Father Kills Daughter Over Hijab

[Sarevok]

I don't think there is any easy to change how people identify themselves. The Canadian-bengalis I know still think of themselves bengali even if they were born in Canada. It takes 2-3 generations at least before they lose this mentality. This is because there is a very strong impulse among people from subcontinent against blending in. Not knowing your native language, culture or dress is seen as a big sellout. Now while retaining ones own culture is fine some people go overboard with it. The problem arises when they are Canadian on paper and some other nationality in heart.

[Aaron]

I was careful to say "almost" and it rather misses my point: at 16, you do not have the resources to take care of yourself, and your dad can make life a living hell. The legality does not matter: the parent has complete control, unless you are a very lucky and mature sixteen year old.

You can move out of the house at 16 to your own government funded apartment if you can prove that your parents are abusing you. Or if your so fucked up that you can get your parents to legally abandon you.

You can do it if you possess the will.

[Androsphinx]

I hate to say this, but if this was a normal "Father kills daughter in row" story, would anyone be interested? The plural of anecdote is not data, and the plural of "honour killing" is not jihad.

[DavidEC]

Personally I think multiculturalism is a fundamentally richer vision of society so long as it firmly embedded with a framework of individual rights, and the latter overrides the former when in conflict. Your culture is fine just so long as it doesn't infringe on mine - the same principle as what bryaneci said when multiculturalism goes both ways. This is a more accurate and consistent definition of multiculturalism that applies to everyone equally. It shouldn't be applied to instances where authorities or people in general tolerate idiocies or outrages in the name of multiculturalism, when in fact it is more plain cowardice and political correctness. Unfortunately so long as the definitions are confused, then multiculturalism is synonymous with PCness somehow. If the definitions were clearer then a lot more people would be won over to multiculturalism, although there's not much you can do for the actual nationalists who simply hate foreign stuff. Currently, I think the former go with 'Britishness' simply because there's a stark choice between that and 'tolerate everything foreign, including the shit'.

I wonder how many of the same Daily Mail pundits who rail against multiculturalism finish their articles and then pop out for an Indian curry, Chinese takeaway, a German lager or a Turkish kebab, to give some crude examples.

Obviously the average muslim does not kill their children for disobeying them. What's really disgusting is that as the article above says, the hijab isn't even MANDATED by the religion. I'd hate to see what would happen if they defied the actual commands.

If it was mandated repeatedly and clearly then the dad still would not have one iota more of justification. Hopefully this is mere nitpicking but by the logic of your sentence it would be less 'really disgusting' if it were mandated.

People need to realise that the plaintive, victim-playing morally grandstanding cry of "it's my religion" is not justification for anything beyond ceremonial trivialities, and I say 'people' because even you see even the non-religious treat religious arguments with a sort of abnormal respect.

[brianeyci]

You can move out of the house at 16 to your own government funded apartment if you can prove that your parents are abusing you. Or if your so fucked up that you can get your parents to legally abandon you.

You can do it if you possess the will.

At 16, most teenagers are still in awe of adults and would do whatever an adult says. A teenager who reports his parents for abuse might have it in his mind that it's an easy step, report and the dad will listen and everything will change, but it should only be a last resort.

I'm not saying she did the wrong thing here, and she did the right thing moving out because it looks like he had homicidial tendencies (her only mistake was going back). But sometimes you can consider it a trade, do what they say then escape as soon as you've got high school done and trade to fall back on so you don't have to claw from nothing. Like that Muslim girl I talked to, who's studying and pumping her dad for money. As soon as she gets enough, and has her education, she is gone to her lesbian lover.

So escaping for the vast majority of Muslim girls because daddy wants her to wear a hijab is out of the question.

[Melchior]

No, I think there's another name... a latin term, that doesn't just apply for parents to minors but whenever any person has a shitload of power over another and can speak for them and can do almost anything they want to them.

Patria potestas (authority of the father).
State-mandated five-year-long Latin courses in top tier high schools FTW.

