This New York Post article recounts a case in Georgia where the father of a 25 year-old woman, who told him she wanted out of her unhappy (and arranged) marriage, then strangled his daughter to death with a bungee cord. The author of the article wonders why--apart from the fact that the woman was not an attractive blonde--the story is not getting wall-to-wall coverage on the networks that ordinarily cover sensational crimes. In the end, she concludes, it comes down to the fact that this case (and a growing list of others like it) demands that we pass judgment on the faith and the culture of people who live this way. It demands that we do an uncomfortable thing and call for the assimilation of both male and female Muslim immigrants. The author also wonders why American feminists seem to be silent on these matters but, then, it was only a rhetorical question. Of course the answer is that they are too busy worrying about the waistline measurements on Barbie dolls to be concerned with things like strangulation, stabbing, and other forms of murdering young women who dare to be free.
One also has to wonder why the Democratic Party is the number one choice for Feminists. The Democratic Party has members like rapist Bill Clinton, woman killer Ted Kennedy and cheat-on-your wife who is dying from cancer John Edwards and the list goes on and on.....Feminists are not logical nor intelligent. They just follow whoever supports abortion. They don't realize that people like Bill, Ted and John support abortion whole-heartedly. It gives them the opportunity to kill off their mistakes....
The author of the NYPost piece says "When a blonde girl goes missing, cable networks stop in their tracks - but when a Muslim woman is murdered by her father, there's not a ripple of sustained interest."
This isn't exactly the best angle to go at this issue. Why encourage an Ann Coulter-ized version of tabloid journalism ?(oh, but I guess this is the NYPost we're hearing from on this, so...)
In any case, these honor killings are a big problem obviously, regardless of their frequency, and convictions should be pursued aggressively whenever they occur.
I'm curious if those on the right would like to see this added to the list of hate crimes.
It's highly questionable that feminists are silent on these matters. (and since the first commenter opted to bash Dems, I'll just note in passing that it was a Democrat, Sheila Jackson Lee, who spearheaded H.32 to denounce the practice (among other violations of women's human rights))
I'm somewhat skeptical about the right's concern on this issue, though. I can't recall seeing a peep about the Catholic sex abuse scandal (be it the one here or in Australia). This is sex abuse perpetrated by religious leaders. Same goes with the fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints, with their marrying the under-age girls. (The right's main concern appeared to be the polygamy more than anything else)
There are somewhere around 1.8 million Muslims in the U.S. How many honor killings have there been? Compare this to the Catholic sex abuse and the FLDS issues. Where were the "demands that we pass judgment on the faith and the culture of people who live this way"? Perhaps there were some that I missed regarding the FLDS, but I don't recall the right demanding such judgments of Catholics. The reason that some are calling for "demands that we pass judgment on the faith and the culture of people who live this way" is that Muslims are the people at issue. It's fine to separate the faith from the crimes, but this should be done consistently.
Lastly, the right should be careful about aligning with human rights groups on this one, as those groups will not hesitate to denounce other activities beloved and promoted by the right.
Balancing a laissez-faire approach to cultural matters while maintaining a judgmental attitude towards Western culture's male "patriarchy" (which allows them full freedom to say and do even stupid things) is just too hard for feminists. Keeping such things straight are too hard for any human mind much less those obsessed with perpetual unreasonable petty outrage. Besides, honor killings are not sensational crimes. They happen all too often.
Why are we importing this culture into the United States?
Why are we allowing the house of saud to construct mosques for the most virulent form of islam? Why are we allowing them to establish facts on the ground in our midst?
American feminism has already plenty of resources to draw upon to condemn the violence against women that the article indicates. Of course it takes something other than an eggshell mind poisoned against 'femi-nazi's' to be able to read them. Worrying about barbie waistlines is not the moral equivalent of killing, but neither is it a petty outrage. Violence against women, real and symbolic, should be condemned, not used to score cheap points against Islamic culture. It would be just as easy to score points on the violence against women in Christian culture, as Mr. Scanlon suggests. But that would require sitting around and scanning garbage from the New York Post with which to score snarky-points on a neocon blog. Who would stoop to such a pathetic existence as that?
Good points Craig.
