Hockey Night In Canada

Didn't used to mean beating your wife with a hockey stick.

But with Canada's embrace of Syrian refugees, it's becoming a thing. So is murder.

I had been contemplating witting a blog post on the murder of 13-year-old Marrisa Shen, in Vancouver, killed by a Syrian Refugee in Canada, who had been in the country all of three months before committing the murder. All the fabled vetting failed, and failed rather badly.

However, Daniel Greenfield at Sultan Knish wrote an article that said it all far better than I ever could, so please click and read it.

One thing that strikes me in his article, amongst all the hand-wringing of the do-gooders he quotes in the article who figured nothing ever bad would happen, is their certainty that they certainly shouldn't stop bringing more refugees in and these are just all isolated incidents.

After all you can't make an omelet without cracking some eggs, and Shen and others victims were just eggs cracked for the omelet of Canadian tolerance of tolerating the intolerant and the necessary celebration of diversity.

The amazing defense of the indefensible in the name of compassion and tolerance is rather amazing.

But back to hockey night in Canada, from Daniel Greenfield's article:

Mohamad Rafia, a Syrian refugee beat his wife with a hockey stick for half an hour and then claimed that he didn’t know it was illegal. “More should have been done to educate him,” his interpreter insisted.

It used to be that ignorance of the law was no excuse.

Indeed, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that beating your wife (or anyone else for that matter) with a hockey stick is wrong, m'kay? It's pretty much a given that it is bad by its very nature.

It's funny in a rather unfunny way how the advocates against violence against women are strangely silent or make excuses when it is a member of a protected class doing the beating. How about that Keith Ellison, right?

Part of this is a deliberate diminishing and loss of confidence in Western Civilization, where other cultures that hold women in less esteem cannot be judged comparably or asserted to be inferior to Western Civ in any way.

To say that Western culture is bad and shouldn't pass judgment on other cultures tends to create some problems. After all, if Western Civ is bad, how dare its adherents criticize other cultures?

Canada now merrily removes status of its founders for not conforming to present SJW ethos. But at the same time Canada pointedly ignores or excuses a far more barbaric import in the present with a trope that they simply don't know any better, or an excuse that they just have a different culture which should be respected and shouldn't be judged or dared to be compared, or its just another isolated incident.

It used to be that Western Civilization, for all its faults, did quite a bit to protect women, and it still does for that matter, and continues to improve. The evil of "Patriarchy" and all that, I know.

But it used to be when faced with another culture that held women's lives of far less value, Western Civilization and its leaders would step forth and yes, even with all its faults, assert the superiority of Western culture, state affirmatively that the other culture was wrong, and thereby save live.

General Sir Charles James Napier, when told that the burning of widows at their husbands funerals in India was a cultural practice that should be respected had this to say:

"Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."

Canada could use someone of the stature of Sir Charles today.