UPDATED: If Canadians are Islamophobic, perhaps there's a reason

The Canadian mania for self-flagellation ["Is that a sin, Father?" Ed.] continued last week with back-to-back conferences on anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, which, as everyone knows, are hard-wired into all "old stock" (read: white Christian) Canucks.

Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, MVS (Master of Virtue Signalling) told a "national summit on Islamophobia" on Friday that "government agencies need to do more to help end the problem." Canadians [as well as Americans! Ed.] cringe when they hear words like that. "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you," is one of the Three Greatest Lies in the English language.

What does Blackie McBlackface have in mind? This, for starters. Now that the Americans are admitting defeat and getting out of Afghanistan, there are 1000s of Afghans who collaborated with them (and the Canucks, who hauled down their maple leaf flag years ago) clamouring for asylum before the Taliban can behead them.

On Friday, M Trudeau announced that those Quislings and their families will be "welcomed" to Canada as refugees. Who will do the welcoming is unclear, as are specifics of the plan, but (Just in sez) his minions are on the ground in Afghanistan, working to identify those eligible for a new "path to protection." 

The Canadian public seems not to share their leader's sentiments. Comments in the Groan & Wail were unavailable due to "technical difficulties" within an hour of the story being posted.

In his opening remarks at the snorefest, Mr Socks called on the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and federal security agencies to stop practices that "target" Muslims. He repeated the "diversity is our strength" mantra, calling on weary Canucks to fight for a Canada "where we celebrate diversity, where we stand together." 

How the CRA and federal security agencies will "help" is as unclear as anything else M Trudeau says, but Agent 3 warns that if anyone dares to write, say or even think anything even vaguely anti-Muslim, they can expect visits from the tax guys and/or the Mounties. M-106 is still in effect!

When he spoke of "security agencies",  the Canuck PM somehow failed to mention the Toronto Police Service, one of whose members -- Constable Jeffrey Northrup -- was laid to rest just a few days earlier, having been killed by a vehicle in the city hall parking garage while trying to apprehend Umar Zameer, who now faces a charge of first-degree murder. PC Northrup's bosses have declined to released any information on Mr Zameer's nationality, ethnicity, religion or immigration status. M-106.

Yesterday saw the opening of an inquest into another "interaction" between police and a follower of the Prophet, although this time it was the civilian who got killed. Ali Zaraeeneh was shot by a York Regional Police sniper on 13 December 2017, inside a bank in the city of Vaughan, just north of Toronto. He was armed with a gun and claimed to be wearing an explosive "suicide vest". Negotiators were called to the scene to reason with the "emotionally disturbed" man, but police were ultimately forced to "use lethal force in order to gain control of the suspect."

Three years ago last week, another "emotionally disturbed" "new Canadian" shot and killed himself in Toronto's Greektown, after first shooting and killing 10-year-old Juliana Kozis and 18-year-old Reese Fallon, and wounding 13 other people. Faisal Hussain opened fire on people sitting on restaurant patios and walking along Danforth Avenue, for no apparent reason. 

The so-called Greater Toronto Area is the destination of choice for 1000s of immigrants, "refugees" and asylum-seekers fleeing the Muslim civil wars in the Middle East. There's no news from there this morning, but in Montréal -- preferred by Muslims from North Africa -- police have just cancelled an Amber Alert for 16-year-old Zahraa Jaafar, after she was found alive. She had reportedly been abducted by her brother, Mohammad Jaafar, 22, in what was undoubtedly an affair having to do with the family's honour.

Of course not all the "refugees", asylum-seekers and other Muslim immigrants are like that. Some of the followers of the "Religion of Peace" (TM) are actually peaceful people who work as Uber drivers or run shawarma shops or halal butcheries. But with a federal election almost certain to be called for the fall, and immigration being a top-of-the-mind issue for Canuck voters (so much so that pollsters won't even ask about it -- M-106), M Trudeau will probably not show up for a photo-op with the next planeload.

UPDATE ADDED 29/7/21:  Toronto Police are looking for the public's help in find someone who our old friend Mark Steyn would call "yet another Mohammed". Mohammed Maboob is a suspect in an investigation into two instances of sexual assault that took place over the course of this summer. 

It is alleged that on June 9th, a 49-year-old woman was sexually assaulted in the Firvalley Court and Warden Avenue area. In a second incident, police say a 27-year-old woman was sexually assaulted in the Victoria Park and Danforth avenues area. 

Mr Maboob, age 55 [Really? 55?! Ed.] is wanted for two counts of sexual assault and one count of fail to comply with a release order. (That means he was already out on bail.) Police have said nothing about his ethnicity, religion or immigration status.

Saudi sisters' suspicious deaths -- MEA CULPA

I am glad, now, that when I wrote "Saudi sisters' suspicious 'suicide'" (WWW 31/10/18) I didn't use the old joke ending "Worst case of suicide I ever saw." It turns out -- and this is my apology to the family of Tala and Rotana Farea -- that their deaths were not affairs of "honour" after all. New York City police are now saying that the girl, found dead on the banks of the Hudson River on 24 October, preferred suicide over returning to Saudi Arabia. Let that sink in....

NYPD Chief of Detectives Dermot Shea said sources in Virginia, where the Farea sisters had previously been living, informed investigators that the two women had been in the United States for two to three years and would "rather inflict harm on themselves and commit suicide than return to Saudi Arabia.... Everything that we’ve seen thus far is pointing to something other than a crime taking place," he said at a presser this afternoon, "but we're not ruling anything out."

Chief Shea went on to say that detectives believe the women may have applied for asylum in the USA after alleging that they were victims of abuse. A witness told police he saw the women in a park on West 158th Street in Upper Manhattan on the morning of October 24th, while he was out exercising. They were sitting about 30 feet apart with their heads in their hands and appeared to be praying, the witness said. They were seen floating along the Hudson River that afternoon.

