Question of the day (1)
Somehow I can’t help but think that Peter Van Loan has a cultural agenda involved in his current “tougher penalties for honour killings” gig – what does saying that honour killings are a crime that “Canadian society cannot accept” mean anyway?
Are we actually contemplating a society where some reasons for premeditated murder are somehow less acceptable than others, and therefore deserve harsher penalties?
If a 5th generation Canadian discovers that their partner has been playing slap and tickle with the next door neighbour, and that their child not only knows about this but likes their new mommy or daddy better so stays shut up about it, and the wronged partner kills them both and tries to make it look like an accident, should s/he get a lighter sentence than people like Mohammad Shafia and his wife and son who are charged with the killings in Kingston that have been labeled an honour killing?
[More]
Notes:
“Balb” is asking a damm good question and I can’t imagine what Van Loan was thinking when he came out with this one. I guess it’s one of those mysteries that only a politician can understand.
Popularity: 57% [?]
Male, retired and the rest is of little interest to anyone. The site keeps me busy and if it helps others to stay abreast of daily events then my time is well spent.
Mac Says:
I expect Van Loan is trying to ride the wave of shock after the most recent murders in Kingston. Political posturing. Ugh.
Posted on July 31st, 2009 at 10:05 am
jt Says:
That’s funny, in 1987 the Conservative government opened debate on re-establishing the death penalty and The Canadian Police Chiefs Associatoin along with the 34,000 member Canadian Police Association were supporting the government in it’s efforts to do so. A poll of Canadians at the time said 68% of them supported the death penalty.
“In 1961, new legislation reclassified murder into capital and non capital offences. Capital murder was defined as follows:
“Murder that is planned or deliberate murder that is committed in the course of certain crimes of violence, by the direct intervention, or upon counselling of the accused or the murder of a police officer or prison guard or warden, acting in the course of duty, resulting from such direct intervention or counselling.”
The first major debate on the issue took place in the House of Commons in 1966. Following a lengthy and emotional debate, the government introduced and passed Bill C-168, which limited capital murder to the killing of on-duty police officers and prison guards.
The last hung in Canada were two murderers of police officers in 1962, a special case I guess, because us common people only got prison if we murdered one of “us”. Judging by the history of botched murder cases, that’s probably a good thing.
Since then capital crimes mean jail time. So, does anyone have an idea on how to deter the gray area it would seem of “honour killings”?
I would venture that the current Conservative government is repsonding, as a government should, to cries for “doing something” about the issue. Whether a special case is warranted for these kinds of “murders” is questionable, but like “Wafergate”, some people are putting a political spin on this important debate and the debate has now shifted focus to the “politics of murder” and not the murder itself.
Posted on July 31st, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Brian S Says:
This post just confirms that Peter Van Loan is right to get on top of the situation before the left can lump honour killings, and other Muslim related crimes, in with typical domestic violence, as they have already tried to do in Europe, since domestic violence as defined by the left is all the fault of the evil white patriarchy.
We are already living in a society where some reasons for premeditated murder are more acceptable than others because our liberal progressive courts have been working away for decades at making domestic violence a lessor crime with more lenient sentencing. This is the method that our liberal courts use to whittle away at all penalties for crime. The pattern that follows is to call for more lenient sentencing by making excuses for women and/or minorities, and then finally to use the precedent set by their lighter sentencing to lesson the penalties given to everyone else.
A Canadian woman who murders her spouse or especially her children by say, leaving a newborn baby to drown in a toilet at Walmart, now serves little or no time, despite the fact that the numbers from Statistics Canada indicate that women actually instigate such violence slightly more often then men. The problem with Muslim related crimes such as honour killings is that women are often complicit in them, as was the case in Kingston, just as women are most often directly responsible for other Muslim related crimes such as the genital mutilation of young Muslim girls that takes place in some cultures. This is all the leeway that our liberal courts need to start whittling away at the penalties for such crimes.
Posted on July 31st, 2009 at 1:25 pm
stageleft Says:
@jt (who said: So, does anyone have an idea on how to deter the gray area it would seem of “honour killings”?): What part of premeditated murder is gray jt?
