with stephen harper building economic relations with india, and visiting some of india's memorable shrines and destinations i couldn't help but recall how india had visited canada years previously in 1985: when two flights were bombed over the pacific ocean killing over 300 people which to date has been canada's largest aviation terrorist act in history.
brian mulroney, then conservative party prime minister of canada, appologized to india for their sustained loss of life. he conveniently overlooked the immigrated indians of canada who had family, traditions and culture rooted in canada that also lost their canadian loved ones. 2006 saw an even greater atrocity when the canadian penal system found no one party culpbale of killing the 329 canadian citizens.
there are two points to remember about this coerced, even premature meeting between india and canada prior to the economic meeting being conducted by the two minority-leading harper and singh governments:
1)- although the canadian indian community still mourns the loss of their loved ones, they are also afflicted by the reiteration of their lack of identity and integration within canada. the appology that mulroney issued in 1985 linguistically divided the average canadian from the indo-canadian when he appologized to indians of india, not those within his governing nation, canada. indo-canadians were excluded from the canadian social fabric thereby distancing the terrorist act to the realm of an india.
2)- young indians born in canada after this terrorist act share a common, generic perception of the bombing. i am disturbed when i talk to sikh youth who say that the air india bombing who say that the assassination of indira gandhi was 'understandable and justified. after all, she did order the storming of the golden temple, the sikh community's holiest shrine'. (preface: the golden temple was stormed by indian military forces after sikh terrorist took its refuge. sikhs took retaliation by bombing a flight going to india,dominantly regarded as hindus and the perpetrators of the desecration of the golden temple.). indian youths are not talking amongst themselves nor to the grander canadian society about the discourse of canadian terrorism that shaped this country's national security protocol, airport procedures, and foreign relations 25 years ago.
distancing the analysis of the air india bombing or limiting it to a segment of the canadian society short changes the underlying impact of this terroist act on canada: it lends to premature judgements about national and international policy making institutions, exclusion of members within the canadian fabric, and a real undermining of the impact of this act on indo-canadian mental, emotional and psychological level .
young indo-canadians are falling pray to an indoctrination defining her assassination as just and inevitable. the social analysis of this terrorist act is reducing it to a one-dimentional analysis, and until canadians come together to talk about history making events in one collective arena the growing relationship between canada and india will not fully actualize.
until stephen harper can make amends with how the then canadian goverment publically handled this untimely encounter with india any future relations will remain incomplete and underdeveloped.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
ignorance is not a bliss
i normally don't engage people in a public space on two topics: politics and religion.
however, there are a limited few i have come to know that can think outside the box; those who want to engage in dialogue, not lecture on their ideals and values. i was in a conversation with one such friend when she made an effort to include another mutual friend in our conversation: big mistake.
context: george bush had been in the city to gave a talk. tickets were $100. i already had a prior commitment that night so i didn't attend. she knew someone who had gone and was told that bush had given a really good speech. as soon as she invited our mutual friend to join and was apprised of what we were talking about ('i was just telling [me] about the george bush talk..') my friend was cut off by our mutual friend who said 'i would never pay to see him. he's stupid for what he did in iraq'.
i knew her remarks were not unique. there are many international citizens that feel the way that she reflected. however, what struck me the most was that she was unwilling to engage in the topic at hand: dialogue about the conflicting national and international ideals, and how they influence our tone within the global community. instead, she was giving a full-scale commentary on a topic that you could see she had generic impressions of. i thought to myself: how will we progress as a People if we cannot find a middle ground regarding the diverse, existing principles and practices of differing faiths and cultures?
it's as if people don't have a well- grounded idea of what to think or who to believe, yet they know exactally what they don't want to know (in this case, alternative ideals and perspectives).
ignorance is not bliss and nor should it be context. if we are unwilling to accept excuses from others then we should not accept them from ourselves, either.
talking doesn't hurt. not- knowing does. the choice is simple. or so, it appears
however, there are a limited few i have come to know that can think outside the box; those who want to engage in dialogue, not lecture on their ideals and values. i was in a conversation with one such friend when she made an effort to include another mutual friend in our conversation: big mistake.
