John Oakley speaks out on the denial from Muslim leaders about the death of Aqsa Parvez. "John Oakley on the death of Aqsa Parvez: Denial is not an option," by Marni Soupcoff in the National Post (thanks to all who sent this in):
To all those Muslims bent out of shape over the characterization of the murder of a sixteen year old Mississauga girl as an “honour killing”, chill. Your complaint of collective character assassination by an irresponsible media bent on sensationalism is a little rich; kind of a case of “methinks thou doth protest too much.” No one is on a witch hunt here trying to demonize an entire faith, but rather to get to the bottom of what seems to be a nasty little secret within a certain segment of the community; women are treated as second-class citizens. If that is, in fact, at the root of violence and abuse meted out by some Muslim men, it’s high time to take ownership and confront the elephant in the room. Those of us who are Catholics were made to feel guilt by association over the scandal of some brothers abusing young boys, even when the vast majority of priests were exemplary models of their calling. The Church had to deal with it. Now it’s your turn. Denial is not an option.
Major difference between Catholic dogma from the Bible that views it as a sin to mistreat those weaker then yourself and Islamic dogma from the Kookran that sanctifies such behavior.
The attempts by muslim spokespersons to sweep the tragic murder of Aqsa Parvez under the rug are astounding. They appear to believe we infidels are stupid, as well as blind and deaf. "Domestic violence" and "a teenage issue", my ass. Canadians are not so easily fooled. Already there are many videos on YouTube about this incident. People are actually beginning to wake up!
"what seems to be a nasty little secret within a certain segment of the community; women are treated as second-class citizens."
-- from the article above
The phrase "second class citizens" -- a phrase also used about non-Muslims in Muslim-dominated countries, -- does not convey the full scope of the mistreatment, a mistreatment that in the cases of both women and non-Muslims, does not change, or steadily diminish over time (as it did in the case of blacks in the American South after segregation in schools was ended "with all deliberate speed" and other forms of legalized discrimination declared unconstitutional, from lunch-counters to municipal swimming pools). The word "citizens" too, misleadingly implies a Muslim polity, of the kind we have in the West, of which those women and non-Muslims can be "citizens." But the very word "citizen" implies people with political autonomy, in advanced democracies, their rights enshrined in the law, their governments dependent on the expression of the will of those "citizens" in regular elections, in opinion polls, in all the activities that "citizens" of advanced democracies engage in.
Can one use the word "citizen" about Saudi Arabia? Are the people in the Sudan, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Pakistan in any sense "citizens" of their respective states? Or are they more akin to subjects, pushed about, and above all, self-subjugated to the dictates of Islam, "slaves of Allah" ideally, who if they begin to act up, begin to act as if they wish to considered akin to Western "citizens" are overwhelmed by the vast primitive masses of Muslims, lead by clerics, who have on their side the texts of Islam, that those "citizens" cannot confront, deny, or wish away, and therefore the small groups of the enlightened, in Pakistan or elsewhere, will continue to fail, until one or more of three happens one.
The first is that the people in this or that Muslimi state willingly submit, for a while, to an enlightened despot of the Atatruk school, someone who is strong enough to systematically constrain Islam as a political and social force, and over time to create a secular class, one large enough to permanently expand on the original despot's plans, and to defend secularism from the Rasputin-like re-appearance of the True Believers. Apparently, as the example of Turkey teaches, not even Ataturk, whose cult of personality lived on, and whose Kemalism did so much to limit the power of Islam over Turkish minds, did not do enough, or his successors did not do enough, to ensure that the erbakans and erdogans -- who want Islam back, back in all the places from which the Kemalists had banned it -- would not re-appear, and succeed, as they have been.
The second is that an outside power force changes upon them, as the Soviet Union did, when it, in many places successfully, managed to smash Islam (as it smashed other religions) in Central Asia, and raised up several generations of people who were not inclined to return to Islam, even if they shared the general resentment at Soviet power. The Islamic movements in several of the five stans, have so far been crushed, in some cases using methods no Western state would dare to use.
The third is that the Western powers, unable to put pressure of the kind the European powers did on the Ottomans so that they would change the legal mistreatment of the rayas, or communities of non-Muslims, under Ottoma rule, will do something else: show, again and again, that Islam is the cause of the failures of Islamic states and socities. Instead of trying to rescue or aid Muslim peoples, with huge infusions of Infidel money, aid that quickly becomes impossible to end (for fear of "offending" the donors) and that the Muslim recipients quickly regard as theirs by right, which is pocketed, and pocketed, but for which no real or lasting gratitude is felt)--in other words, the aid becomes Jizyah -- the West should insist that the aid for poor Muslims should come from the fabulously rich Muslim oil states, with their tiny populations, and their trillions of dollars, with which they are now buying up large stakes all over the Western world, not least in media companies.
Any one or more than one of these might help create, as in Turkey, "citizens" rather than subjects. But for now, the phrase "second-class citizens" misleads in two ways. The word "citizen" does not describe the reality of the Musliim in a Muslim nation-state, but conveys a false idea of the Muslim polity. And the phrase "second-class citizen" does not adequately convey the mistreatment, deep, systematic and permanent, of women and, especially, of non-Muslims in a state where Islam dominates and Muslims rule.
