# IMPORTANT VERDICT To Previous Posting "Welcome ALL Immigrants Etc."



## Magnum (Feb 5, 2010)

*ALL Shafia Family Members Found Guilty Of First-Degree Murder!! Automatic LIFE SENTENCE!! NO Chance Of Parole For 25 YEARS!!*










*<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>*

*Mohammad Shafia, 58, his wife Tooba Yahya, 42, and their son Hamed, 21, were each found guilty of four counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of Shafia's three teenaged daughters and his first wife.*

*Sisters Zainab, 19, Sahar, 17, and Geeti, 13, along with Shafia's other wife Rona Amir Mohammad, 52, were found dead on June 30, 2009 in a car at the bottom of a canal in Kingston. *

From the start of the trial in October, prosecutors argued these were *"honour killings"-the Afghan-Canadian family's answer to the young sisters' perceived shameful behaviour. *

*"It is difficult to conceive of a more despicable, more heinous, more honourless crime,"* Justice Robert Maranger said in court after the verdict was delivered Sunday.

*"The apparent reason behind these cold-blooded, shameful murders was that the four completely innocent victims offended your completely twisted concept of honour…that has absolutely no place in any civilized society."*

Jurors reached the guilty verdict after a 10-week trial, 58 witnesses and 15 hours of deliberations. One juror burst into tears as the verdict was read, reported CTV News' Montreal Bureau Chief Genevieve Beauchemin.

*A first-degree murder conviction carries an automatic life sentence with no chance of parole for 25 years.*

One-by-one, Mohammad, Tooba and Hamed maintained their innocence when asked by the judge if they wanted to say anything.

"We are not criminal, we are not murderer, we didn't commit the murder and this is unjust," Mohammad Shafia told the court through a translator.

"Your honourable justice, this is not just," Yahya said, also through an interpreter. "I am not a murderer, and I am a mother-a mother!"

Hamed addressed the judge in English, saying: "Sir, I did not drown my sisters anywhere."

Beauchemin noted that Hamed appeared to be the most emotional of the three, slumping in his seat as the verdicts were read.

At one point his parents rubbed his back, presumably in a bid to console him.

*Trial 'gave victims a voice' *

As the trio was led out of the courthouse in front of a throng of journalists and flashing cameras, Mohammad Shafia loudly said: "Wrong."

Outside the Kingston courtroom, prosecutor Gerard Laarhuis said it was a good day for Canadian justice but also a sad day given it involves the death of four women.

"*This jury found that four strong, viviacious and freedom-loving women were murdered by their own family in the most troubling of circumstances," he said. *

Some onlookers in a crowd on the court steps cheered when Laarhuis spoke while others heckled the prosecutor.

"*This verdict sends a very clear message about our Canadian values and the core principles of a free and democratic society that all Canadians enjoy and even visitors to Canada enjoy," Laarhuis said.*

Staff Sgt. Chris Scott, who led the Shafia investigation, thanked prosecutors for their work.

"I would just like to add one thing, assistant Crown attorney Gerard Laarhuis and (prosecutor) Laurie Lacelle did an exceptional job," he said amid cheers.

"Their passion, their work ethic, gave these victims a voice when they had none and I appreciate their work," he said.

In a statement following the verdict, *Justice Minister Rob Nicholson called honour killings "barbaric and unacceptable in Canada." *

*"This government is committed to protecting women and other vulnerable persons from all forms of violence and to hold perpetrators accountable for their acts," he said. *

Outside court, Shafia's lawyer Peter Kemp said he believes the jury was swayed by wiretap conversations in which his *client called his dead daughters whores.*

"He wasn't convicted for what he did," Kemp said. "He was convicted for what he said."

Hamed's lawyer, Patrick McCann, said his client will appeal. He believes Hamed's parents will do the same.

Legal analyst Steven Skurka told CTV News this is a precedent-setting case in Canada, where honour killings are "a rare phenomenon."

"It really is quite an unusual and an astounding case," he said. *"In order to restore family honour, family reputation, in order to cleanse the family's shame…(these women) needed to be killed." *

Prosecutors had argued that the young Shafia sisters had shamed the conservative Afghan family-and especially its patriarch-by wearing revealing clothing, refusing to don hijabs and having boyfriends.

The jury heard that Zainab had previously run away from home and was briefly married to a Pakistani man Shafia did not approve of. The marriage was annulled within 24 hours.

Sahar also had a forbidden boyfriend, while the youngest of the three, Geeti, told her teachers she wanted to be placed in foster care. Mohammad Shafia's first, infertile, wife had protected the girls, especially Sahar, whom she had been raising as her own, court heard.

*Shafia and Yahya had seven children in total. After their arrests, the remaining children, all minors, were placed in foster care. *

Court also heard damning wiretapped conversations between the accused in which, at one point, Shafia said of his dead daughters: *"God's curse on them … May the devil ******************** on their graves." *

Teachers, child protection workers and police officers testified about reports from the girls that they were afraid of their father and brother and wanted to run away from home.

The Crown painted a picture of a highly dysfunctional polygamous family, with Shafia and Hamed exerting control over female members of the household and the two wives fighting for Shafia's affections.

Yahya and Shafia refuted the Crown's theory and evidence, saying they loved their children and would have never killed them. In interviews with police and on the stand, the couple maintained the deaths were a tragic accident.

The night the sisters and Mohammad disappeared, Zainab had asked to borrow the car keys, her parents told police. Zainab, an unlicensed and inexperienced driver, must have taken the group on a joyride and somehow ended up in the canal, they said.

But court heard conflicting versions of what happened that night. Yahya had initially told police the two Shafia men were at the canal when the car went in the water. But during her testimony, she told court that was lie.

Hamed never took the stand in his own defence, but court heard a taped conversation in which he admitted to a private investigator that he was at the scene.

Hamed said he had followed his sisters in a separate car out of concern and rear-ended them at the canal. While he was picking up pieces of shattered headlight, he heard a splash and ran over to the edge of the water. He said he dangled a rope and called his sisters' names, but hearing no response, drove off and headed home to Montreal without calling 911.

