Shafia Case - Preemptive Strike on Honor Killings

It's very hard to evaluate the success of any preemptive measures. I'm sure that the sectors responsible for oversight, which include local law enforcement, school officials, and health professionals, did the best they could under the circumstances to prevent any tragedy of human life. However, like what Brianna said, the culture barrier between ethnic Afghans and Canadians caused this case to circumvent protective measures. Also, the plethora of cultures has made policy-making extremely difficult. Often, the best policy for politicians is no policy at all. Sitting on the fence is the only way to prevent collateral damage on their party's reputation or their own election hopes.

What I would say is due to the enormous sensitivity, and rare occurance of such cases, these circumstances cannot be successfully prevented, nor should we take action to prevent these circumstances. I do not mean that human life is invaluable, but that liberty and fairness is more important to the preservation of any values which we hold as a society. If we did take action to prevent "honor-killings", what would result is ethnic discrimination beyond that of "random" security checks at airports. Because a few individuals of Arabic descent chose to attack the Western world through acts of terrorism, the whole Arabic world has been thrown into warfare and chaos. What's more, American, Canadian, and World citizens of Arabic descent are persecuted based on their superficial appearances. They are slotted into profiles of bad men even though they have done nothing to deserve it.

If we do decide to actively prevent these "honor-killings" beyond the measures that we are already taking, what will take place next is far worse than the loss of human life. It is life not worth living. The government and third-party institutions will be able to intrude on the lives of innocent people "on suspicion." It will lead to the loss of democratic rights as we know it, and the proliferation of ever-greater power for the government to monitor and control the lives which we hold to be private. Our sanctity of body and mind will be stolen, democracy will fester and rot, and eventually, the values which we so champion will no longer be our champions.

Old Journal Entry On William Shakespeare's Sonnet 71: #4

-->

Entry 4 – November 2, 2011

Sonnet 71 enticed me with its somber yet resilient attitude towards death. As a sonnet, it fulfills all the necessary components and more. With a few exceptions (such as line 12), the meter and rhythmic structure of this poem fits that of a sonnet. The end rhyme schemes were consistent, although a few ended in slant rhyme rather than perfect rhyme. Many literary elements were imbedded successfully within this poem; alliteration, consonance, personification, metaphor, and anastrophe to name a few. Overall, the poem was able to intrigue with its strength of language.

As a piece of writing supposedly by William Shakespeare, it greatly disappointed me. Shakespeare appeals to me because of his ability to explore a multitude of themes within a simple piece of writing. When I look into any of Shakespeare's work, I can peal back layer after layer of meaning. He had opened my eyes to how literary elements could be so intertwined in order to provide a deeper profundity. I found this sonnet of his to be in stark contrast to many of his other works – barren. What he explores in this sonnet is a theme which has been told and retold by innumerable men. It would be as if Voltaire wrote about the correct methods to summer harvesting.

In his defence, some may argue that the constricting features of sonnet form limits the ability of the poet to fully express a range of ideas. This is not true.

Taking a look at the over-studied sonnet 116, we can see that it explores a plethora of ideas. It is passionate, witty, and overflowing with great metaphors. Maybe this is the reason for the popularity of Sonnet 116, and the relative obscurity of Sonnet 71. Both these sonnets were written by the same man.

Perhaps I am just being too picky, or have not yet realized how great this sonnet really is. To expect some sort of enlightening reverie from a mere fourteen lines of verse, is unrealistic to say the least. What really destroyed the magnificence of this poem for me, was the personal nature of it. I feel that the best poetry is written when ideas are humanized, and not the other way around.

The reputation of a man precedes him, I guess.