context: george bush had been in the city to gave a talk. tickets were $100. i already had a prior commitment that night so i didn't attend. she knew someone who had gone and was told that bush had given a really good speech. as soon as she invited our mutual friend to join and was apprised of what we were talking about ('i was just telling [me] about the george bush talk..') my friend was cut off by our mutual friend who said 'i would never pay to see him. he's stupid for what he did in iraq'.
i knew her remarks were not unique. there are many international citizens that feel the way that she reflected. however, what struck me the most was that she was unwilling to engage in the topic at hand: dialogue about the conflicting national and international ideals, and how they influence our tone within the global community. instead, she was giving a full-scale commentary on a topic that you could see she had generic impressions of. i thought to myself: how will we progress as a People if we cannot find a middle ground regarding the diverse, existing principles and practices of differing faiths and cultures?
it's as if people don't have a well- grounded idea of what to think or who to believe, yet they know exactally what they don't want to know (in this case, alternative ideals and perspectives).
ignorance is not bliss and nor should it be context. if we are unwilling to accept excuses from others then we should not accept them from ourselves, either.
talking doesn't hurt. not- knowing does. the choice is simple. or so, it appears
Saturday, November 14, 2009
the new canadian
on Nov 12, 2009 the canadian government issued the new canada: heavy emphasis on military, monarchy, and technological innovation; and a downgrade on health care, gender, diversity, the environment, and of quebec as a province and not a nation.
the update was a response to the outdated outline last revised in 1995 under the liberal government.
i couldn't help but wonder how outdated the new revisions were. the re-alignement is more consistent with the middle-class, white, man. there is little mention of values that modern day canadians hold dear: freedom of choice, peace keeping, cultural diversity, tolerance, and sovreignty. instead, the new, 21-century canadian is defensive (via emphasis on the military), in alligence to the queen (not a problem as canada is a commonwealth nation), and engaged in traditionally male interests: fighting and sports.
the canadian identity has been contrited. new arrivals are reminded that it is not who they are but rather who they should aspire to be that matters. if anything, the new canadian identity heightens the emphasis on difference rather than celebrate it.
canada has regressed, and is less inclusive: a throwback to the early 20-century canada- which by any account was not a flattering era for new comers to canada, indeed.
the update was a response to the outdated outline last revised in 1995 under the liberal government.
i couldn't help but wonder how outdated the new revisions were. the re-alignement is more consistent with the middle-class, white, man. there is little mention of values that modern day canadians hold dear: freedom of choice, peace keeping, cultural diversity, tolerance, and sovreignty. instead, the new, 21-century canadian is defensive (via emphasis on the military), in alligence to the queen (not a problem as canada is a commonwealth nation), and engaged in traditionally male interests: fighting and sports.
the canadian identity has been contrited. new arrivals are reminded that it is not who they are but rather who they should aspire to be that matters. if anything, the new canadian identity heightens the emphasis on difference rather than celebrate it.
canada has regressed, and is less inclusive: a throwback to the early 20-century canada- which by any account was not a flattering era for new comers to canada, indeed.
even in canada, my body is yours
i just finished Stephen Lewis' book 'Race Against Time: Searching for hope in AIDS- ravaged Africa. he talks extensively about woman's rights and the lack thereof in African and other developing nations. he outlines how their bodies are outsourced to men and their pleasures. then i thought about canada, and its role in giving women the right to their bodies.
many canadians point fingers at other (developing) nations for not doing enough on gender violence, and gender rights. we talk about international hotspots where female genitle mutilation, rape, honour killings, gas stove 'accidents' are grotesque and not at all acceptable behaviour in canada, land of the free, where rights and responsibilites are respected and expected.
i was having a casual conversation with a friend the other day and she told me she made $100 per hour standing at a beer table at a night club wearing skimpy lingerie. she was a struggling university student and needed the money. what she didn't apply for was the gropping, touching, and harassment from club-goers. as she told me, the only time her assigned bouncer would intervene was when the club-goer got 'too' aggressive, meaning a threshold of agressiveness was tolerated, just not 'too' much.