While his client was "stupid" to make such a "terrible" mistake, he was no murderer, Hamed's lawyer told the jury.

During closing arguments, defence lawyers for all three accused bristled at the suggestion of honour killings, saying the Shafia daughters were prone to lying and exaggerating their problems at home.

The defence also said the Crown failed to prove that any murder had been committed, failing to explain where and how the Shafia sisters and Mohammad were killed.

A pathologist testified that the cause of death for all four was drowning, though he couldn't conclude if they drowned in the canal. The Crown alleged the four were dead before their car hit the water.

The court also heard from police and technical witnesses who testified it was unlikely the car could have fallen into the canal by accident.

*With files from The Canadian Press *

*<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>*

*Perhaps JUSTICE has Preveiled and will act as a Deterrent for ALL Others who come to CANADA and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and Believe they can Live by THEIR Laws and IGNORE OURS!!*

*May The Sisters Zainab 19, Zahar 17, and Geeti 13, along with Rona Amir Mohammed 52 REST IN PEACE.*

Thank You ALL for Reading this and any Comments You may care to leave.

My Regards: Rick


----------



## JoeLyddon (Apr 22, 2007)

*All because of their Sharia Law!*

I'm glad to see they're getting what they deserve.

We must stop that law from getting into our (USA) country… if we don't, our Freedoms will be taken away to what you cannot believe.


----------



## Roger Clark aka Rex (Dec 30, 2008)

A horror story all too common nowadays.
If a foreign national applies for citizenship, then as part of their swearing in as a new citizen, a clause should be inserted to renounce their old country's laws and uphold their new country's laws. As a citizen you should be responsible to uphold ALL laws of your country of citizenship without exception.
Similarly, if a citizen of one country resides or visits another country, then while there they should accept to conduct themselves within the laws of that country.
Where the whole thing starts to go wrong is when a resident or visitor from one country has so idea that his citizenship country laws "trump" those of the country he/she chooses to be in.
Some countries have bizarre laws by our standard, but they are their laws and have to be respected if you wish them to respect ours.
Bottom line:
All resident citizens of a country must live by the laws of that country.
Foreign legal residents must also live by the laws of the country they reside in.
Visitors should respect and accept the laws of the country they are visiting for the duration of their visit.
Our laws do not apply to our citizens while in another country, our citizens should be aware it is not their country of citizenship and abide by the laws of the land they are in …."when in Rome"....... We as a nation should not interfere in other nations laws, but we do, don't we? 
We all need to respect laws of countries and abide by them when visiting or residing.

I'm not trying to defend this story Rick, I think it is a horror story and is one of those instances where notification and swearing to live by the nation's laws would remove the question of foreign laws being considered.


----------



## jackass (Mar 26, 2008)

Great post Rick,
I'm glad you brought this story to the attention of all LJ's. Let it be a reminder to all newly sworn in Canadians that we will not tolerate people taking their country's laws into their own hands and applying those laws in our Canada and the U.S.A. I would like to think that all LJ's would find this very offensive. Had it happened in some countries the death sentence would have been applied. 
Jack


----------



## Howie (May 25, 2010)

I just saw this on TV. I've been following it for over a year.
Justice is served! If people don't like the laws,don't go to that country.
I used to go to Canada hunting and fishing and found their laws stricter than ours(US) however, you respect their law and you have no problems. I always felt welcome there. I'll bet if I went to a mideast country like Afganistan or Pakistan I would not be treated that way. If I killed one of their people I'd get a death penalty. Unfortunately Canada has to support these slobs for the rest of their lives.


----------



## GMman (Apr 11, 2008)

""No charges against him but still he is held in jail, laws of Lebanon""

N.B. farmer detained in Lebanon
CBC News Posted: Apr 6, 2011 6:39 PM AT Last Updated: Apr 7, 2011 12:47 PM AT 
Facebook 
17

Twitter 
3 
20

Email

Henk Tepper was detained March 23 and is in a jail in Beirut, Lebanon. (CBC)A Drummond, N.B., farmer who sells potatoes overseas is being detained in Beirut, Lebanon.

At 3,000 acres, Tobique Farms is one of the largest producers in N.B.

The man who runs the family-owned farm, Henk Tepper, was detained March 23 and is in a jail in Beirut, Lebanon.

"The family is taking it very hard. I know Berend, his father, he's not much around and very stressed. His wife is very stressed," said Tepper's brother-in-law, Mario leClerc.

"It's in the situation that we don't know much what's happening, we don't hear from him, no phone call, no nothing, no information from him. And everybody is starting to get stressed. And business-wise, we need him around," said leClerc.

Tepper sells primarily seed potatoes from his and other farms to Lebanon, Cuba, Venezuela and Russia.

Tepper's sister said he travels all the time and that it was a regular visit.

She said it's growing season in Lebanon, so Tepper was doing a follow-up on the potatoes he'd sold there.

New Brunswick Potatoes said few farmers from the province sell overseas because of the risks. Provincial Agriculture Minister Michael Olscamp said the situation rests in the hands of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

"We're concerned for him and the family. The case is international in flavour, so it's being handled by the Canadian federal agency, and through the Canadian consulate in Beirut, Lebanon," said Olscamp.

In the meantime, Tepper's family and friends wait anxiously.

"He's gone everywhere in the world, so you think it might not be true, but we haven't really heard the real, real story, so hopefully he'll be back soon," said neighbour Jacques Sirois.

Workers are also anxious. Planting season begins in May, and they say they need Tepper back.

CBC News did speak with Mike Allen, the MP for Tobique-Mactaquac. He would only say that foreign affairs officials in Beruit have spoken with Henk Tepper and that he is alright.