Written for English Literature 12

Old Journal Entry On William Shakespeare's Sonnet 71: #3

-->

Entry 3 – October 31, 2011

Wow. After consulting with two notable Shakespearean critics – Amanda Mabillard and W. J. Rolfe – I have found some incongruities which I would like to address. First and foremost, I have been consistently mistaken in my belief that the silent auditor within the poem was the speaker's lover. There is evidence to suggest that the speaker within Sonnet 71 is Shakespeare himself. According to Rolfe, there are many who believe that the collection of sonnets – including sonnet 71 – were in nature autobiographical because of their dedication to a certain Mr. W. H. (Shakespeare's p. XIV)

Accordingly, sonnet 71 was actually written for one of Shakespeare's patrons, a man by the name of Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton. This is where things begin to get interesting. Supposedly, the speaker is a notably older man, addressing the idealized form of a young man – Southampton (Mabillard par. 2). Keeping this in mind, the traditional interpretation of a lover becomes that of a dear friend. However, the extend of affection shown by the speaker seems to suggest something more than friendship – romance, perhaps. In her critique, Mabillard acknowledges the relationship between an older and younger man, but still refers to the silent auditor as the lover. It raises questions about the implied sexuality of Shakespeare, but we shall leave that sensitive topic alone.

Very little criticism was given to the sonnet as an individual entity. Both critics speak favorably about the sonnet, citing the good use of syntax; namely figurative devices. While Rolfe likens the speaker's tone to modesty, Mabillard suggests that it negatively connotes self-pity. I agree with the latter's opinion in that the speaker highlights the miserable condition of his life. Whether this is conducive to the author's melancholic mood or an attempt to evoke pity for the reader, I do not know for sure. However, I thought that this tone of self-pity greatly undermined the obvious purpose of the speaker; one seeking to lessen the pain caused by his death. At this point, I suspect that Shakespeare may have been trying to say the opposite of the poem's superficial context. He may be asking the auditor to keep memory of him even after his death.

Written for English Literature 12

Old Journal Entry On William Shakespeare's Sonnet 71: #2

-->

Entry 2 – October 29, 2011

My interpretation of the poem after a second reading remains much the same as the first. However, I am able to see the poem in a more positive light now. As much as the poem goes on to discuss the implications of death, it also explores the bond of love. Although Shakespeare's approach to the topic of death was banal, his approach to discussing love is unequivocally innovative.

In literature, love is commonly seen as being fickle, hard to obtain, or lacklustre. The subject of love frequently evokes the themes of loyalty, sorrow, and fidelity.

The speaker in the poem approached the subject of love with an attitude contrary to most of the afore-mentioned values. Instead of convincing his love that they can last forever, the speaker tells his lover to forget about him. Using a imperative tone of speech, the speaker forbids his lover from remembering him, even as she “ [looks] upon this verse” (ln. 6). The speaker basically urges his lover to expunge all thoughts of him, living or dead. The speaker construes this meaning in quite a forceful way, although the tone does become less harsh starting in line 7.

There are contradictions within the poem itself. As evidenced by the words “vile” (ln. 4), “clay” (ln. 10), and “decay” (ln. 12), the speaker's state of being after death is far from idyllic. Rather, his death brings forth sickening images of decomposition, and the entrapment of his body compacted into clay (the earth). I am tempted to say that the speaker purposefully painted this image in order to evoke some sort of pity for himself. Another possible explanation is that the speaker wanted to show his defiance to whatever death may bring.

If the former were true, then a conflict of theme would ensue; where on the one hand, the speaker persuades his lover to forget him, and on the other, he brings forth imagery evoking pathetic sentiments. If the latter were true, then the speaker is a magnanimous lover, as well as a person. While many men seek remembrance by the whole world, this man in the poem, seeks to fade into oblivion. Maybe this is true love, or maybe just the result of a drunken reverie.

Written for English Literature 12

Old Journal Entry On William Shakespeare's Sonnet 71: #1

-->

Entry 1 – October 28, 2011

Upon preliminary inspection, I found this poem to surprisingly be lacking in depth and originality. One would suspect that the poem, having been authored by none other than the great Shakespeare himself, would encompass some great literary profundity. However, the poem talks about a relatively overused literary theme; overcoming loss.

