Muslim Honor Killing in Kingston

[cybercoma]

The whole "should it be considered domestic abuse" debate is completely ridiculous.

No. It is domestic abuse and should be considered as such, right along the lines of all the rest of domestic abuse in Canada.

[greyman]

No. It is domestic abuse and should be considered as such, right along the lines of all the rest of domestic abuse in Canada.

cybercoma, we may not agree on all the issues, but you are spot on here.

[greyman]

But we still have a responsibility to help people who come here from other cultures, and are unable to escape the prejudice and intolerance that their families bring with them from the "old country".

I think the larger problem is the erosion of a clear Canadian culture. When people come to Canada under the auspice of a multicultural society, there's the impression that here they can do anything they want, live exactly like they did in their own native land and not have any need to conform to certain basic principles. And this is totally incorrect, because despite the noble idea that multiple cultures can live together in peace, there still needs to be a certain amount of conformity to an underlying, common culture that sets the baseline for justice and tolerance. It is this baseline culture that we have allowed to erode which leads to the failure of multiculturalism, creating splintered groups that cannot abide each other.

You cannot legislate morality.

You can however, punish those who perpetrate violence or fraud against others or their property.

Anything beyond that is an obfuscation.

We don't need a Canadian version of the melting pot, people should be left to be who they are, up to or until they prevent any other Canadian from enjoying that same privilege.

[Scotty]

I do think. If you're interested in my explanations and willing to listen, I'll elaborate.

But I'll no more listen to your orders than you would to mine.

You've previously established that you won't make judgements between cultures. That's a deliberate effort not to think. Because in thinking, judgement comes naturally. You're avoiding judging another culture as better or worse due to political correctness.

[Scotty]

This argument is, to me, about people pointing fingers at other cultures and feeling better about their own culture.

Otherwise, what is it ? Does anybody have some kind of formula to determine the worth of a culture, and individual, that we can convey to our customs agents to test immigrants with ? Or what are you proposing ? It seems to me we're proposing feeling good about our culture by pointing at backwards cultures and scowling... nothing more.

Is there a formula for defining what is porn? Porn is different things to different peoples. If I were to define porn, I would, given my experience, suggest that porn can invariably be defined in large part by its lack of quality. Poor lighting, poor music, poor acting, poor dialogue, poor to non-existent writing. It's not hard to tell what is porn.

I have a feeling that if you found yourself in the presence of some sister-loving backwoods redneck hick from the Appalachians you'd realize it fairly quickly. There's a certain lack of 'quality' there in their culture.

Now why should we care? Let me put it into a term a liberal might find more understandable. Suppose back in the 80s there was a proposal to solve the problems of South Africa and Rhodesia by allowing all the Whites to immigrate to Canada. How would you feel at the thought of importing that many people with their particular cultural views here? More importantly, how would you feel if you were a Black man?

Now shift it to modern days. Instead of a Black man you're a woman. And instead of Apartheid loving Whites from southern Africa we're bringing in tens of thousands of people every year from parts of the world where women are considered decidedly inferior, and where that belief is reinforced by religion as well as culture.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Scotty

[Michael Hardner]

You've previously established that you won't make judgements between cultures. That's a deliberate effort not to think.

The act of passing judgment involves evaluation and therefore thinking, but that doesn't mean that passing judgment is a more intelligent, or more well-considered result of the decision on whether or not to do it in the first place.

The decision to pass judgment or not happens first, and that decision itself demands thinking and values. So I did do the thinking in determining that passing judgment is a pointless and amoral act of vanity. I passed judgment on passing judgment if you like.

Because in thinking, judgement comes naturally. You're avoiding judging another culture as better or worse due to political correctness.

Again, it's a question of values as much as anything. The simple decision to think about something is no indicator of thoughtfulness, nor does is validate that the result of that process.

[Michael Hardner]

Is there a formula for defining what is porn? Porn is different things to different peoples. If I were to define porn, I would, given my experience, suggest that porn can invariably be defined in large part by its lack of quality. Poor lighting, poor music, poor acting, poor dialogue, poor to non-existent writing. It's not hard to tell what is porn.

And yet, my point stands. People disagree on that, and nobody will let you define it on their behalf. This is the point of my analogy.

