Guess what these three things have in common:
Honor Killing – “An honor killing is the murder of a victim (almost always a female) by, or at the behest of, close family members with the aim of undoing the loss, or perceived loss, of wider family status owing to the actions or status of the victim. Victims are usually killed for actions seen to be sexually immodest.”
Would you pledge your virginity to your father? – “The event’s purpose is, in part, to celebrate dad-daughter bonding, but the main agenda is for fathers to vow to protect the girls’ chastity until they marry and for the daughters to promise to stay pure. Pastor Randy Wilson, host of the event and cofounder of the ball, strides to the front of the room, takes the microphone and asks the men, “Are you ready to war for your daughters’ purity?” ”
Teen died of strangulation – “Aqsa Parvez was strangled to death in her Mississauga home, Peel police said today. An autopsy revealed the cause of death as “neck compression.” The 16-year-old was taken to hospital Monday morning after a man called police and said he killed his daughter. She died later that night. Friends told reporters that Aqsa fought with her Muslim family over whether or not to wear the hijab. She often stayed overnight with friends, afraid to go home, they said.”
Do you sense the common denominator here?? It’s all about MEN CONTROLLING WOMEN. Period. Especially, especially controlling who gets between their legs. (The women, apparently, don’t get to decide that.)
Men have always insisted that they should control women, of course. It’s an old, evil illness they just can’t seem to shake. There have been men controlling women (violently or not) for millenia, in every organization, group, political party, or philosophy in history.
But in the case of most of the “Purity Balls,” “honor” killings, and in the case of Aqsa Pervez two days ago — that crime was compounded, as it has been throughout history — by religion.
Religious men have really created a perfect scenario for themselves. Not only do they crave to exert control over women — but in their religion, they get to be told that it’s compulsory. And the women, damn them, have to submit and obey these gloriously
self-righteous men or risk eternal damnation.
As I’ve listened to CBC news over the past couple of days, I can tell they’re so worried about not offending religious and other groups that they’re trying to portray this as a matter of parent-child cultural conflict. A typical generation gap issue, though in Aqsa’s case, taken to extremes because “culture” was involved.
IT IS NOT PARENT-CHILD CULTURAL CONFLICT. If that were the case, the news would be just as full of stories about fathers killing their SONS.
It. is. not.
This is about the War Against Women, and in the above cases, religion is being lassoed by the men to justify what they wanted to do all along anyway — control women. Show what big, powerful men they are.
Tell these uppity women just exactly what they can wear, and, by god, who is and is not allowed between their legs!
And if these men can’t control these uppity women who want to be, you know, mature, self-determining human beings whose lives and bodies belong to themselves — why, the women must be killed. Men must NOT be disobeyed or crossed. Or else.
The macho, warring men taking their daughters to the Purity Balls (looking them in the eyes, putting rings on their fingers, and pledging to guard these girls’ virginity till they hand it over to another man — can there be anything more incestuous??) — these guys haven’t (so far) killed any of their little darlings who, it turns out, decide to have sex before marriage after all.
But it’s coming. It’s just a matter of time.
Because this is all about men controlling women, and religion giving them all the excuse they could ever want, to do it.
I am so pleased that as my country is taken down the right-wingnut road by “Canada’s Neo-Con Government,” there are still elements of sanity in the realm. Note this Globe and Mail article of Friday:
Citing the example of Maher Arar, a Federal Court judge ruled yesterday that Canada must reconsider a reciprocal refugee-processing agreement with the United States because Washington flouts conventions meant to safeguard immigrants against torture in their homelands.
Experts say the effect of the ruling may ultimately be that Canada will have to process thousands more refugee claimants each year, now that the continued existence of the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA), passed in 2004, is in question.
Mr. Justice Michael Phelan wrote that the U.S. does not comply with international refugee conventions and that the Canadian government, in entering into the agreement, “acted unreasonably” in concluding that it did.
The STCA requires refugee claimants to seek protection in the first country they reach, and has allowed Canada to automatically send refugee claimants at the border back to the United States, from where they are usually detained or deported.
Janet Dench, executive director of the Canadian Council for Refugees, which mounted the legal challenge based on the argument that the U.S. is not a safe country for refugee claimants, said the court’s decision is significant.
“It is very good to see a court is taking seriously the human rights of refugees because there are times when we feel the rights of refugees don’t count for much around the world.”
Do you get what the judge said here? In short — the U.S. has a bad enough human rights record that Canada should not regard it as a “safe” country for refugees.
About time someone said it out loud.