Evil Women

Recently on the Passionate Eye, a CBC news show, I watched a BBC documentary about this fifty-something English woman, Jane Felix-Browne, who had married one of Osama bin Laden’s sons, Omar Ossama bin Laden, a man in his twenties. Osama has a lot of sons, some of whom are wanted for terrorism and in hiding with him, and some, such as Omar, who are not. All of bin Laden’s sons, including Omar, had undergone training with him at his CIA funded camps to learn to fight against the Russians.
Omar does not seem to want to live the life of a terrorist; in fact, he seems rather lost, unsure of just what sort of life he does want to lead. because of his father, he has been rejected by the members of his family who are not hunted criminals. He has been rejected by much of society for that same reason. And, he has been rejected by his father for not being a terrorist.
When Omar speaks of his father, he speaks with longing. He does not condemn Osama, because he loves him. One gets the felling if Omar only knew where to find his father, he would happily join him, just to be by the man’s side. Omar may have once decided that terrorism is not for him, but his moral compass appears ungrounded, and this lost boy could perhaps be persuaded into a life of terrorism to regain his father’s love.
Even more eerie is the woman who married him. I found her behavior puzzling. She licked her lips constantly, an action I found disturbing. Like a poker bluffer’s “tell”, her tongue darted in and out as thought defying the viewer to catch the lies it presaged. Jane is always heavily made up. In the airport at Heathrow, she wears a niqua. Yet in a Saudi nightclub, she goes bareheaded. She seems to choose her outfits based on their ability to taunt her audience. She proclaims her love for her husband, but yet her eyes do not speak it. Her body language, words and gestures are all highly protective of him, more like an overbearing mother than a new wife. As though she seeks to keep him to herself, to gain control over him and guide his actions.
Her sideways stare at the camera reminded me of that infamous photo of Karla Homolka. As I listened to Jane launch into a tirade about how Osama is not evil and the western world judges him wrongly, her mask fell, and I saw her for what she is. The same type of woman as Karla. A woman who feeds on dangerous men. In my opinion, Jane sought out Osama’s son, all the way from her lower middle class home in England, because she wants to be near his terrorist father. I think She wants to lead his son back to Osama so she can join in.
I hope someone’s keeping an eye on her.

Should a Sikh Wear a Motorcycle Helmet?

This is a letter I wrote to the editor of the Toronto Star in response to an article about a Sikh protesting a traffic ticket for not wearing a motorcycle helmet. The Ontario Human Rights Commission was supporting his claim that a helmet constituted religious discrimination.

The Human Rights Commission has gone too far this time. If Canada is going to work as a country, we have to have some agreement as to what rights, freedoms, laws, and regulations we will all share and uphold. Motorcycle helmets, like seat belts, are an inconvenience for everyone of every religion or cultural background. In that sense they are not discriminatory. A Sikh may keep his hair covered while wearing a helmet--the turban is not the only form of acceptable headgear for this purpose. Furthermore, riding a motorcycle is not a right, it’s a privilege. A rider must pass a difficult test in order to obtain a license. Not everyone in this country owns or rides a motorcycle. Not having a motorcycle does not hamper someone from freely enjoying all that Canada has to offer or from participating fully in all aspects of life in Ontario. In that sense, attorney for the human rights commission Scott Hutchison’s statement that, "Telling Mr. Badesha to choose between his religion or participating in the normal life of Ontario is discrimination," is ludicrous. Motorcycle driving is not part of the normal life of Ontario. I don’t know anyone outside of the Hell’s Angles who would consider it so. Mr. Badesha is simply being asked to follow an important safety regulation. His assertion that everyone dies in accidents every day is also ridiculous. Does the fact that sometimes accidents occur justify flouting any and all safety rules? Shall we all just start choosing which rule to follow and which one not to? With freedom comes responsibility. If Mr. Badesha truly wants to participate in the normal life of Ontario, he should quit wasting the taxpayer’s money on trivia.

The First World?

I’m tired of hearing North America referred to as the first world. This is a new error that has crept into our language of late, and it stems from an ignorance of the original coinage of the term third world. Here’s the story:
In the beginning, there was one known world, comprised of Europe, Asia, and Africa. Then the new world was “discovered” by Columbus, and so the previously known world become the old world, and North and South America become the new world. There was no distinction as to how rich or poor a country was. Technically speaking then, Europe, Africa, and Asia formed the first world, and North and South America formed the second world.
Then sometime in the middle of the previous century, some wit, I'm not sure who because I didn’t feel like doing the research this, but I bet is the author of Future Shock, came up with the term third world to describe those countries that were being left out of the general economic prosperity the world was then experiencing. Third meaning left out, forgotten, overlooked, as in the third wheel on a date. Thus countries previously part of both the first and second worlds became third world nations, a term describing economic circumstances and not locations on a map.I suppose, then, that describing North America now as the first world in reference to our economic status is not entirely unfitting, but it does lead to some confusion as to what exactly is the second world then, and I just thought people should know.