Mr Selley specifically objects to Kathy Shaidle calling Arabs “violent retards”.
Well, to revive an old device that availed me nought at the British Columbia show trial, “of course” not all Arabs are violent retards, but Arab culture is certainly both violent and retarded.
It’s politically retarded, intellectually retarded, scientifically retarded, judicially retarded, economically retarded, retarded on almost every objective measurement, from women’s rights to free speech.
The famous statistic from the United Nations’ Arab Human Development Index (2003) – that more books are translated into Spanish in an average year than have been translated into Arabic in the last millennium – is itself a good working definition of “retarded”, of a culture that recoils from inquiry and curiosity about the other.
And, as I know from many conversations in London and Paris and (more covertly) in Amman and Cairo, those individual Arabs who are not “violent retards” well understand that – even if the PC eunuchs don’t.
So what’s the greater sin? That Miss Shaidle fails to draw a clear bright line between a generally observable phenomenon and a statistically 100% universal phenomenon?
Or that even raising the generally observable phenomenon is now beyond the pale.
PLUS — a reader shares his letter to the National Post:
Dear (Ms./Mr.) Parland,
Why have you closed the comments on this article?
The killing of Aqsa Parvez is one of the most egregious acts of brutality and cowardice that our country has had to face.
If Chris Selly is going to write an article on her death – you should allow open and honest feedback – especially because this is the normal course of action for “Full Comment” – quoted from your website:
“A note on reader comments: Your comments are welcomed. We accept new comments for 72 hours after the initial posting of most entries.”
So just what happened to the “Your comments are welcomed” bit?
My views on the article itself:
Chris Sellys article is a politically correct denial of the existence of honor killing in Canada.
1) “Because the family is Muslim”
2) “Because Aqsa fought bitterly with them over her adopting a more Western lifestyle”
3) “some have suggested this was…the city’s “first honor killing.”
“some have suggested ” – is this writer for real? Suggested? If the phrase “Honor Killing” has any meaning whatsoever, this is it.
Honor killings are on the rise in the West, they are evil, and they are being committed by self righteous Muslims who have zero respect for Western values.
I find it despicable Chris Seller has chosen to fight (his/her) battles with Pamela Gellar and Kathy Shaidle on the grave of a child whose only crime was wanting to be a normal kid. Aqsas family abandoned her by tossing her into an unmarked grave. They should have zero say in any commemoration to Aqsa. A memorial stone to this girl is not just a memorial to her, but to each and every other victim of this sick practice, and a definitive stand against it.
Honor killing is a sick evil practice – any who thinks that there is any controversy in saying so is also sick and evil. I hold this position to be a self evident truth.
You did a great disservice to your credibility by shutting down opinion on this article.