There was coverage and EXTENSIVE discussion of this on BroadSheet last week. What is becoming clear now is that she was not in fact killed over her refusal to wear the hijab, that was just gossip from her schoolmates. Her best friend, familiy friends, and family members have all gone on record that hijab wearing was not the issue. Her four older sisters, for example, do not wear the hijab, this was not a family demand. No, it was a case of adolescent/parent conflict over a host of matters, things like skipping school and other rebellions, the hijab perhaps being one of them. The sensationalist early headlines have apparently stuck though; nobody reads the follow-up stories.

The dad turned himself in immediately too, and no-one at all has tried to make any kind of case that what he did was in any way justified, including he himself. And all the Islamic organizations in Canada have pretty unanimously spoken up against the case, although a few imams have also stressed the importance of wearing the hijab, though without the threat of physical force.

OK, find a woman who just had a dead baby, and hire her as a wet nurse to feed your baby so you don't have to, that is an ok tradition that lasted in our society for like thousands of years, until recently. So these days, you can't rent your breasts, but you can rent your uterus. Weird.

"Is it illegal to hire a wet nurse?"

No of course not. Just distasteful and not commonly practiced. Just like surrogate pregnancies. Which was kinda the point

Much as I hate TED for its pomposity and self congratulation, it does have its moments

When me and the missus got married, after 6 years of happily living together with no problems with the family, employers, landlords, etc., we did it for two reasons. Secondarily, it was the kind of stuff Kitchengirl mentions, there are some fairly significant legal protections (and up here in the Great White North where, incidentally, gay marriage is legal, being married or not does not signify much in a break-up situation for long-term cohabitors). So on legal grounds and so on, there really was no downside.

But the biggest reasons was essentially social (we took the position that marriage is not about two people proclaiming their love, it is about announcing and formalizing a bound in the community: it is for your families and society, not for you). We had decided to reproduce, and felt that kids not only needed whatever legal/procedural advantage this would give, but the social validity and psychological security or whatever. And though we are pretty darn secular, we even did the whole church thing, first time I had seen the inside of a church in quite a few years.

Its worked out pretty good too, 22 years so far, and a bunch of pretty damn great kids.

But the decision was for us, and I don't really give a damn if anyone else wants to get married or not. I can't really see how it would affect me either way. I just don't get either a negative or positive reaction to the article; why should anybody else care about whether or not someone wants to get married, or why, or how? (Or have kids for that matter.)