[FSTargetDrone]

Follow-up:

Lack of hijab a 'failure' to some

Imam addresses controversy over girl's death

Craig Offman, National Post Published: Friday, December 14, 2007

MISSISSAUGA - Muslim leaders yesterday denounced as un-Islamic the murder of a Toronto-area teenager who had clashed with her family, but said some parents would view themselves as having failed in their duty if their child chose not to wear the hijab.

The comments came at a tense news conference at the Islamic Society of North America Canada headquarters in Mississauga, held three days after the alleged strangling death of 16-year-old Aqsa Parvez. Her father, Mohammad Parvez, is accused of killing her, and friends say the family had argued over the girl's refusal to wear the hijab, or traditional Muslim head scarf.

While stressing the sanctity of human life, denouncing the crime and describing it as a case of domestic abuse, religious leaders yesterday insisted on the hijab's importance to such parents as Aqsa's, even if a daughter rejects it.

"They were believing that part of their culture was hijab, and it is their duty to convince their kids that this is part of their culture," said Mohammad Alnadvi, who sits on the Canadian Council of Imams.

"So if the daughter makes the decision, then they have failed," he said.

Still, Imam Alnadvi said that judging from the information he received, the hijab was only one of the issues.

"This girl, she refused to stay at home," he said. "There were feelings that she is going in some wrong direction … (sic) going with some other boy or some other thing."

After he made those comments, two women in hijabs interrupted him and started to disagree, before abruptly leaving the gym where the conference was being held.

In an interview afterward, the women -- a mother and daughter -- said they had taken Aqsa into their home on various occasions, but would not say any more.

The convener of the event, Sheikh Alaa Elsayed, said that one of the keys to getting daughters to wear the hijab is teaching them about religion at a young age. The other, he said, is "a proper spouse."

In his introductory remarks filled with religious references, Arabic flourishes and abundant blessings, Sheik Elsayed stressed that parents should teach the benefits of the religious clothing.

"We have to be successful teachers," he said, adding later in the dialogue that parents should encourage daughters "to do the right thing."

Still, he said, words and deeds are more important than clothing.

Citing the Koran, Sheik Elsayed said it is forbidden to hit anyone, adding that taking away a human life is an act against all humanity.

"No religion condones such an act," he said.

He also spoke out against moving away from religion. "We cannot let culture supersede religion," he said.

"If we stay away from the teachings of Islam, we will pay for it."

After the meeting, several Muslims had conflicted feelings about the message given to the media.

"I don't know how important the hijab is," said the centre's director, M.D. Khalid.

"My wife didn't wear it until we had children, and then they went to Islamic school and she felt she should set a role in the family."

Aqsa's brother, Mohammad Shan Parvez, told reporters on Wednesday that what happened to his sister "is not [about] culture." He said his mother was sick with grief.

"She cannot control, because her daughter died, so she's [feeling] bad," said Mr. Parvez, shortly after he saw his 57-year-old father make a brief court appearance in an orange prison jumpsuit. Another brother has been charged with obstructing police in their investigation.

Joseph Ciraco, lawyer for the father, said on Wednesday that family members "are torn." "I mean, you've got a sister that's gone and your father and brother are in jail. I don't think it's a big surprise that they're distraught and trying to cope as best they can."

Police have not speculated on a motive for the killing, but indicated on Wednesday that the girl died of a "neck compression."

Police were called to Mr. Parvez's Mississauga, Ont., home minutes before 8 a.m. on Monday by a man who told 911 operators he had killed his daughter. Paramedics found the girl lying motionless on the floor of her bedroom. The paramedics detected a faint pulse and rushed her to hospital, where she died several hours later.

Friends have said Aqsa left her home about a week before the attack because she had been fighting with her father and brothers about her refusal to wear the hijab and other traditional clothing. The teenager often would change into Western clothes when she got to her high school, then put the hijab back on before she went home, friends said.

Investigators later charged her father, a taxicab driver from Pakistan, with murder. Mr. Ciraco said his client likely will face a charge of second-degree murder, although that has not been finalized.