The facts on the matter seem to be that muslim assimilation and assimilation altogether is a hazzy concept. Technically the mathmaticians/economists can do studies that determine assimilation by refference to whether or not computer AI can determine the likelyhood that someone is a member of a particular group. Dr. Schramm posted such an example of such a regressive study, and there are more out there like it. If you wanted to do a regressive study you could see if a computer program could predict if a group was muslim on the basis of adding a variable such as murder. I doubt it. Therefore I agree with Craig. Technically speaking I am not even sure if Islam is not an arbitrary variable, I mean it could be that being from Georgia is just as important(this would be satisfied if being from Georgia accounts for a higher murder rate than being muslim adjusted for total population) or being of a certain economic class.
In truth media coverage in general is sensationalists and while giving more flesh and concreteness to our conceptions nevertheless augments the immagination, beyond what the big picture would justify.
I do blame democrats, and some sociologists for introducing the distinction "honor killing", obviously "honor killing" does require killing for "honor" which by and large would require some sort of religious/philosophical hierarchy to be present as explanation for murder thus being prejudiced against religious folk, and others that are capable of having a worked out honor system in the first place. Technically the mathmatical atheist type, or enlightened liberals like Craig may not be capable of honor killing, so it may be another example of shooting fish in a barrel. It may even be that people from Georgia are more statistically prone to honor killings than folk from Masschusets. Who the hell knows?
I prefer keeping it clean with just plain murder. In this way we avoid trying the impossible: being scientifically objective and talking about what is in a man's heart!
Now it may be that what Muslims loose in terms of being more prone to honor killings/abuse they make up for in being less prone to alcoholic rage/abuse/murder. Therefore it may be that the factors muslims do not share in that are corrolated for murder, make up for the factors unique to them, and that statistically they are therefore murder neutral.
Lets put it this way, I might statistically speaking rather have a muslim as a neighbor than an Irish man.
The Irish man probably has a larger chance of being alcoholic(with all the dangers that statistically implies) than the muslim man has a chance of being an honor killer or a terrorist.
Culturally speaking I might still prefer the Irish alcoholic, but in terms of gauging fear rationally...I should probably fear the Irish gent more.
Craig:
In response to your question "I'm curious if those on the right would like to see this added to the list of hate crimes"
Every crime committed is a hate crime, whether it be for love, money, sexual-orientation, or race. Liberals are the ones who love hate crimes, not people on the right. Hate crimes are just another way for liberals to get votes from "special groups". Liberals really don't believe in the concept of "all men are created equal". Liberals are the ones who have pushed hate crimes, hate speech and giving special laws to special groups - it is the only way they can get votes. Is Matthew Shepard's murder worth more than that of the Bologna Family in San Francisco? After all the Bolognas where straight-white males. I think not. Every murder no matter what the motivation is wrong and deserves the same punishment. As far as the feminist are concerned - where is NOW, Gloria, Jane, and Gandy? Not a peep - why - Because maybe they look at the murder of two young girls by their father a late-term abortion. Or maybe they are too afraid to say anything because they may be targeted for murder by crazed Muslims. They have no back bone. I grew up and went to Catholic schools and knew all about the going ons there way before it was revealed. The Catholic School system was a haven for gay men looking for young boys. You bet all of them should be locked up for what they did including the higher ups who covered it up, and I believe that the Catholic Church has suffered dearly not only in terms of money, but in terms of credibility. By the way, the left, especially Ted Kennedy did nothing about it. And if the left is so concerned about the abuse by the Catholic Church, then how come they continue to support the Teacher's Union and public schools were sexual abuse by teachers is more rampant than anything in the Catholic Church? More kids are sexually abused by public school teachers each year, but the left will not acknowleged it - matter of fact they continue to support the Teachers' Union and because the Teacher's Union is a "special Group" and the liberals need their votes and money. With regard to the FLDS - get use to this - if you are going to support same-sex marriage based on "LOVE", then you are going to have to deal with the fact that LOVE and marriage can be ten, twenty or thirty members including underage kids, dogs, horses, cats, mice, etc. If you are going to push one special groups agenda, then you have to push them all. At least the FLDS kids are still alive. One more item - I am sure we are just beginning to see what will become a huge issue over the next few years as more and more Muslims in the U.S. feel unthreatened by carrying out their honor killings because the left doesn't want to hurt their feelings. Like the left's mantra that illegal aliens are good for this country, it will all come tumbling down. Just ask Mrs. Bologna is San Francisco what she thinks of illegal aliens and the fact that 25% of the prison population in California is illegal aliens...