@Brian S (who said: …. before the left can lump honour killings, and other Muslim related crimes, in with typical domestic violence): Here we go with “the left” again – just once I’d like to see “the left” defined as something more than a group of people who disagree with a blog author or commenter. Are you lumping one partner planning and carrying out the murder of another in western society “domestic violence” Brian S?
Isn’t that murder?
Of the premeditated variety even?
What makes this any different from a husband discovering that his wife is cheating on him, stalking the offender for a week, and then offing the guy who has besmirched his honour?
Posted on July 31st, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Brian S Says:
It is murder, but not all murder that takes place in a domestic setting is the same. For instance, one might murder a heavily insured spouse for profit, or an older spouse before trading in on a newer model etc.. The practice of murder by honour killing is perpetuated by a broken culture, while murder that takes place within a domestic setting for other reasons is not. If we allow honour killing to be treated the same as heat of the moment domestic violence then it will be perpetuated here in Canada, as has happened in Europe, which is something that we do not want.
Posted on July 31st, 2009 at 2:20 pm
stageleft Says:
Oh…. I see now…. a Muslim man killing his daughter for out of some misbegotten sense of honour is way (way) worse than a man from western society killing his wife for personal profit or screwing around on him – and therefore should carry a far (far) greater penalty so we can stamp that sort of $hit right on out real quick like because (as we all know) that, as opposed to killing a family member for the insurance money, is a really (really) unacceptable reason for murder in this country and should not be tolerated.
– yer coming through loud and clear Brian S, loud * and * clear.
PS: Did you actually read what you wrote before you pressed the [Submit Comment] button?
Posted on July 31st, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Brian S Says:
Did you read it? Where did I state that murder for profit is any better or worse than murder for honour? The example was intended only to show that murder within a family setting can differ from the typical domestic violence that the left is trying to lump honour killing in with, just because it also takes place within a domestic setting. It is not typical in our culture to kill our daughters to protect our sense of honour, however, it is typical within some Muslim cultures to do so. Therefore, honour killing is a different crime than killing your spouse in a fit of jealousy, and it will take different methods to attempt to prevent it from happening here in Canada.
Posted on July 31st, 2009 at 2:54 pm
stageleft Says:
@Brian S: Who on ”the left“ (whatever you are trying to define it as) is trying to equate Muslin man murdering family members with domestic violence of the non-lethal type?
Do you have a URL so I can go have words with them as well?
Posted on July 31st, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Brian S Says:
I am not an internet directory but I have read several left leaning (I know but left-right is the best we can do at the moment, and I am not the only one in the world who uses these imperfect terms, so you must have some idea of whom I am speaking) blog posts (including yours), and newspaper articles equating honour killings to domestic violence of differing degrees.
Further, I am not the only one who has noticed this trend.
Barbara Kay: Honour killing is not ‘domestic’ violence
http://tinyurl.com/lkvdq6
“Liberals deliberately conflate domestic violence with honour killing because they feel that making any distinction would “racialize” the crimes, indicting a whole culture.”
Posted on July 31st, 2009 at 3:57 pm
ward Says:
Its seems to me that there are varying degrees of punishment for varying circumstances of murder. Either you must punish all cases of murder the same, or you must be able to make distinctions on why one murder should be punished more than another.
In the case of “honor” killings (what a horrible euphemism), these are interpreted by some as being allowed in the Islamic religion as punishment for breaking Islamic tradition or law, so you are no longer simply talking about the actions of an individual you are talking about an act that is endorsed by the religion and potentially broader culture.
So if you get a few “honor” killings it has the potential to have the effect of frightening other members of that religion into submission – a submission that is unacceptable in Canada – particularly if it is not met with the appropriate outrage and outright condemnation within that community – and severe penalties under the eyes of the law.
If my neighbor kills his/her spouse in a fit of jealous rage, or maybe for the insurance money, I or the rest of my neighborhood likely do not need to fear for our safety.
However if I am a young muslim female and othe young muslim females are being killed in my community for dating non muslims or not wearing a hajib and I was doing the same, then I think I would be very much afraid for my safety.
Another example is that of Robert Latimer. He was given a severe punishment for killing his severly disable daughter, a far harsher punishment than some other people who had committed murder. Why? Because the state and courts wanted to send a messsage to anyone else considering the same action.