Share ToolsReport TypoSend Feedback Facebook 
Twitter 
Share


----------



## KnickKnack (Aug 20, 2008)

Whilst I agree, generally speaking, with what's been said, I'd just like to point out that "Sharia Law" isn't really the "law of another country", per se. Rather, if you're a Muslim, you believe in Islam, and Sharia Law is defined in the Koran (Qur'an), and is *God's Law*, as *written by God*. Almost all countries have some sort of belief system that involves "God's Law" (truth, righteousness, whatever you will) being "higher" than "man's law". Many "Oaths of Allegiance" end "so help me God". Perhaps it is merely lucky in "western democracies" that "man's laws" rarely contradict those countries vesions of "God's Laws", so such problems as these rarely surface. Capital punishment and abortion spring to mind as places where they potentially do contradict, and problems of which "law" to follow *do* arise. The Inquisition is another interesting case. Also consider the US Oath of Allegiance, which includes "that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law" - a conscientious objector, eg Muhammad Ali, may well consider that that instruction goes beyond what "God" wants him to do, and defy "man's law".

I'm not trying to start any arguments about Islam, Canadian Law, US Law etc, nor am I attempting to defend what I regard as some cruel and unjust "laws" sometimes derived from the Koran. I just think it's important to note that, in many of these "type" of cases the "baddies" are simply following their religious beliefs, and no amount of swearing oaths etc etc is going to change that.


----------



## JoeLyddon (Apr 22, 2007)

The main problem is that they are trying to get Sharia Law inserted INTO our USA laws so they can be Legal!

*Sharia Law must NOT be allowed into our legal system in any way shape or form.
*
If they manage to succeed, our Freedoms will just disappear!

I don't think WE want that to happen…


----------



## Howie (May 25, 2010)

many of these "type" of cases the "baddies" are simply following their religious beliefs, and no amount of swearing oaths etc etc is going to change that
While I agree with that statement, I would also add that it doesn't change abiding by our laws while in this country.If they can't stand the heat get out of my country.

@Joe: I agree with you 100%. All you have to do is convince the idiots in Washington of this.


----------



## JoeLyddon (Apr 22, 2007)

*"All you have to do is convince the idiots in Washington of this."*

*WRONG…*

All *WE* have to do is convince the idiots in Washington of this.

LOL


----------



## Howie (May 25, 2010)

Joe: you're right again but I just get tired of banging my head against the wall. NONE of them listen or care. I just hope a lot of them get surprised at re-election time.


----------



## JollyGreen67 (Nov 1, 2010)

A murderer is a murderer is a murderer. no matter what fanatical religeous nut that person is. To murder in the name of whom ever you believe in is murder, and should be dealt the same hand they themselves dealt.


----------



## KnickKnack (Aug 20, 2008)

A murderer is a murderer is a murderer. no matter what fanatical religeous nut that person is. To murder *in the name of whom ever you believe in* is murder, and should be dealt the same hand they themselves dealt.

So that would include executioners in states/countries with capital punishment? Not to mention the jury who passed the sentence? And the judge who presided? And the legislature who passed the law permitting it? "Whoever you believe in here" is the state.
You could argue that includes doctors performing abortions, and people do, and people get hurt because of it. "Whoever you believe in here" is the bible.
You could also argue that includes the armed forces, all the way from the guy with the gun up to the C-in-C, who is I think, in the case of the US, the president.
"Whoever you believe in here" is the state again.

But I'm fairly sure you won't be classing these as murder, having seen some of your posts elsewhere. "Someone" is sanctioning these "murders", sure, and, if you believe in those people, or that organisation, or that book, you say it's OK and not, in fact, "murder". But if you do *not* believe in that "someone", organisation, or book, you say it's murder.

A murderer is a murderer is a murderer. no matter what fanatical religeous nut that person is. To murder in the name of whom ever you believe in is murder, and should be dealt the same hand they themselves dealt.

Things are rarely so simple.


----------



## JollyGreen67 (Nov 1, 2010)

To KnickKnack . . . Maybe the phrases I was using was somewhat confusing, as in the use of murder and/or murderer,
as I can see you are maybe one of the fanatics I was referring to. Maybe some day when one of your loved ones life is taken out by one of your fellow fanatics, you will understand. As for me, I understand completely why we, as a society, execute others for their muderous crimes against humanity. This is supposed to be a deterent, not to incarcerate a sicko for life and, us as a society, be required to pay money to keep this sicko, who will then be a hero to all the other sickos. The belief you show, that by me calling whomever a murderer, is way beyond what I believe. As a last thought: My wife, her sister, and three of their friends was murdered by a religeous fanatic sicko with an AK-47. I would have gladly executed, NOT MURDERED, that sicko, but I didn't have the chance, the state did it for me. Was I justified - yes. Was the state justified - yes. The reason they were murdered - "They were not Christians, they were Buddahists".


> ?


?


> ?


?


> ?


?


> ?


?


> ?


?


> ?


?


> ?


?


> ?


?


> ?


?


> ?


???


----------



## KnickKnack (Aug 20, 2008)

@rosebudjim - I'm truly sorry for your loss.

To KnickKnack . . . Maybe the phrases I was using was somewhat confusing, as in the use of murder and/or murderer,
My English is pretty good - I wasn't at all confused by what you said.

It's nice to present reasoned argument and then be called a fanatic, although I'm not sure what you're actually accusing me, and my fictional fellow fanatics, of actually being fanatical *about*?
Had you *read* what I said I didn't condone the actions of these people, far from it - I merely seek to point out that many people answer to a higher "law" than that which is made by man. It's useful to understand this.

Your post … "I would have gladly executed" … indicates that you are equally prepared to ignore the law and *murder* (please look up definition - had you killed "that sicko" it *would* have been murder) soley because *you* think it's justified - rather nicely, if I may say so, *making my case*.


----------



## JollyGreen67 (Nov 1, 2010)

KnickKnack . . . My complete apologies for misunderstanding your reply. I am not a religeous person by any streatch of the means. My anger is focused at those who are the fanactics among us, and in particular, the main focus of this thread. My apologies . . .again. As by saying, "I would have gladly executed…..." was with the intent …IF… I had been the one to pull the switch. To me and, I would like to believe, numerous others in the like position would also do the same. Can you tell me you would not? Can others say the same? I doubt it, simply because others were not in that position. I guess there is a "higher law", I don't know. It's all in what is, or is not, believeable.