it came to me: here we (canadians) are pointing fingers at countries across the world who don't respect women and their bodies; and yet, we do the same albeit with more subtley without raising ire amongst our own citizenry.
when will gender politics convene in the public arena with serious merit? importantly, when will canadians stop advising other nations regarding gender violence and heed its own advice?
many canadians point fingers at other (developing) nations for not doing enough on gender violence, and gender rights. we talk about international hotspots where female genitle mutilation, rape, honour killings, gas stove 'accidents' are grotesque and not at all acceptable behaviour in canada, land of the free, where rights and responsibilites are respected and expected.
i was having a casual conversation with a friend the other day and she told me she made $100 per hour standing at a beer table at a night club wearing skimpy lingerie. she was a struggling university student and needed the money. what she didn't apply for was the gropping, touching, and harassment from club-goers. as she told me, the only time her assigned bouncer would intervene was when the club-goer got 'too' aggressive, meaning a threshold of agressiveness was tolerated, just not 'too' much.
it came to me: here we (canadians) are pointing fingers at countries across the world who don't respect women and their bodies; and yet, we do the same albeit with more subtley without raising ire amongst our own citizenry.
when will gender politics convene in the public arena with serious merit? importantly, when will canadians stop advising other nations regarding gender violence and heed its own advice?
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Hijab: an exercise of rights or options?
What is it about seeing a veiled woman that can polarize a discussion?
The idea of a head scarf is not unique to women, nor is it exclusive to Islam. Jewish women cover their head when praying, and men in the middle east wear veils to deflect the heat of an arid climate. These scenarios do not provoke dialogue about religious oppression, hostility or even 'backwardness'; yet, a muslim woman wearing a veil does.
The role of colonialism, politics, and media have influenced the meaning of an islamic woman who wears a veil, hijab. She is seen as oppressed and subordinate to the patriarchal model of her religion and culture. This interpretation is not complete nor is it accurate.
Many muslim women say that taking on the hijab was liberating to her femininity and personhood. Wearing the hijab was a way to excerise her rights as a woman, and can provide access to social and economical resources that were previously unavailable. Does this rebuke suffice? Perhaps, but again, it remains incomplete.
Observers of and those that wear the hijab provide convenient interpretations regarding the function of the hijab to his or her agenda.
Homa Hoodfar, a muslim scholar, provides snapshots of women from lower- middle- and upper- class socioeconomic brackets across Egypt that wear the hijab in order to deflect the notion of having become too 'western'. In this instance, adopting the hijab has become a vehicle to assure the larger Egyptian community that she has progressed as a woman but is not a product of the western influence. These woman say that after wearing the hijab the muslim community no longer challenge their 'progressive' ways in life (ie. working while married, travelling the bus late at night) as signs of cultural and/or religious revolt. Rather they support, even empathize, with her circumstance.
Could the hijab be a way of averting social stigmas, or are they using the hijab to communicate their closeness to their faith? Concensus is not clear, and neither should be the opinion on the function of the hijab in muslim nations.
The idea of a head scarf is not unique to women, nor is it exclusive to Islam. Jewish women cover their head when praying, and men in the middle east wear veils to deflect the heat of an arid climate. These scenarios do not provoke dialogue about religious oppression, hostility or even 'backwardness'; yet, a muslim woman wearing a veil does.
The role of colonialism, politics, and media have influenced the meaning of an islamic woman who wears a veil, hijab. She is seen as oppressed and subordinate to the patriarchal model of her religion and culture. This interpretation is not complete nor is it accurate.
Many muslim women say that taking on the hijab was liberating to her femininity and personhood. Wearing the hijab was a way to excerise her rights as a woman, and can provide access to social and economical resources that were previously unavailable. Does this rebuke suffice? Perhaps, but again, it remains incomplete.
