Another "Honour" Killing By Muslims, Muslim Orgs. Mute


dumpthemonarchy
#1
This is simply murder. An honour killing is simply murder. Do the police treat this differently from any other kind of murder? I hope not. If they do, they are not doing their job. The last line gets it right.

Muslims organizations in Canada do not denounce "honour" killings, nor do they say that murder is murder. Nor do Cdn feminist organizations. Why Asian practices by Asian men get a free ride is hard to fathom.

Honour killings: domestic abuse by another name?

Last Updated: Friday, July 24, 2009 | 8:49 PM ET

By Amber Hildebrandt, CBC News


To some, the term "honour killing" muddies the issue of domestic abuse with religious connotations. For others, it's an important designation of a cultural phenomenon distinct from domestic violence.
Believed to have originated as a patriarchal tribal custom, so-called honour killings — killings aimed at restoring a family's or community's reputation — are today a worldwide problem. Though often associated with Muslim cultures, they also happen among Sikhs and Hindus.
A 2000 report by the United Nations Population Fund estimated as many as 5,000 women and girls are killed each year by relatives for dishonouring their family. Many of the cases involve the "dishonour" of having been raped.
Though often linked to sexual issues such as adultery and premarital sex, the perceived "offences" that have prompted honour killings have come to include a woman's push for independence.
In Canada, the issue was most recently raised when police in Kingston, Ont., revealed that they are investigating the possibility that the deaths of three teenage girls and a woman found in a car submerged in a Rideau Canal lock were a case of honour killings.
The parents and 18-year-old brother of the girls have been charged with first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder in the deaths. The family had recently moved to Montreal after living in Dubai for 15 years but originally heralded from Afghanistan, the majority of whose population is Muslim.
At a press conference, Kingston police Chief Stephen Tanner acknowledged he'd received an email from a likely relative of the older victim claiming it was an honour killing. Though tight-lipped about a motive for the killings, he alluded to cultural undertones.
"These three teenagers were Canadian teenagers who have all the freedom and rights of expression of all Canadians," he said. "So, whether that was a part of a motive within the family based on one of the girls' or more of the girls' behaviour is open to a little bit of speculation."
Characteristics of an honour killing

Debate rages over whether honour killings are simply cases of domestic abuse by another name. Many Muslim groups say the term "honour killing" is a misnomer that stigmatizes their religion and are quick to denounce the label.
Writing in the spring edition of the U.S. policy journal Middle East Quarterly, American feminist writer Phyllis Chesler argues that honour killings are distinct from domestic violence.
(The journal is published by Middle East Forum, the think tank of controversial U.S. scholar Daniel Pipes. The forum lists its mission as promoting American interests in the Middle East, which in its view include "fighting radical Islam.")
In her article, Chesler accuses law enforcement officials in the U.S. and Canada of too often mistakenly chalking deaths up to domestic violence when they are, in fact, the result of honour killings.
"The frequent argument made by Muslim advocacy organizations that honour killings have nothing to do with Islam and that it is discriminatory to differentiate between honour killings and domestic violence is wrong," said Chesler, a professor emerita of psychology and women's studies at the Richmond College of the City University of New York
She listed several distinctions between the two forms of violence:
  • Planning — Honour killings are planned in advance. The perpetrator's family may repeatedly threaten the victim with death if she dishonours her family. Domestic abuse cases tend to be spontaneous.
  • Family complicity — Domestic abuse cases rarely see more than one family member involved in the killing whereas honour killings can include multiple family members, even brothers and cousins.
  • Stigma — Where domestic abusers are often ostracized, perpetrators of honour killings don't face the same stigma.
Chesler says the idea of honour killing needs to be recognized by governments, police forces and Islamic organizations so society can begin to tackle the problem.
Obscuring real motives


Amin Muhammad, a psychiatry professor with Newfoundland's Memorial University who studies honour killings, agrees that the term needs to be acknowledged.
"I think everybody is scared of this term, but I think it is important to accept that this term is there," Muhammad told CBC Radio's The Current. "I would say, never dodge the difficulties: meet, greet and defeat."
He stresses, though, that the label can cause other complicating factors, such as financial issues and mental health troubles, that might play a role in a killing to be overlooked.
Others, though, would like the term obliterated.
"I get really distressed by the idea that a really terrible violence that has been done to girls and women is now getting framed as a kind of hate fest, something about Islam and Muslims," says Sherene Razack, professor of sociology and equity studies at University of Toronto's Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.


