Audio engineering is a promising job that presents immense chance in film, video creation, sound broadcasting and promoting. Audio engineers use a amount of recording units this sort of as large-tech microphones that are expected to document even the slightest variations of sound.

The general idea of engineering relates to creating bridges, buildings, roads and similar kind of function. Most persons do not imagine of audio engineering as a type of traditional engineering. However, it is one of the greatest paying out work and has quite a few thriving folks performing in the field.

Audio conferencing has under no circumstances had a technologies champion. The market place leader historically was the lethargic AT&T whose once modern Bell Labs dabbled with website technologies and then broke apart. The Child Bells carried on this tradition. As a result, the community has certainly not had an innovative advocate. A new breed of entrepreneurial innovators is start a populist revolution.

i think the reason the mozzies do this sort of thing is cos they have very low i.q.s due to forced cousin marriage.

"The left cannot remain silent over "honour killings""

This is how "the Left wing" in the Guardian have responded to this appalling crime:

First article by Barbara Ellen is immediately on the defensive: "Shafilea Ahmed's death was not the fault of liberal lefties" and concludes "Indeed, while political correctness is the most pathetically easy of targets, it is lazy and inaccurate to blame it for the tragic death of Shafilea Ahmed. Liberal bashing has no place here."

So head deep in bone-headed denial, the article fails to mention that there were several opportunites for the Social Services to have saved Shafilea but didn't because of "cultural sensitivity". She also fails to mention that there are 1000's of forced marriages in the UK and this may be just the very tip of the iceberg, let alone that there has never ever been a single prosecution for FGM in the UK eveen though the activity is widespread (compare this with the more pro-active prosecutions for this crime in secular France).

The Guardian then comission an article to be written by Jacquelline Rose. According to the comments "Rose is what the criminological theorist Steve Hall calls a catastrophist. For her, the demonization and stigmatisation of a cultural group in the name of modernity is the greatest crime we can commit, and thus all other crimes are lesser crimes."

She ends her article by writing "We can support those freedoms – and celebrate the justice Shafilea has now received – without using the case to stigmatise a minority community, or as proof that west is best. Rather than attribute a crime like this to backwardness, we would do better to see how deeply it is woven into the fabric of migration and modernity in which all of us are implicated."

So rather than blame those who actually comitted this vile crime because of their obsession with identifying themselves to their barbarically backward, infantile culture of misogyny we should blame ourselves and really we are all guilty - geddit?

No? That's probably because it is pure twaddle so you may want to ask why "a Left wing" newspaper paid money for these articles to be written?

If you're sincere and genuine then the very best thing you can do Sunnal to ensure that "the left cannot remain silent over "honour killings", forced marriages, FGM, misogyny or homophobia is to write an inspiring article for the Guardian taking both those articles to task and openly condemning the Cultural Relativism that motivated them.

Good luck with that...

The left is almost compulsively anti-Christian and pro-Muslim. It makes no sense morally. Islam is more barbaric overall than Christianity. I guess it just goes along with the whole leftist anti- philosophy: anti-freedom, anti-free-market, anti-morality, anti-Western values.

There is no honor in the so called honor killings. Its murder plain and simple.

If a Christian teenager goes to a different church, or dates a person of color, Christians do not kill their children!!

The religions that allow this are not moral or good...

Point of information here: Two of the honor murders mention is this article were committed by Sikhs. Sikhs are not Muslims.

A story for which Napier is often noted involved Hindu priests complaining to him about the prohibition of Sati by British authorities. This was the custom of burning a widow alive on the funeral pyre of her husband. As first recounted by his brother William, he replied:
"Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."

I have written in the blogs of both HP and NYT re honor killings and this one in particular, saying that we will not tolerate this. By "we", I mean all decent people in the world. At HP I was told I don't understand the culture, the culture where murdering your own children in the name of "honor" is OK. No, I neither understand nor accept this "honor." It is anything but honorable to murder anyone, much less one's own flesh and blood. Who cares about honor in the face of human life?