The sisters, whose bodies were loosely bound together with duct tape, were found lying on rocks near the river, fully clothed in black jackets with fur trim and black leggings. There were no obvious signs of trauma, and detectives believe the women were alive when they entered the water. Their bodies are believed to have washed ashore with the tide and stayed when it went out, said Chief Shea. The investigation continues, and the medical examiner's office will ultimately determine the cause of the girls' deaths.

"Muslim-American" teen burned with hot oil for dishonouring family

This is Maarib Al-Hishmawi, a 16-year-old "Muslim-American" girl who ran away from her San Antonio TX home at the end of January, because she refused to take part in a marriage arranged for her by her parents.

And these are her "Muslim-American" parents, Abdulah Fahmi Al-Hishmawi, 34, and Hamdiyah Saha Al-Hishmawi, 33.

Ma and Pa Al-Hishmawi were arrested last Friday on charges of "coninuous family violence", including physically and mentally abusing their daughter. Among other things, they allegedly threw hot cooking oil on her. Why? Because by refusing the marriage, she dishonoured the family. After all, they gave the putative groom's family their word!

Bexar County police say that in 2017, the couple told their daughter that a man in another city had offered them $20,000 for her hand in marriage, which she was to accept. When Maarib refused, police said, her parents beat her with broomsticks, choked her, and poured hot cooking oil on her. Bexar County Sheriff Javier Salazar told the meeja on Friday, "The only way that this young lady could bring an end to this abuse was to verbally agree to become a party to this marriage."

Instead, the girl went missing on January 30th, after leaving her high school campus. The FBI launched an investigation and found her in mid-March, though they have not disclosed where she was located. She and her five siblings have all been placed with Child Protective Services. No information has been made available as to the family's immigration status or what will happen to the parents if they are convicted of this "crime of honour".

Don't let the liberals scare you into silence about radical Islam!

Unlike their prime minister, Just-in-from-Davos Trudeau, not all Canadians are rabid Islamophiles. [An "Islamophile" is someone who likes or even loves Islam and all the believers in the so-called Religion of Peace, even those who cut off other people's heads to prove how peaceful and tolerant they are. Ed.] One Canuck who thinks Islamic extremists pose a clear and present threat to North America, not to mention the rest of the world, is Candice Malcolm, a nationally syndicated columnist with Post Media and the best-selling author of Losing True North: Justin Trudeau's Assault on Canadian Citizenship.

Ms Malcolm has master's degrees in international law and international relations, and splits her time between Toronto, Vancouver, and northern California. She is a fellow [Eh? Ed.] of the Center for a Secure Free Society, a Washington-based think tank, and the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. She also contributes to TheRebel.media, and yes, it hasn't been silenced yet!

Here, in its entirety, is an op-ed piece she wrote recently for the Post newspapers [not WaPo, another Post! Ed.], headlined "Don't let them tell you it's wrong to criticize radical Islam". Walt congratulates the Post people for publishing it, in spite of Canada's infamous Motion M-103, in the name of which most of the (((controlled media))) are already practising the loathsome self-censorship which very soon will make thoughts like these unspeakable and unprintable.

In 2011, then Prime Minister Stephen Harper said "Islamicism" posed the greatest threat to Canada's national security. In the seven years since, we've experienced a tidal wave of unpredictable and grossly inhumane jihadist terrorist attacks across the West, including here at home. Harper was right about the rising threat of jihadists armies and emboldened Islamists.

And yet, Harper's comment was met with scorn and ridicule by Canadian elites – particularly Liberal Party politicians and leftist members of the mainstream media. The Toronto Star said Harper "systematically mined anti-Muslim prejudices", while Justin Trudeau drew an absurd equivalency between Harper's treatment of Muslims in Canada and Jews fleeing Nazi Germany.

The Left wants to paint mainstream Canadians as bigots – and worse, they want to scare us into thinking that criticizing Islamists and discussing the threat of jihadists terrorism is a form of racism. It's a scare tactic, employed to silence critics. This Leftist strategy has been repeated so often, the words are losing their meaning.

Last year, I wrote a column about a man who was found guilty of beating his wife with a hockey stick for half an hour. This wasn't my opinion, it was a fact. A Syrian refugee was the victim of a horrific beating by her angry and abusive husband. I was shining a light on the well-documented problem of spousal abuse within the Syrian refugee community, and yet, my report made me the subject of a Leftist witch-hunt.

Liberal strategist Bruce Anderson said I should be fired from my job, a Canadaland host said I had written a "racist screed", and a Buzzfeed blogger accused me of "smearing all Syrian refugees." This hysteria is part of a troubling trend.

The former Conservative government was also accused of bigotry after they changed the Citizenship Guide given to all newcomers to include the following warning: "In Canada, men and women are equal under the law. Canada's openness and generosity do not extend to barbaric cultural practices that tolerate spousal abuse, 'honour killings', female genital mutilation, forced marriage or other gender-based violence. Those guilty of these crimes are severely punished under Canada's criminal laws."

This statement is both true and important, and yet Trudeau opposed it, insisting it was pejorative and overly judgmental. Trudeau is drunk off the Kool-Aid of official multiculturalism, he believes we should never criticize other cultures – even when their practices are cruel and barbaric. Likewise, last month Trudeau accused Opposition Leader Andrew Scheer of "Islamophobia" because Scheer asked a legitimate question about national security and returned ISIS fighters.

If asking a question about terrorism makes someone "Islamophobic", how can we ever address the issue of Islamist extremism and terrorism? Trudeau's pitiful tactics are meant to smear his critics and scare others in to silence. [Note from Walt: That is also the purpose of M-103. For more on this devilish quasi-legislation, see "AfD parliamentarian's account blocked for anti-Muslim Tweet", WWW 2/1/18.]

