BOGOTA, Colombia (CNN) — Colombian military intelligence used the Red Cross emblem in a rescue operation in which leftist guerrillas were duped into handing over 15 hostages, according to unpublished photographs and video viewed by CNN.

What seems to be part of a red cross is seen on a bib worn by a man involved in the rescue in this official image.

Photographs of the Colombian military intelligence-led team that spearheaded the rescue, shown to CNN by a confidential military source, show one man wearing a bib with the Red Cross symbol. The military source said the three photos were taken moments before the mission took off to persuade the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia rebels to release the hostages to a supposed international aid group for transport to another rebel area.

Such a use of the Red Cross emblem could constitute a “war crime” under the Geneva Conventions and international humanitarian law and could endanger humanitarian workers in the future, according to international legal expert Mark Ellis, executive director of the International Bar Association.

“It is clear that the conventions are very strict regarding use of the symbol because of what it represents: impartiality, neutrality. The fear is that any misuse of the symbol would weaken that neutrality and would weaken the [Red Cross],” Ellis said

No word on whether CNN views the use of Red Cross Ambulances and UN vehicles to transport arms and terrorists as war crimes, nor when CNN started applying the Geneva Convention standards to non-signatories such as the terrorist FARC group responsible for the kidnappings.

Good for CNN for standing up for the killers and kidnappers tho.

In Canada we protect the freedoms of religion, expression and choice, yet we were not able to protect this young woman in crisis, from a father, and his respectively indoctrinated son, and their determination to enforce their own brand of cold blooded justice. This young woman had friends who knew that she’d been threatened, and of course, family members, yet there was not one person, not a school counselor or a family member, not social services, no one, to raise an alarm, not until she’d already been strangled nearly to death, by her own father. Today, she died of her injuries.

Filicide is the deliberate act of a parent killing their own son or daughter. In this case, she was killed for having disgraced her family. A so called ‘honour killing’. In this case, the father has, by his own, arguably distorted interpretation of his faith, salvaged the honor of his family, by killing his own daughter. Yet have we not, as Canadians, sacrificed our own honor by failing to protect the innocent and the vulnerable, even when there are clear signs of family crisis?

I would argue that yes, we have, and further, that we have a responsibility as Canadians to remedy this. Why then, is Toronto Star writer Joanna Smith in such a rush to equivocate this issue by first reminding us that such behaviour is in the minority:

“members of the (muslim) community – particularly young Muslim women – say the tension can exist both ways.

Ausma Khan, the editor-in-chief of Toronto-based Muslim Girl magazine, said research into the readership of her publication shows that the decision to wear the hijab – the traditional Muslim headscarf – is almost always a choice the girl makes on her own“

Indeed.

After all, there exist Canadian laws to ensure that such abhorrent behaviour is punished, even when it is not prevented. Yet, how often do we find editorials highlighting the relatively small chances of being assaulted in response to local incidents of rape or battery? What makes this murder different from other crimes? Why are Joanna Smith and the Toronto Star rushing to the preemptive defense of a garment..? particularly one that so often, as in this case, serves the explicit purposes of misogynists, despots and religious fanatics?

Canada continues to protect our freedom of religion, yet in this case, it was not Islam that needed our protection at all, but in fact an innocent girl who needed protecting from a twisted, but sadly not entirely uncommon interpretation of Islam.

For a great many people Islam means peace, and disavows compulsion. Yet there are still very dark ideologies from Salafist, Wahhabist and Baathist schools of thought, being successfully exported to the secular world at a grass roots level. Despite this, and it’s irrefutable consequences for one girl, and very probably others like her, the Star’s response (as well as Ausma Khan’s) is to remind us that in fact, many girls choose for themselves to wear the hijab, some even do so in defiance of their families’ will. There is however, no indication from the article whether this particular struggle bears potentially life threatening consequences.

Should Ms. Smith and the Toronto Star not have trusted us as individual Canadians to avoid painting all Muslims with the same bigoted brush? Should they have presumed, as they have, the need to remind us, as members of an overwhelmingly inclusive and culturally understanding society, that most Canadian Muslim families would NEVER impose such restrictions on their children’s lives, NEVERMIND enforcing such restrictions through threats and acts of horrific violence?

I for one did not need such a reminder. I am personally acquainted with a number of Canadian and American Muslims who I am confident share my horror at this tragedy, and I do not know of a single person, of any religion, who would justify, never mind condone the behaviour of the father in this story. Nor am I acquainted with a single person who would presume this to be the case within the North American Muslim community.

