful report of this Bengali Caligula:

"He was often seen, in the season when the river overflows, causing ferry boats to be upset or sunk, in order to have the cruel pleasure of seeing the confusion of a hundred people at a time, men, women, of whom many were sure to perish."

In 1756 the British started beefing up the fortifications of Calcutta in anticipation of a French attack. Siraj saw this as a hostile act and attacked the British outpost. A few hundred English, a few Dutch, Armenians a lone Frenchman (all mostly without military training, apart from the Frenchman) held out for several days against a huge Muslim army. By their own account the enemy lost over 5,000 men.
Angered by the fight they had put up, when the walls were breached, despite a promise that quarter would be given, 146 survivors were crammed into a small room (Black Hole of Calcutta) where most died. Many Indian historians have called this a lie as they say there could not have been 140+ white men left after the siege and that the room was not big enough. I worked out on a calculator that it would have been big enough - it would have been quite a crush though - which is why they died! You will also find this written in many places on the net and in almost all history books. However from my own humble research I found that a survivor (J. Z. Holwell) had written to the East India Company in 1756...

"List of those who survived - Messrs. Holwell, Court, Secretary Cooke, Lushington, Burdett, Ensign Walcott, Mrs. Carey, Captain Mills, Captain Dickson, Mr. Moran, John Meadows and twelve military and militia, blacks and whites, some of whom recovered when the door was opened."

(Source = Echoes from Old Calcutta by H. E. Busteed, Thacker Spink & Co. 1888. Appendix A, p. 340)

Note, "blacks" so Hindus and Eurasians were in there as well. Hey, but why let the truth stand in the way of trying to make Siraj look good?

In 1757 the road to Calcutta was guarded by a Muslim stronghold called Buj Buj. After hitting it with some cannon, Sir Robert Clive hesitated in attacking it as it was thought to be too difficult. That night a lone Irish sailor got drunk and armed with a sword and pistol he(without permission) sneaked off to attack it by himself. Hearing sounds of battle from Buj Buj, Clive sent a small party to find out what the hell was going on. The Irishman had climbed through a hole in the wall made by an English cannon the previous day and attacked "some Muslims sitting on a bench". He was later seen by the reconnaissance party to be fighting a lone action and surrounded by enemy corpses. On seeing that the Irishman had been "reinforced" by the reconnaissance party, the strong Muslim force became spooked, and abandoned Buj Buj. The Irishman was later court martialled for gross breach of military discipline. He is recorded as having said 'Why, to be sure, it was I who took the fort, but I hope there was no harm in it.'
Sir Robert Clive took Muslim Bengal (a huge chunk of India double the size of today's West Bengal and Bangladesh) with almost no loss to British life.
See "Calcutta - Essays in Urban History" by the noted historian S. N. Mukherjee to see how the British returned many freedoms and commercial power to Bengal's Hindus.

TRUE STORY - BUT SO UN-PC YOU WOULD NEVER REALLY READ IT ANYWHERE.

Here's an interesting honour-killing related story from the US. Remember that Marine who fell in love with a princess from Bahrain, smuggled her out of the country, and then married her in Las Vegas in 1999?

They have recently divorced.

Here's what Jason Johnson, the ex-husband of the princess, had to say:

http://www.keralanext.com/news/readnext,1.asp?id=73290&pg=2

But the temptations of 'Sin City,' constant tensions with Al-Khalifa's powerful family and rumours of an assassination plot proved to much for their star-crossed union, Johnson said.

"The royal family made me look really bad," he told the paper.

He claimed that Federal Bureau of Investigation agents told him they had intercepted a Syrian national who said he had been paid 500,000 dollars to assassinate Al-Khalifa.

Johnson worked as a valet parker, parking the cars of hotel and casino guests, while she was increasingly tempted by the nightlife of the gambling mecca, frequenting clubs late at night and ignoring her husband, he said.

Al-Khalifa left Johnson about a year ago. "She's gone off the deep end," he said.

So... her family was going to kill her? They were willing to shell out more money than her husband will probably make in ten years as a valet to have her knocked off. Bizarre!