I have a feeling that if you found yourself in the presence of some sister-loving backwoods redneck hick from the Appalachians you'd realize it fairly quickly. There's a certain lack of 'quality' there in their culture.

Ok, so you don't like "hillbilly" culture either. That's too bad. I do, though. From the folk recordings of Alan Lomax, to NASCAR there's a rich foundation there that has much to be admired. I have friends who came from those areas too, so I'd say you're missing out on something.

Now why should we care? Let me put it into a term a liberal might find more understandable. Suppose back in the 80s there was a proposal to solve the problems of South Africa and Rhodesia by allowing all the Whites to immigrate to Canada. How would you feel at the thought of importing that many people with their particular cultural views here? More importantly, how would you feel if you were a Black man?

How do you know I'm not black ? Why does my race necessarily need to figure in to my arguments anyway ?

Ultimately, I think borders should be open so your example doesn't really make sense to me.

Now shift it to modern days. Instead of a Black man you're a woman. And instead of Apartheid loving Whites from southern Africa we're bringing in tens of thousands of people every year from parts of the world where women are considered decidedly inferior, and where that belief is reinforced by religion as well as culture.

Now I'm a woman ? Look, your ideas for cultural engineering aren't exactly clear to me. You seem to want to have government engage in some kind of cultural engineering, so I guess that means you're in favour of multiculturalism. Ok, me too. But your ideas seem to lead to a conclusion where there's some formula to decide how individuals are allowed in. I'm just asking you to give your formula.

[Guest Peeves]

Stop calling them honour killings. That's a pretty quick way to prevent them. After that they'll just be what we call every other instance like this: domestic homicide.

But they are considered differently and judged/sentenced differently in many countries. You think that by our declining to differentiate honor killings from domesticate abuse they will stop? Ridiculous. There are only a dozen or so in Canada with thousands around the world. Recognize the murder -femacide for redeeming honor in some cultures because it is different than domestic abuse.

"The United Nations Population Fund says 5,000 women lose their lives in honour killings each year around the globe. And while some westerners pussyfoot around, afraid to use the term "honour killing," no such reticence exists among women in the countries where these crimes occur.

The Aurat Foundation, a women's rights group based in Islamabad, Pakistan, chronicled 382 cases of honour killings and 356 cases of domestic violence in that country from January to June 2011.

Honour killings made up 8.6 per cent of the violence against women in Pakistan, slightly higher than domestic violence at eight per cent."

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Lakritz+Shafia+murders+were+honour+killings/6076282/story.html#ixzz1lRDxPzK8

[Guest Peeves]

You've previously established that you won't make judgements between cultures. That's a deliberate effort not to think. Because in thinking, judgement comes naturally. You're avoiding judging another culture as better or worse due to political correctness.

And that's a point worth making. There is no disputing that some cultures are better than others.

[Michael Hardner]

There is no disputing that some cultures are better than others.

If there were ever a person who grew up without any culture whatsoever, maybe we could trust them to make such a judgment. As such, I'm still waiting for someone to provide the formula for measuring the good of a culture...

[Guest Manny]

There's an impression ? Who has this impression - Canadians or immigrants ? How prevalent is it ? What part of doing anything includes breaking laws, and behaving counter to our constitutional principles ?

I think what I said was pretty clear. Allow me to simplify. Multiculturalism has not failed us. We have failed it.

[cybercoma]

Peeves, you need to stay on topic. We were talking about honour killings in Canada. Globally, "honour killings" are an issue, just as much as domestic homicide is an issue. Some people in the West don't want to roll "honour killings" into domestic homicide because then you can't claim racial/ethnic superiority. You would have to admit that domestic violence is a problem all over the globe and is not limited to any single culture. Now if you want to sit here and say, "but misogyny is worse over there!" Have fun. But realize you're talking difference in degree, rather than kind.

[Guest Manny]

You cannot legislate morality.

You can however, punish those who perpetrate violence or fraud against others or their property.

Anything beyond that is an obfuscation.

We don't need a Canadian version of the melting pot, people should be left to be who they are, up to or until they prevent any other Canadian from enjoying that same privilege.