Amazing: the writer states that "We need an inclusive narrative about integration which is clear that we, as Britons, are equal regardless of religion, ethnicity or background" which indicates to me the war is already lost. The Brit and Euro elites have sold out Western civ as inferior/racist/imperialist, &c, and have invited in the barbarians as penance; you're harvesting the fruit of this folly now. There's zero courage to call it like it is. Instead, more mealy-mouthed lefty hand-wringing, liberal guilt and timidity. Can't offend the Muslims, that would prove we're racist/imperialist, etc. How about this: murder your kids and we'll string you up quick, on a tall tree with a short rope. I'm guessing that would put an end to it pretty quick. But forgive me, I know that's bloody well barbarous, know we can't go back to forms of justice that actually work and that reflect a moral compass that honors victims. Let's just go on prating about narratives, I'm sure the radical imams in your country will pay the closest attention to your discourses, they're after all paragons of judicious ratiocination with a known taste for postmodern literary theory and analysis. Convert now and get it over with.

'multiculturalism' isn't the issue. The evil that needs to be fought is the primitive, savage murderous ideology of Islamism much of it imported into the UK from the racist apartheid state of Pakistan.

Wow, I rubbing my eyes, well Said Sunny, at last a moment of Clarity from someone who the left might take seriously. When anyone else says highlights anything remotely factual or truthful about Islamic Culture we get called Islamaphobes or Bigots.

When will the left continues to GROW UP and confront and explore the global Islamic Jihad, Islamic Jew Hatred, , Islamic demonisation of Israel , Islamic Gender Apartheid, Islamic Terror, Violence and Hate all inspired by the Koran. i

Lets be clear, 91% percent of honor killing around the world are committed by Muslims. This is no coincidence since :

"A manual of Islamic law certified as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy by Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, says that "retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right." However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2). In other words, someone who kills his child incurs no legal penalty under Islamic law.

"The Palestinian Authority gives pardons or suspended sentences for honor murders. Iraqi women have asked for tougher sentences for Islamic honor murderers, who get off lightly now. Syria in 2009 scrapped a law limiting the length of sentences for honor killings, but "the new law says a man can still benefit from extenuating circumstances in crimes of passion or honour 'provided he serves a prison term of no less than two years in the case of killing.'" And in 2003 the Jordanian Parliament voted down on Islamic grounds a provision designed to stiffen penalties for honor killings. Al-Jazeera reported that "Islamists and conservatives said the laws violated religious traditions and would destroy families and values."

I have to admit to ignorance here, but the phrasing in the article and some of the comments has me confused.

Honor killings by asians . . . ALL? The Japanese, and etc.

Or, is this a code word for the cultures in a "more or less" asian direction that we can't identify explicitly w/o being labelled racist?

Someone please explain.

I'm not surprised this article brought the racists out of the woodwork. It is typical of liberals to veer left and right, ultimately landing further right than most would place themselves politically. This article sees what happened to Shafilea Ahmed as over there, foreign, Muslim; it considers honour killngs as something only Muslim men do; as if silence in the face of violence is Pakistani; as if abusive parenting is a cultural thing. Many white British parents abuse their children too. Many white British men beat their wives, girlfriends and daughters - and they do so because their "honour" has been challenged. They might not say it when they show their anger at her "showing them up" but it's about their honour. According to Women's Aid 1 in 4 women will be a victim of domestic violence in their lifetime – many of these on a number of occasions; one incident of domestic violence is reported to the police every minute and on average, 2 women a week are killed by a current or former male partner. Domestic violence is defined as " physical, sexual, psychological or financial violence that takes place within an intimate or family-type relationship".
What happened to Shafilea is vile but it did not happen because her parents are Pakistani, because her parents had links with Islam (as I understand it they were't practising Muslims) - it happened because her parents are violent, abusive people: some white British parents are too and the news is full of them every year. Perhaps rather than isolating "cultures" we should defend all women against domestic violence. That way women like Shafilea will get the help they truly need - not the liberal point-scoring and racist scapegoating we're seeing now.

In order to speak out against honour crimes & forced marriage you do have to state explicitly that coercion against individuals when they choose to exercise their freedom of conscience and freedom to choose who they wish to marry and how to live their life is utterly immoral, wrong, and goes against the most basic fundamentals of British culture and society.

How will the Left manage to grow the spine to do that when it is engaged in a never ending debate on how 'Britishness' doesn't actually mean anything, when it is engaged in cultural self-loathing and screams hysterically whenever anybody wishes to point out that some cultural practises and assumptions within minority groups are inimical to our culture?