The Light: Hillary

To say I was shocked to learn that the State Department included Arizona in its section on Immigration in the paper the State Department presented to the Human Rights Commission. Surely, I misheard this. No way would the State Department include one of its own states on such a list to the United Nations. I did not mishear anything, or misread anything. Sadly, yes, the State Department did.

Let’s be clear here: Arizona is now on the list for trying to uphold Federal Immigration Law, and for making it a law that people who have been stopped for violations can be asked for their papers.

What shocks me even more was Secretary Clinton’s willingness to put Arizona in this category. Yes, she thought it would be a “model,” according to this Fox News report:

[snip] Crowley said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton included the dispute in the report because she thought the U.S. could serve as “a model” to other nations.

“The universal periodic review, we believe, can be a model to demonstrate, you know, to other countries, even other countries on the Human Rights Council, this is how you engage civil society,’ Crowley told reporters. [enip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

A “model”? We have girls and their teachers being gassed in Afghanistan. Women in Iran being stoned to death for allegedly committing adultery. Hundreds of women being raped in Congo. And our State Department puts ARIZONA on a Human Rights list?

As if I didn’t already have a headache from my root canal.

Oh, and speaking of Iran, I trust you recall that Iran – IRAN – is on the U.N. Commission on Women’s Rights. WTH???

Do I even need to tell you how upset Governor Jan Brewer is about being included on this list? Yes, she called it “offensive,” and has fired off a letter to Secretary Clinton. The State Department, though, is standing by its list, as PJ Crowley states below:

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

How is it that PJ Crowley is the spokesman for the State Department? Good grief.

Well, for my money, I’d rather have Martha MacCullum any day of the week. At least she is someone who thinks the US should be held to a higher standard than countries which engage in such horrific human rights abuses as detailed above and by MacCullum, herself. As she said, we SHOULD be held to a higher standard than these countries, and I couldn’t agree more. Do we really want to be in the same category regarding Human Rights as Iran, Afghanistan, Congo, and similar countries? Hell to the NO, and why the State Department Spokesperson doesn’t get that is troubling indeed.

Bottom line, though, Arizona fits nowhere in that list the State Department presented to the United Nations. This is a States Right v. Federal Right. Perhaps Gov. Brewer should turn the tables on the State Department, and the DOJ. Their refusal to abide by their Constitutional Duty to protect the borders and uphold federal laws are creating human rights abuses for people living in Arizona. How about that, huh? Yeah. I’m sure AZ Sheriff Paul Babeu would be more than willing to testify to that effect as he essentially does below:

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

That Secretary Clinton saw fit to put this into a report to the UN is disturbing. She needs to rectify this now, and apologize to both Arizona, and the country, for even considering what Arizona is trying to accomplish as a “human rights abuse.” That is absurd, and I cannot believe she went along with this wrongheaded move.

As someone who supported Hillary Clinton 1000%, I am disappointed in her, to say the least. And this? Well, I’m waiting for that apology, Secretary Clinton.

UPDATE: I had a comment at my blog about not providing a link to the actual report, and what the report said (though I think PJ Crowley DID state what was said about Arizona. So, in the interest of full disclosure, here is the LINK to the report, and here is where AZ came into the discussion:

94. Under section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, DHS may delegate authority to state and local officers to enforce federal immigration law. DHS has made improvements to the 287(g) program, including implementing a new, standardized Memorandum of Agreement with state and local partners that strengthens program oversight and provides uniform guidelines for DHS supervision of state and local agency officer operations; information reporting and tracking; complaint procedures; and implementation measures. DHS continues to evaluate the program, incorporating additional safeguards as necessary to aid in the prevention of racial profiling and civil rights violations and improve accountability for protecting human rights.

95. A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined.

96. President Obama remains firmly committed to fixing our broken immigration system, because he recognizes that our ability to innovate, our ties to the world, and our economic prosperity depend on our capacity to welcome and assimilate immigrants. The Administration will continue its efforts to work with the U.S. Congress and affected communities toward this end.

Make of this what you will, but I stand by my post – I think it was irresponsible at BEST to include Arizona and the government’s case against AZ, in a report to the UN on Human Rights in this manner (making it clear that the Federal Gov’t has taken AZ to court, and all of the implications therein). I might add, I think #94 takes the wind out of the Fed’s sails in regard to suing AZ, don’t you? Could just be me, though.

I changed the title to better reflect how AZ was mentioned in the report. I apologize for not being clearer before, but honestly, it was only my raging headache that prevented me from making the point succinctly. Sorry for that, though.

Anyway, there is the link – read it for yourself, and decide.

Apparently a GOP district in Minnesota as evidenced by a video created by some knuckledragger who thought it would be, gosh, I don’t know – funny? membership recruitment? cool? – whatever this webmaster person thought he was doing when he created a video highlighting how much better looking Republican women are than Democratic women. Only he didn’t put it that nicely. And yes, he used the song, “Who Let The Dogs Out” in it to describe the Democratic women.

Well, one of the alleged Republican women depicted in the video, supermodel, CEO, and chief designer, Kathy Ireland, took exception to the depiction of women in this video in a BIG way. In this AOL News opinion piece, Ireland spoke out:

There are so many warning signs that negativity is devouring honest political discourse in our country, and one of these recently made me a very unwilling part of it. When misogyny becomes part of victory at any price, our democracy is embarrassed and endangered.

Here’s what happened, and here’s why I’m angry and why I feel any American of whatever party or gender should be furious too.

Suddenly it was widely reported on the Internet that a GOP political blog in Minnesota had posted a disgusting video that proclaimed Republican women — candidates and supporters — are attractive and that their Democratic counterparts are, in the most disturbing and distorted photo presentations in their video, just the opposite. This vulgarity and flat-out misrepresentation of all women identified as Democrats was to the accompaniment of the rock song “Who Let the Dogs Out?” That shows the level of maturity.

The more appropriate question is, “Who in the Minnesota Republican campaign let these people near a computer?” Everything about this sordid business was vile. But the most awful fact is that it is absolutely representative of the tastelessness and negativity that is now the American political landscape.

I had become personally involved in this low point of political conniving because these bloggers identified me by name and photo (in swimwear, of course) as one of the “Republican babes” about whom they were boasting. My assumption is that my open position on the life issue has caused the video makers to place me in a Republican box. I’m too odd-shaped to fit into any neat little box. I vote for integrity, character, leadership and policy, regardless of party label. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Dang – you go, Ms. Ireland! You tell ‘em! And did she ever as she continued:

But my fury derives from the way these “leaders,” and a bipartisan collection of other political negativists on both sides of the aisle, are debasing our democracy and the essential exercise of our privilege to vote our leaders in or out. Political candidates of every stripe are responsible for holding their supporters and campaign teams to their own ethical standards, or else we have to assume that these excesses (whether their prejudices are misogyny or any other form of ignorance) represent what the candidates stand for. [snip]

Snap!!! You said it (and click here to read the rest). You betcha – this kind of thing is indicative of how a candidate, a politician, sees women. Like when Obama’s Chief Speechwriter, Jon Favreau, now his White House Chief speechwriter, had a photo taken of him groping the breast of a Hillary Clinton life-size cutout, which he put on his Facebook page, and was still able to keep his job, it told us EXACTLY what we needed to know about Obama. Not only did he keep someone who clearly had a disrespect for women, but disrespected his future Secretary of State, that said it all. Not that those of us paying attention needed any more proof. We had seen plenty enough misogyny spewed Clinton’s way from Obama, his team, and the DNC long before this disturbing incident.