They are still trying to have it both ways, wouldn't you say? Yes yes, condemn the act, but gosh, it's really important that we make sure that the females wear this modest clothing. Gotta stress that. Terrible shame she died... yes, but religion trumps all!

[Sarevok]

You will get better results arguing about the hijab with the walls of a mosque than the people are run it or are influential in the clerical hierarchy. The best you can hope for is convincing islamic leaders that it is ok to let women decide for themselves. This is not a question of right or wrong for you will never beat the stubborn in a debate. Barring some radical scifi like social engineering best one can do is wait while the new generation of immigrants lose their parents mindset.

[Justforfun000]

I've been a little busy so I've missed some of this...

Brianeyci:

As Cpl Kendall pointed out, at the age of 16, you CAN legally choose to leave your home and do whatever the fuck you want. As a fellow Canadian, you should know this. I never said it would be easy, or even desirable, but she can do so if she chooses. Obviously in this case, it would have been a very good idea...

DavidEC Wrote:

If it was mandated repeatedly and clearly then the dad still would not have one iota more of justification. Hopefully this is mere nitpicking but by the logic of your sentence it would be less 'really disgusting' if it were mandated.

People need to realise that the plaintive, victim-playing morally grandstanding cry of "it's my religion" is not justification for anything beyond ceremonial trivialities, and I say 'people' because even you see even the non-religious treat religious arguments with a sort of abnormal respect.

I'm not saying that he would be truly justified, but at least we would be able to partially blame the brainwashing religion itself for commanding this. However since it is NOT specifically mandated, then this means his own actions were completely dictated by his personal motives and this makes his killing even more reprehensible from my point of view..especially since it is his own daughter.

I'm a little annoyed that the articles that report on these stories never seem to have the balls to print a statement from the police or politicians who would do well to say in a straightforward manner something along the line of "The government of Canada does not care WHAT religious reasons are used as a pretext for moral justification, it is illegal to kill another human being no matter HOW dishonered you may personally feel by your family members. You should learn that in this country you have no choice but to abide by the laws and let your daughter make her OWN choices in life and if you don't like it, get the fuck out!".

I'd LOVE to see that kind of statement in print someday.

[Darth Wong]

I'm not saying that he would be truly justified, but at least we would be able to partially blame the brainwashing religion itself for commanding this.

Part of the problem here is that people seem to think there is a fixed amount of blame which can be apportioned out for any crime. So if you blame some agent other than the killer, then it is assumed that the killer has been at least partially absolved of responsibility. If they didn't make this completely unnecessary assumption, they would realize that you can add another agent to the blame list without reducing the primary actor's responsibility.

[Justforfun000]

Darth Wong Wrote:

Part of the problem here is that people seem to think there is a fixed amount of blame which can be apportioned out for any crime. So if you blame some agent other than the killer, then it is assumed that the killer has been at least partially absolved of responsibility. If they didn't make this completely unnecessary assumption, they would realize that you can add another agent to the blame list without reducing the primary actor's responsibility.

Exactly! That was perfectly put. You are actually just showing that there is even MORE factors, or people to blame. Not that it lessens it for one of the components. It'd be like saying the pilots that flew into the World Trade Centers were somewhat absolved by the fact that Bin Laden was the mastermind.

[Eleas]

Exactly! That was perfectly put. You are actually just showing that there is even MORE factors, or people to blame. Not that it lessens it for one of the components. It'd be like saying the pilots that flew into the World Trade Centers were somewhat absolved by the fact that Bin Laden was the mastermind.

That's actually not too divorced from the classic authoritarian mindset. "I was just following orders" seems almost a hard-wired concept; those who cling to it always do it on the assumption that the blame is a static quantity, and that it gravitates from the grunts to the leaders.

It's so natural for us to think this way that we often accept it without hesitation. After all, we know it was the Nazi leadership and the SS who called the shots, so why ever blame the Wehrmacht?

(With apologies if Goodwin's Law applies.)