----------



## Roger Clark aka Rex (Dec 30, 2008)

rosebudjim:
I just wanted to express my deep sorrow for your loss, it is a devastating thing for a survivor to accept and deal with.
I sincerely hope your LJ membership provides you with some form of peace, and I am sure all LJs are "there" for you when needed.


----------



## KnickKnack (Aug 20, 2008)

No problem Mr Jim.
I can *entirely* understand the wish for revenge (no prejudice attached to the word).
I entirely understand anger at "fanatics".
I personally wouldn't pull the switch, I believe - but who could ever *really* know until faced with that situation itself? I just don't believe in killing - full stop. Locking up - yes - killing - no.
I was only, originally, trying to make the simple point that some things that we deem unacceptable, contrary to our laws, *can* be "defended" by referring to a "higher law" - perhaps Sharia Law, perhaps the law that mandates (I believe, I'm not an expert in Rastafarianism) rastas to smoke pot.
My view is that, if that involves killing someone else, then it was, in fact, a "lower law" and not excusable.
Ever.
But I'm not a believer.
I've had occasion to spend quite a long time with "average joe" muslims, as well as with some imams, and it always, eventually, boils down to "this was the word of God" - such is faith, and we must, somehow, understand (but *not* necessarily accept) that.
It always saddens me that the first line of *every* Surah in the Koran starts *In the name of Allah Most Gracious Most Merciful* - and then what follows is sometimes used to justify killing people.


----------



## JollyGreen67 (Nov 1, 2010)

Roger..Thank you. It's been a long time but, as memories go, unfortunately, they are as fresh today as they were so long ago.

KnickKnack…thank you also for the kind words. I also spent a considerable amount of time with Muslims, in Saudi Arabia. Most of the ones I worked with were Sunni, who were exceptionally tolerant of who we were. I did ask about the words of Allah, and was told it was true, and only the Muslims who are illiterate in the ways of the "outside" world are the trouble makers. And, these are the individuals who are recruited to "destroy the non-believing infidels". The problem is, the so-called christians advocate killing of muslims. Rember the Crusades? The protestants hate the catholics, presbyterians hate …....., jews hate…......., sikhs hate …......., we alll hate. Why? Maybe what happened so long ago has brought me to this position? I dislike (hate?) any religeon who uses their "book" to justify whatever wrong they want to do another person. How can I justify my intent, at that time to pull the switch, I have no idea. All I know is, to see someone murder someone "IN THE NAME OF THEIR RELIGEON" draws out the worst in me. And, as that person, I cannot understand the reasoning to simply incarcerate the person who became the personna of all that evil.


----------



## greasemonkeyredneck (Aug 14, 2010)

In my opinion, there is a huge difference in a murderer, and the execution of a murderer.
A murderer is someone who kills without provocation.
An execution is the termination of life of such a person.
And as someone suggested, I think the belief system that justifies execution goes back to a religious, or in some religions, idea of, an eye for an eye.

Now, that being said, I believe in capital punishment up to, and including, execution. However, the problem I have these days all too often is not with the act of execution in and of itself, but the lack of evidence in some of the executions that take place. 
In some cases, it is cut and dry. There is no doubt in anyone's minds that the person is guilty of murder, and sometimes even that is combined with gruesome other acts. In that case, fry the sucker. To hell with lethal injection. Bring back the electric chair or hanging.
Then there is the other side of the coin. There are some executions where the evidence was not cut and dry. Sometimes it's even circumstancial evidence that leaves me unsure of the guilt of the convicted. In those cases, I cannot with a clear head, condone execution. I don't know of a better way, but I do know that twelve people shouldn't commit a man to death without 100% certainty that the said man is guilty of the crimes he is accused of. We now have people who have spent years on death row that have been found to be innocent through DNA testing.

So where do we draw the line?

Well, let's say a man kills someone.
Everyone just knows he done it. There was a witness that seen him do it in low light. There is plenty of circumstancial evidence, like the fact that he owned the same type of gun that was used in the murder. He has also been in trouble a lot in his life.
I don't know about that one. Without a lot more evidence, how can you commit this man to death?

Ok, same case, different evidence.
He walked into a crowded mall, pulled out the gun, and shot the victim. Five hundred people seen him. He was arrested before he got away from the scene, so we know there is no mistaken identity crap. Hell, he even admited that he done it and he done it because the victim just looked at him the wrong way.
See? There is no question here. I'd pull the switch myself. He needs to die. Anyone who would kill someone, it doesn't matter the reason, why should our tax dollars go towards caring for him for the rest of his life?


----------



## JoeLyddon (Apr 22, 2007)

If a person is tried for 1st degree+ murder and the penalty sentence is Death,
*Everyone connected in processing the case or carrying out the sentence are NOT guilty of murder… They are merely doing their job/duty.*

There is no way to construe it any other way.

It depends on How the Killing happened.

Killing a person by accident is NOT "lay and wait plan and kill" 1st degree MURDER.

1st degree murder = Lay & wait… plan… and Kill… Death Penalty *can* be the sentence.
2nd degree murder = causing a death due to negligence but NOT planned… No Death penalty.


----------



## JollyGreen67 (Nov 1, 2010)

William and Joe: I am in 100% agreement, with both counts.


----------



## JoeLyddon (Apr 22, 2007)

*
This guy is always pretty good.

*


----------



## greasemonkeyredneck (Aug 14, 2010)

I like that guy Joe.
I understand a lot of people disagree with him, but that's not the point. The point is he speaks his mind. He doesn't care about what people want to hear. He just says what he thinks.

It reminds me of my Uncle, who I had a lot of respect for. A lot of people hated my Uncle. They said he was an ass. He never minced words. He told you what he thought to be the truth. He could care less what you wanted to hear, but only what he thought you needed to hear.


