The Shafia murders: victims of multiculturalism and political correctness

January 30, 2012 — xanthippa

Shafia:  the name has now become known worldwide for the horrific murders of 4 of this family’s members by 3 other family members.

Yesterday, the jury returned a verdict over the father/husband, wife/co-wife, and brother/step-son of the victims:  GUILTY!

Guilty of 4 counts of first degree murder!

And, while this is bound to be appealed (as such verdicts always are), it is a victory for Canada.

Yes, for Canada.

Because with this trial, we are beginning to shake the wool that has been pulled over our eyes by the social engineers who insist that we, Canadians, ought not to be treated as equals but that our rights and protections should depend solely on what special social collective we happen to be members of.

If you are unfamiliar with the back-story, here is an excellent write-up by Christie Blatchford in the Montreal Gazette:

‘“This verdict sends a very clear message about our Canadian values and the core principles in a free and democratic society that all Canadians enjoy, and even visitors to Canada enjoy,” Laarhuis said.

The “visitors” reference was a kind and graceful nod to Rona Amir Mohammad, Shafia’s unacknowledged other wife.

Unlike the rest of the sprawling clan, she was brought to Canada as a domestic servant and was on a visitor’s visa, its renewal held over her head like a axe ready to fall by her co-wife Yahya and [husband] Shafia.’

The victims did all they could to get help.
They told their teachers, who contacted the authorities.
The oldest daughter even sought sanctuary in a women’s shelter.
But, because they came from an immigrant Muslim family, the authorities valued political correctness and multiculturalism’s moral relativism more than their lives.
From The Gazette article linked above:

‘The parents were called in by school officials a number of times, but Yahya would weep, Shafia would rail furiously, and no action would be taken.

When the school called in child welfare, the same thing would happen: Denials, rage and tears from these affluent parents worked in this country. All their experience with institutional Canada gave them no reason to imagine that a small-city police force wouldn’t be similarly stymied.’

So, nobody helped the victims when they begged for help.  And now they are dead.
The father/husband, mother/co-wife and brother/step-son may have orchestrated and performed the actual murders – and their culpability is in no way to be diminished – but it was the fear that protecting these women and children might be perceived as being politically incorrect that denied them the help which, in a very real way, caused their deaths.
In the very least, this constitutes callous disregard causing death – by all the cowrdly civil servants involved.
The people in authority who were supposed to protect them, whose very positions were set up to protect people in exactly these circumstances, failed to provide this help – help which turned out to be a ‘necessity of life’.
What will happen to each end every person along the line who had failed these women and children?
What will happen to the monsters who valued political correctness higher than human lives?
Will they be charged?
Will the social workers and police officers whose actions (or lack thereof) directly put the victims at risk ever be brought to court, to account for their part in this murder conspiracy?
Will any of them even be fired?
Demoted?
Even reprimanded?
Because if they are not, if we do not insist that they also face the consequences of their actions  – more lives will be lost.
GEETI SHAFIA – 13
SAHAR SHAFIA – 17
ZAINAB SHAFIA – 19
RONA AMIM MOHAMMAD – 52
Let’s not forget them!
Posted in immigrants, society. Tags: , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Tarek Fatah discusses the Burka

January 26, 2012 — xanthippa

I have a fundamental problem with giving the government – any government – the right to regulate clothing.  From public nudity to the burqa – I am not owned by anyone else and therefore, I do not accept anyone else’s authority to dictate what I do or do not wear.

Having said this, I do agree with Mr. Fatah on just about all the important points:  private businesses must retain the right to assert dress codes on their property, even if it is open to the public.  In other words, ‘No shoes, No shirt, No face – No service’ must be at the discretion of the private business or individual (this would include taxis and private transportation firms as well as real property).

In addition, I also agree with Mr. Fatah that the government has the right – I would assert the responsibility – to ensure that people in publicly owned spaces, buildings and receiving publicly operated services (like, say, public transport) reveal their faces for ready identification, much as the Quebec government has asserted.

