An excellent post by Mr. Robson: “They mean what they say”.
It is not just disrespectful to dismiss what people say they believe and what they will do – it is dangerous. And arrogant.
John Robson is, yet again, right.
Recent Comments
RSS feed
Will we be complicit in the ‘honour killing’ of Rifqa Bary?
September 18, 2009 — xanthippaAre we about to hand Fathima Rifqa Bary to the custity of people who swore to murder her?
It would not be unprecedented…
14-year-old Konerak Sinthasomphone escaped from Jeffrey Dahmer, but the police officers handed the unfortunate boy back to the sadistic murderer, even while smelling the decomposing body of a previous victim… The cops even laughed about the whole thing!
Have we not learned anything?
Rifqa Bary is a 17-year-old, all-American girl, an honour student, a cheerleader, and a battered child. Perhaps it was her father’s violence towards her, perhaps it was something else. The fact remains that Rifqa converted from Islam to Christianity….and, following phone calls and emails to the family from their local Mosque, her father told her he must kill her to cleanse the family honour of her apostasy.
Fearing for her life, Rifqa fled from her home in Columbus, Ohio, to Florida. She did all the ‘right’ things: she removed herself from the most immediate danger and directly asked us – the society – to protect her. The Florida authorities took charge of Rifqa and her ‘case’.
Is she being taken seriously? Or…
Is she ‘just another rebellious teenager’ – as far as the very people who are supposed to protect her are concerned?
Is she ‘yet another teen run-away’ who ‘ought to be returned home, into the custody of her parents?
Is she simply an ‘attention-seeking teen’ who ought to learn some respect and obey her parents’ rules?
May be, may be not!
With her life at stake, the ‘authorities’ ought to take great care to find out. That, however, does not seem likely…
If you have not heard Rifqa’s story, it is documented here. Here is a ‘short version‘ from ‘Atlas Shrugs‘ (her version has MANY links with deeper info).
In a nutshell, in July 2009, the 17-year-old Rifqa got on a bus and fled to Florida. Now, she is in foster care supervised by the Department of Children and Family in Florida Juvenile Court Circuit Judge Daniel Dawson, who is presiding over Rifqa’s case, had ordered a report to assess just how much this 17-year-old apostate is in from her family and Mosque, before he decides Rifqa’s fate.
So far, not that bad.
Except that…
Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) has just released their report – the one which assesses the threat to Rifqa. And, the report is, to say the least, a curious piece of work which could actually endanger this young woman’s life!
The FDLE report is, in my eyes, unexplicable. Not only did they not interview most of the witnesses and people most close to Rifqa (whom they interrogated for hours, without her lawyer or any other representative present) and then concluded that there were no people who corroborated her story, not only did they disregard the facebook group which bears her name, and whose over a hundred members are openly calling for her death because she is an apostate…they did not even consider an incident which her father ADMITS TO! They never asked about the incidents her mother admitted to!
But, they respectfully interviewed CAIR (an Islamist organization with known ties to terrorist groups – and which is facing many charges of intimidation against moderate Muslims). The FDLE even allowed CAIR to control their ‘investigation,’ ‘helping them choose’ whom to interview, and how!
These *#$)(#%$ people actually refused to consider the tradition ‘honour killing’ or how it might relate to Rifqa and her current situation… as in, do her parents and their friends (and co-religionists, along with the prevailing views at the Mosque they take their guidance from) subscribe to the belief that they must kill Rifqa for rejecting Islam and becoming a Christian.
Why?
“An investigation into any person, religious or social organization without a specific identifiable criminal predicate is inappropriate.”
Is this what our society has been reduced to?
Here is ‘Center for Security Policy’s’ review of the FDLE report – the FDLE report is included.
Now, please, excuse me – I have to go shopping for a burka…
When ‘spokespeople’ tarnish the whole group…
September 9, 2009 — xanthippaYet again, a few ‘spokespeople’ claiming to represent a rich (in human qualities – not wealth!) and diverse community have done a great disservice to themselves and all the people they claim to speak for. In one moment, they have erased the individuality of the members of their group, and chosen to cast them all in the role of extremists… all in the role of victims. (I will not identify this specific incident until later on in the post, because it is essential that I explain my disgust with the behaviour in general, before focusing on the specific.)
This happens so often, and in so varied groups, one could perhaps argue that it is one of the defining attributes of humanity. This one, however, is as unhelpful and counterproductive as it is predictable.
