SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Cautious_Optimist who wrote (20541)1/31/2012 11:38:04 PM
From: average joe  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 69300
 
gregoree is from Canada he would not know the first amendment from first base. This is what religion is like in gregoree's Canada - very expensive for taxpayers.

Canada looks for ways to prevent honour killings in wake of Shafia trial

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Published Tuesday, Jan. 31, 2012 9:41PM EST

British Crown lawyers are trained in bringing perpetrators of “honour crimes” to justice. Immigrant boys in Sweden perform in plays against domestic violence. Muslim interest groups who challenge such violence have formed in the United States.

This is all taking place because young, immigrant women were so gruesomely sent to their graves by male relatives that people in these countries banded together to say “never again.”

And now, observers are asking which long-term lessons Canada will learn from the Shafia trial. How will police, teachers, social workers, and immigrants join forces to prevent any more women from meeting horrific fates?

“The lesson for me in this very sad story is, if we want to keep the legacy of Sahar, Zainab, Rona, and Geeti alive, we have to look at the issue as a national issue – a national project,” said Shahrzad Mojab, a University of Toronto expert who served as a prosecution witness.

Sunday’s first-degree murder convictions in the quadruple-homicide case have been eye-opening for Canadians – not least because the three perpetrators and four victims all came from the same nuclear family. The trial not only aired the facts of the crime, but also glaring deficits in Canada’s ability to safeguard vulnerable women and children.

Missed signals and squandered opportunities are, tragically, recurring themes in “honour” killings. When family patriarch Mohammad Shafia began threatening the lives of his daughters and first wife, the victims did not know where to turn. Some eventually sought help, only to encounter skeptical officials who failed to grasp the gravity of their peril.

Authorities in Canada are brainstorming ways to address the issue. In October, for example, government lawyers and academics met to discuss responses to honour-based violence.

“The need for training materials was central to these discussions,” Justice Canada spokeswoman Carole Saindon said in an e-mail. Pressed as to when federal authorities might actually circulate manuals, she said only that “discussions are continuing.”

Agencies in other countries, such as the Crown Prosecution Service in Britain, are further ahead.

Three years before the 2009 murders of four members of the Shafia family in Kingston, a Kurdish woman was strangled with a shoelace and stuffed in a suitcase near London. Banaz Mahmod, 20, had left a violent marriage and had told police several times that she was terrified of her relatives.

Responding to the fallout from the murder, Britain created a class of police and prosecutors who specialize in preventing and prosecuting honour killings. Social-services agencies, schools and other institutions have been looped in and encouraged to help. The strategy appears to be working. “In the U.K. there has been a greater awareness,” Aisha Gill, a researcher at Roehampton University in London, said in an interview Tuesday.

Sweden has also learned lessons. In 1999, a 19-year-old woman of Kurdish ethnicity was shot in the back. When her sister and mother tried to take her to a hospital for treatment, her assailants – all male relatives – finished her off with a bullet to the head.

The slaying of Pela Atroshi prompted Sweden to route millions of kronor to social programs – including telephone hotlines and funds for shelters for at-risk girls. Bureaucracies – health, immigration and schools – helped spread messages about equality and awareness to immigrants.

The steps have had a lasting impact in Sweden, says Ms. Mojab, the U of T researcher. “I even saw a group of young male members of different Muslim communities doing a spoken-word performance against violence in the family,” she said. “It was so encouraging.”

Some responses have been more organic. In 2008, a Pakistani immigrant in Buffalo stabbed his wife 40 times and beheaded her after she tried to divorce him. Aasiya Zubair Hassan’s murder was a rallying point for many American Muslims who went on Facebook to urge their imams to use their Friday sermons to denounce domestic violence.

“It did galvanize a zero-tolerance policy, issued from Muslim Americans, to say there is no validity for these types of actions,” said Wajahat Ali, a U.S.-based writer, in an interview. “The community said, in that moment, ‘Never again will a tragedy like Aasiya occur under our watch.’ ”

Mr. Ali, who has been following the Shafia trial in Canada, wants awareness to grow on both sides of the border. “I’m hoping what happens in Canada results in a similar response.”

With a report from Stephanie Chambers

theglobeandmail.com



To: Cautious_Optimist who wrote (20541)2/1/2012 7:19:27 AM
From: Brumar89  Respond to of 69300
 
For No Reason Except To Punish Cultures He Abhors, Obama Mandates That Catholic Organizations Must Now Pay for Abortions for Their Workers Elections have consequences. And Eric, I won.

Gershon uses the term "abortifacient" so I'm thinking this mandate doesn't cover surgical abortions, but abortion-inducing drugs such as Plan B.

But Catholics (and most pro-lifers) consider that an abortion (a hard-to-avoid conclusion when "aborti-" is right there at the start of the word).