Perhaps some people think that this is ‘splitting hairs’, that ‘banning the burqa’ and ‘demanding facial visibility while on public property’ are the same thing.

I would beg to disagree:  they may have the same effect in the sense that a person who wishes to partake in our society must show their face to do so.  However, they are very different things because they are rooted in different principles.  (And, contrary to popular belief, that does mean something.)

The banning of a particular piece or style of clothing sets up the precedent that the government has the right to tell us how to dress.  I don’t happen to think it does.  If my neighbour decides to start walking their dog in the buff, that is their own business – I might snigger or gossip, but I certainly do not have the right to demand they ‘cover up’, so I cannot delegate that right to my elected members of parliament:  hence, the government does not have the right to tell us what to wear.

(Yes, I know, as shown in the above link, the Ontario courts of appeal have just recently upheld laws against public nudity:  and I disagree with their belief they have the jurisdiction to rule on this subject.)

Because if we give the government the power to rule over what we may or may not wear, the chador is not far off….just wait for the demographics to change a little bit.  No – we’d be much safer clearly setting the precedent that governments have no jurisdiction whatsoever over what we wear and how we wear it when we are on our own time, as private citizens.

However…

Governments do have a responsibility to deliver citizen and resident services safely and effectively.  This cannot be done if the citizens receiving/delivering the services are not readily identifiable.  Therefore, I recognize the governments’ right to demand that faces be visible for the purposes of receiving/delivering public services (and driving, voting, and so on).

In addition, governments have taken upon themselves the responsibility to deliver services without discrimination, especially without discrimination to disabled individuals.  Many people with hearing impairments partially or fully read lips in order to understand what is being said to them.  It is therefore essential that hearing disabled citizens, whether receiving or providing a government service, must be able to read the lips of all those around them – which is also a valid reason for accommodating the ‘uncovered face in public places’ policy.

So, rather than expanding government powers to cover clothing, we should use already existing laws made in order to have an inclusive society to achieve this end.

To me, there is a huge difference between the two approaches, because, after all, the means define the end!

Posted in politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , . 3 Comments »

Non-Stamp-Collector on ‘The 10 Commandments’

January 26, 2012 — xanthippa

 

Posted in atheism, religion, society. Tags: , , . Leave a Comment »

Individual Rights Party of British Columbia is getting more press attention

January 25, 2012 — xanthippa

It is difficult for new parties to get themselves known well enough for voters to consider them to be a valid choice.  That is why it is good to see that the Individual Rights Party of British Columbia is getting some good press.

This latest article is at The Eaminer, by Walker Morrow.

Posted in politics, society. Tags: , , . Leave a Comment »

One Law For All: ‘Hold this date – 11 February 2012: A Day to Defend Free Expression’

January 19, 2012 — xanthippa

One Law for All is calling for a rally in defence of free expression and the right to criticise religion on 11 February 2012 in central London from 2-4pm.

We are also calling for simultaneous events and acts in defence of free expression on 11 February in countries world-wide.

The call follows an increased number of attacks on free expression in the UK, including a 17 year old being forced to remove a Jesus and Mo cartoon or face expulsion from his Sixth Form College and demands by the UCL Union that the Atheist society remove a Jesus and Mo cartoon from its Facebook page. It also follows threats of violence, police being called, and the cancellation of a meeting at Queen Mary College where One Law for All spokesperson Anne Marie Waters was to deliver a speech on Sharia. Saying ‘Who gave these kuffar the right to speak?’, an Islamist website called for the disruption of the meeting. Two days later at the same college, though, the Islamic Society held a meeting on traditional Islam with a speaker who has called for the death of apostates, those who mock Islam, and secularist Muslims.

Whilst none of this is new, recent events reveal an increased confidence of Islamists to censor free expression publicly, particularly given the support received from universities and other bodies in the name of false tolerance, cultural sensitivity and respect.

The right to criticise religion, however, is a fundamental right that is crucial to many, including Muslims.