We should give the same distinction to honor killings.
Posted on July 31st, 2009 at 4:07 pm
stageleft Says:
@ Brian S: So you tell me that “the left” is equating these murders with [non-lethal] domestic violence, and Barbra Kay tells me that ”Liberals” are conflating these murders with [non-lethal] domestic violence – and while neither of you have (nor probably can) actually point out where this has happened I, and others, are supposed to believe the pair of you?
Sorry Brian S, the world don’t work that way.
How about I make three submissions to you and you tell me which one is wrong —–
[submission #1] I submit to you that while there may be (although none seems to be able to point anyone to them) left-leaning or Liberal people who have equated these murders with [non-lethal] domestic violence they are precious few and very far between.
[submission #2] I further submit that if these lefties or Liberals exist (something that has not actually been proven) they are pariahs among their kind and no more representative of “the left” or “Liberals” than white supremisists are representative of “the right” or “Conservatives”.
[submission #3] I further submit to you that there is a right-leaning component of society that is (a) negatively biased towards Muslims and, (b) negatively biased towards (what they define as) “the left“, and (c) taking the opportunity of this heinous crime to bash both groups.
Posted on July 31st, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Brian S Says:
#1) Where did I ever use the term non-lethal?
#2) I did not state that those lefties who equate honour killings to murder that results from domestic violence are entirely representative of “the left”, just that a trend seems to be forming from that direction. It is for certain not coming from “the right”.
#3) It is of course possible that there is a right-leaning component of society that is biased towards Muslims, but then by your own standards, don’t you have to supply all the links to prove that they exist and are not just Richard Warman back at it, and also that they are representative of “the right”. Further, what does it have to do with the topic at hand?
Posted on July 31st, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Brian S Says:
Others, some of whom are on the left, have noticed the trend towards erroneously equating honour killings to domestic violence.
Ottawa Citizen | This is not domestic violence
http://tinyurl.com/m2qeba
“Yet it is misguided to ignore the rise in such cases out of the fear that doing otherwise would tarnish the community image. So people sweep this problem under the carpet and if there is insistence from outside the Muslim community, they raise the red flag of Islamophobia. This has stifled all debate and discussion about honour killings.”
Vancouver Sun | A distinct kind of violence: experts
http://tinyurl.com/n3sn9v
“In her analysis, Chesler acknowledged that her position runs counter to many Muslim advocacy organizations that say honour killings have nothing to do with Islam, and that it is discriminatory to distinguish them from other forms of domestic violence.”
Posted on July 31st, 2009 at 5:17 pm
stageleft Says:
Well then Brian I guess you better define the “typical domestic violence that the left is trying to lump honour killing in with” because you’re confusing the heck out of me. What is your defination of “typical domestic violence” anyway? Are enough husbands and wives and children murdered in a domestic setting that it is “typical” of domestic violence now?
Are we back to killing a family member for money, or so that said family member can be traded in on a newer model, is one thing, but killing a family member for devient cultural reasons is another – and the latter is so much worse that it needs a special law?
Let me make my position really (really) clear – the pre-meditated murder of a family member is the pre-meditated murder of a family member. It does not matter to me whether it is because of money, a newer model partner replacement program, because some father doesn’t like who his daughter is dating, or what colour, religion, or ethnicity is involved - the pre-meditated murder of a family member is the pre-meditated murder of a family member.
Full stop – end of story.
Now, on to #2 – if that is what you mean then you should say so, phrases like “the left” are inclusive statements. If I say “the right” are intolerant of immigrants that is an inclusive, and incorrect, statement – even though that seems to be a trend…. nes pa?
#3 should be obvious, have you never seen anti-Muslim rhetoric on a right leaning / Conservative website? Do I really need to suggest that you visit places like Small Dead Animals, Five Feet of Fury, Unambiguously Ambidextrous, or the Canadian Sentinal (to name but a few)? What is their take on this “left” everyone talks about?
In a little while I’m off for a three day camping trip so I gotta pack up my kit and get ready to git — I’ll probably have to get back to any response you might make to this on Monday night or Tuesday because when I’m in a tent by the river, or sitting around a fire, drinking coffee, and telling stories with friends, the messy world of politics seems to fade almost completely from my mind.