Razack says the term also detracts from the real issue, which, in the end, simply boils down to violence against women.
 
lone wolf
#2
I think they should have a licence so they can practice their own laws and versions of honour here. The whole department could be staffed by one passport bureaucrat,,,,
 
dumpthemonarchy
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf View Post

I think they should have a licence so they can practice their own laws and versions of honour here. The whole department could be staffed by one passport bureaucrat,,,,

A good reason to lower immigration numbers and limit the number from the Middle East. I read in the paper that immigrants don't get briefed before they arrive that Canada is a country of equal rights. They should be informed that if they don't like these ideas, they should stay where they are. Which could be why Cdn Muslim organizations don't speak out here for democracy and equal rights. The govt shouldn't be giving any money at all to these undemocratic organizations.
 
AnnaG
#4
I was just thinking that the cops may be interested in whether it was an "honor" killing or not because it may provide motive and suspect(s).
But, whatever, this sort of thing is just plain insane, maddening, and freaking stupid to the max.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaG View Post

I was just thinking that the cops may be interested in whether it was an "honor" killing or not because it may provide motive and suspect(s).
But, whatever, this sort of thing is just plain insane, maddening, and freaking stupid to the max.

Muslim organizations claim to be so family oriented, yet when one of their so-called family gets killed for insane reasons, suddenly the family talk quiets down. Islam like all religions has trouble living outside its bubble. In Muslim countries they don't need to talk about this, everyone understands. But Canada is not a Muslim country and they need to talk about this. About their dated tribal traditions that have no place in the modern world.
 
Cannuck
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchy View Post

Though often associated with Muslim cultures, they also happen among Sikhs and Hindus.

They also happen in Christian and Atheist relationships. We don't call them honour killings but they are nonetheless. Can you say OJ Simpson?
 
darkbeaver
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

They also happen in Christian and Atheist relationships. We don't call them honour killings but they are nonetheless. Can you say OJ Simpson?

I agree.
 
petros
#8
Quote:



BLOOD ATONEMENT RITUAL
One of the most unusual teachings found in the early Mormon Church is the doctrine of "blood atonement." In a manuscript written in 1839, Reed Peck said that the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith claimed he had a revelation in which Apostle Peter told him that he had killed Judas: "He [Joseph Smith] talked of dissenters and cited us to the case of Judas, saying that Peter told him in a conversation a few days ago that [he] himself hung Judas for betraying Christ..." ( The Reed Peck Manuscript , page 13)
<B>Although the doctrine of blood atonement was kept secret at first, when the Mormons were isolated in Utah and had more power, they began to boldly teach that certain people needed to be put to death. For example, on Sept. 21, 1856, President Brigham Young, the 2nd prophet of the church, publicly proclaimed that certain sins could only be atoned for by the shedding of the sinner's own blood:
"There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness... and if they had their eyes open to their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world.
</B>
"I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine, but it is to save them, not to destroy them.... I know there are transgressors, who if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke thereof might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them, and that the law might have its course. I will say further; I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins.
"It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins... yet men can commit sins which it can never remit... There are sins that can be atoned for by an offering upon an altar, as in ancient days, and there are sins that the blood of a lamb, or a calf, or of turtle doves, cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man.... You have been taught that doctrine, but you do not understand it." (Sermon by Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, p. 53-54; also published in the Mormon Church's Deseret News, Oct. 1 1856, p. 235)
Since this sermon was published in the official organ of the Mormon Church and was reprinted in the church's own publication in England, there can be no doubt that blood atonement was an important doctrine of the church. In addition, there are many other sermons, diaries, and manuscripts which contain information on this doctrine. In Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? p. 400-402, we provide documentation to show that there were at least eleven different offenses for which a person could be put to death in early Utah — murder, adultery, immorality, stealing, using the name of the Lord in vain, refusing to receive the gospel, marriage to an African, covenant breaking, apostasy, lying, counterfeiting and condemning Joseph Smith or consenting to his death.
<B>President Brigham Young said that if the Mormons really loved their neighbors they would be willing to kill them to save their souls:
"Now take a person in this congregation... and suppose that... he has committed a sin that he knows will deprive him of that exaltation which he desires, and that he cannot attain to it without the shedding of blood, and also knows that by having his blood shed he will atone for that sin, and be saved and exalted with the Gods, is there a man or woman in this house but what would say 'shed my blood that I may be saved...'
</B>
"All mankind love themselves, and let these principles be known by an individual, and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be loving themselves, even unto an eternal exaltation. Will you love your brothers and sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood?...
"I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins.... I have known a great many men who left this Church for whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation, but if their blood had been spilled, it would have been better for them...
"This is loving our neighbor as ourselves; If he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it... That is the way to love mankind." (Deseret News, Feb. 18, 1857; also reprinted in Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, p. 219-20)
Although Brigham Young equated blood atonement with "loving our neighbor," it seems obvious that vengeance often played the most important role when the doctrine was actually applied. Joseph F. Smith, who served as the 6th prophet of the church, once admitted that he was about to stab a man if he even expressed approval of the murder of Joseph Smith. Under the date of Dec. 6, 1889, Apostle Abraham H. Cannon recorded the following in his journal:
"About 4:30 p.m. this meeting adjourned and was followed by a meeting of Presidents Woodruff, Cannon and Smith and Bros. Lyman and Grant... Bro. Joseph F. Smith was traveling some years ago near Carthage when he met a man who said he had just arrived five minutes too late to see the Smiths killed. Instantly a dark cloud seemed to overshadow Bro. Smith and he asked how this man looked upon the deed. Bro. S. Was oppressed by a most horrible feeling... After a brief pause the man answered, 'Just as I have always looked upon it — that it was a d___d cold-blooded murder.' The cloud immediately lifted from Bro. Smith and he found that he had his open pocket knife grasped in his hand in his pocket, and he believes that had this man given his approval to that murder of the prophets he would have immediately struck him to the heart." ("Daily Journal of Abraham H. Cannon," Dec. 6, 1889, p. 205-6; see Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? p. 403, for an actual photograph from the journal)
