Members of the National Organization for Women and other feminist groups would gladly shout down those who say or do intolerant, sexist things to the sisterhood. But should one of their own be beheaded by a member of a radical theology, we get nothing but silence.
Does that make them enablers or cowards?
President of the National Organization for Women, Kim Gandy, finally published a column in which she stated that the beating of pop music star Rihanna is every bit as bad as the beheading of Aasiya Z. Hassan. Or the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.
Too bad we can’t get Mrs. Hassan’s opinion on the matter.
I’m going to guess it’s considered easier to go after some whipped, politically-incorrect men than criticize a crazed group of radicals who’d truly consider it an honor to rid the world of some out-of-control, opinionated, activist women.
Gandy joins many of the Muslim groups in failing to differentiate the difference between a terrible, humiliating beating, (Rihanna), and being stabbed many times and then beheaded while you are, quite possibly, still alive, perhaps even conscious.
And seeing how the beheading was carried out by Muzzamil Hassan, “founder of a television network called Bridges TV, whose purpose it was to portray Muslims in a positive light”, the mainstream media has also done everything possible to mute this story, while shifting the attention away from a clear American honor killing to the outrage of the shooting of a chimp.
I’m sure the MSM and NOW would hate to admit that George W. Bush and the neocons were right about the murderous intolerance of radical Muslims. And unfortunately, they never will until such terror strikes them en masse.