Feb 022012
 

235 - Shafia Family 168x100This week a jury in Kingston, Ontario convicted three people of first degree murder: Afghan immigrant Mohammad Shafia, his wife Tooba Mohammad Yahya, and their son Hamed Shafia. Dead are Mr. Shafia’s three daughters and his first wife.

While the facts of the case were interesting in their own right, to me the most important feature of the trial was the labeling of the murders as either “honour” killings or simply just another case of domestic violence.

After the verdict was handed down the local talk shows gave considerable air time to a prominent local feminist. During that time she correctly pointed out that “This is about violence against women. This is about power and control.” I would agree with these obvious facts as any would. She then tried to pursued the listeners that there was no comparison between these killings and other common domestic disputes involving a dominating male over a female. Her claim was that any any distinction in culture or religion was irrelevant to the case. To her the fact that a man killed females is all that is of interest to this case and all that should be focused upon.

This is a superficial simplification of what is actually a much more complex affair. Yes, honour killings are typically men murdering their wives and daughters but it is not simply the same as any other domestic violence.

The reason for the crime is what is at issue here, not simply that a man killed another women (ignoring Tooba Yahya’s involvement) or that it is inherent in the male sex to want to dominate and control the female sex, which is a patent falsehood. Many feminists see this as simply a male-female issue ignoring or misidentifying the root cause of this kind of violence, that being the culture, the religion, or the philosophy of the killer. Why does one kill his wife or daughter? That is the question that can’t simply be glossed over with the pat statement that it is a lust for control by a man over women.

The feminist’s argument runs like this: since women are being killed in Canada as well as Islamic countries and since some Christian men have also killed their wives then the issue is not one of religion or culture but one of men and women.

Of course it is true, that domestic violence occurs in Canada to non-immigrants and that Christian men have been know to murder their wives or daughters. What is also true but is being deliberately ignored is that the prevalence for non-Muslim male-female violence in Canada is lower than similar violence in Muslim countries and that the reason non-Muslim men kill their wives or daughters is substantially different than the reason Muslim men kill their wives and daughters.

Shafia Family MurderA man and women get into a fight. Who do you think will come out the survivor? The stronger of the two of course (in most cases.) The fight could be over money, jealousy, housekeeping, what to watch on TV, drunken idiocy or any number of motives. Rare is it that a non-Muslim Canadian will kill his daughter because she went out on a date or chatted with someone on Facebook or didn’t want to wear a particular piece of clothing, or gave birth to a daughter.

Although honour killings are not exclusive to Muslim societies, the fact is that predominantly Muslim societies have a long tradition of treating women as property. Men often, quite literally get away with murder in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia because their tribal cultures, rooted in Islam, has given the authority over women to men.

Canadian Muslim, Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress published an article in the Canadian edition of the Huffington Post on December 7th called “A Man’s Honour Lies Between the Legs of a Woman.” In it he quotes the particular verse in the Koran, verse 4:34, sanctioning the right of a husband to beat his wife:

“Men are in charge of women by right of what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend for maintenance from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in the husband’s absence what Allah would have them guard. But those wives from whom you fear arrogance – first advise them; then if they persist, forsake them in bed; and finally, strike them.”

If we cannot acknowledge this part of the Muslim religion as being key to the second-class status Muslim men give women then it will be impossible to move towards true liberation for women in predominantly Muslim societies and Muslim families here in Canada.

Mr. Fatah goes on to say that Sharia law sanctions the stoning of women for adultery. A practice that is continued today in many Muslim countries. He cites Professor Shahrzad Mojab of the University of Toronto, who testified at the Shafia trial that women embody the honour of the men to whom they belong – first fathers and brother, later husbands.

“A woman’s body is considered to be the repository of family honour. Honour crimes are acts of violence committed by male family members against female family members who are held to have brought dishonour onto the family. Cleansing one’s honour or shame is typically handled by the shedding of blood.”

It wasn’t until 9/11 that many Canadians even heard of “honour killings.” But since then our focus has turned, as it has been forced to, to Islam and Muslim culture. Since then our knowledge of this common practice of the ownership of women by Muslim men has increased and we can properly address the situation.

Many of us correctly identify the murders based on the motive of keeping the family’s honour. For prominent feminists to disregard motive in the murder and abuse of women is only prolonging the suffering of these people. To fix a problem you must first properly identify the root cause of it. In the case of honour killings it is the religion and the cultural practices of the men and women who commit the murders. We can’t forget that women also take part in committing these honour killings.