In his Sonnet 71, Shakespeare creates a speaker who has passed away. It seems reasonable to conclude that there are no underlying meanings other than the death of his physical body. The speaker focuses on the effect that his death on whomever he is addressing – which in this case seems to be his lover. If this is the case, Shakespeare has shown that the speaker is inordinately possessive of his lover. This is evidenced in the fact that he should try to control the thoughts and actions of his lover even during his afterlife – which must be a creepy experience for the implied auditor of the poem.

Although I can appreciate this half-zombie speaker's hopes of comforting his love, it seems redundant of a certain cycle. The cycle is something that any person could describe; death leads to mourning, mourning leads to consolation, consolation heals the wounds. The imagery that Shakespeare employs is also quite commonplace. The “bell” has always been synonymous to signalling of death (ln. 2). It is also not hard to see what he is referring to when talking about the dwelling place of the “vilest worms” (ln. 4). The speaker also describes being “compounded... with clay”, a very obvious reference to burial. These are just some examples of how a cliche effect was achieved by this sonnet.

Despite the cliche content, there are good examples of alliteration in lines 2 and 4. Shakespeare also employs pertinent diction. However, I felt disappointed and cheated in that this sonnet failed to amaze me. Death in itself, is such a powerful concept – especially when applied to the art of creating literature. It is innately terrifying, yet it is also mesmerizing. It is the cruel practitioner of termination, yet it is also the merciful angel of release. I feel that death loses much of its power and hold over the reader when it becomes centred around the speaker rather than the concept of death itself.

Written for English Literature 12

Crown v. Three Little Porks (2012)

Crown v. Three Little Porks (2012)

Prosecution Representing Crown: Vlad Shapiro

Defence Representing the Three Little Porks: Gary Xia

Indictments:

1. Organized Crime

2. Possession of Narcotics

3. Trafficking of Narcotics

4. Murder to the 1^st Degree

*Motion to pre-admit evidence.

May it please the court, counsel, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. The opening statement you have just heard from Mr. Shapiro on behalf of the Crown, paints an incomplete picture of what occurred on the occasion when Mr. Big Bad Wolfe met his demise.

The evidence will clearly show that my clients, Mr. Tender Pork, Mr. Middler Pork, and Mr. Stringy Pork are not at fault in this matter, and that any harm sustained by Mr. B. B. Wolfe was clearly caused by Mr. Wolfe's own negligence, assumption of the risk, and error of judgement, as are the subsequent charges brought against my clients.

Moreover, Mr. B. B. Wolfe has a history of making erroneous and negligent decisions. Three years prior to this incident, Mr. B. B. Wolfe came to the conclusion, without having sufficient evidence, that Ms. Little Red Riding-Hood was a known associate of organized crime, and thus proceeded to uncover a supposed drug-trafficking scheme. Said resident of Green Woods Crescent was in fact bringing baked goods to Ms. Grandma Red. However, Mr. B. B. Wolfe, acting on a whim, devoured both Ms. Little Red and Ms. Grandma Red. Mr. B. B. Wolfe in fact violated his duties as a peace-officer. Instead of fulfilling his mandate to protect and serve, he terrorized and caused harm.

His negligence and misjudgement nearly caused the deaths of two innocent civilians three years ago. His negligence and misjudgement nearly caused the deaths of two other innocent civilians in this incident.

I could list many more examples of Mr. B. B. Wolfe's negligent conduct in connection with his investigative work, but you will hear about them as the trial goes on. You will also hear the following evidence:

1. You will hear the plaintiff's written report, Exhibit A, describing how he reached the conclusion that my clients, Mr. Tender Pork, Mr. Middler Pork, and Mr. Stringy Pork are guilty of the charges set forth by the prosecution. Included is Exhibit B, the evidence on which three of the prosecution's charges are predicated upon.
2. You will also witness the video footage captured by security cameras installed around the premises of Mr. Tender Pork's brick house. In the footage, you will hear Mr. Wolf say “Let me in, little pig” to which Mr. Tender Pork replied “Not by the hair on my chinny chin chin.” Mr. Tender Pork further went on to remark “Are you a cop? Because if you are a cop, you've gotta tell me you're a cop.” You will then see Mr. B. B. Wolfe neglect to show his badge, or to produce a written warrant.