Observers of and those that wear the hijab provide convenient interpretations regarding the function of the hijab to his or her agenda.
Homa Hoodfar, a muslim scholar, provides snapshots of women from lower- middle- and upper- class socioeconomic brackets across Egypt that wear the hijab in order to deflect the notion of having become too 'western'. In this instance, adopting the hijab has become a vehicle to assure the larger Egyptian community that she has progressed as a woman but is not a product of the western influence. These woman say that after wearing the hijab the muslim community no longer challenge their 'progressive' ways in life (ie. working while married, travelling the bus late at night) as signs of cultural and/or religious revolt. Rather they support, even empathize, with her circumstance.
Could the hijab be a way of averting social stigmas, or are they using the hijab to communicate their closeness to their faith? Concensus is not clear, and neither should be the opinion on the function of the hijab in muslim nations.
Are we an over-medicalized society?
Our society is over medicalized.
Minor coughs, teasing, sex (too little or too much), and shyness have all become reasons to seek medical intervention. Procedures have to be evasive- advise will no longer do. Drugs to injections to operations are preferred by patients rather than hearing that a 'cold will just have to run it's course', 'juice, water and rest is good enough'.
Enter influenza.
There is nothing novel about the influenza strain. Just like every year it has continued to evolve with mutations seperating it from the preceding strain(s). However, what is different about this strain is that it is the first 'H'1 'N'1 combination ('H' has 16 different varieties and 'N' 9). This new combination means that the virus' characteristics are not known as it has never been identified and studied before. It also means that the interaction with the host isn't understood nor is it known, implying that plotting a correct course of action cannot be definative nor carefully proposed.
Key yet, is that the Avian Flu, the H5N1 strain, is the most lethal influenza strain to humans, and if contracted can lead to effects of greater magnitude than that of H1N1. To date, the World Health Organization, WHO, has confirmed 2 more cases of the Avain flu in Egypt, Cairo as of September 2009 of two 10- and 14- year old girls. Recall, influenza affects 20% of the total population. Of this group, 80% have gone on to contract H1N1 (accorinding to the University of Ottawa panel discussion, September 2009). The question begs: why is the H1N1 influenza strain, which is less viral and isn't affecting the entire population as once H5N1 did, leading to hysteria out of proportion to its potential effects?
Our society lives in a setting of heightened medical surveillance. Meaning, patients not only rely on health care professionals for diagnosis, but now rely on each other to identify- in us- symptoms of potential medical diagnosis. We watch each other, and report our findings to either the individual or a third party.
H1N1 is an emerging and recently unknown strain of influenza. Its entry into the host can be mitigated using less evasive tecniques, such as washing your hands, or coughing into a sleeve. Still, the general public prefers to treat H1N1 as a deadly pathogen, which it is not, and provide evasive tratment, injections, which it does not need.
Less evasive procedures will help deter the H1N1. Common sense, knowleedge, clean hands and moderate levels of sanitation will keep us safer than any level of an evasive medical procedure.
Sadly, the proportion of the H1N1 Flu is being over valued leading to its over medicalization.
Minor coughs, teasing, sex (too little or too much), and shyness have all become reasons to seek medical intervention. Procedures have to be evasive- advise will no longer do. Drugs to injections to operations are preferred by patients rather than hearing that a 'cold will just have to run it's course', 'juice, water and rest is good enough'.
Enter influenza.
There is nothing novel about the influenza strain. Just like every year it has continued to evolve with mutations seperating it from the preceding strain(s). However, what is different about this strain is that it is the first 'H'1 'N'1 combination ('H' has 16 different varieties and 'N' 9). This new combination means that the virus' characteristics are not known as it has never been identified and studied before. It also means that the interaction with the host isn't understood nor is it known, implying that plotting a correct course of action cannot be definative nor carefully proposed.