It is ironic that in Canada we have people refusing to call something by its real name when in Muslim countries it is identified for what it is. In Pakistan, for example honour killings are known as “karo kari.” While the Pakistani government is supposed to prosecute these killings as they would any ordinary killing the practice by the police and prosecutes is to often ignore it. In a sense there are some Canadians who are ignoring it as well. Not the crime but the cause.

If we consider the problem of honour killings even further we understand that it is not simply a matter of religion or culture but of social metaphysics. In an article for the Objectivist Newsletter of November, 1962 (vol. 1 no. 11), Nathanial Brandon defined social metaphysics as

“…the psychological syndrome that characterizes an individual who holds the consciousnesses of other men, not objective reality, as his ultimate psycho-epistemological frame-of-reference.”

He explains,

“There is an invisible killer loose in the world. It has claimed more victims than any other disease in history. Yet most of its symptoms are commonly regarded as normal. That is the secret of its deadliness.

“These symptoms may be observed all around one: in the lives of all those who are dominated by an obsessive concern with gaining the approval and avoiding the disapproval of their fellow me.; who lack a self-generated sense of personal identity and who feel themselves to be metaphysical outcasts, cut off from reality; whose first impulse, when confronted with an issue or called upon to pass a judgment, is to ask not “What is true?” but “What do others say is true?”; who have no firm, unyielding concept of existence, reality, facts, as apart from the judgments, beliefs, opinions, feelings of others.”

This defines the perpetrators of honour killings. They seek honour in the approval of others, be it their family, their friends, or their tribe. While this syndrome crosses all religious and cultural spectra it is more prevalent in those countries lacking the history of individual freedom we enjoy here in the West.

It is this syndrome which must be argued against when dealing with the warped sense of honour which would cause a parent to kill a child or a man to kill his wife because of any perceived shame they may have brought them in the eyes of others.

(Originally broadcast on Just Right #235, February 2, 2012)

May 262011
 

201 - Man on the Moon + City Scape 168x100Will mankind colonize the galaxy and tame that final frontier?

Prior to space flight we, in our ignorance, had created myths regarding our moon and nearest planets and today we are creating myths and fantasies about deep space.  We envisage other races, mostly human in form and oddly enough most speaking English.  We fantasize about traveling to other star systems as easily as one might travel across town to visit a friend.

Yet, just as our myths of Amazon women on the moon were dispelled when we first landed there our myths about other species among the stars and traveling about the galaxy in the blink of an eye will be dispelled.  In fact, with remarkable advances in astronomy and our ever increasing knowledge of the laws of physics and the limitations of nature we can dispel many of these fantasies now.

By our most conservative estimates to date we can surmise that there are millions of planets circling the stars of our galaxy.  The Kepler mission to detect planets surrounding about 100,000 stars in the constellation Cygnus has, in only few months of operation provided us with 1,235 possible planet candidates to add to the 552 extra-solar planets we have already confirmed exist.  Given that Kepler is only looking at .25% of the sky we can extrapolate that number to 494,000 planets.  And Kepler can only detect planets that cross in front of their parent star so that small number swells to millions if we consider planets orbiting at a different plane than edge on to us.

Even with these discoveries of extra-solar planets the nearest earth-like, that is rocky, planet we can find in a Goldilocks zone (not too hot and not too cold) is 20.3 light years away.  Gliese 581 g may theoretically be suitable for life although the planet is over 3 times the mass of Earth.

A few years ago a message was sent to that star system by radio astronomers.  Let’s speculate that we get an answer back from an intelligent civilization.  We would receive a response 40 years later.  It would be a little difficult to carry on a conversation, even at the speed of light.  So could we possibly travel to Gliese 581 g?

The British Interplanetary Society speculated on sending a 450 tonne unmanned payload to Barnard’s star which lays only 6 Lys away.  They calculated that a vast spacecraft 190 meters in length weighing about 50,000 tonnes and powered by internal confinement fusion could reach a velocity of about 12% c and reach Barnard’s star in about 46 years.  It wasn’t designed to decelerate and be put into orbit so double that time if you want your payload to stay there.  So an unmanned scientific mission to Barnards’ star would take about 92 years.  The same vessel traveling to Gliese 581 g would take 307 years.

If we were to send a manned vessel it would have to have to be a generational ship where people would be born, live, and die for many generations before it reached its destination so it would have to be orders of magnitude larger and therefore requiring much more fuel and would take instead of 307 years perhaps tens of thousands of years to reach only the nearest earth like planet.