3. You will also hear the coroner's report describing the seven stones which are firmly lodged in Mr. B. B. Wolfe's stomach, and how they in fact impede the motor functions of said Wolfe and thus his ability to maneuver out of tight-spots.

4. Finally, you will hear the witness testimonies of Mr. Tender Pork, Mr. Middler Pork, and Mr. Stringy Pork, in which they describe the circumstances surrounding Mr. B. B. Wolfe's very unfortunate and accidental demise.

If permissible by the court, I would like to introduce Exhibits A and B in order to illustrate my point.

Exhibit A is a statement of investigation made shortly before Mr. Wolfe met his demise. In it, he states

“I overheard the Three Little Porks talking extensively about a substance they code-named 'sugar' which is no-doubt a reference to Cocaine. They held Secretive meetings from which each left with a bag of 'Cocaine'. This led me to believe that they indeed possessed Narcotics and formed the intention to traffic and distribute narcotics. Further to this point, that they were involved in organized crime.”

I would like to direct your attention to Exhibit B. This bag was found on the person of my client, Mr. Stringy Pork, and contains the substance to which Mr. Wolfe referred, sugar. Although the physical properties of sugar closely resemble that of powdered cocaine, testing has proven that the contents of this bag are indeed sugar, and not cocaine. If Mr. Wolfe had indeed mistaken sugar for cocaine, can the charges of illicit criminal activities still stand?

If I may so oblige you, Honorable Judge, members of the jury, may I ask you to close your eyes. Close your eyes, please, and allow me to tell you a story about three brave, honest, and virtuous porks, and why they sit before you today. To you and me, sugar may have been nothing more than a flavouring. But to my clients, sugar represents everything sweet and good in life. It is that little bit of sweetness, to cure the pains of a hard day's work. Those tiny, magical grains of crystallized glucose, melting on your tongue – that, is bliss.

My clients, Mr. Tender Pork, Mr. Middler Pork, and Mr. Stringy Pork, were merely exercising their constitutional rights in the pursuit of happiness. For it, they have been wrongfully accused of Organized Crime, Possession, and Trafficking of Narcotics. And for ensuring their security of person, they have been wrongfully accused of Murder to the 1^st Degree.

Being knowledgeable of the law, my clients refused entry to Mr. B. B. Wolfe on the following grounds. One, that he did not identify himself as a peace-officer, and two, that he had no warrant to substantiate his order for my clients to let him inside. Instead of obtaining a warrant, Mr. Wolfe decided to forcibly enter my client's residence by climbing down the chimney. This he did under the knowledge that he had seven large stones in his belly, and that there was steam rising from the chimney. Mr. Wolfe subsequently lost his balance, and fell into the pot of soup Mr. Tender Pork had incidentally started to prepare three hours prior to Mr. Wolfe's arrival. Try as he might, Mr. Wolfe was unable to get out. The stones in his belly acted as an anchor, pinning him to his death.

We all grieve for Mr. Wolfe's death, as it was most tragic. But we cannot let his death obscure the circumstances surrounding his demise. The fact remains, that my clients, the Three Little Porks, did not harbor the intention, nor did they commit the act of murder to the 1^st degree. They were unaware of Mr. Wolfe's intentions to climb in through the chimney, and were thus unable to prevent Mr. Wolfe from harming himself.

The prosecution's attempts to indict my clients will be akin to tattooing a soap bubble. I very much doubt the plausibility of tattooing a soap bubble, as I very much doubt that my clients, Mr. Tender Pork, Mr. Middler Pork, and Mr. Stringy Pork are capable of committing the heinous crimes that they were so wrongfully accused of perpetrating.

The defence pleads not guilty to the charges of Organized Crime, Possession of Narcotics, Trafficking of Narcotics, and Murder to the 1^st Degree. Further to this point, the defence asks that said defendants, Mr. Tender Pork, Mr. Middler Pork, and Mr. Stringy Pork, be cleared of all charges brought against them.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, let justice be not obscured. Let justice be found on the rocks of truth, and not the clouds of uncertainty. Let justice be your incontrovertible proof.