The term "useful idiot" was coined during the Cold War to describe Marxists living in the West who defended Communism and spread Soviet propaganda. These apologists hid the ghastly crimes committed by Communist regimes because they believed in the same ideology. Just as useful idiots once apologized for Communism and overlooked its fatal flaws, today's useful idiots insist that those who criticize the ideas and actions of Islamists are racists, bigots and "Islamophobic".

Under their dogma of multiculturalism, Leftists have twisted themselves into a moral pretzel. They insist it's wrong to criticize other cultures, and have thus aligned themselves with a deeply illiberal cause: defending any and all Muslims – including violent wife-beaters and Islamist extremists.

This is part of a series Ms Malcolm is putting together. Under the working title Creeping Caliphate, the articles examine the threat to North America posed by radical Islamists. Click here to sign up for your free copy. Tell Candice that Walt sent ya!

Québec dad beats daughter for not wearing Islamic head covering

What's a good "Muslim Canadian" girl to do? If she lives in Québec and covers her face with a niqab (or, Allah help her, a burqa) while being served at a library, she could get into trouble with the Law. See "Québec enacts law banning face coverings in public places", WWW 17/10/17. If she doesn't cover her face, or at least her hair, with proper Islamic dress, i.e. a hijab, she could get beaten... or worse... by her father and/or brothers for bring dishonour upon their family.

Buried in the back pages of today's lamestream media is a sad little story from Gatineau, Québec, just across the river from the capital of Canuckistan. A Muslim man has been charged for (allegedly) beating his teenage daughter over the course of more than a year because she refused to wear a hijab. According to Inspector Clouseau [Ed., please check name] of the Gatineau police, the 35-year-old follower of the Prophet is facing one count each of assault, assault with a weapon and uttering death threats.

In what police described as a case of so-called "honour-based" violence, the father began the series of assaults upon learning his daughter had removed her religious head covering when she left the family home. Gatineau police said they hope the courage the young girl showed would motivate others to speak out against similar incidents.

Walt would add that any daughter, sister or wife being abused by her too-strict Islamic father, brother or husband had better speak up right sharpish, before she suffers the fate of the late Aqsa Parvez, of Mississauga ON, who was killed by her father (with help from her brother) just over five years ago for... wait for it... taking off her hijab when she went to school. See "Parents kill rebellious teen to preserve family honour", WWW 3/8/12.

Further reading: If you're still not sure of the difference between the three types of Islamic head-coverings, check out "Hijab, niqab, burqa -- what's the difference?", WWW 28/7/10.

All in the family: Islamic honour = "barbaric cultural practices"

From the Islamic Republic of Pakistan comes news of what local police are calling an "honour crime" -- the "revenge rape" of a 16-year-old girl in retribution for her brother's rape of another girl. (Reuters) - Pakistani police have arrested 25 members of an informal village council accused of ordering the rape of a 16-year-old girl as revenge for her brother's alleged sexual assault of another girl. But wait (as Vince Offer used to say), there's more. The first assailant's father is a brother of the second assailant's grandfather. So that's two rapes in two days, all in one extended family.

The rapes took place in a small village called Muzaffarabad, a suburb of the city of Multan, in Punjab province. Ahsan Younus, chief of Multan's police department, told the meeja, "They are victims and accused at the same time.... It’s barbaric."

As indeed it is. But the case is far from shocking. Such honour crimes still take place in some parts of Pakistan and India, and are not unknown in the USA and Canada, where "refugees" and other immigrants have brought the barbaric customs and practices of their native lands -- female genital mutilation, for example -- with them.

Earlier this month, a local council, known in local languages as a panchayat or jirga, was called after a family accused a 16-year-old boy of raping a 13-year-old neighbour. The council ruled that the sister of the boy should be handed over to the victim's brother to be raped. An eye for an eye, or in this case... well, never mind. The girl was duly handed over by her family, and the punishment was carried out on July 17th.

The case came to light a couple of days later, when both families filed criminal charges with police, each accusing the other family's son of rape. Questioning both sides in the cases soon revealed the role of the informal village council, according to Chief Younus. "All the village council elders who ordered the revenge rape have been arrested," he said. "A total of 29 people were involved in this ghastly crime, and we have 25 of them in our custody." Both the victims and their mothers have been sent to a women's protection center, he added, without explaining what would happen when the women eventually return to their village.

Afghan family set to kill 10-year-old daughter after rape by mullah

Those who believe that the Catholic Church has a monopoly on pedophilia and the sexual abuse of children by clerics should know about a story -- "Struggling to Keep Afghan Girl Safe After a Mullah Is Accused of Rape" -- by Rob Nordland, in yesterday's New York Times.

The nub of the story is the rape, last May, of a pre-pubescent girl, aged 10, by a mullah at the local mosque in Kunduz, a town in Afghanistan, where the victim had been attending Qu'ran recitation classes. The Muslim spiritual leader, Mohammad Amin, was arrested and confessed to having sex with the girl, but said he thought she was older, besides which he intended to marry her.

But that's not the main point of the story. The real crime here would have been perpetrated by the girl's family, had they succeeded in killing her, for... wait for it... bringing shame and dishonour on her family.

Most of the anger in Kunduz has been focused not on the mullah but on women’s activists and the shelter where the girl took refuge, which is one of seven operated across Afghanistan by Women for Afghan Women, an Afghan-run charity supported mainly by aid from the American government and private donors.

This past Tuesday, local cops removed the girl from the shelter, and returned her to her family, despite complaints from the women’s activists that she was likely to be killed. The head of the women's affairs office in Kunduz, Nederah Geyah, who campaigned actively to have the youngster protected from her family, resigned and moved to another part of Afghanistan.

Dr. Hassina Sarwari, the head of the shelter, was at one point driven into hiding by death threats from the girl’s family and other mullahs -- some of them Taliban, others on the government side -– and from pro-government militiamen. One of their claims was that the girl was actually 17, and thus of marriageable age, not 10.