<B>If Joseph F. Smith had "struck" the man "to the heart," the killing would have been considered more an act of vengeance than a ritualistic act. If, on the other hand, a person consented to die for his or her transgressions, the sacrifice could have ritualistic overtones. John D. Lee, who served on the Council of Fifty in the early Mormon Church, told of a case where there was prayer involved. Lee reported that a man by the name of "Rosmos Anderson" committed adultery with his step-daughter. He was "placed under covenant that if they again committed adultery, Anderson should suffer death." Lee went on to state:
"Soon after this a charge was laid against Anderson before the Council, accusing him of adultery with his step-daughter.... it was the Bishop's Council.... the Council voted that Anderson must die for violating his covenants. Klingensmith went to Anderson and notified him that the orders were that he must die by having his throat cut, so that the running of his blood would atone for his sins.... His wife was ordered to prepare a suit of clean clothing, in which to have her husband buried...
</B>
"Klingensmith, James Haslem, Daniel McFarland and John M. Higbee dug a grave in the field near Cedar City, and that night, about 12 o'clock, went to Anderson's house and ordered him to make ready to obey the Council.... Anderson knelt down upon the side of the grave and prayed, Klingensmith and his company then cut Anderson's throat from ear to ear and held him so that his blood ran into the grave.
"As soon as he was dead they dressed him in his clean clothes, threw him into the grave and buried him. They then carried his bloody clothing back to his family, and gave them to his wife to wash, when she was again instructed to say that her husband was in California." ( Confessions of John D. Lee , 1880, p. 282-83)
In Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? we have documented that a large number of people were killed in Nauvoo and early Utah because of the church's teaching regarding blood atonement (see pages 398-404-A, 428-450, 493-515). Since Brigham Young and other church leaders were stressing the doctrine of blood atonement in 1857, it is obvious that this doctrine played a very important role in the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Mormon historian B.H. Roberts called this massacre of an emigrant train, "the most lamentable episode in Utah history, and in the history of the church."
The Mormons believed that there were people among the emigrants who persecuted them before they came west. Brigham Young had once counseled: "...in regard to those who have persecuted this people... if any miserable scoundrels come here, cut their throats." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 311) The Mormons who lived in southern Utah held a "special priesthood meeting" at Cedar City and decided that the emigrants "should be done away with." The priesthood leaders decided to "stir up the Indians" and have them attack the company. When it became apparent that the Indians could not overpower the emigrants, the Mormons came up with an insidious and cowardly plan to destroy them.
Mormon writer William E. Berrett gave this description of the massacre: "It was a deliberately planned massacre, treacherously carried into execution... a flag of truce was sent to the emigrant camp and terms of surrender proposed. The Emigrants were to give up their arms. The wounded were to be loaded into wagons, followed by the women and children, and the men to bring up the rear...they were to be conducted by the whites to Cedar City.... the march began.... The white men at a given signal, fell upon the unarmed emigrant men.... Only the smallest children were spared." (The Restored Church, 1956, p. 468-69)
In May 1861, Brigham Young visited the site of the massacre. His actions on this trip demonstrated that he approved of the massacre. Wilford Woodruff, who later became the 4th president of the Mormon Church, travelled with Young and wrote the following in his journal: "We visited the Mountain Meadow Monument put up at the burial place of 120 persons... A wooden Cross was placed on top with the following words: Vengence is mine and I will repay saith the Lord. President Young said it should be Vengence is mine and I have taken a little." (Wilford Woodruff's Journal, May 25, 1861, vol. 5, p. 577)
Juanita Brooks, who did a great deal of research on the Mountain Meadows Massacre, believed that Brigham Young did not order the massacre. Nevertheless, she felt that Young and Apostle George A. Smith set up the conditions which led to the tragic event. Mrs. Brooks was, in fact, convinced that Brigham Young was involved as an accessory after the fact and took part in a cover-up of the crime. In her book, The Mountain Meadows Massacre , 1970, p. 219, she firmly stated her belief that "Brigham Young was accessory after the fact, in that he knew what had happened, and how and why it happened. Evidence of this is abundant and unmistakable, and from the most impeccable Mormon sources." For more information on the Mountain Meadows Massacre see Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? p. 493-515. [Web-editor: also see The Mountain Meadows Massacre book by Josiah Gibbs online.]

