Unsuitable for Integration

No society should compel itself, out of misplaced humanitarian concerns, to accept within its population a culturally-tainted group of refugee-seekers whose ingrained and deep-seated animosities toward others, including 50% of humanity, renders them unsuitable for integration into the host society. The host society in this instance - Canada - being one that values equality between the sexes, and offers opportunities to all its population, equally, guaranteeing rights and freedoms under the Canadian Charter (of Rights and Freedoms).

It is not merely that society encumbers itself with the need to welcome, support and expend public funds to assist immigrants in their struggle to settle into a new land, learn a new language, engage in needful activities leading toward full employment and personal independence. It is the much larger picture of people bringing with them traditions whose values are clearly inimical to those of the host country. Where, instead of integrating into the general population, clusters of immigrants sequester themselves socially and cling to old customs.

Customs that have encouraged and legitimized antagonistic attitudes toward other ethnic or religious groups. Traditions that have been absorbed and become an integral part of some ethnic and religious cultures that express themselves clearly in virulent misogyny and homophobia. Ultimately, a resistance to accepting the values and the traditions of the host country. And where immigrant clusters seek in fact, to exert influence on the host country to accept and to honour the customs and traditions of their original heritage.

Western countries, with an influx of Muslim immigrants whose tribal way of life with its victim mentality and exploitation of women, have faced the horrors of 'honour killings', where a woman is accused of dishonouring tradition, custom and family and upon whom the ultimate discipline is imposed. That of a male family member stalking and murdering the offending woman. Women who have seen the freedom offered other females and insisting on having those freedoms themselves.

The recent tragedy of three young Montreal sisters and their 50-year-old female caregiver having been found dead, trapped in a vehicle in the Rideau Canal appears to be a case in point. Where the public had been led to think, mostly because of the explanations given by the girls' father and mother, that this was an unfortunate accident, while the investigating authorities themselves never appeared to subscribe to the theory of 'accident'. The police involved considered the incident troublesomely suspicious.

Now three people have been arrested en route to exit from the country, and charged with murder and conspiracy to commit murder; a first-degree capital charge. The three are the girls' mother and father and their older brother. Whom police believe were the real drivers of the vehicle, not the oldest daughter as her mother and father testified. The police announcement to the public spoke obliquely of the right to life and freedom of young people in Canada.

The narrative implicit in the announcement was that of an Afghan family arriving in Canada two years earlier, settling in Montreal, and the seven children of the family being confronted with Canadian values and freedoms, in conflict with and upsetting the traditions of their cultural upbringing. That in some manner not yet divulged, some or all of the three girls and their 50-year-old death-mate had offended tradition and family honour.

Out of this sprang an unspeakable horror imposed upon a Canadian background. How is this emotionally assimilable, that a mother, let alone a father, would be actively complicit in the deaths of their daughters?