Accompanying the Times article is a photo of Dr. Sarwari showing on her laptop one of the pictures of the victim she took in the hospital. The photos clearly show a pre-pubescent child, and the doctor said the girl weighed only 40 pounds. Few Afghans have birth records, and many do not know their precise ages. But the girl’s mother said she was 10, and a forensic examination in the hospital agreed, saying she had not yet started menstruating or developing secondary sexual characteristics.

The girl’s own testimony, and medical evidence, supported a rape so violent that it caused a fistula, or a break in the wall between the vagina and rectum, according to the police and the official bill of indictment. She bled so profusely after the attack that she was at one point in danger of losing her life because of a delay in getting medical care.

Ms Geyah told the reporter, "I went to the hospital when they brought her there. I was sitting next to her bed when I overheard her mother and aunt saying that her father was under tremendous pressure by the villagers to kill the girl because she had brought shame to them."

When Dr. Sarwari, a pediatrician, arrived to pick up the girl, a crowd of village elders from Alti Gumbad, the girl’s home village on the outskirts of the Kunduz, were gathered outside the hospital. Among them were the girl’s brothers, father and uncle. Inside the hospital, Dr. Sarwari encountered the girl’s aunt, who told her she had been ordered by her husband to sneak the girl out of the hospital and deliver her to the male relatives outside. They wanted to take the girl, kill her, and dump her in the river, the aunt said.

Dr. Sarwari found the girl’s mother holding her child’s hand, and both were weeping. The doctor quoted the mother as saying, "My daughter, may dust and soil protect you now. We will make you a bed of dust and soil. We will send you to the cemetery where you will be safe."

Muslim mothers often believe there is no choice but to kill rape victims, who are seen as unmarriageable and therefore a lifelong burden to their families, as well as a constant reminder of dishonour.

Dr. Sarwari has accused prosecutors and religious officials of siding with the accused rapist and ignoring the child’s plight. "There are a lot of powerful people behind the mullah," she told the Times. The girl’s family knows they cannot do anything to Amin, she said, but "the girl is easy. They can get to her. She’s their daughter." She said she feared the girl would either be killed, or forced to recant her accusations against the pederastic mullah.

This sad case makes a mockery of claims by the US and other governments that that Western aid and encouragement can make positive changes in the lives of Afghan women. In remote parts of Afghanistan, traditional customs are still stronger than modern law. Taliban insurgents and pro-government elements often make common cause in their hatred of progress in women’s rights.

Walt has said it before in commenting on a similar story -- see "Parents of raped 14-year-old mutilate Muslim cleric, say he should be 'punished even more severely'" -- and he'll say it again: They're savages there, one and all. Leave the benighted heathens to cutting off each other's body parts, killing their wives and daughters and whatever else seems "right" according to their "religion of peace"! And may Allah give them all the rewards they so richly deserve!

Parents of raped 14-year-old mutilate Muslim cleric, say he should be "punished even more severely"

Interesting item on Reuters today, a report from some remote part of Armpitistan, where the parents of a 14-year-old girl have been arrested after they attacked a Muslim cleric who (the parents say) perpetrated a series of sexual attacks on their daughter. For revenge -- and the honour of the family of course -- they cut off the holy man's... wait for it... nose and ears. What?! Did you think it would be something else?

The provincial "head of women's affairs" [What does this mean, actually? Ed.] told Reuters that the girl had told her parents four months ago she had been assaulted. Speaking from the police chief's office, Abdul Qahar, the girl's father, said, "I invited the mullah to dinner. Then I cut off his ears and nose. I don't know if a cat ate his ears, but his nose went down the drain."

The 32-year-old cleric denied he had assaulted the girl. Police said they have opened a case against him. In most of Afghanistan, outside the capital, Islamic sharia law takes precedence over secular criminal or civil law. Said the girl's mother, Sultana, "If there was a functioning rule of law, then he would be punished even more severely!"

International human rights activists say there has been a sharp rise in violent attacks against women in the deeply fundamental Muslim country, where women have fought hard to gain rights after the collapse of Taliban government in 2001. Restoring women's rights after the Taliban was ousted by an American-led coalition of troops was cited as one of the main objectives of the war. Mission not accomplished!

What lesson do we learn from stories like this? They're savages there, one and all. Leave the benighted heathens to cutting off each other's body parts and whatever else seems "right" to them!

South Asian girls' secret weapon against forced marriages

Readers of WWW -- indeed anyone who lives on this planet -- will know that it is not uncommon for immigrants from south Asian countries like India and Pakistan to send their western-born daughters "back home" to marry "a suitable boy", usually against the will of the putative bride. It's a good deal for the girls' families and for the grooms. The families get rid of a daughter without having to pay a dowry, and the new husbands get a free pass to immigrate to the UK, USA or Canada.

Not such a prize for the wives though. The western-raised girls have some peculiar modern notions about love and marriage. They would like to have a say in choosing their husbands. And they would like to live in a modern, western-style "partnership", without having to worry that their "traditionally-minded" husbands will beat them... or worse... for being insufficiently servile, or in the name of "honour".

But how do you escape a forced marriage? What do you do when mummy and daddy tell you, "Get in the car. Ve are taking you to the airport. You vill go back home and marry the one ve have chosen for you"? How do you get away?

Enter Karma Nirvana, a UK-based charity dedicated to putting a stop to forced marriages. They've come up with a secret weapon to help girls being bundled off to the old country. More accurately, they've found a new and clever use for an old tool.

Yes, folks, it's a spoon! What the girl should do, they say, while the parents are backing her trousseau, is stick the spoon [Please rewrite this. Ed.]

OK, she should put the spoon in her panties! Then, when she goes through security, the presence of a metal object in her nether regions will be detected, and she will be taken to a safe space where she will have one last opportunity to disclose that she's being sent home to marry against her will.

