Why can't they just give Islamist honor spankings?

[DJQuag]

You mean the article cited in the very first post of this thread?

And to be clear, I've never touched meth in my life. What I'm not going to put up with are personal attacks without returning in kind. I'll not be the one to call Joshua in, that's not me and never has been, but if you feel the need to pepper your references to me with insults and namecalling, you'd better believe that I'll be coming right back at you.

[Pete at Home]

PS - The tweaker and uneducated statements haven't gone unnoticed. I'll just tell you this in advance. If you continue to refer to me in that manner, I'll just start referring to you as "the alcoholic who drove his wife and children away." So. Ball's in your court, champ.

I won't.  But being who you are, I'm sure you'll find another reason to attack my kids. It's who you are, Biff.  The boy who "doesn't care."

[DJQuag]

Yeah...that was aimed at you, not your kids. They were the victims. I believe what you're objecting to here is me bringing up your kids.

[Fenring]

See fenring?  no misunderstanding here. He persists in his original lie that I have the same motivations as her brother.

? He didn't say that.

What he said was that by calling her a nimrod out of the gates you're choosing in your first breath to insult her rather than defend her. Even if secondarily you concede that what she did was "brave" that's only after making it clear she was a useless person morally. DJ's point, I think, is that opening up with an initial volley of insulting her makes it clear that your primary takeaway was that she was a nimrod. The subsequent legal mention of defending her right to be morally useless seemed more like a concession.

The issue with this is that where she's from there appears to be no distinction between the legal status of what she did and its moral status. If a theocratic puritan culture deem her actions to be morally wrong it will call it legally wrong as well. Therefore within the context of where this actually happened saying she was morally stupid but legally should be protected is a bit of a non-sequitor. The only thing that should be relevant to us over here is that what she did ought to be legal and instead she was killed for it. The appraisal of her moral worth on top of it seems to just add insult to injury. Maybe you thought she was a nimrod, maybe not, but why make that the one statement about her when the more glaring issue is that she risked death to engage in free expression?

Imagine a parallel scenario where someone under threat of death to convert to Islam risked death to stay true to their religion. Pretty noble and brave, right? I imagine you'd praise such a person. But now imagine if the chosen religion of that person was something really shallow, like "Church of Lathander" (because they're a D&D player). Would your evaluation of their nobility and bravery be changed because you didn't respect their chosen religion? I would think it shouldn't matter, especially since plenty of people might not respect any given chosen religion (including yours) and yet we'd hope they would respect you for your beliefs anyhow. That they may or may not be shallow shouldn't be relevant in the greater scheme of prioritizing defending the person's right to make that choice without condemning them for it, especially if they did so in the face of death threats.

[Pete at Home]

What he said was that by calling her a nimrod out of the gates you're choosing in your first breath to insult her rather than defend her

That's not what he said.

and you're equivocating with "morally"/sexually.

I said that her communications were shallow and materialistic.  He perversely insisted that I was attacking her for taking pleasure in her sexuality. 

It seems that you've just taken sides and you have no interest in resolving this.  all you're doing is prolonging a fight that had exhausted itself.

[Pete at Home]

Yeah...that was aimed at you, not your kids. They were the victims. I believe what you're objecting to here is me bringing up your kids.

What I object to is you being a sadist who doesn't care if what he says is true, so long as he feels he's scored points on a foe.  You're completely indifferent to truth and want to make yourself a big man by lying about what I said, and then by cruelly exploiting what I've shared here among people I thought were friends.

that was aimed at you, not your kids. They were the victims

note I did not repeat the insults you specifically asked me not to, but you went ahead anyway, doubled down, and said my kids were my victims.

If fenring continues to defend your attack on me through my family, then he's your whore.

[Pete at Home]

Imagine a parallel scenario where someone under threat of death to convert to Islam risked death to stay true to their religion. Pretty noble and brave, right? I imagine you'd praise such a person. But now imagine if the chosen religion of that person was something really shallow, like "Church of Lathander" (because they're a D&D player). Would your evaluation of their nobility and bravery be changed because you didn't respect their chosen religion?

not at all, no more than my analysis of Baloch's nobility and bravery is changed.  My analysis is "brave, but shallow."  Same as Charlie Hebdo.

[Pete at Home]

she was a useless person morally.

not at all.  bravery is a moral character.

My point was that going through her utterances, like Hebdos cartoons, doesn't really add anything of cultural or intellectual worth.

I don't recall either you or djq ever mentioning this "hero" before she died.

I, on the other hand, have brought up and praised the bravery Aliaa Magda Elmahdy to previous Egyptian discussions, who (unlike baloch's pg-rated teasings) actually did full nude scatology, talked about her sex life frankly, and used it to attack daesh.   So djq's inference that my annyoance with Baloch had something to do with her "enjoying her sexuality" was insulting and stupid.

[Pete at Home]

That they may or may not be shallow shouldn't be relevant in the greater scheme of prioritizing defending the person's right to make that choice without condemning them for it, especially if they did so in the face of death threats.

Yes, that's a legitimate complaint against what I said.  djq's repeated lies about what I said, and attacks on my family, were not a legitimate or relevant response.

[Fenring]

and you're equivocating with "morally"/sexually.

No. I'm using "morally" to refer to the moral worth of someone's contribution, in this case in the realm of sexual freedom. I'm not talking about sexuality at all. Actually, I'm not talking about anything at all, I'm just trying to clarify what I think was said earlier when you were speaking past each other.

It seems that you've just taken sides and you have no interest in resolving this.  all you're doing is prolonging a fight that had exhausted itself.

If you think I've taken sides then you haven't read carefully. In fact, I've not even once stated my opinion on the subject. Literally the only thing I did was to try to explain what I thought was said by both of you to try to help you understand each other. Since that can't happen I guess I'll stop.

[DJQuag]

Yeah...that was aimed at you, not your kids. They were the victims. I believe what you're objecting to here is me bringing up your kids.

"attack my kids."

I was correcting you. If you didn't wish to continue down that road, you probably shouldn't have made such an easily refuted statement.

[scifibum]

I won't pretend to know very much about her - just what I read on that BBC article and (a much better) one on Al Jazeera - but it seems to me that criticisms that might apply to someone like Kim Kardashian would not necessarily apply to someone whose public expression might be superficially similar but emerging from a far more oppressive and dangerous context. 

KK posts a pouting selfie: certainly no big deal, but criticism of her actions as self obsessed and shallow and culturally corrosive would arguably have some merit.

QB posts a pouting selfie: a daring political statement that says many things that I hesitate to attempt to deconstruct but would include the idea that she should be in charge of her own sexual expression.  Coming from where she was, geographically, culturally, and apparently with regard to her family, this is not the same expression that KK makes with a similar tweet, and it is inaccurate and unfair to transfer ones criticism of KK to QB.

There is, admittedly, likely some political and ideological overlap between the two acts, but QB's is drastically more charged with activism and the commonality isn't enough to permit the criticism to transfer.

[DJQuag]

"Cruelly exploiting"

Hey, like I said, it's only there to respond to your own personal attacks. There are a lot of people around here wili NV to turn the other cheek or run telling tales to Daddy when you get out of line.

I'm not one of those people.

[Pete at Home]

Yes, we were talking past each other on some points. Yes, there was a valid point that it was tacky or even dehumanizing for me to call her a nimrod right on the breaking news of her death.  I've acknowledged that already, but none of that excuses dwag for lying about what I sad or for his hateful inferences about my family. 

Right now I'm out of state accompanying my first son to college and helping him set in, but I guess I'd better watch what I say on a board where no one defends me from a psychopath taking pot shots at my kids.

[Pete at Home]

I won't pretend to know very much about her - just what I read on that BBC article and (a much better) one on Al Jazeera - but it seems to me that criticisms that might apply to someone like Kim Kardashian would not necessarily apply to someone whose public expression might be superficially similar but emerging from a far more oppressive and dangerous context. 

KK posts a pouting selfie: certainly no big deal, but criticism of her actions as self obsessed and shallow and culturally corrosive would arguably have some merit.

QB posts a pouting selfie: a daring political statement that says many things that I hesitate to attempt to deconstruct but would include the idea that she should be in charge of her own sexual expression.  Coming from where she was, geographically, culturally, and apparently with regard to her family, this is not the same expression that KK makes with a similar tweet, and it is inaccurate and unfair to transfer ones criticism of KK to QB.

There is, admittedly, likely some political and ideological overlap between the two acts, but QB's is drastically more charged with activism and the commonality isn't enough to permit the criticism to transfer.

all of this is quite true.  The converse problem, is the history of colonialism in Pakistan.  If Qb could only have found a means of self-expression that didn't superficially duplicate a notoriously shallow American, during a time that our drones circle over their heads.  Then this "honor killing" might not be tinged with cultural resistance.

(naturally dq is probably reading this as usual and saying 'sex sex sex'  )

[scifibum]

I think, though, that her notoriety was probably due to the same factors that made her redolent of American pop culture.  I'm sure there are many Pakistani activists who are more carefully avoiding such resemblances and at the same time being less famous and impactful.

This may also allow the authorities to make a strong example of her murderers in a way that helps establish that murder is worse than the superficial American depravities* that they are afraid of, for those who are having trouble emerging from the dark ages.  I hope it happens; I think/hope Pakistan is ready to move past "honor killings".


*Leaving aside the much worse things we do with our bombs.

[Pete at Home]

I think, though, that her notoriety was probably due to the same factors that made her redolent of American pop culture.  I'm sure there are many Pakistani activists who are more carefully avoiding such resemblances and at the same time being less famous and impactful.

This may also allow the authorities to make a strong example of her murderers in a way that helps establish that murder is worse than the superficial American depravities* that they are afraid of, for those who are having trouble emerging from the dark ages.  I hope it happens; I think/hope Pakistan is ready to move past "honor killings".

Inshallah.  Well-said and agreed. I've actually been pleasantly surprised with the response from Pakistan on this. The overwhelming message seems to be "I disagree with what she did on camera, but she had a right to do it and she should not have died."  Even a conservative Imam is calling for action.  I'm sad that it took a life to get Pakistan to really grapple with this issue.  But this has the potential to save many lives. Maybe we should ease up on the bombings for a few weeks and give them time to think about it.

[DJQuag]

I don't agree I'm a psychopath, and I don't agree that I was attacking your children (reading comprehension,  I was attacking *you*), but if I WERE  a psychopath, I'd figure that w would be better then being an alcoholic who forced his wife to grab the kids and run.

I'm not kidding. Knock off the personal attacks.

[Pete at Home]

Hey fenring, does this sadistic psychopath sound like he's simply "misunderstood"?

I don't agree I'm a psychopath, and I don't agree that I was attacking your children (reading comprehension,  I was attacking *you*), but if I WERE  a psychopath, I'd figure that w would be better then being an alcoholic who forced his wife to grab the kids and run.

I'm not kidding. Knock off the personal attacks.

She gave me 40 days notice during which time we shared a room and a bed and I helped her pack and gave her my paycheck for the trip.  You're really a bastard for stooping that low.  If you don't want to be called a psychopath, then stop acting like a psychopath.

a psychopath is the sort of person that says the sort of things you say and doesn't care about the consequence.  since you've asked me to not call you a  tweaker, I won't.  I haven't, since you asked.  But you continue to lie about me and attack me through your lies about my family.


Pete: please see your email. -OrneryMod

[Pete at Home]

While we're trading low blow speculations, exactly what did you do to get yourself kicked out of the USA after so many years?  You realize that your internet footprint WILL be analyzed if you ever want to get taken off the no fly list?

[DJQuag]

Kicked out? I'm a dual citizen, Pete. I fly back to spend a month in the US every year.

It's pretty simple. If you don't like personal attacks, don't make them yourself. You're basically starting a boxing match and requesting that I don't punch you in the face. That's not how it's going to go. You seem a bit slow, so I'll give you a pass for this round, in the hope that it will actually sink in.

[DJQuag]

Although I'll admit I just laughed out loud at the idea that, if a government agent were deciding whether to let me fly on a plane, you apparently think that he'd look at me not accepting your version of events and meeting personal insult with personal insult and make his decision based on THAT.

[Pete at Home]

It's pretty simple. If you don't like personal attacks, don't make them yourself.

I asked you nicely to stop lying about what I said before I responded harshly.  If you don't like personal attacks, don't make them yourself.

Your hateful distortions of my painful separation that occurred back in 2011 says a lot more about you than it does about me.

[Pete at Home]

Although I'll admit I just laughed out loud at the idea that, if a government agent were deciding whether to let me fly on a plane, you apparently think that he'd look at me not accepting your version of events and meeting personal insult with personal insult and make his decision based on THAT.

based on the crap you were saying about my ex "running", I thought far-fetched hyperboles was the name of the game.  Still, if someone was making a decision about you, you might not want that stuff where you say you don't care if what you say is true or what consequences it has.  It paints you in a bad light.

[DJQuag]

Yeah, see, I still don't think I was lying. Now, if you think me disagreeing with that gives you free reign to call me things like tweaker, uneducated, and psychopath, well, that's your perogative. I think I've made it perfectly clear how I'm going to respond to stuff like that. Like I said, I'm really not a turn the cheek type of guy.

Don't start the fight and then whine about getting punched in the face.

[DJQuag]

Although I'll admit I just laughed out loud at the idea that, if a government agent were deciding whether to let me fly on a plane, you apparently think that he'd look at me not accepting your version of events and meeting personal insult with personal insult and make his decision based on THAT.

based on the crap you were saying about my ex "running", I thought far-fetched hyperboles was the name of the game.  Still, if someone was making a decision about you, you might not want that stuff where you say you don't care if what you say is true or what consequences it has.  It paints you in a bad light.

I trust that anyone given that kind of authority will possess the reading apprehension that you've apparently put out to pasture now you think you've got a killer character attack on me.

[Pete at Home]

Yeah, see, I still don't think I was lying.

I cannot say what or if you think.  but you claimed that I said something that I hadn't said, and then doubled down when I emphasized that I meant nothing of the sort.  and you said you don't care whether you libeled or not because cops aren't coming after you.  That's psychopathic behavior.

now if you'll get off my leg, we can agree to disagree as to whether I said something that's plainly not on this thread, and also to the question of whether you're a liar and a psychopath.  I have no need to repeat the allegation now unless you drag out the argument.

[DJQuag]

Yeah, who's the liar now, Pete? (Clue: It's you!)

You get a bee in your bonnet, about something, anything, with anyone, and get downright psychotic. You see things that aren't there, and can't see what's in front of you. You demand that people apologize and make formal concessions, when this ain't a court and you're not the *censored*ed arbiter of what is or isn't appropriate or valid. And if they don't concede then they're convicted in Pete Court.

Hi. My name is DJQuag, and I'm a convicted liar. Judge Pete said so. My sentence is to be unemployable and to never be allowed to fly again.

I'm not even going to bother to copy and paste, again, something that you'll ignore. It's all there for everyone to see, all of the hysterical claims that you've made, and the best part? For me? You're honestly going to be walking around thinking that you came off looking good and honest here. I find that hilarious.

[Pete at Home]

I have no idea what you're claiming that I "lied" about.  Please be specific. If you can show me I've said something here that clearly isn't true, I'll try to make it right.

My sentence is to be unemployable and to never be allowed to fly again.

I've already conceded that those statements were inaccurate. The first was unreasonable as spoken in anger, and retracted when my head cooled.  The second was just silly. and intended to make you laugh.  Which you said it did.  A lie is a false statement made knowingly with intent to deceive.  It seems to me that when you pretended that I was talking about sex, when I'd clearly been talking about other issues, you knowingly made a false statement with the intent to deceive.  You've had plenty of time to explain yourself and haven't.

[Pete at Home]

If you look at the time stamps, you'll see it's you that keeps upping the ante and continuing this argument.  I'm happy to take the discussion off-line, and if you somehow acquire a conscience and feel like apologizing for things you said that crossed the line, I'd hear you out.  Otherwise we can agree to disagree as to whether I said something that's plainly not on this thread, and also to the question of whether you're a liar and a psychopath.  Or I can continue to reply condescendingly to your "I know you are but what am I" routine.

[Pete at Home]

On another thread, djq said

If you've got a problem with something I said in another thread, and a request to make in conjunction to it, then you might be better served making your request in said thread.

I'm trying to, and I'm not sure what slipped through.  I do appreciate your seeming efforts to be a decent human being on other threads.

as for requests, you might be better served by doing the right thing without having me making an explicit request.

[DJQuag]

I don't see why.

Sometimes not doing the right thing can serve people very well.

For example, when you started going into that unique mode of yours where you insult someone who you perceived to have wronged you with every breath, I said "*censored* it," and made it perfectly clear that I was going to have zero tolerance for that bull*censored*, and was perfectly willing to be even more of a dick then you were being if it came down to it.

I'm not saying that that was the *right* thing. As in, morally. But I can't quite remember the last time you stopped the namecalling frenzy quite so quickly once you've gotten your teeth stuck in. So I'm willing to live with having done the wrong thing.

[Pete at Home]

You don't seem to grasp that persistently lying about what I had said, and pretending I was talking about sexual stuff where I clearly wasn't and had explained clearly that I was talking about something else, *was* a personal attack. 

I challenge you to quote a thread earlier than this one where I made any "personal attacks" on you.

[Fenring]

You don't seem to grasp that persistently lying about what I had said, and pretending I was talking about sexual stuff where I clearly wasn't and had explained clearly that I was talking about something else, *was* a personal attack. 

Pete, he really did neither of those things. Now you can choose to believe that despite the fact that it doesn't seem like it to you, or you can assume that both he and I are totally insane, like The Joker. I know right now it seems self-evident to you that he lied about what you said and brought up "sex sex sex!", and I can understand that once that's in your head it might be hard to get out. I would suggest you seek the Christian part of you that knows it's capable of error even in the face of what feels like certainty. You've already made a few serious attribution errors in this threat, which you've owned up to, so it shouldn't be a stretch to imagine you might have been attributing incorrect things to DJ's comments as well. I have no side in this argument between you other than the side of civil discourse. I don't like that DJ responded with attacks right back at you either, and he even upped to ante beyond what you have done in your attacks, but still, the original topic of discussion didn't warrant name calling.

[Pete at Home]

You don't seem to grasp that persistently lying about what I had said, and pretending I was talking about sexual stuff where I clearly wasn't and had explained clearly that I was talking about something else, *was* a personal attack. 

Pete, he really did neither of those things. Now you can choose to believe that despite the fact that it doesn't seem like it to you, or you can assume that both he and I are totally insane, like The Joker.

I don't think you're insane.  I simply think you're mistaken.  I've read what you said, and it simply doesn't match what he said, before or after you said it.  You sound like an honorable attorney defending a client.  I respect that.

Maybe I'm wrong about DJQ lying.  Perhaps I should have considered the possibility that he lacked the faculties to grasp that someone find Kim Kardassian or her copycats annoying for anything *other* than sexual expression.  Or he's so hell-bent on pretending that my politics are different than his, that he is unable to grasp that I don't march with Fallwell and Graham when it comes to issues of female sexual expression and bends all facts and utterances to fit that delusion.  Maybe you were right, and all this would have been prevented if I'd accepted your argument before DJQ started weaponizing my children.  But he did what he did, and he's sticking to it, and no one here has made him feel that he's crossed a line.  So my choices are leave Ornery, learn to tolerate an environment where people's families and children are fair game in a personal slash-fest, or to bring DJQ's transgression to our hosts.

[Pete at Home]

feel really bad for the parents.  Looks like their psychopathic son drugged them as well before murdering his sister.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36858317

Ms Baloch's mother, Anwar Azeem, told BBC Urdu that her daughter had shared all her sorrows and secrets with her.
Her father, Muhammad Azeem, said his son should be "shot on sight".
Mrs Azeem said her son lost his mind because of taunts about his sister's frank and often risque posts online.
More than 500 people, almost all of them women, die in Pakistan every year at the hands of relatives who believe shame has been brought on their family.

...
But Ms Baloch's brothers "always had hatred in their hearts", Mrs Azeem said. "Before, they didn't care much. But recently, things got worse, people... poisoned their minds."
'She must have called out'
Mr Azeem said his daughter had been his "best friend", but described his son as "crazed".
"I say he should be shot on sight! He suffocated my little one," he added. "We were drugged, asleep upstairs. She must have called out to us."

one grimly ironic note -- following other pakistani sources which I won't quote (if y'all aren't interested in talking about France, I don't expect you're into Urdu local politics) -- even some of my Islamist sources that DO support "honor" murders are calling for the brother to die because he didn't follow proper honor crime procedure e.g. by giving warnings.

On the bright side, good may come of this, belatedly.

Ms Baloch in pictures alongside a Muslim cleric that appeared on social media
Image caption
Ms Baloch recently caused controversy by posting pictures of herself alongside a cleric
Earlier this week, the Punjab provincial government also became a complainant in the murder case, designating it a crime against the state.
The rare move effectively prevented members of Ms Baloch's family from legally forgiving her brother - a common legal loophole that sees many so-called "honour killings" go unpunished.
An anti-honour killings bill to close the loophole nationwide has been bogged down in the Pakistani parliament.
But Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's daughter said on Wednesday that the ruling party hoped to present it before a joint session of parliament within weeks.

[DJQuag]

Dear Jack Squat -

You can hold your breath and demand that it's him or me, but both you and Pete ( ) know that anyone who wants to post here will. I'm not going anywhere. Deal with it.

[Pete at Home]

know that anyone who wants to post here will.

No, otherwise the coward wouldn't email you and tell you what to say. Stuff that happened years before you even came here.

I'm not going anywhere.

That presumes that this board stays up.  I doubt it will stay up, if attacks on participants families and children are tolerated here.

But then, that could be the purpose of the silent loser whose hand puppet you've become.

You can hold your breath and demand that it's him or me

I didn't say that. I simply said that I thought that Ornery would be better off if you were banished.  And I've never said that about anyone before.  That's not a demand, but my personal opinion.

Deal with it.

I am.  I will.    In the mean time, lay off the motive-reading until you can get your midichlorian levels under control, M'kay?

[Pete at Home]

Anyway, setting aside djq's self-pity and sense of victimization, Rolling Stone's done a short but interesting story on Ms. Baloch
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/murderer-of-qandeel-baloch-defends-honor-killing-w429540

[DJQuag]

Damn dude, seeing things that aren't there AND paranoia? The world's out to get you...lol.

[Pete at Home]

we can agree to disagree as to whether I said something that's plainly not on this thread, and also to the question of whether you're a liar and a psychopath.  I have no need to repeat the allegation now unless you drag out the argument.

Here's what Djq construed here as my "demand" that he apologize--

On another thread, djq said

If you've got a problem with something I said in another thread, and a request to make in conjunction to it, then you might be better served making your request in said thread.

I'm trying to, and I'm not sure what slipped through.  I do appreciate your seeming efforts to be a decent human being on other threads.

as for requests, you might be better served by doing the right thing without having me making an explicit request.

djq interprets this as--

You demand that people apologize and make formal concessions, when this ain't a court and you're not the *censored*ed arbiter of what is or isn't appropriate or valid. And if they don't concede then they're convicted in Pete Court.

Hi. My name is DJQuag, and I'm a convicted liar. Judge Pete said so.

[Pete at Home]

Damn dude, seeing things that aren't there AND paranoia? The world's out to get you...lol.

Here's the funny thing. Those things you accuse me of doing, that I haven't done here -- issue demands, saying it's you or me -- I've never done that to you. But I did do them to Kenmeer, over ten years ago, before your time, when Kenmeer out of the blue said some really horrible things about my disabled son.  I reacted very badly, did a number of the things you're trying to get me to do now. So you first misrepresent me, then when I say some rude things back to you, you attack my family, then you put that message on the other thread inviting me to go back to the first thread and make "requests" of what I'd like you to do ... you wanted me to make demands. but I didn't.  So yeah, it looks like you're being coached by an old timer with a burr in his butt.

[Pete at Home]

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/07/pakistan-anger-honour-killing-qandeel-baloch-160716140502239.html

Police on Saturday told Al Jazeera that Baloch's father, Mohammed Azeem, had filed a case against his son Waseem Azeem. The father also testified against another of his sons, who works in the army and reportedly encouraged his sibling to carry out the killing.

double execution, maybe!  and no one in the Muslim world seems to be speaking for these murderers.

Baloch divided opinion in Pakistan, a largely conservative nation, as she appeared on television to speak about female empowerment,

That I hadn't heard.  Good to hear.  Like I already said, facts I've found since starting this thread, I gladly admit I was wrong in calling her a "nimrod" and was prejudiced against her by hearing her referred to as the Pakistani KK."

She began her career by auditioning on Pakistan Idol

Given the associations of the word 'Idol' in Islam, they should probably give that show a different name.

Fasi Zaka, a radio show host, told Al Jazeera: "She was the most self-exposed person, and what was different about her is that she was from a poor background. She did all this on her own. She is much more than Kim Kardashian, she went against the norms of society - and went on do what she wanted, on her own terms."

Mufti Naeem, a conservative, vocal cleric, condemned the killing.

"Her personal life was her business, and killing someone is haram [not permissible in Islam]," he told Al Jazeera. "The brother must be punished - we cannot have any more murders in the name of honour."

Sherry Rahman, a senator and outspoken advocate for the rights of women and minorities, called for the national assembly to pass an anti-honour killing bill.

She said: "Assuming that Qandeel Baloch's brother will probably be arrested and punished for murder because of the high-profile [nature] of the case, the fact remains that an essentially right-wing government is sitting on vital amendments in the Pakistan Criminal Procedure Code that would disallow justice to be privatised for crimes against women."

Vigils were held in Lahore and Karachi.

Given that information, I can even sympathize with QB's earlier assertion that she's a hero. 

[Pete at Home]

Still, it's too bad that noncelebrities don't get the same sort of love.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36854345

A female Pakistani teacher who died of severe burns last month did not take her own life, as local police had claimed, a fact finding mission says.
Maria Sadaqat's family say she was attacked and set on fire at her home in Murree after turning down a suitor.
Local police arrested four men - but later said the case was a suicide and released the men on bail.
The investigation was "flawed" and the death had been painted "as suicide rather than murder", the mission said.
Ms Sadaqat, 19, suffered severe burns on 29 May, with local media reporting she had sustained 85% burns.
Ms Sadaqat gave statements to the police in hospital, naming several men as her attackers, before she died on 1 June.
Police initially arrested four men, including the owner of a school where Ms Sadaqat taught not far from the capital Islamabad.
Ms Sadaqat's family said the attackers had wanted revenge because she had rejected a marriage proposal from the school owner's son, because he was already married with a child.
However, a police investigation concluded a month later that the victim had taken her own life, leading to the release of the suspects on bail.
'Rising honour killings'
On Wednesday, a committee by the Supreme Court Bar Association said Ms Sadaqat could not have committed suicide and that the nature of her burn injuries suggested she had been attacked.
"Neither Maria's hands were burnt nor her feet were burnt," Supreme Court Bar President Ali Zafar told reporters, adding that this matched her statement where she said she had been held to the ground by four men.

[OrneryMod]

Pete and DJ: Please see your emails. -OrneryMod

My apologies to the rest of the members for allowing this to go on for so long; I was away from my desktop computer for longer than expected.