Key yet, is that the Avian Flu, the H5N1 strain, is the most lethal influenza strain to humans, and if contracted can lead to effects of greater magnitude than that of H1N1. To date, the World Health Organization, WHO, has confirmed 2 more cases of the Avain flu in Egypt, Cairo as of September 2009 of two 10- and 14- year old girls. Recall, influenza affects 20% of the total population. Of this group, 80% have gone on to contract H1N1 (accorinding to the University of Ottawa panel discussion, September 2009). The question begs: why is the H1N1 influenza strain, which is less viral and isn't affecting the entire population as once H5N1 did, leading to hysteria out of proportion to its potential effects?
Our society lives in a setting of heightened medical surveillance. Meaning, patients not only rely on health care professionals for diagnosis, but now rely on each other to identify- in us- symptoms of potential medical diagnosis. We watch each other, and report our findings to either the individual or a third party.
H1N1 is an emerging and recently unknown strain of influenza. Its entry into the host can be mitigated using less evasive tecniques, such as washing your hands, or coughing into a sleeve. Still, the general public prefers to treat H1N1 as a deadly pathogen, which it is not, and provide evasive tratment, injections, which it does not need.
Less evasive procedures will help deter the H1N1. Common sense, knowleedge, clean hands and moderate levels of sanitation will keep us safer than any level of an evasive medical procedure.
Sadly, the proportion of the H1N1 Flu is being over valued leading to its over medicalization.
Movie Review: Shoot on Sight
'Shoot On Sight' released in 2007.
The movie showcases the conflict between muslim and non-muslim in London after a subway station bombing. In the end, the ambitious british muslim police officer shoots the terror suspect, his nephew, pushing the former into emotional and later professional grief.
This movie didn't recieve much fan fair. Mainstream media did not push it into the public arena, nor did it recieve any accolades or recognition for discussing a difficult topic with clarity and sensitivity; such a shame as inter-faith conflict has heightened the meaning and significance of difference.
Guns and violence will not resolve inter-faith discord. To the contrary, it continues to propel extremism and literalist interpretation of religious texts. Inter-faith dialogue cannot be resolved using violence. Rather, ideological differences will begin to soften when conflicting parties sit across a table and engage in meaningful discussion regarding the similarities and differences they share as believers of faith and as members of the same humane community.
In the end we are more simiar than different. What medium will further this message?
The movie showcases the conflict between muslim and non-muslim in London after a subway station bombing. In the end, the ambitious british muslim police officer shoots the terror suspect, his nephew, pushing the former into emotional and later professional grief.
This movie didn't recieve much fan fair. Mainstream media did not push it into the public arena, nor did it recieve any accolades or recognition for discussing a difficult topic with clarity and sensitivity; such a shame as inter-faith conflict has heightened the meaning and significance of difference.
Guns and violence will not resolve inter-faith discord. To the contrary, it continues to propel extremism and literalist interpretation of religious texts. Inter-faith dialogue cannot be resolved using violence. Rather, ideological differences will begin to soften when conflicting parties sit across a table and engage in meaningful discussion regarding the similarities and differences they share as believers of faith and as members of the same humane community.
In the end we are more simiar than different. What medium will further this message?
Women's Movement and Bollywood: will they ever reconcile?
Jessica Lall: the case of an aspiring Indian model that was killed at a night club has always captivated the attention of India and Her citizens.
A law student and part-time model she made ends meet by working late night shifts at the then high-end Indian night club, Tamarind Court in Mehrauli, India. There the son of the ex-Union Minister Manu Sharma ordered a drink to which Lall refused to prepare- the club was closing for the night. Without warning, Sharma shot Lall twice both times in the had, the second shot proving lethal. When the case went to court he was aquitted. Upon its appeal the Lower Court of India charged him with the murder of Lall and sentenced him to life imprisonment, 2006.
This story has many dimensions: politics, corruption, bribery, role of the media, gender analysis, violence against women, and law. Director RajKumar Gupta wants to bring this case mainstream: he's casting two 27-30 year-old actresses, one to play Lall and the other her sister who faught with the court's for his conviction.