Karma Nirvana operations manager Natasha Rattu told Agence France Press, "We've had people [call to say] it's helped them and got them out of a dangerous situation. It's an incredibly difficult thing to do with your family around you, but they won't be aware that you have done it. It's a safe way."

According to AFP, a joint UK Home Office-Foreign Office unit dedicated to preventing forced marriages handled about 1,500 cases in 2012. The most common country linked to the investigations was Pakistan. No surprise there. Other countries included India -- again, no surprise -- Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Somalia, Turkey, and Iraq. No western "Christian" countries were mentioned.

Muslim wife-killer convicted

It took them the better part of the weekend, but the jury in the Toronto murder trial of Peer Khairi has come back with a verdict. They have found the Afghan Muslim immigrant guilty of second-degree murder in the near beheading and repeated stabbing of his wife. Apparently the defence of "resettlement stress" -- not making that up -- didn't wash with the jury of Peer's peers. [Couldn't resist it, could you. Ed.]

Khairi returns to the Ontario Superior Court on Tuesday for sentencing. He will automatically get life. The only question is how long he must serve before being eligible to apply for parole. The waiting time could be anywhere from 10 to 25 years.

Is deportation an option? Of course not. Canadians are famously tolerant of immigrants and their foreign cultures and religions, no matter how barbaric. So Khairi will continue to be a Canadian resident -- at taxpayers' continuing expense, of course -- for another decade, and likely longer.

"Culture clash" an excuse for murder? Maybe in Canada

Walt expressed puzzlement, a couple of days ago, about what had happened in the Toronto murder trial of Peer Khairi, the Afghan-by-way-of-India immigrant who admittedly slashed his wife's throat so deeply that he just about cut through her spine. Agent 3, our "honour crime" reporter [as distinct from "honoured crime reporter" Ed.] has come through with an update.


Turns out that although the evidence was in, and closing submissions made by the crown and defence attorneys last week, the jury got a couple of days off, following which one member was excused for "persistent illness". Perhaps the horrific details of the crime made him sick. Anyway, they are starting deliberations this morning.

Their choice is between premeditated murder and manslaughter, so the key issue is not whether Khairi killed his wife -- that's admitted -- but what was in his mind [if anything. Ed.] when he did it.

In his closing address to the jury, Khairi's defender called for a manslaughter conviction, arguing that his client's mind was "clouded by mental illness" and "incapable of forming murderous intent".

The Crown, however, puts the whole ugly case down to culture clash, beginning when the family, originally from Afghanistan, were allowed to enter Canada in 2003, despite having been settled in India for more than a decade in India. Once a refugee, always a refugee?

Whether he was a refugee or an immigrant, Mr. Khairi was certainly one angry Muslim. The picture painted at the trial was of a man enraged at his wife's newfound desire for equal rights and her support for their children's increasingly Westernized behaviour, including late-night dates and non-Muslim dress.

"What Peer Khairi intended to do that day was crystal clear," said the Crown attorney. "He intended to kill the wife who had defied him, to kill the wife who was responsible for his children turning against his wishes, to kill the woman who had decided to leave him."

The defence takes a markedly different view. Khairi just lost control for a moment, his lawyer said. (Long enough, though, to pick up not one but two knives, says Agent 3.)

The defence attorney says if jurors can only remain "rational and dispassionate," they will see Mr. Khairi as a pathetic old man: "Not a dominating figure seeking to impose his will and values on his wife and six children, but in reality, a sad, even pathetic figure — an elderly man, an immigrant, alone and friendless, completely illiterate, of low-to-moderate intelligence at best; isolated by a total inability to master the English language and with few marketable skills, unable to obtain employment and to support his family as he had always done in the past."

In other words, your typical (if not ideal) refugee. And let not other prospective refugees ["immigrants", surely! Ed.] worry. Canadians believe in multiculturalism, tolerance and celebrating diversity. You are welcome to cling to your religious beliefs and cultural traditions, no matter how irrational and barbaric they may be. As for clashing with Canadian culture... What culture would that be?!

The terrible trials of Muslims facing Western justice

Last summer (2011) we had a series of reports, courtesy of Agent 3, on the topic of  so-called "honour killings" in the Sikh and Muslim immigrant communities in central Canada. The worst of these were the Shafia family murders. As reported here in "What's wrong with Afghans?", an Afghan immigrant and his second wife and one of his sons were convicted of killing his first wife and three of his daughters (with wife no. 2) to preserve the family honour which had been sullied by the girls' behaving like typical Western teens.

I thought back then that I wouldn't likely be devoting any more space to the subject, which seemed to have become commonplace, therefore uninteresting. There would be more honour killings, more hand-wringing about women's rights, respecting diversity, and the difficulty of expecting immigrants to abide by the values of the country they choose to live in. And that's just what happened. (Lifetime pct .991)

However, this week there are not one but two (2) criminal cases on the go -- one murder, one attempted murder. Muslim immigrants seem unable or unwilling to learn that their barbaric customs and beliefs won't be tolerated on this side of the world, so perhaps a little more publicity is warranted. Call these cautionary tales.

From Montréal we hear the testimony of Ebrahim Ebrahimi, speaking up for his wife, Johra Kaleki, who is charged with the attempted murder of their 19-year-old daughter, Bahar. "She’s a very lovely woman,” he said of his wife. “She’s a good wife. She’s a good mother. She loves her children."

Montreal police have described the attack as an honour crime, based in large part on a four-hour statement Ms Kaleki gave the night she was arrested. Shen her statement, Ms. Kaleki described the strict rules she and her husband, immigrants from Afghanistan, enforced in their household. Ms. Ebrahimi and her sisters were forbidden from drinking, smoking, staying out late and having boyfriends, she said.