----------



## JoeLyddon (Apr 22, 2007)

Yep… he says it like it is…


----------



## Magnum (Feb 5, 2010)

From My First Post that lead into this Post I was sure that it would stir a bit of a Hornets Nest.

The Main Thrust of the First Post being *...Immigrants who come to OUR Countries and believe that they can IGNORE the Laws, even Ways, of Our Lands in favour of the way they USE to live in whatever Country they came from. *

The Post now appears to have become somewhat more COMPLEX than that. In fact (IMNO) it need not be.

HOWEVER! I Hasten to add that when ever ANYTHING even close to a RELIGOUS TOPIC "Comes Forth" so then shall the Debate begin. (At least it's not another Political Post!...LOL…)

Please allow me to try and get this "Back To The Basics". Yes! It will contain some Comments about Religion.
*============================================================*
Canadian Law is Canadian. The United States Of America Law is just that. Both "Systems" of Law Vary CONSIDERABLY.

In Canada there is NO other type of law that supersedes the "Law Of The Land". Sharia Law is not, and never will be a "Law" that will be included in, Recognized as any kind of a "Law", or become a part of the Existing Laws of Canada.

ANYONE who believes that "Following Their Religous Beliefs" or any "Higher Law to Which They Answer" is above, that which is made by man (in Canada) ARE COMPLETLY MISTAKEN IN THAT BELIEF!!

Should they choose to obey "Their Laws" in a manner that DOES NOT in some way Contravene the "Law Of The Land" i.e. for their Personal Satisfaction, they have the right to do so.

Should they choose to use Their Belief/s to Committ a Criminal Act of ANY KIND, They will be Prosecuted!

We should also consider that there are Muslims and there are "Other Muslims". That statement can also be applied to most if not ALL types of Religions.

The "Religion" itself is one thing, the Type of Indivduals within that "Religion" and how They Personally "Interpret" and use, what They Believe to be the Meaning of "Their Religion" is another thing.

These 2 POSTS are about Three People who Committed Murder, according to Our Laws. They were Charged accordingly. Tried, and Convicted of The Charge. Their "Religous Beliefs" were brought in by The Crown but I believe they had No Bearing on the Final Verdict. I believe The Judge made that reasonably clear in His After Trial Comments.

Unfortunately the "Press" had a Field Day, Dragging in the "Muslim Religous Honour Killing" Supposed aspect of the trial.

As you wil read below the Muslim Community has come out in Full Force regarding this "Theory". They consider this to be a case of "Total Male Domination Over Women" and the Resulting Abuse.

This "Man" considered Himself to be the Patriarch of the Family and in his Sick, Feeble, Warped, Little Mind, NO ONE had the Right to go against HIS Wishes, Beliefs and Demands. There is also the Question …"Is he a REAL Practacing MUSLIM?" It's below also.

He is also a Very Wealthy Person and he gets to keep that Wealth as it was not Aquired as a result of, or had anything to do with what he was Charged and Convicted of.

What Burns My Gluteus Maximus is that the Taxpayer Cost to Incarcerate these Three Individuals for the Minimum Period of 25 Years will be in the area of FIFTEEN MILLION DOLLARS!!

Here follows the CTV News article regarding SOME of the Aftermath of the Trial and statements by The MUSLIM Community and others, Regarding Same.

*=====================================================*
CTVNews.ca Staff

Date: Mon. Jan. 30 2012 11:04 PM ET

After a gruelling 10-week trial, the Shafia murder case is closed but the language used in court continues to haunt many in Canada's Islamic community.

Mohammad Shafia, 58, his wife Tooba Yahya, 42, and their son Hamed, 21, were each found guilty Sunday of killing the Shafias' three daughters and the older man's first wife.

At issue is the Crown's argument that the deaths were so-called "honour killings," murders intended to restore family dignity after the women's perceived rebellious behaviour.

Justice Robert Maranger told the Afghanistan-born family that the women were killed because they "offended your completely twisted concept of honour…that has absolutely no place in any civilized society."

The weight of these words, however, has concerned many that this interpretation of the Shafia deaths will only further marginalize a community that is still enduring hateful sentiment related to the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

Alia Hogben of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women said the language around the Shafia verdict is distracting from the basic fact that four women were murdered.

Instead, she prefers the idea that the deaths were femicide.

"Femicide just simply means the killing of women and girls just because they're women and girls," she told CTV News Channel on Monday from a studio in Kingston, Ont.

The term stems from the patriarchal idea that men are the guardians of women and can do with them as they see fit, Hogben said.

Sisters Zainab, 19, Sahar, 17, and Geeti, 13, along with Shafia's other wife Rona Amir Mohammad, 52, were found dead in one of the family cars at the bottom of a Kingston canal in June 2009.

During the trial, the Crown buttressed its case with photos of the teenaged girls dressed in Western clothing and alleged the father was angry because the girls had boyfriends.

Court heard that Geeti tried to seek help from teachers and child protection authorities, complaining of verbal, emotional and physical abuse at home.

The convicted Shafia family members maintain their innocence and have vehemently denied the idea that the women were killed over family dignity.

Hogben said Canadians should stop focusing on the deaths as honour killings "because that makes it kind of exotic and different and therefore does not include them with all of us as Canadian women."

By viewing the deaths as a female issue, not only that implies ties to any specific cultural group, Hogben said Canadians can focus on how to protect women in the future.
*=========================================================*
Thank You: Rick

PS: Just for the Record I consider myself to be "Spiritual" but not of any Particular Religous Faith. "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You". Suits me, just fine.


----------



## greasemonkeyredneck (Aug 14, 2010)

And you bring up a very inportant point about laws. There are laws, then there are religious beliefs of right and wrong. One has nothing to do with the other. I am American, but the laws of our two countries have some of the same issues when dealing with religuous beliefs.

Since this topic though has to do with, in my opinion, Muslim practices regarding women, I'll stick with that (for now).