Look hard and close at that shiny granite temple, the well dressed in black pants, white shirt, young "elders", Bountiful B.C., magic underwear, the largest financial empire west of the Mississippi and question the snot out of it.

Mormonism, Mormofascism and Mormosexuuals are far more dangerous to you and your family than Islam will ever be.
 
DurkaDurka
#9
A mormonsexual? haha. Does that refer to the incestuous mountain folk?
 
petros
#10
Sure does as well as polygamists. I did well on coining these words and should copyright before Ted Turner does.
 
imcbain
#11
Fascism...er...religion strikes again!
 
dumpthemonarchy
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

I agree.

However, with OJ, we don't think it's okay. Most thought he should have done hard time, he would have if the prosecution hadn't screwed up by needlessly prolonging the trial. Oj was as guilty as sin and people wanted to see him behind bars.

This is not the case in honour killings in Muslim countries, they tend to let the murderers off with minimal punishment because family honour is more important.
 
petros
#13
How many women were beat in Canada last night?

Were you at the ER to be there for them?
 
taxslave
#14
I still don't quite see how one can use the words murder and honour in the same sentence.
Where I grew up a woman's family quite often administered justice to wife beaters. In muslim land they join in the beatings.Go figure.
 
karrie
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchy View Post

However, with OJ, we don't think it's okay.

This decade.

Keep in mind that women did NOT have the rights or protections that they do now, a mere few decades ago. Women in Muslim countries will stand up for their rights too, it's already begun. And living in places like Canada, the lame excuses don't fly. They go to prison regardless of how justified they felt they were.

They're behind the times, their culture is a bit different, but it is not a far cry from our own pasts.
 
Cliffy
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

This decade.

Keep in mind that women did NOT have the rights or protections that they do now, a mere few decades ago. Women in Muslim countries will stand up for their rights too, it's already begun. And living in places like Canada, the lame excuses don't fly. They go to prison regardless of how justified they felt they were.

They're behind the times, their culture is a bit different, but it is not a far cry from our own pasts.

You are so wise for someone your age. How easy Canadians are to forget our sorted past. There are pockets of resistance though, even today, where women are treated without the respect they assuredly deserve. Men are slower on the uptake than women when it comes to change.
And then there is: alcohol + testosterone = asshole. This, apparently, is not so much a factor in Islamic countries. Not sure if they have a similar equation, though.
 
coldstream
#17
There is an incubus of pure chaos in the nucleus of Islam.
 
Cliffy
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

There is an incubus of pure chaos in the nucleus of Islam.

This is your formula for male chauvinism in Islam?
If you could see without the blinders of dogma, you would see that all religion suffers from the same ailment. It is possible to have faith without the trappings of religious dogma and the related oppression of mind and spirit.
 
coldstream
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

This is your formula for male chauvinism in Islam?
If you could see without the blinders of dogma, you would see that all religion suffers from the same ailment. It is possible to have faith without the trappings of religious dogma and the related oppression of mind and spirit.

Yeah, there's nothing to be done with gospel of a false prophet. It'll a produce bitter fruit, as long as it is proclaimed. Where as that of Christ will produce the fruit of the living vine, despite your stilted view to contrary, cliffy.

And i don't feel oppressed at all, i feel liberated in fact. What do you feel. I sense an element of frustration in your ethos, but i could be wrong.
 
Cliffy
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

Yeah, there's nothing to be done with gospel of a false prophet. It'll a produce bitter fruit, as long as it is proclaimed. Where as that of Christ will produce the fruit of the living vine, despite your stilted view to contrary, cliffy.

And i don't feel oppressed at all, i feel liberated in fact. What do you feel. I sense an element of frustration in your ethos, but i could be wrong.

You could be wrong.

Like a person born into bondage, if you know nothing else, you will not know that you are a prisoner and you will attack the one who tries to free you.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#21
A big question here also is why aren't Cdn feminist organizations slamming Islam on a regular basis? I guess the girlfriend of the oppressive white males isn't allowed to have an opinion on such topics. Brown people can't oppress each other, it's all our fault. We own and control the world. The burden.
 
karrie
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchy View Post

A big question here also is why aren't Cdn feminist organizations slamming Islam on a regular basis?

Part of the problem is that forcing a woman to leave a religion, or change the way she practises a religion, is just as oppressive as the religion itself. The best way to break Islam's oppressiveness is through friendship and example, not slamming it.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

Part of the problem is that forcing a woman to leave a religion, or change the way she practises a religion, is just as oppressive as the religion itself. The best way to break Islam's oppressiveness is through friendship and example, not slamming it.

It's not about forcing anyone to do anything, it is about denouncing brutal actions against women by out of date ideologies. If there were Christians advocating violence against women in Canada, the feminist wave of fury would be unbounded. But when brown skinned men do it, feminists are suddenly too busy to chat.

There's an article in the Vancouver Sun about how feminists are not defending women. Seems like many feminists have a human rights and democracy deficit that needs to be addressed.