So why then are the Toronto Star, and it’s writer Joanna Smith, so concerned with reminding us of the obvious, that normal reasonable families, regardless of culture, faith or background, simply do not murder their own children? ..or that most Canadian Muslim families, are indeed, both normal and reasonable?

Why sell us on the idea of the Hijab as a garment of choice, when in this case, it was anything but? What does the Toronto star have to gain from obscuring the fact that, all too often, the Hijab is indeed both a symbol as well as a tool of misogynistic oppression?

It is my opinion that as Canadians, we do not need to be reminded of our basic faith in human goodness. It is also my opinion that such an article only serves to obfuscate the real issue, that there are in fact individuals living under religiously motivated oppression, threats and violence, even in Canada, and that in at least some of these cases, such circumstances are facilitated by a distorted but none-the-less prevalent influence of an ideological fundamentalism that we continue to ignore, in hopes that it will just go away.

I believe that both Ms. Smith and the Toronto Star had a moral responsibility to the victim in this tragic story, yet they collectively offered only what the doctrine of political correctness will allow, by rushing to the defense of both a garment and an ideology that, ultimately, combined to form the core threat to the victim in this tragedy.

I am discouraged that Toronto’s largest Newspaper is more concerned about protecting the reputation of a religious symbol than the life of a human being. I am equally disappointed that Joanna Smith, as a woman, (as well as Ausma Khan as a female representative of the Toronto Muslim Community), could muster only politically correct platitudes at a time when they had a duty to lend their voices to the support of a young girl who needed them, and many others who still do.

Finally, I am deeply insulted that the Toronto Star deems us, the Canadian public, to be so blinded by bigotry, indeed, so very ignorant, that they need first to protect the reputation of an ideology, in this case, Islam, and it’s sacred Hijab, from our ignorant, racist preconceptions, before they need to protect innocent lives from the fatal flaws of this self same ideology.

I’m writing this out of a deep concern for the unreasonable pandering to political correctness run amok in your school district that has resulted in a teacher being suspended on monday of this week for nothing more than using the traditional rhyme ‘eeny meeny miney mo’ in the classroom.

What you must realize is that this kind of criminalization of geniunely innocent, unintentional, harmless and non-malicious behaviour results in both the victimization of the accused, and more importantly, the erosion of the fundamental freedoms that form the foundation of our free society.

In a time when the mere accusation of racism is no less damning than that of sex offender, child predator or hate monger, your actions serve only to facilitate the disintegration of our hard won freedoms of thought and expression, while creating pariahs of innocent people and empowering those who seek to entrench the hypocrisy of social double standards into law.

I urge you in the strongest terms possible to reconsider your actions with regard to this issue. Please remember that the future of both our country and our children are in the hands of the educators, yet your actions in this regard have inspired deep concern as to the fitness of this school district to handle such significant responsibility.

I look forward to a correction of this misguided action, as well as your response.
yours
Michael Markus

Teacher Suspended for Alleged Racist Rhyme
Friday, 16 Nov 2007 KAUKAUNA (AP)
A River View Middle School teacher accused of using a racist rhyme in class has been suspended. The teacher allegedly used the rhyme – “Eeny, meeny, miny, moe” – Monday while trying to pick a student to do a task. Kaukauna Area School District officials learned of the incident Tuesday and put the teacher on leave with pay Wednesday, Superintendent Lloyd McCabe said. They are still investigating. A student’s parent reported the incident to school officials, McCabe said. He said he hopes to work out an agreement so the results of the investigation and disciplinary action can be made public.

in response to this article:

http://www.myfoxnewisconsin.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail;jsessionid=E7F815257134260EEAA1D4855E619968?contentId=4954808&version=4&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1&sflg=1

Well, I’ve been told I am capable of decent writing, and while that may not be a particularly glowing review, I must admit that I do, in fact, have something to contribute to the swiftly disintegrating public discourse on national and world politics.. and although I do perceive it to be a mostly futile effort to convince anyone of anything that they don’t already believe.. whether or not they have any substantial reason to hold said beliefs, it’s damn near impossible.

Still, I cannot let that deter me, since an isolated voice is eminently more valuable than silence. I will use this blog to encourage integrity of word and action within our greater world community. I will use it to promote equality and call out hypocrisy wherever I see it.. and if you don’t like it, then suck it.. and believe me, I know that you might not like it.
I’m sure I’ll look back and think, why couldn’t I write a more compelling and elloquent introduction to my blogging endeavour.. but alas.. life goes on.

..or, as the great, and sometimes loopy Kurt Vonnegut is known to have written..

.. and so it goes.

Things i’ve been concerned about include islamic extremism in the free world (and elsewhere) and political correctness, which enables criminals to act like victims. More on all that later.