The cold hard reality is that one cannot propel any appreciable quantity of matter anywhere near the speed of light so a visit to any nearby star is absolutely out of the question not only with the crude technologies we have now but with near-future technologies like internal confinement fusion.

But what about such exotic notions like warping space, anti-matter engines, worm holes etc.?  These are pure fantasy, just like Vulcan mind melds.  The only thing we know of that can warp space is matter, and gravity is so weak just consider this:  Every time you lift your arm you are defeating the gravitational pull of the entire planet.  That’s how week our own massive planet warps the space around it.

Worm holes exist only as speculative mind games of cosmologists and even if they did exist to “enter” one would crush you and your ship to an infinitesimal size.

No, traveling to the stars will have to be left to our far distant offspring who would be living in vast vessels probably not too dissimilar to science fiction’s Babylon 5 space station.  It would roam interstellar space taking tens of thousands of years to visit even the closest of stars.  Once there they might colonize any habitable planets or even terraform what uninhabitable planets that may be there.  More likely still is that they would not see the necessity of leaving their space station home.I do not envisage humanity leaving our solar system for countless thousands of generations to come.

I don’t consider this a pessimistic view.  I consider it a practical view given what we know of the laws of physics.  If our knowledge of these laws change it will have to be an entire paradigm shift in thinking which is not out of the realm of our imagination but to speculate that our current knowledge of physics is far off the reality mark and that the true nature of the universe has yet to be discovered and such a discovery would allow us to travel to other planets as easy as thinking about it is without merit.  There is nothing to suggest that we can warp space or exceed the speed of light.  There is nothing to suggest that what we know about the laws of physics is so incorrect that the fantasies of a show like Star Trek can be realized.

What we can do however is something that may give us a vicarious trip to other worlds and possible extra-terrestrial civilizations.  Given the current rate of astronomical invention and discovery even using known laws of physics we should soon be able to image the thousands of planets that exist near us in space and although it may be tediously slow to communicate with any intelligent life we may find out there, an exchange of information with extra-terrestrials may be possible, if and when we find them and if they consider it in their best interest to tell us about themselves.

A more reasonable approach to off-earth colonization won’t involve travelling by the fictional “soliton waves” of  Star Trek: The Next Generation or by focusing thought though some kind of lens, it will involve propellants that don’t defy reason and logic.

Chemical rockets can get us to the moon and I have no doubt that within a reasonable amount of time, say 200 hundred years or, so we may have a sizeable permanent habitat there.  But I don’t think that what is going to drive colonizing the moon will be government or resource mining, it will be tourism.

To date there have already been 7 space tourists including one Canadian, Guy Laliberte, the CEO of Cirque du Soleil.  Each has paid as much as $35 million to ride about the International Space Station as a guest of Russia.

It will be people like these who will bankroll a space tourism industry which will see routine sub-orbital flights for people wishing to experience free-fall, space station hotels for extended stays and a chance to get into the 100 mile high club and eventually hotels on the moon.  The money these tourists pay for such adventures will allow offshoot industries to help build and maintain the space stations and the moon habitats and these off shoot industries will have to house the workers and support staff.  The moon’s first permanent settlements may start out resembling any small adventure tourist destination here on Earth.

Following such small steps we may find the mega rich willing to fund tourism to Mars although such a technical undertaking may take several hundreds of years  to get to the level where it can be done routinely.

Aside from the moon and Mars I believe that there are no other destinations in our solar system which merit any form of permanent habitat primarily due to the extremely hostile nature of every other planet and moon.

This being said I do think that the majority of off-world colonization will be in space stations which may be set up in orbit around the other planets and their moons.

Practically speaking I see the colonization of our own solar system happening, yes, but happening very slowly, perhaps taking several thousands of years.

In the far distant future we may one day terraform Mars, making an atmosphere thick enough to live in without a space suit and perhaps even breathe without an oxygen mask.  This process will, from my understanding. take tens of thousands of years but I believe it most likely will be done.

Any such grand adventures will only occur with private industry running the show and government protecting their right to do so.  But eventually we will have two planets to call home and several, perhaps hundreds or thousands of enormous self-sustaining space stations orbiting every celestial body in the solar system and some even venturing out into deep space to slowly and gradually add to an ever expanding sphere of humanity.

(Originally broadcast on Just Right #201, May 26, 2011)