It does not matter what the Muslim attitude towards women is. The law of the country in question I believe offers protections of women's rights under the law. Notice, I mention law, not religion. The two are and should be seperate. If they are not seperate, then people could do all kinds of evil and blame it on religion. This is actually the exact reason the two should always be seperate. You cannot successfully operate any kind of respectable government under most religuous beliefs if you kept to all those religious beliefs.

What was done to these women, simply because they were women and they man in the case thought he could, was a horrid thing that should be punished. That gets back to the idea I presented before though, at what cost? Should the country, on the backs of tax payers, support and care for these guilty for the rest of their lives. That is the question at hand now. I don't believe so but it is not for me to decide. If it were, the man (especially the man) would die a slow and painful death. Am I vengeful? No, but I believe it would serve as a very strong deterrent against future ideas of others doing anything remotely similar and getting away with it.

.

Just one cotton pickin minute though.

This issue goes way deeper. This is but one case. It is an extreme example of a trend that is slowly taking ahold on the North American countries, namely the U.S. and Canada. How can this happen and people actually think they can get away with it. These are people who move to our countries to excape the abuse, and horrid conditions of their own countries, only to try and instill the same twisted beliefs into our countries.

Something I'm hearing too often these days when discussing foreign customs, reliegious beliefs (no matter how strange) and moral ineptitude from foreigners, is that "we must be accepting". I say hogwash and BS. They moved here. They need to accept the way of life in their adoptive countries. We should not be accepting of certain acts as routine if they go against the values and laws of our country. If we do, then we will have given up our own countries to these people. If they want to be American (or Canadian as the case may be), then by all means, imbrace the way of life, which includes all of the laws.

There is nothing wrong with religion in general. I'm all for praying to whatever one belives in. It cannot though have a bearing on the law of the land. These laws were put into place, often with religious thoughts in mind no doubt, to protect the society of the country as a whole. If you let one person commit murder in the name of religion, then you must let another rob, kill, rape, and assault others, all in the name of religion.

No, there are laws in our countrie and they must be followed. If a law is undesireable and against the views of the majority of one country's people, then there are procedures for changing that law. Until it is though, it must be followed. To allow otherwise completely underminds the entire system and leaves the people with no trust in the government, or society as a whole. To do so is the beginning of the fall of a society.

Is the preceding statements overly dramatic? I don't think so. One of the priviledges I enjoy as an American (and I sure a lot of Canadians feel the same) is the knowledge that I know the basic laws of my country and can live freely because I live by those laws, while every other member of society around me lives by those same laws. If it is allowed to not be that way, for whatever reason, religious or otherwise, then I would no longer feel that safety. I would have to constantly carry arms to protect myself, and mostly my wife, daughter, and small children. While I am a strong supprter of gun rights and a gun owner myself, I do not wish to carry one everywhere for safety reasons. If I did, and a mojority of others done the same, this would be complete and total choas waiting to happen.

All the hatred, bigotry, and racism in the world will not stop people from foreign lands coming to our countries. They'll come here like they always have, for a better life. It has to made clear through example though. If you come here, the way you enjoy that better life is to live by our laws. If you do not care to do so, then you don't want or need our better way of life. Go back to where you came from.


----------



## greasemonkeyredneck (Aug 14, 2010)

Oh, one other thought after looking back over this thread.

Sharia law is a term that has began to be used to try and further justify certain practices. It is not a LAW at all. It is a radical extreme religious standard that places anyone not born male of a certain ethnicity in a dgrading and humiliating level of almost non-human standards. 
I still hear today all the time, being in the south United States, of all the struggles we went through as a country to gain rights for women and african americans. Anyone who knows even a piece of the history during that era should be madder than hell at some of this crap.
If Sharia "Law" was to take a foot hold in this country (or any other) and become part of acceptable law, it would make some of the abuses towards blacks and women in our history books look like a freaking trip to Disney World.


----------



## Magnum (Feb 5, 2010)

William:

Both of your Posts make complete sense although I'm not sure what can be done about the Cost of incarserating these people at Taxpayers Expense. ESPECIALLY this Guy! He is Wealthy!!

The only comfort I can find is that HE had it ALL his way for a VERY LONG TIME. He was always the BOSS! Now!! He's just Another Convict doing everything he's told to do.

Well, lets just say that Whoevers Girlfriend He Becomes likes to play a Lot of "Pick Up The Soap".

Your also correct about "Sharia" it is NOT a law. I saw it on here a few times and it's one of the reasons I thought It was about time to come back on and try to bring it back down to Basics.


----------



## KnickKnack (Aug 20, 2008)

I actually agree with most of what's been said, as usual, but I must correct a few things which,I believe, to be technically wrong…

Your also correct about "Sharia" it is NOT a law. I saw it on here a few times and it's one of the reasons I thought It was about time to come back on and try to bring it back down to Basics.
Sharia law is a term that has began to be used to try and further justify certain practices. It is not a LAW at all

I've just looked up the definition of "law" in several places. In every definition I found, "Sharia Law" as we understand it, *could* well be called a "law".
But let's get beyond semantics, beyond arguments about terminology. Whether you call it a "law", or not a law is immaterial - a huge number of people regard it as the "rules laid down by God". I don't say they're right. I don't say they're wrong. But I do say that that statement is true.
Everyone follows their inner voice. Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, refuse blood transfusions (and military service, but let's not go there). Their belief system, based on their interpretation of the bible, forbids it. You could call it "their law". In *many* countries, including the US, the existing law of the country has been *changed* as a result of legal challenges by Jehovah's Witnesses - for example in "West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette (1943)".
And, having written that, I understand why you're scared that in 200 years time many aspects of Sharia might get into your law systems, by use of law!
Muslims are entitled to follow this "other law", "Sharia Rules" if you will, if they like, or if they feel obliged to do so by their beliefs. But, as Rick rightly said, as soon as that results in an act contrary to Canadian (or US, or wherever) Laws, *those laws will, and should, reign down upon them*.
This is as it should be.


----------



## Magnum (Feb 5, 2010)

" I understand why you're scared that in 200 years time many aspects of Sharia might get into your law systems, by use of law!"