The president had every opportunity to back down from confrontation. In the recent ­Hosanna-Tabor ruling, a unanimous Supreme Court reaffirmed a broad religious autonomy right rooted in the Constitution. Obama could have taken the decision as justification for retreat. And it would have been a minor retreat....

But the administration insisted that the University of Notre Dame and St. Mary’s Hospital be forced to pay for the privilege of violating their convictions.

Obama chose to substantially burden a religious belief, by the most intrusive means, for a less-than-compelling state purpose — a marginal increase in access to contraceptives that are easily available elsewhere. The religious exemption granted by Obamacare is narrower than anywhere else in federal law — essentially covering the delivery of homilies and the distribution of sacraments. Serving the poor and healing the sick are regarded as secular pursuits — a determination that would have surprised Christianity’s founder.

Both radicalism and maliciousness are at work in Obama’s decision — an edict delivered with a sneer. It is the most transparently anti-Catholic maneuver by the federal government since the Blaine Amendment was proposed in 1875 — a measure designed to diminish public tolerance of Romanism, then regarded as foreign, authoritarian and illiberal. Modern liberalism has progressed to the point of adopting the attitudes and methods of 19th-century Republican nativists.

But bishops are pledging to defy the law.

At least three Catholic bishops have said they will not comply with the mandate the Obama administration put in place recently in Obamacare that will force religious employers to pay for birth control, contraception and drugs that may cause abortions in their health care plans. The Anchoress finds a silver lining -- maybe this will unite Catholics.

I don't know what to say except the arrogance is breath-taking. Obama doesn't understand the point of government.

The point of government is to run an orderly house in which a great many people may live together in relative harmony despite sharply disagreeing with each other on many things.

A hotelier, if his goal is to just run a successful hotel, should not care very much if some rooms are rented by Jews, and some by Catholics, and some by atheists; and some by families, and some by pairs of cheatin' spouses.

Only if the hotelier puts his own moralism over the business would he attempt to force his guests to live by his specific rules of life.

Obama is a moralist, and an arrogant one. For all the talk of Christians being rigid moralists, the dirty little secret is that the left is far more rigidly, arrogantly moralistic, and it is cheerleaded by our cultural institutions (media, academia) rather than pushed back against, so its arrogance is encouraged.

Obama is pushing, very hard, a rigid moral system, and attempting to "shove it down the throats" of people who do not seek nor need his moral instruction.

It just happens to be that his code of morality is an unconventional one, borne not in the first century but in the twentieth, and which, when taken to extremes, has included conceptions of sexuality which are essentially Satanic in their license.

Can he make a little space for those who do not rush to embrace his Madonna Moralism?

No. For to do so would be to confess doubt about the Moral Scheme he has in mind for people; it would signal that he's not utterly certain of his own moral beliefs.

And few on the political left have any sense of modesty about any of their culture-changing schemes.

They are so right that of course the coercive power of the state -- with its machinery of stripping away the property and liberty of those who run afoul of it -- should be deployed to wipe out mendicants and heretics.

One of the most cherished rights, never expressed anywhere but truly central to any truly free society, is the right to be Wrong. By which I mean, you should not just be free to do the things which the hegemonic culture deems to be "right." No one ever tries to outlaw that which they themselves believe to be right.

What they attempt to do, of course, is outlaw that which they believe to be wrong.

If you do not respect a citizen's right to be wrong -- if your first impulse is to use the frightening machinery of state coercion to compel him to be "right," as you see "right" -- then you do not respect him at all.

This is the chief character flaw of the leftist movement -- their inability to respect anyone at all but their own. A very provincial and solipisitically childish way to view the world, of course, which leads to a vicious arrogance in attempting to pound, pound, pound square pegs into the round holes the state has cut for them.

The left would just be wrong, and not dangerous, if it weren't so arrogant about disposing of people's freedom with a single thoughtless line of legislation.

It is that, the arrogance and the profound disrespect of anyone who does not wear the feathers and warpaint of their tribe, that makes them not just wrong but sinister.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/326288.php



To: Cautious_Optimist who wrote (20541)2/1/2012 10:18:54 PM
From: Greg or e2 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 69300
 
Your snotty remarks aside. Secular Humanism is a religious viewpoint every bit as much as Christianity is. Your argument would cut both ways were it valid, but alas, that is not the case. The First amendment simply prohibits the establishment of an official State Religion by the Government. As much as you would like it to say send all the Christians to the gallows: it does not.

The founding fathers certainly didn't have the establishment of your amoral Atheistic Utopia in mind when they wrote the constitution. In fact, they based all their important assumptions on the Christian view of the intrinsic value of Human life and YES: on certain unalienable Rights which are endowed by their Creator. That would be be God: now wouldn't it?