Posted on July 31st, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Brian S Says:
Jack has some kind of filter on so I’m having trouble sending links, or I would send you articles from left leaning papers that have noticed the trend towards erroneously equating honour killings to domestic violence.
Not all pre-meditated murder of a family member is prevented the same way, which is why it is important to make the distinction. For instance, for profit murder, is prevented through measures to combat insurance fraud etc., which are not the same measures that would be used to prevent murder resulting from domestic violence, which again would not be the same as the measures required to prevent honour killings,…
#2) With the English language we often use context to clarify meaning. I stated “before “the left” can …”, which to my mind meant the same as “a trend coming from “the left”". Of course, my English can always be improved upon.
Posted on July 31st, 2009 at 5:45 pm
ward Says:
Stageleft when certain murders occur to ensure
1.compliance with and subjegation to radical religious beliefs
2. demonstrate ultimate punishment for lack of complaince
3. send a message to others engaged in the same behaviour
it is dishonest to try to equate that to non religious based murders.
What seems apparent is that there is an attempt to try to use this to restart the old conservatism = racism = hidden agenda.
This faux outrage is nothing more than using the plight of the victims of these religious based killings as a blunt political instrument to try to harm CPC – which of course the LPC will benefit from.
Some Liberals must be in some shit somewhere, to need to stoop to this level to change the channel.
Posted on July 31st, 2009 at 5:53 pm
James Bow Says:
An “honour killing” is a premeditated murder. Or, to put it another way, first degree murder: the worst crime anybody can commit in Canada, save for multiple murders, and high treason. As such, the penalty already prescribed by law is clear, or it should be: life without parole for 25 years.
A murder that occurs as a result of domestic violence is ALSO premeditated murder, or to put it another way, first degree murder, and it should be treated just as strongly by the judicial system. There really is no difference between a father killing his daughter because he was outraged over who his daughter wanted to date, and a husband killing his wife outraged because she was going to leave him. To focus hysteria on one type at the expense of the other is to devalue the other.
We can talk about increasing the penalty for first degree murder, full stop (although I am philosophically opposed to the death penalty, I am willing to say that a life sentence should truly mean _life_), but it should apply in both cases, here. Anything else is cherry picking for reasons beyond the field of justice.
I would like to tip my hat to Jack for asking this question and showing a fair amount of objectivity here in this rather charged subject.
Posted on August 1st, 2009 at 2:00 am
Brian S Says:
I would agree that all murderers should suffer the same stiff penalties but as I have already stated, because of our liberal courts that is not what has been happening. The trend has been towards plea agreements and ridiculously light sentences especially for domestic violence related cases, and especially again for those involving murdered children, so the actual penalty for murder is a crapshoot which can range anywhere from time served, upwards.
Woman guilty of beating husband (to Death)
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2009/03/25/8874596-sun.html
“Julie Starr, 40, was handed a six-and-a-half-month jail sentence, which has already been served by time spent in pretrial custody, after pleading guilty to a reduced charge of assault causing bodily harm. Starr had initially been charged with aggravated assault after a battered Andrew Rademacher, 50, was found lying in a pool of blood on the side of the road near an abandoned home at 95 Street and 107A Avenue on June 29. He died in hospital five days later.”
Woman who fractured baby’s skull is freed by judge, saying SHE had suffered enough
http://tinyurl.com/n3osgs
Not being pro Muslim schoolgirl killer myself, I can understand why the Conservatives would like to try to place a deterrent on culturally related crimes at a time when our liberal courts are not going to cooperate, because we do not want such violence happening here. Using “the left’s” approach of ignoring culturally perpetuated crimes or treating them as lightly as domestic violence related cases, has failed miserably everywhere else that Muslims have previously immigrated to in great numbers. So places like Scandinavia, France, the UK, and Australia, now have too many culturally related murders, gang rapes, acid attacks etc., and then riots whenever they try to put an end to such violence after the fact. If it is going to take harsh penalties for schoolgirl killers to nip this problem in the bud, then I’m all for it, and I would trust that the Conservatives know what they are doing over “the left” every day of the week.
Posted on August 1st, 2009 at 11:05 am