After approaching actress Kareena Kapoor for the lead role she skillfully declined stating 'I couldn't connect with the character. If I've to do a film with a socio-political theme, it'd have to be something like ‘Kurbaan’, which is about things that are happening today. I want to do meaty parts with off-mainstream directors like Dibakar Banerjee and Raj Kumar Gupta. But the roles have to justify my presence. I can't do a bit part in an offbeat film just to prove I can act' as quoted by MidDay
* note: The movie Kurbaan, set for a November 2009 release, follows the integration of an inter-faith couple moving from India to the USA circa 2009.
It is sad to see that in the 21- century Kapoor cannot connect to issues related to violence agaist women. Dissapointing yet, is that her rejection of this role centers around what Lall could do for Kapoor's career, not vic versa. Furthermore, her assertation that she wants to participate in movies which discuss social themes of today underscore her understanding of issues in mainstream media. Lall's case consumed the media for eight years. This case is considered a landmark ruling for women across India. It is unforunate that Kapoor reduced and distanced this case down to politics and its social analysis.
Perhaps money and ambition will be the only things what will connect Kapoor to Lall.
Unfortunate indeed.
A law student and part-time model she made ends meet by working late night shifts at the then high-end Indian night club, Tamarind Court in Mehrauli, India. There the son of the ex-Union Minister Manu Sharma ordered a drink to which Lall refused to prepare- the club was closing for the night. Without warning, Sharma shot Lall twice both times in the had, the second shot proving lethal. When the case went to court he was aquitted. Upon its appeal the Lower Court of India charged him with the murder of Lall and sentenced him to life imprisonment, 2006.
This story has many dimensions: politics, corruption, bribery, role of the media, gender analysis, violence against women, and law. Director RajKumar Gupta wants to bring this case mainstream: he's casting two 27-30 year-old actresses, one to play Lall and the other her sister who faught with the court's for his conviction.
After approaching actress Kareena Kapoor for the lead role she skillfully declined stating 'I couldn't connect with the character. If I've to do a film with a socio-political theme, it'd have to be something like ‘Kurbaan’, which is about things that are happening today. I want to do meaty parts with off-mainstream directors like Dibakar Banerjee and Raj Kumar Gupta. But the roles have to justify my presence. I can't do a bit part in an offbeat film just to prove I can act' as quoted by MidDay
* note: The movie Kurbaan, set for a November 2009 release, follows the integration of an inter-faith couple moving from India to the USA circa 2009.
It is sad to see that in the 21- century Kapoor cannot connect to issues related to violence agaist women. Dissapointing yet, is that her rejection of this role centers around what Lall could do for Kapoor's career, not vic versa. Furthermore, her assertation that she wants to participate in movies which discuss social themes of today underscore her understanding of issues in mainstream media. Lall's case consumed the media for eight years. This case is considered a landmark ruling for women across India. It is unforunate that Kapoor reduced and distanced this case down to politics and its social analysis.
Perhaps money and ambition will be the only things what will connect Kapoor to Lall.
Unfortunate indeed.
When a Tree Shook Delhi
October 31, 2009 marked the 25 anniversary of the night that Indira Gandhi, daughter of India's founding body Jawaharlal Nehru, was assasinated.
I was very young, but can remember bits and pieces of the night her death was making international headlines: my father was following the story on every news channel. i can recall him channel surfing to see if one channel was investigating the issue differently than the others.
at the time, i didn't understand the gravity of what had just transpired. today, i feel more informed, dare i say more connected, to the events in question.
The religious shrine had become absorbed with militants who had taken its refuge. Matters of sovereignty, governance, national security, ethnic group sensitivity, and international stability were at stake. the situation would not be easy to resolve and delicate steps would had to be taken in order to resolve this escalating matter.
Gandhi ordered the army to attack the temple and to rid it of its terrorists.
many have no self-actualized awareness regarding Gandhi's assassination. many dismiss her as a novice leader learning the tough lessons of public decision making, others site religious grounds-and by extension justification- of her untimely death. many refuse to listen to alternatives, and if presented with one are quick to dismiss.
what a sad state of mind.
