The quadruple family murder trial of that evil immigrant Muslim threesome Mohammad Shafia and his son and wife, has just concluded today in Canada with a jury’s guilty verdict.

Those three killed four of their own family members  —  three of the four being teens and one being a polygamous wife of Mohammad, in what is hideously called “honor killings” by them and a minority of others within a specific backward segment of the Muslim culture and religion.

As if to ridicule the use of that term “honor killing,” the jury in Kingston, Canada, have ruled that the heinous death of those four women was in fact what we civilized people call “first degree murder,” not “honor killings,” since “honor killing” doesn’t exist in the non-barbaric world we all call Canada. So God bless that jury.

Shafias all found guilty of first-degree murder

Three Afghan-Canadians charged with murdering four relatives in a so-called “honour killing” have been convicted on all charges. …

Aside from the obvious dismay and outrage I have felt over the death of those four Muslim women  —  three of them young girls  —  a couple of things stand out from a crass news analysis point-of-view.

First, it is the fact that throughout the murder trial, most news media have amply demonstrated that they are still afraid of facts when facts don’t adhere to their liberal-left, political-correctness template.  Even the mere mention of the word “Muslim” and “Islamic”, if used in what could possibly be perceived as a possibly negative context, is avoided by bad journalists and the news organizations they work for. And they largely fail to discuss the the poor integration of immigrants into the secular but Judeo-Christian-based values of Canadian culture, and moreover, the abject failure of its multicultural mosaic model as envisioned by past liberals. As such, they are omitting pertinent, important facts. But they don’t care.

The murderers’ religion, Islam, lies at the roots of the Shafia family murders. But just search through the Shafia news stories are you’ll find very few if any references to “Muslim” or “Islam” in the stories. Or, indeed, to “multiculturalism,” which is the other icon of liberalism, especially in Canada, where they value their failed “multicultural mosaic” above all else except their sacred failed healthcare system, and their sacred failed state-owned media. Yet the murders were done, at least in large part, as a result of an importation of the murderer’s Muslim cultural and/or religious beliefs.

It’s yet another example of the idiotic political correctness of the liberal lamestream media in their effort to avoid offending anyone in the Muslim community, or indeed anyone in their politically correct liberal readership base  —  a base which news media has helped nurture with their incessant political correctness.

But today, for once, they got something at least somewhat right. A adjective stood out for me in a particular news story, and that was their use of the adjective “so-called” as applied before the term “honor killing.” Well yay. No mention of “Muslim,” or “Islam,” but at least they used “so-called” correctly.

The Globe and Mail, reporting on the story (see it above), twice referred to the alleged motive behind the killers as it being “so-called” honor killings.  They’re absolutely right in using the phrase “so-called”. We all know what the purpose is, in using that adjective before “honor killings.”  It’s meant to convey that they don’t buy into the claptrap of it being anything like “honor”.  It’s just killing. Murder. In deploying the adjective “so-called,” they are literally putting it out there in their reporting that they don’t agree with the term, even if they don’t explain it, or explain from whence the bogus term “honor killing” is derived.

But their use of “so-called” recalled for me a contrast with its use by the hideously left-wing and rabidly anti-conservative (and anti-Republican, but moreover, rabidly anti-President George W. Bush) state-owned media in Canada, the CBC. The CBC, immediately post-9/11, as soon as Bush embarked on the war on terror, began referring to the war on terror as “the ‘so-called’ war on terror,” in CBC's so-called war on terrornearly all their biased stories about the war on terror. (I pointed out this perfidy a million times in my blogging at the old site When the systemically left-wing-biased CBC were in a particularly anti-George W. Bush mood, which was actually every single day, the CBC blithely called it George Bush’s so-called war on terror.” Seriously. George Bush’s so-called war on terror.” They are just that arrogant and ridiculous. And deranged.

And of course that’s exemplary of utter bullcrap reporting, on every level, and it draws a bright line under the abject bias at that left-wing network. But we see what they’re doing there  —  at least those of us who are sober do. Obviously there was, and is, nothing “so-called” about the war on terror. At least not in the context of it being phoney or in terms of the term being a repugnant lie, as “honor killing” is. But they abhor it. And they want us to know it.

And of course it wasn’t, and still isn’t, “George Bush’s” war on terror. It was and still is everyone’s war on terror. It’s even President CBC- so-called war on terror Barack Obama’s, despite what he and his Obamamania media (like the CBC) might have led you to believe during their amorous, kiss-up coverage of his so-called “yes we can” election campaign.

So the takeaway is that sometimes an actual example  —  unwitting though it may be  —  is the best way to prove  a point. And so it happens that from that example we can see the contrast between pure, biased idiocy in reporting, and something with a semblance of propriety.

Tangentially, but not coincidentally, the left-wing, state-owned and taxpayer funded CBC is the asinine network which, aside from their terrible news reporting, brought Canadians the idiotic so-called sit-com to TV, called “Little Mosque on the Prairie,” which was nothing more than a terrible, taxpayer-purchased exercise in pro-Muslim and pro-multiculturalism and pro-political correctness propaganda run amok. That’s the way they prefer to “discuss” these things.

It’s nothing better than so-called knowledge and facts, not the real deal, from the news media. But it is what we should expect and watch out for today.


P.S. The state-owned CBC has the audacity to write-up a news story today asking its readers, as if there’s some reason for doubt: “Do you agree with the Shafia verdict?”

It’s currently running at about 92% “yes”, but the very idea that they even feel compelled to ask the question is amazing.