Archive for the ‘cowardice’ Category
A horrible story out of Vancouver:
Police are hunting for man who forced a 13-year-old girl off a city bus and sexually assaulted her in an East Vancouver back alley early Tuesday morning.
Const. Jana McGuinness said the girl was riding home on a bus at 2:30 a.m. when the man got on and sat down beside her.
What was a 13-year-old girl doing riding a bus in the Downtown Eastside at that time of night all alone? This is a stunning display of criminal neglect if I ever saw one. I wouldn’t ride the bus that late at night.
The media are as usual not being as helpful:
Police described the suspect as 20 to 25 years old, clean-shaven with light- or medium-coloured skin, short black hair and wearing a white tank top and blue jeans.
Police took DNA samples to try to determine the identity of the attacker, but McGuinness said it’s too early to link the attack to a suspect in the sexual assault of a six-year-old girl in Surrey on July 3.
The Surrey assault has been linked by DNA, the suspect description and other evidence to similar attacks on two 14-year-old girls in Delta in 2007 and an attack on a 13-year-old girl in Vancouver in 1995.
I might just write this off as filler if it wasn’t misleading the general population into thinking that a 20- to 25-year-old man can be somehow linked to a rape that occurred in 1995, when he could have at most been 11 years old. It’s a bit of a long shot, but they’re saying that this might be related to the July 3 attack, which is now linked to the one in 1995, and you get the picture. Which is it? Is the assault here linkable to July 3, or is July 3 linable to the one in 1995? Because it can’t be both.
Girls at 13 years of age are the most likely age to be victims of these kinds of assaults. Allowing them to cruise around the most dangerous parts of a major Canadian city at the darkest of night is an evil act of child abuse.
We’re now faced with what has been called another “honour killing” in this country at the hands of the victims’ own parents, and apparently a dissemblance about how many wives the father had.
The deaths of Zainab, Sahab, and Geeti Shafi, and their “aunt” Rona Mohammed, were never treated as an accident by police, but this was the postulated theory by father Mohammed Shafi and mother Tooba Mohammed Yaha. Even an aunt of the family, Zarmina Fazel, was questioning who would go for a drive at midnight and do so around a virtual maze of obstacles to practice her driving.
It should have been a large tip-off that the parents were willing to blame the daughter, Zainab, for the accident. No parent who had lost their daughter would be placing blame with such frivolity as these two were.
Meanwhile, a lot has been revealed about the family since the investigation has gone on, including the nature of the family itself:
Kingston police confirmed on Thursday that Rona Amir Mohammad was Mohammad Shafia’s first wife, and that he was also married to Ms. Yahya. A relative who sent an anonymous e-mail to the Montreal Gazette alleged that Mr. Shafia was “disgraced” by his daughters’ behaviour in Canada, and that he wanted his first wife to return to Canada while hiding the fact they were married. The author of the e-mail said Mr. Shafia married Ms. Yahya as his second wife, because Ms. Mohammad could not have children.
Nothing about the autopsies performed on the victims since the beginning of the month has been released yet. The two parents, and their son Hamed, are all under arrest and charged with murder as well as conspiracy to commit murder. The family that slays together stays together, but as long as there are enough children to go around.
How is it that Shafia was able to sneak in a second wife in the first place? Apparently the act of polygamy was legal in Afghanistan, where they are originally from, but also legal in the United Arab Emirates, where they lived fifteen years prior to moving to Canada. I have a doubt that it was Canada’s decadent lifestyle that had corrupted his children in such a short amount of time, unless maybe they were being forced to read Heather Has Two Mommies in school and it didn’t quite mean what Mr. Shafia had intended.
I’d like to congratulate the Kingston Police for having such a sensitive chief:
“Some of us have different core beliefs, different family values, different sets of rules; certainly these individuals, in particular the three teenagers, were Canadian teenagers who have all the freedom and rights of expression of all Canadians,” Kingston police Chief Stephen Tanner said at a press conference on Thursday. “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, but combined with other investigative issues as well.”
Confusing a statement to the press with a chance to make a happy-time speech, the man on the job for eight months has already belittled his own police force. Open to a little bit of speculation? No, it’s your job to figure out what the motive was, or you have no case. The relatives seem pretty sure that it’s an honour killing, as many of them have come forward and stated that the father was threatening the daughter for having a romantic relationship with a boy from Pakistan. The woman, Diba Masoomi, is supposedly the sister of Rona Mohammed and is convinced that this was a multiple honour killing.
