How do you feel about a repulsive excuse for humanity like Jim Coyle telling you that the murderers are full of love? And that their deliberate, calculated murder of Aqsa was a “crime of passion”, the only time the word crime is used. And that this was not a morally reprehensible act, but a “tragedy”. That’s just a step over from the word “accident”, isn’t it. A bridge collapsing is a tragedy. Not a cold-blooded murder.
Would Coyle dare write this way about Tammy Homolka? Of course not. Even the craven Star would not publish such a desecration. And if, by some fluke, it had gone to print, he’d be fired the next day.
But not so for defaming the memory of Aqsa Parvez. Why? Is the murder of a brown Muslim girl less odious than the murder of a white Christian girl? That’s pretty much Coyle’s argument, actually. (…)
Can you believe this disgusting man, comparing Aqsa Parvez’s murder — an “honour killing” because she refused to dress like a chattel owned by the males in her family — to the heartwarming, light-hearted culture clashes in Bend it Like Beckham or Yiddish stories?
Honour killings? It’s a problem every immigrant has! It’s part of the great American dream, really!
Other than the 3% of Canadians who are Aboriginal, the rest of us are immigrants or children of immigrants.
Have you ever heard of this sort of honour killing before, in our nation’s 400-year history? (…)
Poor Karla Homolka. Poor Paul Bernardo. If only they were clever enough to be Muslim. They’d probably be on the Star’s “community editorial board” by now…
Yeah, I don’t remember the part in those “stories of shtetl Jews arriving in America” where the fathers chopped their daughters’ heads off.
Granted, it would have made Yentl much, much shorter. Harder to sing with no head.
Maybe that song got cut from Fiddler on the Roof… Mark Steyn would know…