Clearly, the time has come to take a firm and uncompromising stand for free expression and against all forms of threats and censorship.

11 February is our chance to take that stand.

You need to be there.

Enough is enough.

NOTES:

Contact us for more information or with details of actions or events being organised outside of London:
Maryam Namazie
Anne Marie Waters
Spokespersons
One Law for All
BM Box 2387
London WC1N 3XX, UK
Tel: +44 (0) 7719166731
onelawforall@gmail.com
www.onelawforall.org.uk

To help with the costs of the rally and donate to the crucial work of One Law for All, please either send a cheque made payable to One Law for All to BM Box 2387, London WC1N 3XX, UK or pay via Paypal.

The One Law for All Campaign was launched on 10 December 2008, International Human Rights Day, to call on the UK Government to recognise that Sharia and religious courts are arbitrary and discriminatory against women and children in particular and that citizenship and human rights are non-negotiable. To join the campaign, sign our petition here.

Posted in freedoms, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , . 5 Comments »

A look at what has been happening in the EU lately

January 8, 2012 — xanthippa

From Daniel Hannan, as interviewed by RT:

And from Nigel Farage:

 

Posted in politics, society. Tags: , , , . Leave a Comment »

Justice delayed, justice denied: Gary McHale on Caledonia

January 8, 2012 — xanthippa

Gary McHale is fighting our fight!

 

Posted in corruption, freedoms, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Missouri judge rules in favour of warrantless GPS surveillance

January 3, 2012 — xanthippa

From WiredNews:

‘The ruling, upholding federal theft and other charges, is one in a string of decisions nationwide supporting warrantless GPS surveillance. Last week’s decision comes as the Supreme Court is expected to rule on the issue within months in an unrelated case.’

It seems that ‘expectation of privacy’ is dwindling so much that pretty soon, there will be no expectation of privacy for anyone, anywhere!

Just how far will we permit ‘big brother’ to stretch the ‘no expectation of privacy’?

Let’s see just how close to zero expectation of privacy we actually are, right now:

  • We  do not have it when walking around in public, as the use of surveilance cameras is being supplemented by a growing fleet of unmarked back-scatter X-ray vans roaming the urban streets.
  • We do not have it in our cars – either the built-in GPS system (like OnStar) can be accessed by ‘big brother’ or ‘big brother’ can add his own, as the above ruling shows.
  • We no longer have it in any form of electronic communication, as laws like SOPA and PIPA make warantless surveilance of all electronic communication the norm, thus removing any expectation to privacy in anything one does online, including VOIP phone calls.
  • US citizens do not have an expectation of privacy in their homes, as the courts there have ruled (I think I blogged it at the time) that using high-tech surveillance tools (including infrared detectors to monitor the movement of individuals inside the home) is perfectly legal as long as the tools are used outside of the home.

Where is left?

Truly and honestly, where do we have left where we enjoy ‘expectation of privacy’?!?!?

When you have no place left where you have ‘an expectation of privacy’, does this mean that the government has the right to monitor your every move, 24/7/365?

Is this truly the society we wish to build?

Posted in corruption, freedoms, opression, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Tommy Robinson tells details of how he was attacked by Islamists – again

January 3, 2012 — xanthippa

Posted in corruption, freedoms, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

GoDaddy: a case study in how democracy is being lost

December 29, 2011 — xanthippa

December 29th, 2011, is the official ‘Boycott GoDaddy Day’:  everyone is being encouraged to move any domain names they may have with GoDaddy

Why GoDaddy?

Let me count the ways…

Yes, GoDaddy has backtracked on their support of SOPA – but this is more than just a case of ‘too little, too late’.

GoDaddy actually helped draft SOPA – and is already one of the go-to companies when the US government  (long before SOPA ever becomes a law) wants to blacklist websites:

“That was good enough for Judge Kent Dawson to order the names seized and transferred to GoDaddy, where they would all redirect to a page serving notice of the seizure. In addition, a total ban on search engine indexing was ordered, one which neither Bing nor Google appears to have complied with yet.”