Bahar had been rebelling against her parents and their Muslim faith, and on the weekend she was attacked, she stayed out past dawn two nights in a row. "I felt like she would never be fixed," her mother said. So badly did Ms Kaleki want to give her daughter "the peace that she needed" that she stabbed her repeatedly, yet somehow failed to send her to heaven.

Bahar's father told Mr. Justice Yves Paradis that he and his wife were "relaxed parents... [Our four daughters] make some mistakes. They are kids. There was no punishment. There was no violence. We never raised a hand against them."

Bahar herself gave testimony at the preliminary enquiry in January, supporting the defence's contention that Ms Kaleki became temporarily deranged during confrontation, and somehow got hold of a meat cleaver which had somehow been left in the basement... under a mattress. The accused has testified that she blacked out and has no memory of the attack or of speaking to police for four hours afterwards.

The trial resumes in January, at which time Mr Ebrahimi will have a further chance to get his story straight.

Meanwhile... a Toronto jury heard yesterday how a Muslim wife and mother of six wound up at the pointy end of the knife. The Crown  Attorney said Randjida Khairi "paid the ultimate price" for standing up to her Afghan Muslim husband and letting their children live as Westerners. Her husband, Peer Khairi, slashed her throat right to the spine, the Crown alleges, causing the poor woman to suffocate in her own blood.

"She was in the process of separating her finances and moving out of the family home," the prosecutor said. "There had been fights between the couple about how permissive she was in raising their children, how she allowed them to dress and socialize as they liked, rather than asserting more control over their behaviour so that they kept the culture and rules of their [Afghan] birthplace."

Since Khairi has admitted he did the deed, the jury may well ask, what was he thinking?! That's the issue. Expect to hear the word "honour" hundreds of times before this is over. But don't expect to hear any suggestion that there must be something wrong with a "religion of peace" which encourages or at least tolerates the "honour killings" of wives and daughters. Lifetime pct (still) .991.

Shafia son to appeal honour killing conviction

Young Hamed Shafia, unlike his father and mother, didn't take the stand in his own defence on charges of killing his three sisters and his father's first wife. It appeared to Agent 3 that Hamed was being set up to take the fall. If so, it didn't work, as all three were convicted for four counts -- each -- of first-degree murder.

Now his lawyer says Hamed has filed an "inmate's notice" to the Ontario Court of Appeal, the first step in appealing his conviction.

His trial lawyer says the main grounds of the appeal relate to admissibility of what he calls “hearsay evidence” from the victims and of the expert evidence on “honour killing.” He says it will likely be at least a year before the appeal is heard.

The father and mother are also expected to be appealing... but not very. [I bet Walt has waited years to use that line. Ed.]

Many column inches of print and minutes of airtime have been devoted to this story, not just by the Canadian media but by newspapers and broadcast media around the world. the usual liberal voices have been harrumphing that only racists and bigots could say this has anything to do with immigrants or Muslims. One of the rare voices of common sense at the oh-so-PC Globe and Mail is Margaret Wente, whom Walt reads regularly. Here's a snippet from her column.

It’s impossible to understand this crime without the culture. And it’s important to understand honour crimes for exactly what they are. They are not ordinary acts of domestic violence carried out in a fit of rage. Instead, they are carefully premeditated acts that are designed to remove the stain of a wife or daughter’s sexual misconduct (real or imagined) from the family name.

They are often approved or tolerated by the community. Wives often condone these crimes against their daughters, or even help commit them. And the perpetrators are invariably convinced of the rightness of their deeds.

Click here to read the rest of the piece.

Comment from Ed.: Walt and I have discussed the possibility that some of you may be getting tired of the honour crimes issue. We anticipate having something else to talk about when the results of the Florida primary are known.

What's wrong with Afghans?

Yesterday the jury brought back the expected verdict of first degree murder in the honour killing trial of Mohammad Shafia, his second wife and his son. They killed Mohammad's first wife (to whom he was still married -- it's called "bigamy" or "polygamy" -- and three of their daughters.

The convicted murderers are described as "Afghan-Canadians". Shafia was wealthy, fled Afghanistan as an "economic refugee" and basically bought his residency in Canada under the Canadian government's investor-immigrant program. He owned a $1.6-million mall in Laval, Québec, and was having a big, custom-designed home built in Brossard, a suburb of Montréal.

What was the reason for what the presiding judge called "heinous, despicable and onerous" crimes? Mr. Justice Maranger said Shafia acted out of "a sick and twisted concept of 'honour' which has no place in any civilized society." Where did that come from? Afghan culture? Or the family's Muslim religion? Or both?

A good argument can be made that the society and culture of Afghanistan is not civilized. Never has been.

On December 29th, Walt posted a story about an Afghan family who had been caught trying to force their new daughter-in-law into prostitution, a practice which had been noted by Canadian writer Gordon Sinclair three-quarters of a century earlier.

Today, Reuters reports that, in the northern Kunduz province, an Afghan man killed his wife for giving birth to a third daughter rather than the son he hoped for. Police said the victim was strangled by her husband and his mother on Saturday in revenge for bearing the couple’s third daughter three months ago in Mohasili village. Another question of honour, no doubt.

According to the head of the Kunduz women's affairs department, violence against women is commonplace in Afghanistan. In late November in the same province, an Afghan family that refused to give their daughter in marriage to a man they considered irresponsible was attacked at home by assailants who poured acid over both parents and three children. Police later arrested the rejected suitor and his three brothers for the attack.

As Peachey said to Danny, "They're savages..., one and all. Leave `em to slaughtering babes, playing sticka-ball with each other's heads and pissin' on their neighbours."

Worth reading: "How arrogance and mistakes led to Shafia’s murder conviction" by Timothy Appleby, in today's Globe and Mail.
And there's more: "Shafia trial a wake-up call for Canadian Muslims" by Sheema Khan -- the name says it all -- also in today's Globe and Mail.

Honour killings in Canada now average nearly 1 per year

By the sheerest coincidence, the Montreal Gazette and Toronto Sun have just brought to the attention of the Canadian public the results of a study by Marie-Pierre Robert, a law professor at the Université de Sherbrooke.

According to Prof. Robert, the number of honour killings committed in Canada has increased, along with the numbers of immigrants from the Middle East and South Asia. Since 1999, she writes in the Canadian Criminal Law Review, there have been 12 honour-killing victims in Canada, an average of one (1) per year. Between 1954 and 1983 there were only 3, an average of less than one every ten (10) years.

The study shows that all of the cases involved at least one female victim, and all of the killers were immigrants, usually of Muslim or Sikh background. . Most of the perpetrators were men. The average victim was 21 years old. Aqsa Parvez, shown here, was just 16 when her father killed her in December of 2007.

The Toronto Sun lists three more examples.

Hasibullah Sadiqi, sentnced to life in prison for shooting his sister and her fiance in Edmonton on Sept. 19, 2006. He claimed they had brought dishonour on his family.

Rajinder Singh Atwal stabbed his 17-year-old daughter Amandeep to death in 2003 for insisting on living with her boyfriend. Atwal found guilty of second-degree murder in 2005 and sentenced to life in prison.

Adi Abdul Humaid stabbed his wife, Aysar Abbas, 23 times in the neck and once in the heart on a lonely stretch of B.C. road on Oct. 14, 1999. He said he thought she was sleeping with her business associate. Sentenced to life in prison.

Murders such as these and the Shafia case -- see previous post -- have sparked calls for a separate section of the Criminal Code of Canada to deal specifically with honour killings. Professor Robert said such a move isn't needed because honour killers are always prosecuted "to the maximum" under Canadian law.

But, since Canada has no death penalty, the "maximum" can mean life without parole for up to 25 years for first-degree murder, or as little as up to 10 years for second-degree murder. What would the penalty be, Walt wonders, in India or Pakistan or Afghanistan.

Ontario honour killing trial goes to jury next week

Agent 3 reports from Kingston that the trial of Mohammad Shafia, Tooba Mohammad Yahya (one of his wives), and their 21-year-old son Hamed, is set to go to an Ontario Superior Court jury next week. The trio are accused of murdering Shafia's other wife and three of his and Yahya's daughter in what the Crown calls an "honour killing", provoked by the daughters' behaving like normal Western teens rather than good Muslim girls.

Before Christmas, Shafia told the court he never saw the pix of his nearly-naked daughters until "after". And when he called them whores, said he'd cut them into pieces if they were still alive, and said "May the devil shit on their graves!", he was just expressing his frustration in a traditional Afghan manner.

After the holiday break, Tooba also testified in her own behalf. She wasn't sure what happened that fateful night because, errr, she wasn't there. She was really in a motel room some miles distant. And she just told the police she was there to protect her son. Putting it all on the kid, in Agent 3's opinion.

Tooba also said she had never heard of honour killings until now, and that her husband was a kind and good father -- certainly not a murderer -- who only became enraged when shown the dirty pictures. And where were these pix? In an album that Tooba had packed in a suitcase, to keep them as remembrances of her children...or something.

Those were the defence's star witnesses. Later the court heard from a string of relatives all of whom testified that they too had never heard of the concept of honour killings, the Shafia family were good people, they would never have done this kind of thing, yada yada yada. The fact that the witnesses live overseas and hadn't seen Shafia or Yahya in years was probably not lost on the jury.

The last defence witness, who appeared yesterday, was an anthropologist and former journalist, Nabi Misdaq, who offered expertise on Afghan culture and use of language in that society. He was asked how expletives are used in Afghanistan, which Shafia left 17 years ago.

Misdaq said curse words are "very common" among Afghan men and are used when they are "faced with something he thinks (had) nothing to do with him or was not his fault." The words don't mean that the speaker will act on them, said the witness. "They are not to be taken literally."

Police wiretaps, captured after the deaths occurred, record an audibly angry Shafia calling his dead daughters names like "whore" and "treacherous", comparing them to prostitutes, and willing the devil to "shit on their graves".

The witness was asked if "devil shit on their graves" is comparable to an expression in North American English. Misdaq answered, "The nearest would be, 'To hell with them' or 'To hell with it.'" Seems like a lot of feeling gets lost in translation.

Misdaq was the last defence witness. Agent 3 finds it significant that the son, Hamed Shafia, did not take the stand to explain and defend himself. The fix is in, our learned friend says. The kid's going to take the fall and hope the jury lets the parents out. After all, even if the boy does the full 25 years -- the most he can get under the Canadian Criminal Code -- he'll only be 46 when he gets out. Still lots of time to get married and have daughters of his own.

Book review: Islamist crisis rooted in "intellectual suicide"

Robert Reilly is the author of The Closing of the Muslim Mind, a new book which argues that a form of "intellectual suicide" is responsible for the Islamist crisis in which the world finds itself ensnared.

In a thorough yet readable analysis, Mr. Reilly shows how all the troubles being caused by Muslim findamentalists are rooted in a pivotal struggle waged within the Muslim world nearly a millennium ago. In a heated battle over the role of reason, the side of irrationality won. The deformed theology that resulted produced the spiritual pathology of Islamism, and a deeply dysfunctional culture which reveals itself today in such things as honour killing, mentioned in earlier posts.

Now Catholic World News quotes Reilly as warning that in the Islamic world, the Arab Spring uprisings may produce popular votes in the short term, but the long-term results are unlikely to be democratic. He explains that Islam insists on the rule of sharia. Once Islamic law is enacted, he says, neither dissent nor change will be allowed. Thus he characterizes the Islamist theory of democracy "one God; one vote; one time."

To underline his point, Reilly invokes the testimony of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Islamic Brotherhood, who thought Stalin’s Soviet Union was a model of "democracy". He also cites the late Sheik Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, head of Cairo's Al Azhar University, who said: "Saudi Arabia leads the world in the protection of human rights because it protects them according to the sharia."

Click here to read Jihad Watch's interview with Robert Reilly.

The Closing of the Muslim Mind is available from Ignatius Press. Web sale price is $22.91. Tell them Walt sent you.

How the British dealt with barbaric religious practices

On October 21st Walt noted the beginning of a trial, in Canada, of a Muslim man, his second wife and son, on charges of killing his first wife and three of their daughters. The four women were inside a car which was allegedly pushed into the Rideau Canal by a second car driven by one of the accused.

Why? "Honour" of course. The three girls had been behaving badly -- wearing western clothes, interested in boys and suchlike -- and brought disgrace and dishonour on the family. As for the first wife, she was apparently barren and just kind of in the way.

Honour killing is part of Islam. It is sanctioned by the Qu'ran and practised all too often in Muslim communities around the world. To the Western, Christian way of thinking, it is a cruel and barbaric practice, a relic of the dark ages. Just like the Hindu practice of "suttee" -- burning widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands.

Why do I mention suttee? Because I was just reading (in America Alone by Mark Steyn -- worth reading twice!) a quote attributed to the impeccably multicultural General Sir Charles Napier, a governor of India in the days of the British Raj.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."

Agent 3 is keeping Walt updated on the honour killing trial. The strategy of the defence is not yet clear. If they argue for a finding of not guilty, or a reduced sentence at least, because respect must be given to Islam and the religious sensitivities of "new Canadians", Walt hopes the Crown will read Napier's dictum to the jury.

Will there be a hanging in the event of a finding of guilt? Not in Canada. Execution is OK for victims, but not for the killers.

Footnote: The accused father, Mohammed Safia, married the second wife without bothering to divorce the first. Bigamy and polygamy are supposedly illegal in Canada, but the government looks the other way in the case of Muslims. Wouldn't want to offend anyone's religious principles, dontcha know.

Further footnote: Let's not hear any of that fuzzy, we-are-the-world rhetoric that Muslims will assimilate, once they've lived in Western society for a while. The Safias have been in Canada for many years, and the father was a successful businessman, living in Montréal. But assimilate? Fuggedaboudit.

Update: honour killings

Rona Ambrose, the founder of a hugely successful chain of DIY stores [are you sure? ed.] today said the government "is looking at" adding the crime of honour killing to Canada's Criminal Code. Why this should be necessary is a puzzlement. There are already three charges -- first-degree murder, second-degree murder and manslaughter -- which could apply, depending on the intention of the killer.

It may be recalled -- or maybe not -- that a young Pakistani-Canadian girl, Aqsa Parvez, was killed in December 2007 by her brother and father, acting in concert. Why? Because she had brought shame on the Muslim family by going out in public without her hejab. For details see "Honour killings, family values and 'accommodation', posted here in July 2009.

Parvez père et fils copped a plea to second-degree murder, that is, murder which was not planned, just a spur-of-the-moment sort of thing. This was in spite of evidence that Aqsa's brother had gone with her to school and lured her into coming back home, where her father lay in waiting with the garrote.

Agent 3, our resident liar [check spelling. ed.] suggests that if the Criminal Code were amended to regard honour killing as first-degree murder, without the Crown having to prove premeditation, would ensure that the punishment would be a little more fitting to the crime.

Meanwhile, in Montréal, a woman alleged to have stabbed her daughter in the head in a so-called "honour crime" has been declared fit to stand trial. Click here to see today's Canadian Press report. Fortunately for her, the daughter lived, so the most serious crime of which the mother can be convicted is attempted murder.

Recommended reading: "Confronting the 'honour killing' taboo", by Ann Hui, in Tuesday's Globe & Mail.

A seriously dangerous belief system

Human rights and anti-racism cops alert! Don't you want to bring charges under s. 13 of the Canada Human Rights Act against Madam Justice Lynn Ratushny of the Ontario Superior Court? She's calling Islam -- or at least the Muslim attitude towards women -- a "seriously dangerous belief system".

This according to a column by Margaret Wente in today's Globe and Mail. Ms Wente reports on the sentencing in Ottawa on Tuesday of Yusuf Al Mezel, a devout Muslim. Mr Al Mezel will now be Her Britannic Majesty's guest for a year. The charge? Threatening his daughter with violence.

The daughter's crime? Eman Al Mezel decided, at the age of 23, that she'd had enough of living under her father's thumb. She had lived at home, where her father wanted to keep her. So they fought bitterly when Eman started doing volunteer work at a local community centre.

Her father pushed her into a flight of stairs. He threatened to break her legs and kill her, and then smashed her computer. When she learned he had arranged for her to marry a Syrian man, she moved out. To the horror of her family, she abandoned the hijab and her Muslim beliefs, and moved in with a male friend and his family.

You can imagine the father's reaction. If you can't read the full account in Ms Wente's column. Suffice it to say the judge felt the father's harrassment and repeated threats were sufficiently threatening to warrant a conviction. Judge Ratushny called Al Mezel's behaviour "a crime of honour, committed in the name of a seriously dangerous belief system."

So you see, life in Muslim families is not always as portrayed in Little Mosque on the Prairie. Nor are crimes of honour confined to Pakistan and Afghanistan...or Toronto. The Muslims bring their "seriously dangerous belief system" with them when they immigrate.

In the name of multiculturalism and diversity, successive misguided Canadian governments have encouraged Muslims, Hindus and other aliens to hang onto their "cultural values", rather than adopt the values of the Canadian majority.

What is wrong with us?! Is it shameful, as the CBC liberal intelligentsia would have us think, to at least suggest that new Canadians adopt at least some of our values? Like allowing children to dress as they please and marry whom they choose, just to mention one.

In Walt's humble opinion "When in Rome, do as the Romans do; when in Canada, do as the Canadians do" should be stamped in 24-point type on every immigrant visa!