Gandhi served her nation to the best of her ability: she introduced the Green Revolution, secured india's entry to the nuclear club, sought the development of the scientific and technical markets, and turned india into a global competator.
she made tough choices, harboured enemies along the way, and ultimately lost her life doing what she loved most: fighting for her country. unfortunate yet, is that she lost her life fighting with her country.
what people fail to recall, is that the preceding and proceeding atrocities were not commited by her, but rather by one indian to another; and this oversight remains india's ultimate shame.
I was very young, but can remember bits and pieces of the night her death was making international headlines: my father was following the story on every news channel. i can recall him channel surfing to see if one channel was investigating the issue differently than the others.
at the time, i didn't understand the gravity of what had just transpired. today, i feel more informed, dare i say more connected, to the events in question.
The religious shrine had become absorbed with militants who had taken its refuge. Matters of sovereignty, governance, national security, ethnic group sensitivity, and international stability were at stake. the situation would not be easy to resolve and delicate steps would had to be taken in order to resolve this escalating matter.
Gandhi ordered the army to attack the temple and to rid it of its terrorists.
many have no self-actualized awareness regarding Gandhi's assassination. many dismiss her as a novice leader learning the tough lessons of public decision making, others site religious grounds-and by extension justification- of her untimely death. many refuse to listen to alternatives, and if presented with one are quick to dismiss.
what a sad state of mind.
Gandhi served her nation to the best of her ability: she introduced the Green Revolution, secured india's entry to the nuclear club, sought the development of the scientific and technical markets, and turned india into a global competator.
she made tough choices, harboured enemies along the way, and ultimately lost her life doing what she loved most: fighting for her country. unfortunate yet, is that she lost her life fighting with her country.
what people fail to recall, is that the preceding and proceeding atrocities were not commited by her, but rather by one indian to another; and this oversight remains india's ultimate shame.
The Execution of John Allen Muhammed, Nov 10, 2009.
John Allen Muhammed is to be executed Nov 10, 2009 at 9:00 pm eastern standard time.
He, along with Lee Boyd Malvo, his teenage accomplice, were charged with killing a man as he pumped gas into his car. together, Muhammed and Malvo have are also referred to as the DC Snipers.
it doesn't seem long ago that these men were on a sniper spree. it was in 2002. and i can recall the tension, the not-knowing when they would attack. although the attacks were in the USA the vicarious trama that effected canadians was palpable. i had a friend that lived in the state of Virginia. i called him more frequently around the time of the shootings, just to see if he was ok. i remember when they'd shot at a lady in a shopping mall parking lot. i had called my friend, as always, to make sure he was ok. he told me he'd been at that mall only 45 minutes previously. he was startled and quite nervious. so was i. it had been too close an encounter.
i can't imagine being a relative to those that have already lost so much at the hands of this murderous rampage. whatever their motive Muhammed and Malvo shot at helpless and unarmed men, women and children.
this execution will be a small victory to those that lost their loved ones at the hands of these men.
our thoughts and prayers are with you.
xoxo
He, along with Lee Boyd Malvo, his teenage accomplice, were charged with killing a man as he pumped gas into his car. together, Muhammed and Malvo have are also referred to as the DC Snipers.
it doesn't seem long ago that these men were on a sniper spree. it was in 2002. and i can recall the tension, the not-knowing when they would attack. although the attacks were in the USA the vicarious trama that effected canadians was palpable. i had a friend that lived in the state of Virginia. i called him more frequently around the time of the shootings, just to see if he was ok. i remember when they'd shot at a lady in a shopping mall parking lot. i had called my friend, as always, to make sure he was ok. he told me he'd been at that mall only 45 minutes previously. he was startled and quite nervious. so was i. it had been too close an encounter.
i can't imagine being a relative to those that have already lost so much at the hands of this murderous rampage. whatever their motive Muhammed and Malvo shot at helpless and unarmed men, women and children.
this execution will be a small victory to those that lost their loved ones at the hands of these men.
our thoughts and prayers are with you.
xoxo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