Many feminists are not stepping up to defend women
Many feminists are not stepping up to defend women


By Naomi Lakritz, Canwest News Service August 13, 2009

All's been quiet on the sisterhood front. Too quiet, considering how many horrifying stories about women have made the headlines.


There were the alleged honour killings of the three teenaged Shafia girls from Montreal, along with one of their father's two wives. The father, the mother and the girls' brother are charged with murder.


Then there was the eight-year-old girl in Phoenix whose Liberian refugee family disowned her after she was raped. They claim she had dishonoured the family.


And there was Saudi beauty pageant winner Aya Ali al-Mulla, who won her crown without anyone ever seeing her face; she was draped from head to foot in Saudi Arabia's traditional black abaya. Pageant officials pronounced al-Mulla, 18, the Queen of Beautiful Morals.


She had to pass rigorous quizzes on her morality, her obedience to her parents, and other such virtues, to win her title.


All of these incidents have as their theme oppression and the quashing of women's right to autonomy and self-determination, by the males in their milieu. My question is, where are the queens of beautiful morals here in the West?


I checked out the websites of the usual suspects. Naomi Klein is busy tooting her own horn with an announcement that her book, The Shock Doctrine, won the Warwick Prize for Writing! (Exclamation point hers). I did a search for "honour killing" on her site and came up with "Your search yielded no results."
It's possible that my good old namesake is unclear on the concept of oppression.


Klein, who is Jewish, is calling for boycotts of Israel in support of the Palestinian cause whose leaders have declared they want to kill Jewish people.


Maybe if she supported the Palestinian people via protesting their oppression by their terrorist Hamas leaders, she'd have a worthy cause.
Then I looked at Judy Rebick's blog. Like Naomi, she's preoccupied with flogging her own book, Transforming Power. One recent post, dated July 28, was titled: The Toronto Municipal Strike: Who Do We Get Mad At?
I don't know who to get mad at about the garbage strike in Toronto, Judy. Living in Calgary, it doesn't cross my mind that much.


But shouldn't we all be even a teeny bit mad at the way women are being denied their selfhood by the patriarchal environments they live in, be it in Canada, Phoenix or wherever it's happening?
Judy does have a post from June titled "Take action in solidarity with the indigenous people of Peru."


What about a little solidarity with four dead women whose car ended up in the Rideau Canal near Kingston? How about a show of solidarity with that beauty queen in Saudi Arabia who's obviously a brilliant girl because she plans to go to medical school, but who can't show her face to the world because to do so might dishonour her family and lead to a fatal consequence?


And is there nary a tear to be shed or a word to be spared for that poor child in Phoenix whose family has tossed her aside like so much trash for something that was not her fault? Meanwhile, on Rose's Place, which bills itself as a blogsite for Canadian feminists, recent discussions centred around Sonia Sotomayor, Obama's birth certificate and U.S. health reform, with Toronto Star columnist Antonia Zerbisias complaining about Muslim-bashing regarding the alleged honour killings. It is not Muslim-bashing to acknowledge that a crime has allegedly happened in a Muslim family.
It is not Sikh-bashing to say that some of the alleged honour killings in Canada in the past few years happened in Sikh families.
Shall we just ignore the United Nations Population Fund's estimate that 5,000 women a year die in honour killings, to avoid casting aspersions on any culture?


Shall we pretend it's not happening in Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey, Morocco and Pakistan, to name just a few countries?


There seems to be no problem with denouncing Christian culture for decorating trees at Christmastime, or displaying crosses on Remembrance Day, but when members of another culture engage in evildoing, we're supposed to pretend it all just falls under the rubric of domestic violence. Since domestic violence occurs in all cultures, honour killings can be conveniently lumped into that category and we can keep pretending it's not particular to certain cultures.


Nobody's even mentioned the fact that Mohammad Shafia was living in this country with two wives, one of whom died with the girls.


Let's just pass completely over that form of oppression visited on these two women, for fear of offending someone.


As Judy Rebick says in another June blog posting: "The revolution will be tweeted or whatever." Yeah, Judy. Whatever.

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun