My friend and colleague, Karen Lugo, has written another excellent piece in Townhall, this time regarding the murder last week of a 30-year-old Iranian woman in Houston. No arrests have been made, and it appears the cops can't figure out a motive for the killing and thus, suspect it was a random act. Read the below article and decide if you think it was a random act.
http://townhall.com/columnists/karenlugo/2012/01/25/making_an_example_of_gelareh_bagherzadeh
If, in fact, this young woman was killed for leaving Islam and/or speaking out for women's rights in Iran, then this would be a case of someone acting out shariah law in our country. Worse yet, it could be a case of Iran carrying out an act of murder in our country.
When you have a case of a person fearing for his or her life, and said person winds up murdered, it is ludicrous to pass it off as a random act of violence.
By the way; where are the voices of the feminists? I've been trying to find some comment from the National Organization of Women, especially their Houston chapter. So far, I can't find anything.
So every time a woman is murdered, NOW needs to issue a statement?
ReplyDeleteRight.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteActually, I thought that since the vicoim was speaking out for women's rights in Iran, this would be right up NOW's alley. I guess I was wrong. She wasn't advocating for abortion.
The following was the statement from NOW:
ReplyDeletehttp://youtu.be/K8E_zMLCRNg
Except you have nothing to connect this woman's advocacy for women's rights in Iran with the motive behind the murder other than pure speculation. This is just the usual hand wringing.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteHow about pure common sense? If a woman tells people she is afraid for her life from her estranged husband, and she winds up murdered, who do you think is the main suspect? Who do you think had a motive?
Duh
My point wasn't who had the motive, but what the motive itself was. You suggest that she was murdered for speaking out for women's rights in Iran, but you have absolutely no evidence to base that on other than pure speculation and hand wringing. People with actual common sense (and not conservative "common sense") like the police and NOW are obviously not jumping to conclusions as you are.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous.
ReplyDeleteEvidence is the job of the Houston police. Obviously, they are smart enough to have their suspicions. They are being politically correct in saying it appeared to be random.
Let's see how this plays out.
It is not that the police jump to conclusions, but they obviously have enough common sense to know where to look first. That is why when a wife is murdered, the first step is to clear the husband as a suspect (if he is not involved.) The stats tell us that the spouse or significant other is usually the first person you look to.
So, yes, it could be a case of random violence, but when the victim has been living under threats, it probably isn't.
In every investigation the police first look to the family and then friends and then to outsiders.
ReplyDeleteIn this case the first suspect has to be her estranged husband, after the police clear him, other suspects are then looked at.
Anonymous insists on equating (or confusing) possibilities with probabilities. Not the same thing at all.
ReplyDeleteIf Gary followed his own advice, he would not rush to post this article. When and if the competent and professional Houston police gather evidence to establish the guilty parties and the motive, then it would be time to publish about who the guilty parties are and why the woman was killed.
ReplyDelete