And in what sense can a woman living in Mississisauga, Canada be a "second-class citizen" of the Canadian state? She is not. But she is subject to a state withint the state, one that inflicts, even if it is not the law of th eland, all of the cruelties of the Shari'a, of the texts, and the tenets, and the attitudes, and the atmospherics, of Islam, that are carried about by Muslims who take their Islam seriously in their mental baggage, wherever they go, whatever the particular passport they acquire). That "virtual state" exists wherever Believers exist. Sometimes they act on the dictates of that virtual state; sometimes, they prudently do not. But even if they do not, that may merely reflect their desire to stay deep within Infidel lands, to protect their own position, and to practice as much taqiyya-and-tu-quoque, to keep up a steady fog-machine of distraction and confusion, and not for a month but for years and years, until their numbers swell, and their power grows, until it is too late, or so it may seem, for Infidels to protect themeselves and their legal and political institutions adequately. It is an amazing feat, one would have said an impossible feat, save for the willingness, as we have seen, of so many in the Western world to remain wilfully ignorant and to participate in their own long-term bamboozlement and, alas, destruction.
"Second-class citizen" rather fails to describe the condition of many (probably most) Moslem women in Canada (and the West in general). It implies that they occupy some status like that of many blacks in the American South in the Jim Crow era, i.e. citizens who in practice do not share in all the rights of citizenship. In fact, Moslem women in Canada have a dual status: the Canadian authorities treat them as full citizens, like blacks in America today; but their Moslem "community" treats them as not citizens at all, but as property, the property of their fathers or husbands, a condition more akin to that of black slaves in the antebellum South. Indeed, their condition is in some ways worse than that of the slaves. For one thing it was against the law for to kill a slave.
In the same vein, read "Denial is Sickening" by Michael Coren in the Toronto Sun. Here's the first paragraph and the link:
It's the episode of Little Mosque on the Prairie that I missed. The one where the father is so angry with his teenage daughter for not wearing the hijab that he strangles her to death. Perhaps it will be in the special features section of the DVD version, released just in time for the holiday that used to be known as Christmas, but not any longer because the word might hurt someone's feelings.
Read it all at: http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Coren_Michael/2007/12/15/4725863.php
"a nasty little secret"
What? Honor Killings aren't a "secret"!
Who hasn't heard of Honor Killings?
"it’s high time to take ownership and confront the elephant in the room. Those of us who are Catholics were made to feel guilt by association over the scandal of some brothers abusing young boys, even when the vast majority of priests were exemplary models of their calling. The Church had to deal with it. Now it’s your turn. Denial is not an option."
-- from a posting above
Catholic priests who molested altar boys were not following the teachings of Christianity. Those Muslims who teach that women must be submissive, must wear certain clothing for example, if told that the Shari'a or their menfolk demand it, and who are perfectly willing to mete out punishment themselves to a woman who disobeys -- imagine what happens in Saudi Arbia, Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan in those places where the Infidels are not in control, to to women who fail to wear the burqa or its equivalent -- can find their justification in the texts, and the interstices of the texts, of Islam.
That is a big difference. In the case of sexual molestation by, at most, a few hundred Catholic priests, no textual authority exists, not a text or a tenet, in Christianity, to justify what those priests did. In the case of Islam, three is considerable textual authority, for the punishment of a disobedient woman, who fails to observe the injunction to dress "modestly" and for men to be the sole arbiters of what, in women's dress, is to be demanded, and what prohibited. The texts, tenets, attitudes of Islam all support those who would inflict punishment on a disobedient female, whether 16 or 60. In a Muslim-dominated country, we already know what would happen to a man who killed his daughter for such a reason, and we know why.
Canada, fortunately, is not yet a Muslim-dominated country.
The really strange thing about islamania, is the women have been so thoroughly brainwashed that they parrot the line about not being oppressed. It is like the men use the "Jedi mind trick"®
Every non-Muslim woman in Canada should be rising up against this murder and the deadly belief system that made it happen.
"I am woman. Hear me roar". Well, ladies: get up and ROAR!!!
THIS is what sharia, Muslim religious law, is: a girl getting MURDERED by her own dad because she sometimes didn't wear the Muslim headscarf.
Canadian women: in Muslim-dominated countries NON-MUSLIM women are forced to 'cover up' too. Do you want to be forced to wear the headscarf, the veil, the abaya? To be assaulted, even killed, if you're caught out without it? There are Muslims who really do dream of turning Canada into a Muslim despotism - and if they do, that is what will happen. You will be a frightened dhimmi, forced to wear whatever your Muslim lords and masters decree that you should wear, on pain of death for yourself and your whole community.
You don't want that to happen? Then ROAR, before it's too late.
This infernal religion is like the Mafia: it KILLS people on the mere suspicion of their wanting to leave it.
You don't want Islam in Canada. Think about it.
No Islam = no jihad (no murderous plots to hold parliament hostage and behead the Prime Minister!!!).
No Islam = no de facto sharia (i.e. no strangling of teenage girls as punishment for the heinous sin of wearing Un-Islamic Clothes; no murderous pursuit of any Muslim who decides to choose a different faith - I'll BET there are, right there in Canada, former Muslims who've become Christians, or whatever, and are in hiding because their nearest and dearest would otherwise hunt them down and kill them - it's happening in Britain so I'm sure it's happening in Canada too).
The difference is that Catholics are genuinely peaceful, whereas muslims only claim to be, in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are anything but peaceful. When was the last time you heard about a Catholic "honor killing"?