With all due Respect I don't believe I said that. If anything i said it would NOT become a part of Our law. However I believe Others on here have expressed that concern and as US Citizens I would take it that they are talking about USA Law.

"Muslims are entitled to follow this "other law", "Sharia Rules" if you will, if they like, or if they feel obliged to do so by their beliefs. But, as Rick rightly said, as soon as that results in an act contrary to Canadian (or US, or wherever) Laws, those laws will, and should, reign down upon them.
This is as it should be."

TOTALLY CORRECT! IT'S EXACTLY as it should be! Perhaps we've been too concerned in the Past, and Now about "Political Correctness" or perhaps even "Racism" which has quite possibbly made it's way into "Places" it should NOT be i.e. Law Enforcement. I've read all too many stories about Police Officers "Letting It Go." when in fact they should NOT Have.

I'm seeing a HUGE Backlash taking place in the "Politically Correct" Forum. First of all I see those words as the Ultimate "Oxymoron" ...LOL… Every other Forum I've visited that mentions "PC" is immediately followed by all the "You can take PC and Shove it!", I'm Sick of this PC Thing!", on and on and on.

My Opinion of "PC"? ...... Censored and again Censored!!

Thgank You for Your Comments KnickNack!!

Regards: Rick


----------



## greasemonkeyredneck (Aug 14, 2010)

And this differentation between what law means or does not mean is exactly why I think Rick brought out the point about there being a difference between Religious "laws' and the law of the land.

Here lies the rub with the opinions of the two.

you mentions the example of Jehova's Witnesses refusal of blood transfusions or military service. While I think this is a little overboard on religious interpretations on their part (won't get into my actual belief of their teachings) it is also their right to refuse these things.

I have to go back to American law for the simple reason that I no little about the ins and outs of Canadian law.

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence and considered by some as part of one of the most well crafted, influential sentences in the history of the English language. These three aspects are listed among the "unalienable rights" or sovereign rights of man.

Here is the exact reason that it is fine for some to refuse something like a blood transfusion based on religious beliefs, but not to rape, murder, or otherwise harm others within the same boundaries of their religious freedoms. To refuse a blood transfusion (again, but one example) does not infringe upon anyone else's rights. There a are a myriad of other offences though, punishable by law, that cannot be tolerated simple because they infringe on other's rights.

This also gets into a much deeper issue.

I think our government (U.S.) has overstepped their bounds in a lot of areas. Regardless of that opinion though, it all goes back to the protections of certain unalienable rights. Yes we have certain rights that should be fought for with our lives if necessary if we are to stay a free nation. These same right though cannot be exercises at the expense of other's rights. In other words, we are all given these exact same rights and one person's does not trump anothers. This case in Canada, if I understand the similarities in our laws correctly is a prime example of how such religious beliefs are illegal. They infringe on other's rights.

.

Rick, you said that politically correct is the biggest oxymoron in your opinion. I disagree completely. I think the ultimate oxymoron in the English language is "military intelligence". I get your point though and agree that the acceptance of politically correct BS is a crock of $#!+.

PC garbage has infiltrated so many aspects of our lives and is turning present day America's children to mush. Because of PC, we cannot expect them to accept winners and losers. We cannot say certain things whether it's true or not. We are supposed to accept things we wouldn't normally accept at the risk of hurting someone's precious feelings.

All this PC garbage is shoved down our throats and taught to our children. Then some people can't understand why kids grow up to be thirty year olds living in their parent's basements with no job, no home, no money, and no life. They have no job because they aren't taught the value of hard work. They have no home because they're never taught to compete for anything, even a job. They have no money because if they do get anything they're taught they're supposed to have what they want, and now. They have no life because PC crap has shut down the ability of most people to teach their kids basic facts of life, no matter how cruel those facts seem to be.

Something all kids should no at some point before they finish school is the truth. The truth is a SOB. Life is tough. For there to be winners there has to be losers. Anything worth having is worth fighting and working hard for. Above all, life can and will kick you in your @$$. Instead of whining about it you have to pick up and move on.

I am in a constant battle between myself, my kids, and the rest of the world. I try to raise my kids right. They don't understand why they can't just run ape$#!+ wild like a lot of other kids they know at school. They know other kids with no chores, no work ethic, no wants, no respect, no boundaries or rules, and grasp with the concept that I'm trying to give them a better life in the long run. Out in the world I am told often what good kids I have, with their hard working mentality, respect, honor, and pride. I gave up long time ago explaining that it all comes down to saying to hell with what's acceptable around you and raising your kids right.

It all comes back to being politically correct though. It starts with kids, but then we wind up with adults who can't accept to be told no. They can't accept to be corrected. All they can accept is their warped sense of right and wrong that has gotten so far away from common sense that it's unbelievable.

Here I must apologize. I may have gotten way off target of the basic meaning of political correctness. I redirect though. My thought above jumped in on the deep end. I understand they go all over the place of what it means to be politically correct. I offer though that the issues I present are all sysptoms and examples of what happens to a society that becomes to politically correct, when it is wrong to say or do anything that is against the grain of the current belief system whether it be popular or not. It is politically incorrect to do or say anything that is not in line step with popular beliefs. Free and logical thinking gets thrown out the window in favor of protecting everyone's precious feelings.


----------



## greasemonkeyredneck (Aug 14, 2010)

I fought within myself to bring up my religious beliefs. Normally I only say that I believe in God, but not in the current organized reliegion and leave it at that. Because of this topic and religious association though, I decided to actually post my experince on religious beliefs.

I was raised up in a Catholic church. My grandmother was a devout Catholic and a good woman. Because my father was often not in the picture though, I was often around and learned from other men in the church. Being the observant person I am, I soon noticed something going on though. These men thought it was fine to do things that were completely against what I had read in the Bible. They ran on the concept that they could do whatever evil they wanted as long as they went to confession and asked forgiveness. Theywere running rampant on the basic same principle that is used to justify things we've been talking about, on their religious beliefs.