Bear in mind, too, that the sons were either conspiring to commit murder against their own sisters, like Hamid, or were willing to lie about his father’s polygamy, like another son Ali, who told the Kingston Whig-Standardthat Rona Mohammed was an “aunt.” I might be willing to entertain that the father was simply lying to the younger children about his relationship to Mohammed, but it’s unlikely that he can keep that up for so many years.
It’s also extremely unlikely that the daughters were enjoying all of the freedoms and rights that Chief Tanner decided he has the power to bestow upon them. Maybe we all have different rules for families and so on, but we all live under one set of laws in this country. Law enforcement in this country failed miserably by sanctioning the import of polygamy, and even ignoring it in Bountiful is just as bad. Ignoring our laws wrapped up in the false guise of religious practice makes for a two-tiered justice system. It’s further letting down these women by flippantly ignoring motives for the crime. Make a serious charge, Chief Tanner, or vacate that seat so a real man can occupy it.
After an investigation that cost thousands and thousands of dollars, it has been declared that the town of Canterbury in England is *sufficiently gay*
The two-month investigation began at the end of April after a letter was sent from two representatives of Pride in Canterbury.
Chairman Andrew Brettell lodged a formal complaint with the Local Government Ombudsman claiming his initial letter to the council in November fell on deaf ears.
Mr Brettell, in his 60s, said last month: “” We do not believe the council want a thriving LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) community in our city. The impression I get is that the council just doesn’t want to know.
As part of the investigation, the council had to prove its inclusiveness by giving details of “touring plays and musicals, for example, which would be of interest to the LGBT community”.
And it had to show that it had “put forward suggestions for small events that it might help fund, as well as proposals for other events such as exhibitions”.
Rob Davies, spokesman for the council, said: “Obviously we’re delighted with the outcome of the investigation.
In the never-ending quest for equality, to be treated exactly the same as all other citizens of society, members of a homosexual group lodge a formal complaint to council, making them spend thousands and thousands of tax-payer dollars to prove to them that yes, the local government is catering exclusively to them and no-one else through the medium of musicals/plays/etc.
Imagine, some old gay guy gets a bug up his ass because he’s not happy that town council isn’t playing Bette Midler show-tunes through a loudspeaker, or whatever, and the gov’t willingly jumps through hoops to prove that they love homosexuals and would never entertain the thought of disrespecting them in any way.
It always amazes me that gay rights means having extra rights. And that aint right. Right?
George Will the Third, that pretentious twit with the twee little bow ties, is among the crowd of Palin haters. This quasi-Republican is spending the last days of the campaign slagging the Republican ticket, with that smug “I’m smarter than you but I’ll talk in comparatively small syllables so cretins like you can see how much smarter I am than you” tone of his: (more…)
This week, Scott Adams, creator of the comic strip “Dilbert,” inserted into his strip the character of “Jesus.” Surely no one would notice.
Let me admit that I’ve always found “Dilbert” to be as bland as a cold, baked potato. The drawing could be significantly improved and the humor is usually lacking. The character Dilbert somehow speaks while lacking a mouth and his tie looks like it’s in a state of perpetual erection. Perhaps Viagara has expanded its clientèle.
This week, Adams caught on to the old idea that if one wants instant publicity and fame, he could do no better than mock Christianity and Catholicism. (For an example of this, see the band Marilyn Manson.) Adams spends the week inserting a character named “Jesus” (but pronounced Hay-soos — get it?) into his strips. (I guess it’s routine for the founder of Christianity to help smooth things along in your local cubicle.)
Below is “Jesus” making himself useful:
Surprisingly, Adams received quite a response. At his website, Adams wrote:
My favorite rhetorical question, which I received an alarming number of times, was “Why don’t you mock Mohammed next? Huh? Why not?”
Well, aside from the blindingly obvious reason that I prefer life over death, I didn’t realize I was making fun of Christianity this week. It’s a standard cartoon practice to take well-known historical or fictional stories and put other characters in those roles. I did the same thing with The Wizard of Oz, and no one thought I was insulting Dorothy.
Jesus. Dorothy. Same thing.
I am not so much bothered by Adams’s use of Jesus in his strips so much as the double standard he employs. (And if you’re resorting to drawing “Jesus” with a tie at the local office, then you’re probably lacking in good judgment and running out of ideas very quickly.)
At a time when Adams wisely acknowledges the sensitivity of mocking the founders of religions, he safely selects the one which will generate the least amount of problems. Perhaps next week, Adams can begin
drawing writing strips about Dilbert’s courage. Certainly Dilbert must be more courageous than his creator.
~ Sisyphus, cross-posted at The Sisyphus Files.