Why?
Well, first, let’s consider who usually ‘speaks for a group’ – as an unofficial spokesperson:
- A professional communicator, who understands how to get their message across?
- A wise and respected person, who has the full backing of the ‘group’?
- A moderate, who gets along with everyone, whether members of ‘the group’ or other people, and works hard to make sure everyone understands all points, so there is no chance for a slight to arise from a misunderstanding?
- An extremist and/or someone who wants to manipulate people within the group into feeling like they are ‘under attack’ in order to gain some amount of manipulative control over them?
Let’s consider them, one at a time:
1. A professional communicator, who understands how to get their message across
Professional communicators are usually professionals, who cost a lot of money. Therefore, they tend to be ‘official’ spokespeople, not ‘unofficial ones’ when it comes to ‘unorganized groups’. Still, some sub-groups – which might wish to manipulate the rest of the ‘group’, might choose to hire professional communicators. However, the message these professionals deliver is not in the interest of the larger group, but instead only serves whatever the purposes of the sub-group that hired it. In other words, if the spokesperson IS a professional communicator, one must ask who hired him, and to what purpose.
2. A wise and respected person, who has the full backing of the ‘group’
Well – these are usually called ‘official spokespeople’ – on the grounds that they actually have the ‘backing of the whole group’. So, by definition, unofficial spokespeople do not fall into category #2.
3. A moderate, who gets along with everyone, whether members of ‘the group’ or other people, and works hard to make sure everyone understands all points, so there is no chance for a slight to arise from a misunderstanding
Well, again, not likely. Moderates usually do not have the desire – or feel the need to – speak out. It is enough for them to be secure in who they are, because they know that real bigotry is the problem of the bigot and perceived bigotry is not worth bothering with. There is, of course, an exception to this: when even the moderates within the group feel threatened, they will speak out.
However, that is not the situation I am attempting to address here: it is an essential distinction! When the whole of a group is truly threatened, then it is essential that the moderates are the ones who speak out. So, how do we tell the situations apart? It has been my experience that when moderates speak out, they speak for themselves – and they clearly state that they have no pretentions of speaking for everyone else. They will share their experiences – and only by listening to their stories will one realize that it is not just this one individual who is affected, but other members of the community, too. When people speak up and, before they even get to tell you what happened to them, personally, they start out by saying that ‘the group’ as a whole is being threatened, when they begin by claiming that they speak for ‘everyone’ – without having an ‘official spokesperson’ status – then, in my never-humble-opinion, one is justified in suspecting a manipulation.
Which kind of brings me to #4: An extremist and/or someone who wants to manipulate people within the group into feeling like they are ‘under attack’ in order to gain some amount of manipulative control over them ….
Ah, yes…I think I’ve made this point already.
Please, judge for yourself if in this instance, we are dealing with #1, 2, 3 or 4:
An MP (Member of Parliament) sent (several versions of) a brochure to his constituents, now that the Human Rights Tribunal has ruled that Section 13(1) of our Human Rights Code conravenes the Canadian Constitution. In that brochure, the MP criticized ‘radical Muslim voices’ who, in many peoples’ opinions, abused this section of the HR code.
The key word here is ‘RADICAL’!
He did not criticize Muslims, or even the majority of Muslims, or any such thing. He clearly (and, if the reports are accurate, unequivocally) specified that it was the extremists whom he was referring to.
This did not stop ‘unofficial spokespeople’ (though some claim to be official, since there is no external, universally accepted authority structure in Islam, it is not possible to actually have an ‘official spokesperson for all Muslims’ – by the very tenets of Islam!) from claiming that this MP had attacked ALL Muslim people!
Take note: this is an important distinction!
The MP specified he was referring to a few extremist voices only.
The ‘spokespeople’ claimed he had maligned ALL Muslims!
Even a cursory application of logic makes it clear that these ‘spokespeople‘ are making the extravagant patently false claim that ALL MUSLIMS ARE EXTREMISTS!
I’m sorry, but I do not believe that for a moment!
More than just ‘believe’ – I KNOW it is not true! One of my favourite cousins is a Muslima – and she is certainly not an extremist! She is a wonderful person – I wish more people were like she is, because then more of us would get along without all these manipulations and ‘stuff’!
These self-appointed loudmoths do NOT speak for her! I know, because I asked her. THEY did NOT!
And, I want those ‘spokespeople’ to be found and dragged in front of the whole world community to answer for their slanderous misrepresentation of many, many excellent Canadians!
It is THEY who is spreading hate and division and discord among us!
It is high time they were held responsible for their evil deeds!
H/T: Blazing Catfur whose site now includes the brochres which triggered this ‘outrage’.
Connie at FreeDominion has 6 pdf’s of the brochures.
P.S.: If you would like to say a few supportive words to the MP, his address is Anders.R@parl.gc.ca
s[ection]. 13(1) in conjunction with ss. 54(1) and (1.1) are inconsistent with s. 2(b) of the Charter
September 2, 2009 — xanthippaToday is a day to celebrate!
Today, we have seen the first acquittal in Human Rights trial under Section 13(1) – the ‘Thought Crimes’ section!
Athanosis Hadjis delivered the decision, which included the following:
…I have also concluded that s. 13(1) in conjunction with ss. 54(1) and (1.1) are inconsistent with s. 2(b) of the Charter, which guarantees the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. The restriction imposed by these provisions is not a reasonable limit within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter.
YES!!!
Now that we have a ruling that the infamous Section 13(1) is inconsistent with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the road is paved to having it repealed!
The ‘frog in hot water’ story…
September 1, 2009 — xanthippaFirst of all, I must say that I do not approve of this sort of experiments. Not at all.
Still, this story is worth learning from:
If someone puts a frog into a pot of very hot water, the frog will jump out of the pot. BUT, if one puts the frog into a pot of cool water, and then heats it up very, very slowly, the frog will not jump out – it will allow itself to be boiled!
Because the temperature is increasing so slowly, there is no ‘trigger’ to signal the danger in the frog…so the frog takes no action to avoid it!
When it comes to our rights and freedoms, we are a lot like these frogs: because our rights are being eroded very, very slowly, we just sit there and allow it to go on and on and on, without lifting a finger to try and preserve the very rights and freedoms which define our society.
Because the process of erosion of our rigthts is so slow and gradual, we lack the ‘trigger’, that one ‘oppression’ which is, on its own, worth standing up and starting to fight!
And that is, in a very real way, true. No single little encroachment on our rights, no new little oppression, is, by itself, so big that it alone would be worthy of a ‘revolt‘. That is why it is so easy to ridicule those who get incensed about it!
But it is the continuous process of steady and unmistakable – and, it seems, unavoidable – usurption of our rights, encroachment on our freedoms, which is going to leave us slaves of The State:
- The State will control what we can spend all of our money on (they will tax just about all our disposable income and only give us ‘tax-rebates’ to buy the products they ‘approve’: an ‘allowance’ which we will only ‘get’ if we spend it ‘the right way’)
- The State will control what medical care is warranted, and when, and who maybenefit from it and who may not (many ‘smokers’ are already being denied medical treatment…just the tip of the iceberg: the justification that ‘we are all paying into Medicare, so we have the right what ‘risks’ to your health you must avoid’ will be used more and more to control people’s private behaviour, threatening to deny medical treatment to those who do not comply) (OK – I worded this badly…I am trying to get across that The State already does, and will do so more and more, use the justification that it is ‘paid into by’ everyone’ – so ‘everyone’ has the responsibily to only use it ‘wisely’ – and since they are administering it, they get to decided what is ‘using it wisely’ ‘ to weild ‘Medicare’ as a means of controlling more and more of our behaviours.)
- The State already controls what we may or may not eat/put into our body – and these laws are becoming more and more intrusive, and will continue this trend
- The State is passing more and more laws which erode private property rights and regulate how we may or may not behave while we are ‘in our private homes’
- The State already controls education
- More and more people are becoming directly or indirectly employed by The State, as The State is increasingly usurping the roles of private businesses: this gives The State even more intrusive control over the populationwhile effectively suppressing dissent (most people are afraid to ‘bite the hand that feeds them’)
- The State is increasingly controlling what we may or may not say – and has even, through its singularly misnamed ‘Human Rights Commissions/Tribunals’ – found a way to punish people for thinking forbidden thoughts!
- …the list goes on and on and on…
And because each tiny little step is so small, we are letting it happen!
We should pay attention to the ‘frog in hot water’ story, before it is too late to ‘jump out of the pot’!
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 