I continue to suspect Aqsa Parvez was murdered in an honor killing. However, due to reports now appearing in Canadian media, I am not as confident of the circumstances of her death as I was on Thursday.
The National Post:
Following her death, friends from Applewood Heights Secondary School spoke up about Parvez's desire to fit in at school, her clashes with her father over traditional Muslim values and those of her school mates and over what she would or would not wear, including the hair-covering hijab.
Outgoing and rebellious, Parvez wanted to wear Western-style clothing, contrary, her friends say, to her father’s wishes. She had started to take off her hijab on the bus en route to school and put it back on in the afternoons.
Parvez fled from home twice in the past few months. The first time she went to a shelter. It was well known among her friends that a letter from her family describing how her parents couldn’t sleep without her home, and informing her she wouldn’t have to wear the hijab, persuaded her to return home. However, she ran away a second time weeks after.
Aqsa did not have a boyfriend, said Ms. Tahir, who expressed dismay at the "rumours" in the press, including speculation that it was conflict over wearing the hijab that triggered the alleged murder.CTV News:
The Tahirs did not know of any dispute over Aqsa wearing a hijab and said that the older Parvez sisters did not always wear the head scarf.
But the Muslim leaders admitted a child who didn't wear the hijab could bring shame to a family, and the parents could be viewed as failures in the community.I do hope the truth about Aqsa's murder will come to light - whatever that truth is. It's tremendously disrespectful to have falsehoods about her murder be disseminated.
We are seeing goal posts be moved vis a vis the definition of "honor killing." The left vs. right friction, over defining the terms of Aqsa's murder, is kind of silly. I say that even though I wrote this post detailing why the left is in psychological denial. The friction is silly because the truth - when it is known - will settle nothing between left and right.
Let's say, for argument sake, Muhammad Parvez acted due to mental illness, and religion was not a factor in any way. That wouldn't change the underlying argument between left and right:
Is fundamentalist Islam evil, or not?
Conversely, let's say Mr. Parvez gives a national television interview in which he admits he committed an honor killing. Let's say he gives all kinds of detail about why he believes Aqsa's death was religiously justified. Let's say Mr. Parvez says his entire Pakistani community agree with his opinions. What will happen then?
The PC left will fantasize anyway. They will say Mr. Parvez is a disturbed lone wolf, a liar, mentally ill, bribed, intimidated, a self-hating Muslim, on medication, suffering from a brain tumor, speaking while suffering a silent seizure, and covering up for the real killer(who had no religious motivation). They will deny to themselves that millions of Muslims agree with Mr. Parvez' opinions. Unless a leftist is courageous enough to disavow his PC beliefs, and to thus tear down the walls protecting his own self-image, his only remaining option is to fantasize and deny truth. PC doctrine cannot withstand scrutiny. Fantasy and denial are the only things which allow PC doctrine to survive.
Whatever motivated Muhammad Parvez, Aqsa's death is a tragedy. Pain is everywhere. I feel it.