Good for Kathy Ireland for calling this what it is – misogyny. I appreciate her speaking out in no uncertain terms about what this looked like, and felt like, to her. She really nailed it on the head, and was absolutely right to call people to account for this kind of video.

I should add, the Minnesota GOP was none too pleased with this video, as this Atlantic article acknowledges, “Minnesota GOP Not Pleased With Sexist Video”:

[snip]The video was released by a Republican Party unit, akin to a county committee, in Senate District 56, and the Minnesota Republican Party is quick to point out that this is NOT their doing. They are, in fact, none too pleased with it.

“It was down before we even knew it was up, and obviously it’s wrong and obviously it’s inappropriate,” Minnesota GOP spokesman Mark Drake said.

“I think some people from the party have been in touch with them,” Drake said when asked if the state party has called the Senate District 56 Republicans to scold them about the web ad. “I don’t think anyone’s pleased that it was up.” [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Good for them for making that clear. So did some of the Republican women candidates.

And how about the guy who made the video, Randy Brown? What does he have to say about it? I bet you know what’s coming. It was just humor, people.

Um, no. It wasn’t humor, and it wasn’t funny. Kathy Ireland said it all: it was sexist and misogynistic. Maybe Brown thinks that’s funny. I sure as hell do not.

One last note, and this is to John McEnroe, who felt compelled to demonstrate his sexism once again in this NY Post article, “Tennis Loudmouth John McEnroe Says Women Players More Fragile Than Men,” please stop talking now. Yes, he said it:

Tantrum-prone tennis bad boy John McEnroe hit a smash shot at the ladies Friday, saying women players aren’t tough enough to compete in as many tournaments as men.

“They should be required to be in less events. There should be less events for the women,” McEnroe said on a CBS Sports conference call about its coverage of the U.S. Open, which starts Monday in Flushing Meadows.

[snip]

“You shouldn’t push them to play more than they’re capable of,” McEnroe said of the female players.

“It seems it takes an actual meltdown on the court or women quitting the game altogether before they realize there’s a need to change the schedule.” [snip] (click here to read more.)

Do I even have to mention that former pro player, Mary Carillo, and current tennis announcer with McEnroe, was not amused? Especially since she won the 1977 French Open mixed doubles championship with him. I am sure, beside Carillo, most of the pro women weren’t either. I’d love to see him say that to Serena Williams face, wouldn’t you?

John, here’s a little tip for you – put a tennis ball in it, you sexist pig. Oh, and you have a call – it’s from Kathy Ireland.

Recently, the United States celebrated the 90th anniversary of women’s right to vote. That right was won by the significant efforts of a number of women, many of whom were jailed, beaten, and starved, fighting for this right. We honor them, and all that they have made possible for us 90 years later.

Now we have women governors, senators, representatives, and Secretaries of State. I can only imagine what out founding mothers would have thought of that, the joy, the excitement, the relief. No doubt, things have changed in this country for women. Not that women are treated as full equals yet in the United States. The sexism and misogyny evidenced by one of the two major political parties in 2008 made that abundantly clear. But things are better. We strive, still, for equal equal pay, for equal representation, for our first woman president, but there is no denying we are better off now than we were 90 years ago.

Indeed, our foremothers worked hard for this, as many of us have in the intervening years. But there are other countries, like Afghanistan, for example, where girls are in danger for merely trying to get an education. Yes, on Wednesday of this week, a girls’ school had poisonous gas spread throughout the school, sickening a number of the girls and teachers. Who would do such a thing? The Taliban would:

[snip] Wednesday’s incident follows a similar pattern seen in other recent attacks at girls’ schools involving an airborne substance which officials say could be some form of gas.

Those have raised fears that the Taliban and other allied groups who oppose female education are using a new method to scare them away from classes. [snip]

Wow. I scarcely know how to respond to this. It is despicable. And it is a pattern with the Taliban:

[snip] “This has happened a couple of times before, mainly in the northern province of Kunduz. At the time, it was also said, that these girls were poisoned and officials pointed the finger at the Taliban and rightly so,” she said.

“However, there is still no hard conclusion on who is behind this attack and what kind of poisoning is taking place.”

The Taliban banned education for girls during their Afghan rule from 1996-2001, but have condemned similar attacks in the past.

They have, however, set fire to dozens of schools, threatened teachers and even attacked schoolgirls in rural areas.

In one attack in Kandahar in 2008,around 15 girls and teachers were sprayed with acid by men on motorbikes.

In parts of southern and eastern Afghanistan, particularly in Taliban strongholds, schools for girls still remain closed. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

This attitude toward women and girls is a bitter pill to swallow. As is this headline from The Hill, “Sen. Kerry: ‘Very active’ efforts under way to reach settlement with Taliban.” What? How? Why? Kerry explains:

[snip]“I can report without being specific that there are efforts under way. They are serious, and I completely agree with that fundamental premise — and so does General [David] Petraeus and so does President Obama — there is no military solution,” he told NPR. “And there are very active efforts now to seek an appropriate kind of political settlement.”

U.S. officials have acknowledged that some sort of political settlement must be reached with the Taliban — a loosely affiliated group of Islamic insurgents that control large swaths of territory in Afghanistan — in order to bring an end to the almost nine-year-long U.S. war there.

The beginning of settlement negotiations represents a significant development in terms of Western involvement there…

Kerry said any “appropriate” settlement would have to include “a renunciation of al Qaeda,” a “reduction of violence,” a “recognition of the constitutional rights of both Pakistan and Afghanistan and greater efforts to reduce sanctuaries for insurgency.”[snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

And what about the women and girls, Senator Kerry? What about them, in your “negotiations” with terrorists? Yeah, I know – who gives a damn about them? They are just “casualties,” I suppose, necessary capitulations to this woman-hating group.

How it is Kerry, and Obama, think having active negotiations with the Taliban is a good thing? What are the chances, really, that, if they can even get some of these groups to come to the table, they will even keep their word should a compromise be reached?

And what about these women, these girls? The ones gassed by members of the Taliban to prevent them from learning? Or, the Taliban members who throw acid in the faces of these girls in an attempt to force them our of school? Oh, yeah – these sounds like just the kind of people with whom we should be engaging in “very active” negotiations. You know, since we are choosing to negotiate with terrorists in the first place.

I cannot help but be reminded of this powerful moment (again) of CJ Craig on “West Wing”:

Wow. Yep, that sounds a little too familiar…

Indeed, I am thankful, grateful, and humbled for the work our foremothers did to secure us the right to vote in this country. For the women who fought to make this possible: Susan B. Anthony, Alice Paul, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and all the other remarkable women who enabled for us to have this right, thank you.

May the young girls and women of Afghanistan one day be allowed to learn, to study, to be educated. And may they, one day, one day soon, be full participants in their country. Sadly, that day is not today.

One other note – almost 200 women and 4 boys were raped near a UN Peacekeepers camp in Congo. And what has the UN said about it? They’re looking into it. Well, it only happened three weeks ago, so you can see why it might take them a while to come out with any kind of statement. Right. Sec. Clinton spoke out about this atrocity, and you can read her remarks HERE, but this sums it up:

[snip]“Sexual violence harms more than its immediate victims. It denies and destroys our common dignity, it shreds the fabric that weaves us together as humans, it endangers families and communities, it erodes social and political stability, and it undermines economic progress. These travesties, committed with impunity against innocent civilians who play no role in armed conflict, hold us all back. [snip]

Amen to that.

In the recent special on an “honor killing” in Texas, an activist, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, spoke out about the treatment of women in Islam. Hirsi Ali knows a lot about how women are treated having grown up in Somalia, Saudi Arabia, and Kenya. She has survived the genital mutilation that was (is) common in her culture (I chose not to put the tale of this act committed against Hirsi Ali, then a 5 yr old girl. If you wish to read about it, click here.).

But that is just the beginning of who she is. There is so much more to this woman’s remarkable life. In addition to the activism for which she is known now, she was elected to the House of Representatives in the Netherlands in 1992. Hirsi Ali has written and spoken out extensively about not only her life, but the lives of women in general living under Islam, a life of subservience, of subjugating much of what makes them who they are. She speaks of her mother’s life:

[snip]Like all Somalian women, she had been pressured all her life to suppress her personality, to sublimate everything to men and to God – to become what Ayaan calls “a devoted, well-trained work-animal”. [snip]

Hirsi Ali’s activism has not been without a price, though. She continues to live under a fatwa, even now in the United States, where she has to travel with armed guards to this day as a result of her outspokenness on Islam. But at least she is still alive. The director who worked with her on a documentary about women and Islam is not so lucky, as this article, “My Life Under A Fatwa” from the Independent UK highlights:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali was stabbed into the world’s consciousness three years ago. One wet afternoon in November 2004, her friend Theo van Gogh – a film-maker, and descendant of Vincent – left his house and was about to cycle off through Amsterdam. But a young Dutch-born Muslim called Mohammed Bouyeri was waiting for him – with a handgun and two sharpened butcher’s knives.

Wordlessly, he shot Van Gogh twice in the chest. Van Gogh howled: “Can’t we talk about this?” Bouyeri ignored his pleas and fired four more times. Then he pulled out a knife and slit Van Gogh’s throat with such strength that his head was almost severed from his body. He used the other knife to stab a five-page letter on to Van Gogh’s haemorrhaging corpse.

Ayaan explains: “The letter was addressed to me.” It said that Van Gogh had been “executed” for making a film with her that exposed the widespread abuse of Muslim women. Now, she would be “executed” too – for being an apostate.

Her story is recounted in that article, and what a life it has been. I urge you to read the rest. It is quite a story indeed.

All of that is to say, Ayaan Hirsi Ali knows whereof she speaks when it comes to Islam as a woman who grew up Muslim, and who has lived in several Muslim nations. Heaven knows, she is far more than an authority on it than I am.

And so, given the current brouhaha over the proposed mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero, and the imam who wants to build it currently on a trip to the Middle East on our dime, this seems like a good time to focus a bit more attention on what Hirsi Ali has to say. It is timely, provocative, and disturbing.

The following clip deals more with Islam in Europe, though Hirsi Ali does mention the United States. Still, what she says encompasses what is happening in the States:

And now, Hirsi Ali speaks specifically about the United States. You do not want to miss this. It is quite something:

An “unholy alliance” – WOW. The point she makes about the second type of liberal was breathtaking.

There is so, so much more to this woman’s life, and what she has to say. I encourage you to watch more of her interviews. She is quite something.

Oh, and about that mosque near Ground Zero? Well, Hamas has weighed in on this issue. Yes, Hamas, the terrorist organization, has something to say about it. They say, build it, as this S.A. Miller NY Post article, “Hamas Nor For Ground Zero Mosque” points out:

[snip]“We have to build everywhere,” said Mahmoud al-Zahar, a co-founder of Hamas and the organization’s chief on the Gaza Strip.

“In every area we have, [as] Muslim[s], we have to pray, and this mosque is the only site of prayer,” he said on “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on WABC. [snip]

Oh, it gets better:

[snip]“First of all, we have to address that we are different as people, as a nation, totally different,” he said.

“We already are living under the tradition of Islam.

“Islam is controlling every source of our life as regard to marriage, divorce, our commercial relationships,” Zahar said.

“Even the Islamic people or the Muslims in your country, they are living now in the tradition of Islam. They are fasting; they are praying.” [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

And Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf still refuses to characterize Hamas as a terrorist organization. Right…

I understand well Hirsi Ali’s point that liberals like many of us do not want anyone to be subjected to the kind of discrimination African Americans and others (Chinese, Japanese, and Hispanics, to name a few) have experienced in the United States. I completely get that. But I think she raises some good points about how we cannot allow that to blind us to some realities we may not want to admit for fear of the historical reality some groups have faced here.

And yet, address these issues we must, with eyes wide open…

That would be sending Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, to name two, on our dime, as a representative of the United States. And yes, he first began his work for the State Department in 2007. This will be his third trip. Given his claim in 2001 that the United States was an “accessory” to what happened on 9/11, it boggles the mind that our government would use him in ANY capacity, much less to travel as a representative of our country …

So, yes, Imam Rauf will be going on his third trip abroad. On our dime. In a program to “promote the role of religion in the US.” If his name sounds familiar, it should. He is the same one who wants to build the Cordoba Institute/Mosque near Ground Zero, in case you didn’t know that already.

Here to discuss the trip, is State Department Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs, PJ Crowley:

You’ll have noticed that this clip covers that Governor Patterson of New York offered Imam Rauk state property to build his mosque. That raises the separation of church and state issue. Did Patterson mean he would SELL the property to Rauk, and if so, for how much? Surely, he couldn’t have expected to just GIVE it to him, as a state sanctioned mosque would have been the end result. That is unacceptable. And it would be if it were a church or synagogue, or Buddhist temple or Pagan circle, or anything related. Just to be clear.

But here’s the thing that gets me about this interview. Crowley claims that, even though Imam Rauf is going on a program to discuss the role of religion in the US, he will not be discussing religion. Huh? So, um, why exactly is he going then? At our expense, I might add? That makes no sense to me, but that could just be me.

Or maybe not. Here is more on the separation of church and state from a more conservative position:

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

And this “certain pile of cash”? I am pretty darn sure that is our money, too. Unless some wealthy benefactor gave it to the State Department to do as it damned well pleased, like sending an Imam who blames the US for 9/11.

But that is only part of the story with Imam Rauk. Here is the big question: why is the State Department, under Secretary Hillary Clinton, enlisting an imam who supports Sharia Law, despite the State Department claims that he is a “moderate”? Sharia Law is NOT a moderate position.

Never mind that Rauk claimed he does not believe in “religious dialogue,” according to this piece by Walid Shoebat of Pajamas Media in this post, “Ground Zero Imam: ‘I Don’t Believe In Religious Dialogue.’” So, that pretty much puts to a lie the whole meme that this imam wants to build “interfaith understanding,” or whatever is the catch phrase du jour to justify Rauk’s intention to build his mosque near Ground Zero.

But that’s not the end of the story, either. According to Madeline Brooks, also of Pajamas Media, “Terror Ties: Ground Zero Imam Attended Hizb-ut Tahrir Conference.” This was in 2007. And while many of us may not be aware of this group (I wasn’t), this should clear things up:

[snip] Hizb-ut Tahrir al Islami (Islamic Party of Liberation) has been banned in many countries — Germany, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, Turkey, Kazakhstan, and Saudi Arabia — but not in the United States or Britain. This is a dangerous group. It is alleged to have attempted coups in Jordan, Syria and Egypt, which were defeated, fortunately. As we see in these photos, Rauf looks quite relaxed and happy at the Hizb-ut Tahrir conference, as do the other participants with him. In fact, there is a feeling of celebration in these photos. The language in the text accompanying the photos is Malay. Although the conference was held in Indonesia, there were many Malaysians attending, including Rauf, who has lived for a great part of his life in Malaysia. An English language website promoting the caliphate states that 100,000 people attended the conference.

Hizb-ut Tahrir is similar ideologically to the Muslim Brotherhood. Both seek worldwide Islamic supremacy and the imposition of Islamic law to replace the Constitution and democracy. But Hizb-ut Tahrir differs by also espousing Marxist-Leninist methodology, and is entirely open about its ambition to dominate the world, unlike the more discreet Muslim Brotherhood.

On two occasions, Hizb-ut Tahrir in America called for terrorism recruitment conferences in Chicago to establish their long-awaited caliphate, which would knock down capitalism, democracy, and equal rights for non-Muslims and women, and institute a Muslim-run society under sharia law. One conference, called “The Fall of Capitalism and the Rise of Islam” and scheduled for July 2009 in Chicago, actually did occur. But a follow-up conference slated for July 2010 at the Chicago Marriott in Oak Brook, titled “Emerging World Order: How the Khilafah Will Shape the World,” was canceled by the hotel. [snip]

And the State Department considers this man a MODERATE? Well, maybe there is the big problem right there – they are operating under a very different dictionary than the majority of us. Sharia law, blaming the US for 9/11, and associating with this group do not constitute a “moderate,” at least not in my book.

After all is said an done, what I truly do not understand is this: How is it that Secretary Clinton, a champion of the rights of women and children for her entire adult life, can possibly give this man a thumbs up? I simply do not understand this. I cannot understand it at all.

Surely there is a Muslim cleric in this country who truly is a moderate, who does not support Sharia Law, or associate with an organization banned in a number of countries, isn’t there? And it begs the question, why is the organization not banned here and in Britain? I think I know, but I want to hear what you have to say. So, why this man? Why, Secretary Clinton?

On the alleged honor killing in Texas of two young women by their father, Yaser Said. It doesn’t get any easier, friends. Again, this is a very difficult subject matter. Please be forewarned.

The video below contains the 911 call on it from one of the daughters. It is not easy to hear. It also includes an important interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somalian woman who fled her country after being subjugated to genital mutilation as a child, was elected to the House of Representatives in the Netherlands, and who has done a great deal of work on the subjugation of women and girls. What she has to say is powerful, indeed:

And, here is the conclusion to this disturbing show. It includes how the FBI has proceeded on the Said crime, as well as another disturbing honor killing:

Wait – there is only a $10,000 reward for information leading to the capture of a man who (allegedly) gunned down both of his daughters in cold blood? Wow. That is telling in and of itself, isn’t it?

These “rules” by which Yaser Said lives are not honorable in any way, shape, or fashion. His treatment of his daughters is misogyny, plain and simple. That goes for these other men who have killed their own daughters, sisters, wives, or girlfriends in the name of “honor killings.” Whether it is religious in nature, as Hirsi Ali claims, or cultural in nature, as Afshan Quershi claims, the outcome is the same. These women and girls still end up dead.

And it is abhorrent.

The recent murder of UVA senior, Yeardley Love, a Lacrosse standout, by her ex-boyfriend, George Huguely,also a Lacrosse standout, just before graduation, has been traumatic for the UVA campus. But it has affected far more people than just that campus. This vicious act of domestic violence at an elite school has touched us all in one way or another.

Add to that the arrest of Lawrence Taylor for rape of a 16-year-old girl, and the allegations against Ben Roethlisberger of sexual assault, and these are but the tip of the iceberg when it comes to athletes committing crimes against women. Numerous professional athletes have been charged with domestic violence, including the manager of the Braves, Bobby Cox, Rockies pitcher Pedro Astacio, and too many to list here now.

And that is a sad commentary on our sports culture, our culture in general. It is that culture about which Sally Jenkins wrote recently in this Washington Post article, “George Huguely, Ben Roethlisberger, Lawrence Taylor: Male Athletes Encouraged To Do The Wrong Thing“:

George Huguely is said to have been a vicious drunk who menaced Yeardley Love, yet there has been no indication that any of his teammates said anything to police. Ben Roethlisberger seems to be a serial insulter of women, whose behavior is shielded by the off-duty cops he employs. And if the charges are true, Lawrence Taylor ignored the bruises on a 16-year-old girl’s face as he had sex with her, never thinking to ask who beat her.

It’s a bad stretch for women in the sports pages. After reading the news accounts and police reports, it’s reasonable to ask: Should women fear athletes? Is there something in our sports culture that condones these assaults? It’s a difficult, even upsetting question, because it risks demonizing scores of decent, guiltless men. But we’ve got to ask it, because something is going on here — there’s a disturbing association, and surely we’re just as obliged to address it as we are concussions.

“We can no longer dismiss these actions as representative of a few bad apples,” says Jay Coakley, author of “Sport in Society: Issues and Controversies,” and a professor of sociology at the University of Colorado. “The evidence suggests that they are connected to particular group cultures that are in need of critical assessment.”

Well, that’s putting it mildly, isn’t it? Women being murdered by someone they know, the ultimate act of domestic violence, is nothing new. That is disturbing enough. But there’s more:

What do we mean when we ask whether there was something in the lacrosse “culture” that led to the murder of Yeardley Love? The Latin root of the word “cultura” means “to grow.” It means the attitudes, practices, and values that are implanted and nourished in a group or society.

There’s a lot we still don’t know about Huguely and his “brothers,” but three attitudes and practices of at least some members of the Virginia lacrosse team seem obvious: physical swagger, heavy drinking and fraternal silence.

In 2008, a drunken Huguely was so brutally combative with a female cop that she felt she had to Taser him. Last year, he assaulted a sleeping teammate who he believed had kissed Love, several former players say, and this year, he had other violent confrontations with Love herself, witnesses say.

We can argue about gaps in the system, but one constituency very likely knew about Huguely’s behavior: his teammates and friends, the ones who watched him smash up windows and bottles and heard him rant about Love.

Why didn’t they tackle him? Why didn’t they turn him in?

Undoubtedly, many of the young men on the Virginia lacrosse team are fine human beings. I don’t mean to question their decency. I don’t mean to blame them.

But I do mean to ask those who knew of Huguely’s behavior an important question. Why did they not treat Yeardley Love as their teammate, too?

Where were her brothers?

Why was she not deserving of the same loyalty as George Huguely? She played lacrosse. She wore a Virginia uniform. She was equally a champion. And yet because she played on the women’s team, she seems not to have been accorded the same protection that Huguely was.

That doesn’t just break the heart. It shatters it into a thousand pieces.

Where were her brothers indeed. I can appreciate that Jenkins doesn’t want to paint the entire team with a broad brush, but in much the same way the Atlanta Falcons and Virginia Tech Hokies remained silent about Michael Vick’s dog fighting, these young men remained silent about Huguely’s violence toward Love (and their own teammate). Not to equate dog fighting to murder by any stretch, but to highlight the culture of tacit acceptance of bad behavior by athletes in general.

As noted above, it isn’t just Huguely:

The allegations against Huguely, Roethlisberger and Taylor share something in common. In all of these cases, the alleged female victims were treated as undeserving of inclusion in the protected circle. They were “others” rather than insiders.

Sports Illustrated’s profile of Roethlisberger and the men who look after him is utterly damning. According to the magazine story, on the night that he allegedly accosted an over-served undergrad in a Milledgeville, Ga., restroom, Roethlisberger held up a tray of tequila shots and hollered, “All my bitches, take some shots!” He exposed himself at the bar. He forced his hand up someone’s skirt. Yet police sergeant Jerry Blash described the alleged victim as “this drunken bitch,” and Roethlisberger’s bodyguards apparently blocked off the area. Protecting Roethlisberger, being “in” with him, took precedence over ethics.

“Who needs the bodyguard here?” Coakley asks incredulously. “What is the role of bodyguard? It’s not to maintain male hegemony and privilege. It’s to maintain order.”

The charge of third-degree rape against Taylor prompts another question. Police allege that a 16-year-old runaway was beaten by a sex trafficker and brought to Taylor’s hotel room, where, according to police report, instead of protecting her, he allegedly protected himself with a condom. If Taylor is guilty, how could he have acted in such a depersonalizing way — unless he viewed her as more object than person?

According to Coakley, the data is clear: Certain types of all-male groups generally have higher rates of assault against women than the average, and their profile is unmistakable. They tend to include sports teams, fraternities, and military units, and they stress the physical subordination of others — and exclusiveness.

Common sense tells me that “sport” in general is not the culprit in all of this so much as excessive celebration and rewarding of it: binge drinking, women-as-trophies, the hubris resulting from exaggerated entitlement and years of being let off the hook. We are hatching physically gifted young men in incubators of besotted excess and a vocabulary of “bitches and hos.”

What has happened to kindness, to the cordial pleasures of friendship between men and women in the sports world? Above all, what has happened to sexuality? When did the most sublime human exchange become more about power and status than romance? When did it become so pornographic and transactional, so implacably cold?

The truth is, women can’t do anything about this problem. Men are the only ones who can change it — by taking responsibility for their locker room culture, and the behavior and language of their teammates. Nothing will change until the biggest stars in the clubhouse are mortally offended, until their grief and remorse over an assault trumps their solidarity.

That bears repeating:

The truth is, women can’t do anything about this problem. Men are the only ones who can change it — by taking responsibility for their locker room culture, and the behavior and language of their teammates. Nothing will change until the biggest stars in the clubhouse are mortally offended, until their grief and remorse over an assault trumps their solidarity.

And it is far past time for them to do so. Athletes who have remained silent need to do so no longer. As long as they refuse to speak up, to speak out, they bear responsibility for the outcome as well.

Honestly, a lot of these athletes could learn a thing or two from people like Tim Tebow. While I may not agree with his stance on Choice, or even his brand of religion, at least he is a stand up guy. I cannot imagine someone like Tebow remaining silent if one of his teammates was acting in the same manner as Huguely, nor would he ever act toward women like Huguely did (threatening to kill a woman police officer because she was a woman?? Wow.).

Bottom line, we cannot, we MUST not, lose more young women like Yeardley Love to the unchecked violence of fellow athletes, athletes who have been protected from having to bear any responsibility for their violent tendencies, or any athletes at all. We cannot lose one more young woman this way, not one more.

But before it does, I have another video for you celebrating women from around the world:

Now, I admit, there were some women in there about whom I knew absolutely nothing. Some other names were familiar, but I could not remember why. So, I did a little digging, and wanted to share with you what I learned.

The first woman I looked up was:

Asma Khader, lawyer and human rights activist, is general coordinator of the Sisterhood Is Global Institute/Jordan (SIGI/J) and secretary-general of the Jordanian National Commission for Women. Asma has spent her career campaigning to combat violence against women and raise their awareness of their legal rights.

Asma was elected to the Permanent Arab Court as counsel on violence against women in 1996, and has served on judicial bodies and human rights fact-finding missions. Inspired by a client whose pregnant 15-year-old daughter was raped and killed by her father to preserve family honor, she says: “I realized I couldn’t be an effective lawyer if I did not do my best to change laws that cover up and even sanction crimes against women. This woman challenged me to address a problem that I could not ignore – crimes of honor.” Khader has subsequently become a leading campaigner to end honor crimes.

What an amazing, brave woman she is! But she is not the only one. Next is Malalai Kakar, the first woman police officer in Afghanistan, continuing the family tradition to serve. Her career was ended by the Taliban:

Taleban gunmen shot dead Afghanistan’s most high-profile policewoman yesterday as her teenage son prepared to drive her to work.

Malalai Kakar, the head of the city of Kandahar’s department for crimes against women, had been the subject of numerous media reports and was famous for her bravery throughout Afghanistan. She had survived several assassination attempts.

A spokesman for the Taleban said that the assassination was carried out by its gunmen. “We killed Malalai Kakar,” said Yousuf Ahmadi. “She was our target, and we successfully eliminated our target.”

Her death came as reports emerged of a Saudi-brokered initiative to negotiate between the Afghan Government and the Taleban.

How tragic that her life was cut short as a result of who she was, and the work she did. What a threat this one woman was to the misogynistic Taliban, the same one with whom Obama is thinking of playing nice. Words fail.

The next woman whose name was familiar, but whose story was forgotten to me is Jeanette Rankin:

a Representative from Montana; born near Missoula, Missoula County, Mont., June 11, 1880; attended the public schools, and was graduated from the University of Montana at Missoula in 1902; student at the School of Philanthropy, New York City in 1908 and 1909; social worker in Seattle, Wash., in 1909; engaged in promoting the cause of woman suffrage in the State of Washington in 1910, in California in 1911, and in Montana 1912-1914; visited New Zealand in 1915 and worked as a seamstress in order to gain personal knowledge of social conditions; elected as a Republican to the Sixty-fifth Congress (March 4, 1917-March 3, 1919); was the first woman to be elected to the United States House of Representatives; did not seek renomination in 1918, but was an unsuccessful candidate for the Republican nomination for Senator; was also an unsuccessful candidate on an independent ticket for election to the United States Senate; engaged in social work; elected to the Seventy-seventh Congress (January 3, 1941-January 3, 1943); was not a candidate for renomination in 1942 to the Seventy-eighth Congress; resumed lecturing and ranching; member, National Consumers League; field worker, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom; member, National Council for Prevention of War; remained leader and lobbyist for peace and women’s rights until her death in Carmel, Calif., May 18, 1973; cremated; ashes scattered on ocean, Carmel-by-the-Sea, Calif.

What a wonderful forerunner for women in Congress. Her work on behalf of women’s rights is sorely needed in today’s Congress, too.

In the field of education, we have Martha Carey Thomas:

Thomas is perhaps best known for having facilitated the admission of women to the John Hopkins Medical School. With the help of four of her friends, a total of $500,000 was raised to aid the Medical School in its financial struggle. The funds raised were used as a leverage to get the University to accept women. Thus, thanks largely to the efforts of these five women, women were to be admitted on precisely the same basis as men. There were three women among the first class to enter the John Hopkins Medical School in 1893.

Thomas became president of Bryn Mawr College in 1894, serving until 1922.

What incredible tenacity and drive Ms. Thomas had, not to mention intelligence. She is definitely a woman to whom women in the medical field are indebted.

Another woman who fought for the rights of women was Mary Astell:

She is remembered now for her ability to debate freely with both contemporary men and women, and particularly her groundbreaking methods of negotiating the position of women in society by engaging in philosophical debate (Descartes was a particular influence) rather than basing her arguments in historical evidence as had previously been attempted. Descartes’ theory of dualism, a separate mind and body, allowed Astell to promote the idea that women as well as men were blessed with reason, and subsequently they should not be treated so poorly: “If all Men are born Free, why are all Women born Slaves?” (Emphasis mine.)

Indeed. I’d like to know the answer to that question myself since too many people still believe that to be the case.

Another modern day women’s rights activist is:

Parvin Ardalan, born 1967 in Tehran, is a leading Iranian women’s rights activist, writer and journalist.[1] She was awarded the Olof Palme Prize in 2007 for her struggle for equal rights for men and women in Iran.[2] In the 1990s Ardalan, along with e.g. Nooshin Ahmadi Khorasani, established the Women’s Cultural Centre (Markaz-e Farhangi-ye Zanan), which since then has been a center for forming opinions, analyzing and documenting the women’s issues in Iran.[3] Since 2005 the organization has published Iran’s first online magazine on women’s rights, Zanestan, with Ardalan as its editor. In its constant struggle against censorship – the magazine comes back with a new name all the time – the newspaper has dealt with marriage, prostitution, education, AIDS, and violence against women.

Ardalan is one of the founding members of the One Million Signatures Campaign[4], attempting to collect a million signatures for women’s equal rights. As a part of the campaign she has taken part in protests that have been violently silenced. In 2007 she, together with Nooshing Ahmadi, was sentenced to three years in prison for “threatening the national security” with his struggle for women’s rights. Four more women’s rights activists later received the same sentence.

Again, how threatened are these people that these women intimidate them so? We certainly saw our share of this kind of reaction during the 2008 Primaries and Election. While the actions of the intimidated were not quite so extreme as to imprison anyone, it was but a matter of degrees in the result of silencing so many women. That is to say, this sort of thing doesn’t just happen in other countries. Sadly.

Next on the list is a woman who was one of the original Americans:

Born the daughter of Chief Winnemucca of the Paiutes, a tribe in Nevada and California, Sarah Winnemucca lost family members in the Paiute War of 1860. She tried to operate as a peacemaker, using her language skills learned in convent school to work as an interpreter in an Army camp. She went with her tribe to the Malheur reservation in 1872, and when the Bannock War broke out in 1878 she offered her services to the Army. She volunteered to enter Bannock territory when she learned that her father and other tribesmen had been taken hostage by the Bannocks. She freed her father and other captives and served as an army scout in the war against the Bannocks. She spoke out, describing the plight of her people, exiled from their homelands, and the treachery of dishonest Indian agents. She drew much attention, and was able to speak with President Rutherford Hayes and Interior Secretary Carl Schurz; promises to return her tribe to the Malheur Reservation were never honored. She wrote Life Among the Piutes[sic]: Their Wrongs and Claims, published in 1883. Despite passage of Congressional legislation enabling the return of the Paiute land, the legislation was never enacted.

I wish I could say I was surprised by that outcome, or rather the lack thereof. But that does not minimize the work of Sarah Winnemuca.

Last, but most definitely not least, is:

Chien-Shiung Wu, a pioneering physicist, radically altered modern physical theory and changed our accepted view of the structure of the universe.

Wu’s experiments led physicists to discard the concept that parity was conserved. In recognition of her contributions to atomic research and the understanding of beta decay and the weak interactions, Wu became the first woman to receive the prestigious Research Corporation Award and the Comstock Prize from the National Academy of Sciences. The Comstock Prize is given only once every five years.

Wu’s distinguished career in the nation’s leading universities as a teacher and researcher in nuclear physics has been characterized by a string of firsts. She was the first woman to receive an honorary doctorate of science from Princeton University, to be elected president of the American Physical Society, and to receive the Wolf Prize from the State of Israel. She was also the first living scientist to have an asteroid named after her.

In 1972, Wu was appointed to an endowed professorship as the Pupin Professor of Physics at Columbia University.

Incredible. What an incredible history we have, past and present. How lucky we are to have such incredible role models to whom we can look. This is by far not close to exhaustive, but merely a small representation of women who have achieved greatness through sheer hard work, determination, and passion.

And while she is not in the above video, Roxana Saberi, the American journalist captured in Iran, discussed her experience this morning:

Watch the latest news video at video.foxnews.com

Wow. What an amazing woman.

Please feel free to share other women who inspire you, whose history has informed your own, a woman who is your hero.

Many of us were surprised last year when President Obama considered reaching out to the Taliban. The very idea was upsetting on a number of levels, particularly around our national security, what happened on 9/11, and the current wars in which we are engaged.

But there is another element that may not have been considered in addition to the above, and that is how making nice with the Taliban would affect women. Far too often, women are the afterthought in these discussions, a grievous oversight especially given the history of women in Afghanistan. This article highlights the concerns women face in Afghanistan, Afghan Women Fear Loss Of Hard-Won Progress.

And rightly so, it seems to me, given what the Taliban have done to women, and continue to do to women in this country. There may have been some advancements, though not without a price paid:

LAGHMAN, AFGHANISTAN — The head-to-toe burqas that made women a faceless symbol of the Taliban’s violently repressive rule are no longer required here. But many Afghan women say they still feel voiceless eight years into a war-torn democracy, and they point to government plans to forge peace with the Taliban as a prime example.

Gender activists say they have been pressing the administration of President Hamid Karzai for a part in any deal-making with Taliban fighters and leaders, which is scheduled to be finalized at a summit in April. Instead, they said, they have been met with a silence that they see as a dispiriting reminder of the limits of progress Afghan women have made since 2001.

“We have not been approached by the government — they never do,” said Samira Hamidi, country director of the Afghan Women’s Network, an umbrella group. “The belief is that women are not important,” she said, describing a mind-set that she said “has not been changed in the past eight years.”

The Taliban’s repressive treatment of women helped galvanize international opposition in the 1990s, and by some measures democracy has revolutionized Afghan women’s lives. Their worry now is not about a Taliban takeover, Hamidi said, but that male leaders, behind closed doors and desperate for peace, might not force Taliban leaders to accept, however grudgingly, that women’s roles have changed.

Those concerns share roots with the misgivings voiced by many observers, including some U.S. officials, about Afghan efforts to forge a settlement with the Taliban, whose leaders promote an Islamist ideology that seems wholly at odds with rights the Afghan constitution guarantees.

The unease about such a settlement stretches from Kabul to the mountain-ringed valleys of Laghman, a scrappy town in a province still stalked at night by Taliban fighters. As a young girl here, Malalay Jan studied in a private home, hidden from the Taliban regime that forbade her education. Four years ago, her girls’ school was torched in a rash of suspected Taliban attacks. Now, she said, she is sure of one thing: Afghan women should have a spot at the negotiating table.

“We don’t want them to stop us from getting an education or working in an office,” said Jan, 18, wearing a rhinestone-studded head scarf at her rebuilt school. Women, she said, should be “the first priority.”

Indeed. But if the women are not being consulted, if they do not have a place at the table to offer input, and have their input actually considered, how can women in Afghanistan fulfill the promises of their Constitution? Here is more:

Karzai, the Afghan president, has endorsed the idea of talking with all levels of the Taliban, and his aides insist that women need not worry about the equal rights the Afghan constitution guarantees them. But they also say they are performing a difficult balancing act, and suggest that making bold statements about the sanctity of such topics as women’s rights might kill talks before they start.

“We will act from a position of principle. And that principle is that half the public wants these rights to be protected,” said Mohammad Masoom Stanekzai, who is drafting Karzai’s reconciliation plan. “It is not the authority of a group of people in government or a group of people in the insurgency to decide the fate of a whole nation.”

In today’s Afghanistan, females make up one-quarter of parliament, fill one-third of the nation’s classrooms and even compete on “Afghan Idol.”

But violence against women remains “endemic,” according to the State Department. The percentage of female civil servants is steadily dropping. Just one of 25 cabinet members is a woman, and female lawmakers say their opinions are often ignored.

That point was underscored in January, many observers said, when the women’s affairs minister was not invited to an international conference in London on reconciliation and reintegration.

Bringing the Taliban into the government could make things worse, Hamidi said.

“They think women should stay at home,” she said. “And all of them have the same perception and same beliefs, from the lowest to the top level.”

Many of us remember the stories of what has happened to women in Afghanistan, the school burning mentioned above, the beatings of women who dared to go out in public without a male escort, the throwing of acid on school girls. It is hard to reconcile these stories with this:

The Taliban itself, led by Mohammad Omar, has tried to dispute that. As part of what analysts call a public relations campaign to soften the movement’s image, Omar, though still in hiding, released a statement last fall that said the Taliban did not oppose women’s rights and favored education for all.

Arsala Rahmani, a lawmaker and former Taliban government official, said he thought women’s activists were being close-minded, defying what he called “a mother’s duty to always try to unite their sons.” He said that the Taliban restricted women to protect them from conflict — not out of ideological misogyny — and that Omar and his fighters would accept any ideas the Afghan public favors.

To human rights activists, those Taliban messages are ploys to dim support for U.S.-led military efforts in Afghanistan. They point to Taliban-dominated Kandahar province, where militants have closed two-thirds of schools, and Helmand, where tribal leaders say female teachers are threatened with death.

Wow, talk about your “blame the victim” mentality. It is WOMEN’S fault for talkng about gaining equality that is the problem. Yeah, sure, that’s it – it has nothing to do with these women being treated like chattel for a number of years. Spare me. And I am not the only one not buying what Rahmani is selling:

It is a worrisome prospect to women such as Khujesta Elham, an aspiring politician who on a recent day was chatting with friends between classes at Kabul University. She said she thought Taliban fighters should be shunned, though she did not expect that to happen.

“Whatever decision Karzai makes will be his alone,” said Elham, 22. “The government does not care about women’s rights.”

The depth of the Taliban’s control varies across Afghanistan, as was the case during its rule, and so do views on the movement. In the 1990s, the Taliban viewed Kabul as a den of depravity, and it was there that its notorious Vice and Virtue police most brutally wielded batons against women who exposed their faces or wore high heels.

In Laghman, a rural Pashtun province in the shadow of snow-capped mountains, patriarchal traditions meant many of those rules were already in force. The area’s Taliban officials mostly ignored unauthorized girls’ schools, said Qamer Khujazada, who ran one until the Taliban was ousted in 2001. Khujazada became principal of Haider Khani high school, but militants burned down its administrative offices four years ago.

Hanifa Safia, the women’s affairs representative for the province, said she thinks a settlement is the only way to peace. The Taliban fighters who throw acid on schoolgirls’ faces or threaten professional women do so just to antagonize the government, she said. “I have talked to so many Taliban. They are not against women,” Safia said. “Once they have been given positions in government, they will definitely change.”

Khujazada, the principal, tentatively agrees. She walks confidently through the halls of her fraying school, overseeing a staff that she boasts is exactly half female.

But many of the girls slip into blue burqas before they leave the concrete-walled schoolyard, and Khujazada acknowledged that most will be married off before they ever set foot in a university. What is important, she said, is that they have the right to continue their schooling.

“Education has a lot of friends,” Khujazada said cautiously. “But it has some enemies, too.”

Education is key, to be sure. Secretary of State Clinton has said that numerous times about girls in general, but Afghanistan in particular. She is right about that, but there has to be a systemic change in Afghanistan, along with other nations (like the United States). Women and girls in Afghanistan may have made some strides, but they have far yet to go (as do we).

I cannot help but wonder if we all worked together, sister to sister, could we not bring about change, real, lasting change? Can we not teach our sons that girls and women are equal partners to them? Can we not teach our daughters that anything less than true equality, true partnerships, and respect, is unacceptable? Can we not change the world? I think we can. I think we must. For these women and girls in Afghanistan; for the women and girls, as young as TWO YEARS OLD, in Haiti who are being raped daily after the earthquake (and can our military who are there not help PROTECT them?); for those women in Sudan; for the women here in our own country? We must. We MUST.

Some of you may recall that a little over a year ago, a woman in Buffalo, NY, Aasiya Zubair Hassan, was beheaded – yes, I said beheaded – allegedly by her husband, a Muslim with influence in his community, having created a tv network to improve the image of Muslims. He was charged with second degree murder. It was a shocking, troubling, disturbing crime on so many levels (Was it purely domestic violence? Were there religious influences at play?). (Photo: homelandsecurityus.com)

Much has transpired in the intervening year. I would like to thank No Quarter regular reader, Boonies, for sending me this update,
Aasiya Zubair Hassan’s Tortured, Manipulated Life: Beheaded woman left statement detailing years of torment, tragedy.

I should warn you that, as the headline would indicate, this is a difficult story. It is about as far from a “feel good” story as one can get. It is painful, it is grotesque, and it is infuriating. Just so you know.

And now, to her story:

When Aasiya Zubair Hassan was finally ready to leave her husband, she prepared herself. She gathered copies of her police reports, photos of her beaten face, images of her ransacked house, scripts her husband made her memorize.

Then she painstakingly chronicled her years of torment in a 21-page court statement that painted her husband as not just a batterer, but a cruel, manipulative monster.

She detailed how he deprived her of sleep to “improve her personality,” made her sign memos authorizing him to punish her if she talked with the police and Child Protective Services, and threatened her with the loss of her children whenever she tried to break free.

Toward the end of her statement appealing for divorce in February 2009, she reflected on how furious her husband would be when he saw the document: “I am afraid of what he might do.”

One week later, she was dead. Her husband, Muzzammil “Mo” Hassan, led police to her stabbed and decapitated body in the Bridges TV studio they founded in Orchard Park.

Anyone who has done any work in the field of domestic violence, as I have, knows that this is when a woman is most at risk – when she is planning her escape. Unfortunately, this case does nothing to change that statistic:

None of this has apparently stopped Hassan from continuing — in letters to reporters and in his defense in court — to try to paint himself as the victim and his wife as the abuser.

“He was the abuser. He was the perpetrator. Now, he’s the manipulator,” said Afshan Qureshi, an advocate of domestic violence victims who knew both Aasiya Zubair Hassan, Hassan’s third wife, and Sadia Hassan, his second wife. “Those who are good at emotional abuse are good manipulators.”

From the Erie County jail, Hassan has sent handwritten letters to The Buffalo News and others portraying himself as an abused and battered spouse. In each case, he signed his mother’s name to the documents.

“If you are a mother like me, would you like to see your son being abused and cannot even turn to the system for help?” stated one letter.

It is clear that he wrote the letters, not his mother. Hassan, 45, has neat and distinctive penmanship. The News found the handwriting in all these letters match that of other documents signed under his own name. The postmarks are from Buffalo; his mother lives in Texas.

If you have any desire to read any of the letters this man has forged, click HERE, and you can get to them through links in the article.

I am not surprised by his actions. Rather, they seem to be pretty typical for someone like him:

Hassan seems to have no reservations about manipulating people by assuming other identities. In numerous cases, he appeared to have secretly authored documents that re-created reality and/or portrayed his wife as a dominating, mentally unstable woman.

Among the examples:

• Zubair Hassan stated that her husband forced her to give him the password to her e-mail account and subsequently logged into her account and sent e-mails to his attorney and his court-appointed psychologist pretending to be her.

One e-mail sent to psychologist Kenneth Condrell opens by stating, “I have been reading the Dale Carnegie book on “How to Win Friends and Influence People.” There is a chapter about admitting mistakes quickly and apologizing profusely and repeatedly. It struck me as a thuderbolt [sic] that I had difficulty admitting a mistake to Mo and struggled to apologize.”

It goes on to state, “I honestly do not believe he belongs in the Domestic Violence class. He has so much insights [sic] into human behavior and self-awareness.”

• While preparing to defend himself in a child neglect case, Hassan scripted the responses he wanted his wife to give when his defense lawyer questioned her in court. He made her stay home for two days to memorize her answers, she said.

In response to a question by defense lawyer David Siegel, “Do you think you are a battered woman?” Zubair Hassan was to respond as stated in the script: “What nonsense. Complete hogwash. I have always been a strong woman and a high achiever and no one violates my boundaries … My husband cannot tell me what I can and cannot do. I am my own person.”

• Hassan apparently drafted a letter for psychologist Condrell to sign describing his wife as a dominating and aggressive woman and further stating that “this personality profile test further indicates that Mrs. Hassan does not have the personality of a typical abused wife.”

The draft letter goes on to state “that there is no safety need that requires keeping Mr. and Mrs. Hassan apart over the next 6 months.”

A copy of the actual letter signed by Condrell and obtained by The News is much shorter. In it, Condrell states the personality test taken by Zubair Hassan as part of her master’s program in business “shows her to be a dominant, strong willed, aggressive woman.”

But he does not suggest that she wasn’t abused and does not state that her husband posed no safety threat. Further, it omits all references from the draft letter describing the husband as being “a persuasive, poised, influential, convincing, demonstrative and trusting person.”

Wow. Again, I wish I could say this was unusual. I cannot tell you the lengths to which some abusers have gone to play the victim, or to try and manipulate others involved in the situation to deny what the abuser has been doing, often for a number of years (and it usually starts out slowly, little by little, chipping away at the person’s self esteem, belittling them, then isolating them, cutting them off from finances, and on it goes):

In Hassan’s handwritten letter to The News, he states that Condrell testified in court that “Aasiya was aggressive, controlling and arrogant, while Mo was humble, kind and polite.”

Condrell declined to comment on the matter, citing his professional ethics, but Hassan’s statements are not supported by Condrell’s letter to the court.

• Hassan wrote two letters to The News under his mother’s name. The second letter included annotated copies of e-mails purportedly between Hassan and his wife.

“Inaccurate image’

The letters describe Hassan as part of an “epidemic” of battered men and cite authors and experts who have addressed the issue. They also describe his wife as an abuser who “needed proper medical help.”

“Many news stories have presented an inaccurate image of my son … The main reason for his difficulties is that he is too much of a people pleaser who avoids conflict. For years he kept appeasing a demanding wife. The more he appeased her, the more demanding she became,” one letter stated.

These actions are attributed to a man described as “manipulative” and “sick” by those who knew him and/or Zubair Hassan.

“She’s gone, and now the only thing he can destroy is her reputation,” said Faizan Haq, who once worked with both husband and wife. “He has nothing else in his control except her name. In a way, he’s still abusing her. He hasn’t stopped.”

In January, defense lawyer Frank M. Bogulski stated in court that Hassan was a “battered spouse” and promised “a revolutionary defense” that would get Hassan acquitted, using both psychiatric elements and legal justification.

Both defense lawyers, Bogulski and Julie Atti Rogers, state they are not committed to a specific defense and have not seen the divorce affidavit by Zubair Hassan.

“An affidavit is only one person’s side,” Bogulski cautioned. “Just because it was put in an affidavit doesn’t mean it was true.”

That’s exactly what I mean. The batterer often presents him(her)self as the batteree (if you will), often knowing the correct language to use to try and make that case, the right buttons to push. I cannot tell you how many times the batterer will get a restraining order against the person whom they are battering. It is far more common than one might think. at least in this case, the DA seemed to have a clue:

District Attorney Frank Sedita laughed when he heard of Hassan’s self-portrayal as a victim last week.

“What do any of these claims have to do with the issue that is before the court and the issue that will be before the jury?” he said. “Is there sufficient evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant murdered his wife? That is the only issue to this point.”

In Zubair Hassan’s divorce appeal to the court, she attached 16 exhibits attesting to her husband’s abusive and controlling nature.

One exhibit, dated March 7, 2008, is a formally written, “confidential” memorandum of understanding that Hassan made his wife sign.

In it, both spouses “agree” that under threat of punishment, Zubair Hassan will not call, cooperate with, or threaten to call law enforcement. She also “agrees” not to threaten to leave him.

Physical abuse

The sworn statement signed by Zubair Hassan a week before she died brings to light many other details of a terrifying reality.

Contrary to Hassan’s assertions to The News that he never used his physical size to overpower his wife, Zubair Hassan’s sworn statement is full of instances where she claims he used his size and strength to imprison or physically hurt her.

Most of those claims are supported by police reports, photographs and witnesses. Among the worst incidents described by Zubair Hassan that were previously unknown to The News:

• When Zubair Hassan unexpectedly became pregnant in early summer of 2006, her husband, who is a stocky 6-foot-2, imprisoned her in the bedroom and sat on her until she admitted she needed psychiatric help.

In two separate incidents later that month, he punched her in the face, and dragged her down the driveway and sat on her after trying to convince her to have an abortion. She subsequently miscarried.

• The family’s four children — two older ones from a previous marriage, and two very young children born to Zubair Hassan — were also victims.

Child Protective Services investigated several complaints lodged by school personnel against Hassan for physical abuse of the children and his wife, ransacking the house and otherwise posing a threat to their safety.

Jennifer Greer, who baby-sat for the Hassan children from 2002 to 2008, said the young daughter would talk about hearing thunder on nights when there was no storm, and the young son spent much of his life living in an imaginary world where everyone was a superhero and they all cared for each other.

“It was heartbreaking to watch him go through that,” she said.

As we know, children also pay a price when there is domestic violence in the home. Sadly, this story is no exception:

• In October 2007, Zubair Hassan tried to fly to New York for a few days, but while Greer was driving her to the airport along Route 219 with the two young children in the back seat, Hassan ran their car off the road.

Greer cried as she recalled the terrified children in the car.

“Raising them, they were like my own kids,” she said. “All of us could have died on that day.”

• Hassan repeatedly punched his wife in the face until blood was pouring out her nose in April 2008. His wife recalled the oldest daughter screaming to her father, “I’m taking her to the hospital. I don’t care what you say. I’m not going to let her die here.”

Hassan did not let her seek medical treatment and refused to let her leave the house for a week because of her bruises, Zubair Hassan stated.

Two previous wives

Zubair Hassan was not the only woman who charged Hassan with abuse. So did his two previous wives.

Qureshi, president of Saathi of Rochester, a domestic violence program for South Asian women, said Hassan once pushed his second wife, Sadia, out of a moving car.

After the Muslim community intervened on her behalf, he told her she could have a divorce and get her green card only if she let him claim he was the abused victim.

“She was very scared,” Qureshi said. “She didn’t know what to do, where to go.”

Zubair Hassan asked for an order of protection as part of her divorce appeal, allowing her husband to be near her only at the Bridges TV studio, where she was later found dead.

“I am fearful for my children’s safety as well as my own,” she stated.

Hassan’s lawyers said their client shouldn’t be convicted by the media before his murder trial begins in September.

“We don’t in any way want to disparage Aasiya or her memory,” Bogulski said. “This is a horrible tragedy. But at the same time, we have to keep in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in regard to my client, and we ask the public to keep an open mind.”How Dostan@buffnews.com

Oh, yes. That is important – presumed innocence and not trying cases in the media. Though Hassan DID tell police his wife was dead, and her body was found at his business. But still, right?

I have written a fair amount about Women’s History this month, and as much as it pains me to say, this is a part of our history, too. Not even so much our history as it is the present for far too many of us (95% of battered persons are women). Chances are good that right now, right this very second, a woman is being battered. Almost half (42%) of women who are murdered are killed by people with whom they are intimate. That is an issue of monumental proportion, if you ask me. I am glad that Secretary Clinton acknowledged in her recent speech to the UN that we have a ways to go for women’s equality here at home, but wow – do we ever.

But whatever we do to address this critical issue, it will be too late for Aasiya Zubair Hassan, and a number of other women in this country. That is just heartbreaking. But we must push on, we must put a stop to violence against women once and for all. And we must do it NOW!