The Defence rests.

Written for Law 12

Ulysses: Dear Silent Auditor

Dear Silent Auditor,

Once upon a classroom merry, while I perused freak and fairy, I came upon a curious volume of forgotten lore. None had courage to ask it out, so lonely it lay 'longside Dr. Seuss. 'Twas not hideous, just slightly obese. As my literary life had been lacking of thickness for some time, I decided to bring it along for a short fling – one month to be exact.

The nine hundred and some page journey through Jame Joyce's Ulysses has been tantalizingly tormenting. Listed among the greats of classical literature, Ulysses exudes a certain aura – one that entices any erudite scholar. At the same time, its opaque allusions and unusual diction forces the scholar to despair the extend of his own erudition. It will tempt the scholar to believe that he has grasped the essence; it will reveal layers underneath. It will show the scholar its innermost musings; it will charge the scholar with ignorance of superficial dialogue. Oh, humanity.

James Joyce writes with an innate aptitude for confusing the reader. At times, he will utilize beautiful prose to reveal a character's most private feelings of angst and melancholy. There is a scene in where “Haines gravely, gazed down on the viceregal equipage... who's mass of forms darkened the chessboard” (p. 326, par. 1). Without any indication, the speaker will suddenly

– Jump into a dialogue in first person narrative, I said, with only a hyphen to delineate dialogue.

As quotations marks are rarely used, it can be difficult to match ideas to speakers.

GARY: However, one chapter is presented in the style of a drama, in which the speaker is identified.

The confusing syntax, coupled with obscure allusions, often made reading Ulysses an arduous task for me. Not being able to understand context at times, I was pulled away from the novel.

Joyce's greatest strength as a writer lays also in his eclectic style of writing. The story of Ulysses takes place within the course of a single day. If not for the interjections of poetry and drama within his prose, this narration would be extremely dull. Strategically positioned in the mid-section of a history lesson, Joyce's insert of “guts red roaring/ After Lowry's lights” provokes interest in an otherwise obscure poet, Owen Garry (p. 404, par. 3). The syntax of drama allows Joyce to depict the pleasantly vivid imagery of a baby who cries “Hajajaja” while “ curdled milk is flowing from his mouth” (p. 680, par. 5).

The novel appealed to me most during moments when I could empathize with the event or speaker. In one scene, the main character strolls along the beach, closing “his eyes to hear his boots crush crackling wrack and shells” (p. 45, par. 2). He goes on to contemplate the short existence of life. The tranquility of the surrounding world, juxtaposed in stark contrast to the chaotic clashing of confused thoughts, is a situation that I often encounter. In moments like that, I become completely drawn into the book, silently pondering the heavy questions proposed by the speaker.

Love, loss, and melancholy, have we not had them all? For some of us, like the novel's Molly, love can be found outside of marriage. Of course, the broken trust, hurt, and reconciliation are inevitable aspects in the novel as in our lives. Losing a loved one can be painful, as Joyce's Bloom can attest. He lost his son to Death, and has since embarked on a healing journey. When we lose loved ones to Time's sceptre, we will grieve and mourn. Ultimately though, living is contingent on healing and moving on, as evidenced by the character of Bloom. Another interesting character, Stephen Dedalus, explores the subject of melancholy in life. The novel shows that melancholy is not some disease of suicidal depression, but rather a pragmatic approach to welcoming what life – or Death – throws at you. If we live life with a little bit of melancholy, like Stephen did, we would be much less likely to collapse under the weight of our castles of hope.

Coupled with the afore-mentioned life lessons, the intrinsic values that James Joyce gives to the reader makes Ulysses so much more than an entertaining book. I have always believed that whatever doesn't kill me, makes me stronger – most of the time. Ulysses is unlike any other novel that I have ever read. However, I have come out from under the dragon with a better understanding of modernist literature, literary form, and life.

All the Best,

Gary Xia

Written for English 12