This did not set well with me. In my opinion, one cannot pick and choose which principles they wish to follow. It also is a belief in the Bible (King James version that I read and believe in) that basically one is to thrive to be more like Jesus, forgiving, pure, with morals. Under my beliefs, knowingly doing wrong with the intent of repentance was completely against what I thought to be right.

Then around sixteen years of age, I decided that I wanted to explore other religions. I knew I believed in God, but there was the point I already mentioned, among others, that didn't set well with me within the Catholic faith. So I went to a different church, a Methodist.

To shorten this story up just a bit, I gave many religions a chance, Babtist, Pentecost, Mormon, Seven Day Adventist, Jehova's Witness. Yes, I went to several months in all these different churches. I even tried different churches in some of these religions. I found out for example that not all Pentecostal churches are the same, some are like night and day.

Along the way, I learned a lot of things. My heart, and beliefs were all over the place. Then, through a different story I wish not to talk about, let's just say I wound up with a lot of free time on my hands that allowed a lot of reading time in a room alone, I actually sat down and read the Bible myself from cover to cover. What I learned was an eye opener.

I learned that for the most part, there are parts of the Bible, as read, in all the religions I tried, some more or less than others. I also realized that you can take any religion, any scripture, any five different preachers, and usually get five different interpretations of that same scripture.

My point is that religion is open to interpretation of the individual based on their own personal beliefs. Religion is a lot like politics. Preachers are like politicians, each trying to sell their way as better than anyone elses. Most modern religions are based more on a business model than any hardcore beliefs.

I've also started doing a lot of thinking on religion and how it relates to modern society. Some beliefs and principles are unforgiving and a matter of personal choice that must be adhered to in one set manner if one truly believes in them. Still others are a little more forgiving and have to be watered down if one is to live in a modern society and can therefore be handled in a variety of ways.

So I hope I've made it clear when I say I believe in God. I read the Bible. I pray. I believe I am saved and a child of God. I do not though believe in modern organized religion. I believe my relationship with God has nothing to do with what church I attend, or in my case don't attend. I believe I can give back by choosing where to give back instead of helping to buy some preacher's cadilac. I believe that certain factors, like my drinking, my smoking, my cussing, my tattoos, don't automatically doom me to hell.

I guess my religious beliefs can be summed up as this. I believe that I am to follow God's words to the best of my abilities. I believe there will be a judgement day. I believe I will be judged based on my actions and what was in my heart when I performed those actions. My clothes, money, and wordly possesions have nothing to do with it.

Above all though, I believe it all has to eventually come down to common sense.
There are certain things, like murder in the case of this thread, that cannot and should not ever be justified based on a religion.


----------



## patron (Apr 2, 2009)

for me there is only one question
not one we ask

it will be asked of us one by one

from God

'WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THE LIFE I GAVE YOU' ?


----------



## KnickKnack (Aug 20, 2008)

This I why I like these threads, although I know others elsewhere do not. Interesting comments. Ideas that challenge one's own understanding and the underpinning of one's belief.
And it makes one do research (well, me anyway, and I learn new things).
My point about the Jehovah's Witnesses was that their holding firmly to their beliefs caused changes in the laws of various countries, including the US. At a simple level this went - "No. I refuse. My religion forbids me to obey this law of yours." And the result was a change in the law.
I remember when Sikhs in the UK won the right to *not* have to wear crash hats on motorbikes, even though the law said that you had to. Trivial, I hear you say. And, yes it is (unless you're a Sikh, of course). But it's the same point again - "My religious beliefs make it impossible to obey your law". And the result was a change in the law.
So let us not fool ourselves that in any sense our laws are "golden" and will/cannot be changed as a result of people adhering to what they regard as "higher laws".
Will "honour killings" ever be allowed under US or Canadian (or, lets face it, any "decent" society) law. *No!*. That won't happen, but a goodly (or badly) number of laws *are* currently being written or rewritten as a result of challenges we currently face - there are other threads about that.

*'WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THE LIFE I GAVE YOU' ?*
And there's the challenge - the suicide bombers etc etc are happily thinking of their future life with however many virgins it is!

As regards "political correctness" - start a thread about that and I'll happily follow and/or contribute to it - another very interesting topic.


----------



## greasemonkeyredneck (Aug 14, 2010)

That all goes back to if a law changes.
Any law has to stand on it's own merits. Let's take for example certain religions forbidding blood transfusions, vaccinations, or medical care from doctors in general. Under U.S. laws, even though certain things (vaccinations for example) are required to do things such as to register in school, as long as a person is not presenting clear and present danger to another person, then they can, as their religion dictates, exercise free will in not participating in this activity.

Now, this is where the disput between religious rights and law become complicated. At the time a person decides not to get vaccinated, for whatever reason, they are not breaking any laws. Therefore, they are free to do as they choose. Now, there have been civil cases though, and criminal in some instances, where that same person later came down with severe illnesses, and went to school and other public places, knowingly spreading these communicable diseases. That is placing others in clear and present danger and is against the law.

It all falls back to the fact that, on the face of it anyway, one has the right to exercise their religious beliefs as they see fit. They do not have the right to use those same beliefs to infringe upon the right of others.

.

"And there's the challenge - the suicide bombers etc etc are happily thinking of their future life with however many virgins it is!"

Again, bombing someone else is infringing on their rights. We all should have the right to go to work without being bombed.

.

KnickKnack, I think we are pretty much in agreement, but have different ways of stating the basic same thing.

We agree that all are entitled to their religious freedoms, no matter if we see them as weird or off the wall, as long as they don't infringe on others.


----------



## JoeLyddon (Apr 22, 2007)

It might get here Faster than you think!
*
Guess what is happening in London!

*

I never would have bet on that happening!

... I was just thinking (really!)...

*What are they so afraid of?!*
They cannot stand to have their religion talked about… criticizing Islam?
If it as good as they think it is, why don't they Welcome it so they can Sell it and convert people?!

It's coming… They will (are) already trying to do that here in the USA!


----------