Yes – right now, long before SOPA, a judge had ordered that a website be transferred to GoDaddy in order for it to make it easier to blacklist them – following a court proceeding where the accused may not even be notified until after the ruling is made.

(Aside:  this shows that the stated goal of SOPA – to protect copyrights from pirating – is unnecessary, as all of this is already being accomplished under current laws.  The scales of justice are already very strongly tipped towards the copyright holder and against regular citizens – SOPA would not only tip them even further, it would destroy the internet as we know it.  If, say, one copyright holder complained that one single blogger at WordPress were to publish a link on their blog that led to a home movie of their kid singing a (copyrighted) pop song, under SOPA, the whole of WordPress and all the innocent blogs on it would be blacklisted!!!!  Yes – this is what life under SOPA would be, and not just in the US because the effects would be internet-wide!)

It seems GoDaddy is a willing tool at best, an active collaborator in the process of oppressing people without just process at worst.  This is the type of behaviour which enables totalitarian governments to keep their populace ‘under control’!

It is easy to see why it is so very easy for people to hate GoDaddy – even before one considers their idiotic commercials or their CEO’s weird hobby of shooting and killing elephants…

In other words, GoDaddy is a poster child for the collusion of government and business – the result of which is that government policy is increasingly shaped by the concerns (and thus passes laws to the benefit of) of a smaller and smaller circle of businesses.  This leaves the citizenry unable to affect political change, since legislators of all stripes are dependent on these corporate interests to raise sufficient funds.

Have you ever heard of the ‘four boxes’ necessary for constitutional democracy to function?

  • Soap box: A box you stand on in the street trying to explain your views to the public. Figuratively, building public opinion for your case.
  • Ballot box: Public, free, democratic elections. If the laws don’t work, and the elected representatives don’t get it, replace them.
  • Jury box: If no public representatives get it, neither the elected nor those available to elect, the second to last line of defense is the judicial system, which can overturn laws that go against the most fundamental rights.
  • Ammo box: If the system has been so thoroughly corrupted that the entire establishment is acting as one, and it is not possible to change the laws to safeguard fundamental liberties, then only one option remains.

Think about this while keeping in mind the lessons of SOPA:

  • Our soap box is being taken away on the internet using anti-piracy and anti-child-predator laws so badly written that once passed, they can be used to ‘disappear’ any voice on the internet the government does not like – at the same time as anti-terrorism laws coupled with classifying even non-violent protesters as ‘low-grade terrorists’  and the rise of anti-blasphemy legislation is stripping our rights to speak our minds in public.
  • Our ballot box has been made irrelevant:  the political process has been so twisted that now, in order to get elected, governments are less reliant on the citizenry than they are on an ever-narrowing circle of corporate and special interests.  We, the regular people, no longer believe that it makes any difference whom we vote for, because all the politicians are responding to the needs of this circle,, not to the citizens.  THAT is why the voter turnouts are falling so rapidly:  ordinary people believe that the ballot box has been lost to irrelevance…
  • The Jury box:  that is where we are now!  We are now relying on the last of the checks and balances – the judiciary – to protect us.  But, if the above-linked ruling and the Austrian ruling against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff are any indication, we are quickly but surely loosing our third box, on both sides of the big pond!
  • Which inevitably leaves us with the very last box:  the ammo box…  This is not something I would like to see happen, but we must never forget that all our rights exist only as long as we are prepared to take up arms to defend them…which is why there is such a direct link between how oppressive a government is and how much it wishes to disarm its citizens.

So, how did we get from the GoDaddy boycott to taking up arms in defense of our innate rights?

GoDaddy has highlighted just how close we are to having lost our first three boxes.

It has highlighted just how high the stakes are.

It has shown us just how hard we have to fight so that our society does not devolve to that fourth box!

Posted in corruption, freedoms, politics, society, technology, war. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »
« Older posts
Newer posts »