The pair do however, make it very clear they want NATO and western forces out of Afghanistan.
If NATO, including Canadian forces were to withdraw from Afghanistan, who benefits and who loses?
The obvious answer is that immediate gain would go to the Taliban, the fanatical Islamist terror organization, which would likely regain control of the chaotic Central Asian country. The clear losers would be Afghan women, upon whom the Taliban, during their rule and in areas they control, imposed the most brutal and restrictive controls. The Taliban prevented women from receiving education, from having employment, from going out in public in anything more revealing than a full-body burkah, and from leaving home without permission of a male relative, among other primitive dictates from the catalogue of Islamic totalitarianism.
So it follows to reason that those advocating a NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan are, consciously or not, acting in the de facto interests of and lending tacit support to the Taliban.
But by proposing a withdrawal of all foreign troops to Afghanistan, they are advocating for something the Taliban desperately wants so it can seize control in Afghanistan and restore their tyrannical rule.
So how would a modicum of human and women's rights be preserved in Afghanistan if NATO were to pack up and leave? Ms. Sahar offered the phenomenally simplistic, nonsensical solution of providing education and health care. Things that have improved significantly under NATO's presence and would be eradicated under the Taliban. How women are going to receive these services without a competent armed force to preserve them is something she neglects to delineate because she obviously doesn't have the slightest clue.
What does seem apparent is Ms Sahar and Ms. Rushdie lack the mental acuity to connect rather obvious dots and comprehend that what they advocate serves to support the aims of the hateful Taliban Islamists.
Of course, profound, or even average insight is not something one expects from the sort of people who write things like,
"The ugly side of freedom is the state-run military spectacle supporting the NATO-led imperialist war and occupation in Afghanistan but parading as a false guilt-trip memorial for those who sacrificed to fight for “our” freedoms. Well, just in case you selectively forgot, your parade is and has always been on stolen, occupied, Native land - what about their freedoms to sovereignty and the Afghan peoples for self-determination? What about our freedom of speech which was infringed on when an officer called our message “trash” and “laughable.” We courageously endured a violent and racist crowd calling out: “go back to your country”, "There's a priceless humor in the irony of the blatant hypocrisy of two women who refer to Afghanistan as their home condemning Canada as a settler colonial society on stolen land and then bitching about people who tell them to "go home". Unfortunately for the duo, understanding that appears to be beyond their cognitive abilities. If they actually believe the idiocy they propound, what are they doing here settling, occupying and stealing land from its rightful owners? If, as they have repeated, Afghanistan is their "home country," shouldn't they stop being occupiers, pack up, and go to a Taliban-occupied part of Afghanistan to experience what Afghan self-determination would actually be like if they got their wish for a NATO withdrawal?
Apparently that's something they want for other unfortunate Afghan women, but not for themselves. Maybe, though hypocrites, they aren't quite as stupid as they sound.
There are plenty of opinions and honest disagreements about the Canadian military role in Afghanistan and anyone has the right to speak out and demonstrate against it. But Remembrance Day services are solemn occasions meant to honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their country and the principles that represents. To choose the particular location and occasion of a Remembrance Day service to insult and demonstrate and intentionally offend those who have come to mourn is callous and disgusting. Anyone who does that, as my friend Michael Coren has observed, is in my opinion no better than the moral troglodytes of the Hillsboro Baptist Church who defile military funerals with their "God hates fags" protest signs.
While writing about their own courage, the pair of hypocrites who claim their free speech was deprived neglected to mention the police were actually protecting them from an angry mob they had riled up with their offensive display.
Rashdie and Sahar protest that they, with their banner, were not the ones shouting slogans during the moment of silence at the service and they were only one of four protest groups their to offend those honoring and mourning lost soldiers. To the casual observer, there would be no distinction between the two dozen or so ragged radicals who were intermingling and shaming themselves on that occasion. And, as a video shows, the pair certainly enthusiastically participated in foul-mouthed, shrill, shameful hysteria that continued the disruption of the services that day.
The pair tried to justify themselves when they wrote,
In 2001 we watched the invasion of our home country, Afghanistan. Fast forward 11 years later: Afghanistan is still occupied, and every year on Remembrance Day we are reminded of it. It has become painfully obvious that Remembrance Day is used as a war propaganda tool. If one is going to take offense to our presence, direct your misguided anger at those responsible for why we are taking offense.No one has the right to physically attack someone for their opinions. But someone would have to be a complete idiot to go to a service at that nature, provoke the crowd, and not expect such a response. While taking advantage of the freedoms that Canadian soldiers have fought and died to preserve, they came to a memorial to metaphorically spit on the graves of the people who gave them the rights they abused.
Their idiocy continued with:
This is a settler-colonial society, reinforcing itself through racism, which we witnessed at the Remembrance Day ceremony. This is what explains why a handful of racist, white men screamed in our faces to "go back to your country." They believe that they are the rightful owners of this land. We are never accepted as real Canadians in their rigid, exclusionary and alienating cultural terms. We are always deemed as a potential foreign threat especially when we reveal this status quo and hypocrisy.Speaking of hypocrisy, the pair, that alternatively posture themselves as either Canadian or Afghan, depending on which suits their needs at the moment, claim to be "peace activists." It brings to mind the sort of peace activism the late Christopher Hitchens described when he wrote, "in reality, they are straight out pro-war, but on the other side."
That seems evident from an article penned by Leila Rushdie in which she wrote:
We should support the Palestinian national fight for liberation against a military super-power threatening the Near East. The Zionist project is founded upon colonialism and genocide of Palestine. Palestine acts in defense to a colonizer that has been viciously taking Palestinian land and lives in one hand while shamelessly claiming peace and negotiations in the other. The comparison maps of Palestine since 1946 till today speak for itself about the intentions of Apartheid Israel: its about land, not peace.Aside from other apparent idiocies, for so-called peace activists such as Rushdie and Sahar, Western troops fighting against Islamic Jihadists who throw acid in the face of Afghan women who want an education is bad, but Muslim Jihadists who murder Israeli civilians to replace a liberal democracy with an Islamic state is just fine.
But remember, Ms Rushdie and Ms Sahar are not Taliban supporters, Islamists or Jihadis. They just, by remarkable coincidence, share a lot of desired outcomes with them.