It can't be done by legislation, but by education. And that should be the role of government, through public schools, through other means of promoting the underlying culture that allows other cultures to live together under one constitution. I know it sounds like metling pot, it is not. The fact is that we cannot have perfect equality, there has to be something to define a culture, even in multiculture. Ordinary people are not philosophers, they need simple rules and ideas. That is why it is better to have some kind of anchor point that requires compliance, to a certain degree rather than nothing at all, a cultural vacuum in which everybody fills in the "void" with their own ideas. There needs to be a balance between the two for people to understand HOW to get along with others. In our case it was the British French/ Christian heritage that our country was founded on that made multiculturalism work.

[Michael Hardner]

I think what I said was pretty clear. Allow me to simplify. Multiculturalism has not failed us. We have failed it.

You could simplify it by answer my questions, rather that coming back with a general statement that just raises more questions.

[Guest American Woman]

Stop calling them honour killings. That's a pretty quick way to prevent them.

Wow. Have you applied to Mensa yet? Cuz even the most intelligent appreciate a good laugh.

No. It is domestic abuse and should be considered as such, right along the lines of all the rest of domestic abuse in Canada.

Yep. And when Blacks were lynched in the South back in the day it was 'just another murder' ... 'right along the lines of all the rest of the murders committed in the United States' - and every other country. The Civil Rights movement was totally unnecessary.

[Michael Hardner]

Yep. And when Blacks were lynched in the South back in the day it was 'just another murder' ... 'right along the lines of all the rest of the murders committed in the United States' - and every other country. The Civil Rights movement was totally unnecessary.

Your example has convinced me that there is a phenomenon as cultural murder.

Looking at examples such as you have provided would probably help us look at the problem more objectively.

Lynching in the U.S. was reduced (maybe eradicated) through social and political means. Socially, the act was demonized in the popular mindset as being horrific and inhumane. Politically, the federal government put pressure on states to pay attention to this problem and through the civil rights act, stepped into the domain of state law to intervene.

[Guest Manny]

You could simplify it by answer my questions, rather that coming back with a general statement that just raises more questions.

I prefer the socratic method. Answer your own questions

[Michael Hardner]

I prefer the socratic method. Answer your own questions

The Socratic method involves asking questions and getting them answered.

Here they are again:

There's an impression ? Who has this impression - Canadians or immigrants ? How prevalent is it ? What part of doing anything includes breaking laws, and behaving counter to our constitutional principles ?

You made the statement, which you are free to retract. Or you can just run away from the question I asked, which baffles me actually because I asked them in earnest and most of them aren't difficult to answer, if you have anything to base your statement on.

[Guest Manny]

You made the statement, which you are free to retract. Or you can just run away from the question I asked, which baffles me actually because I asked them in earnest and most of them aren't difficult to answer, if you have anything to base your statement on.

"Who thinks that, Canadians or Immigrants?" , Immigrants.

Your other questions are too difficult to answer, "How many? How often? How much?" What am I, statistics Canada? How do you expect me to seriously answer that? And how does it make my opinion or point of view any less valid than yours. Would you lie me to ask such stupid questions every time you make a statement? That would only be hard to do for one reason. You rarely make any at all. You just ask questions, then let someone else say the things you don't have the nerve to come out and say for yourself.

[Michael Hardner]

"Who thinks that, Canadians or Immigrants?" , Immigrants.

Your other questions are too difficult to answer, "How many? How often? How much?" What am I, statistics Canada? How do you expect me to seriously answer that? And how does it make my opinion or point of view any less valid than yours. Would you lie me to ask such stupid questions every time you make a statement? That would only be hard to do for one reason. You rarely make any at all. You just ask questions, then let someone else say the things you don't have the nerve to come out and say for yourself.

Ok, fair enough. I like answering questions, so feel free.

I'm trying to figure out whether you have any evidence that this attitude is a problem - whether enough immigrants actually think this for us to care or try to do something about it.

I may not say as much as others, but maybe I'm more careful about what I say.

Anyway, these questions - what are the issues with immigration and so on - are overdone. They've been posted a bazillion (that's bazillion with a 'z') times on here on all sides of the spectrum. It's clear that immigration isn't going to be stopping anytime soon, and that the government isn't doing anything to change multiculturalism meaningfully.

My point of view largely supports the status quo, although I'm generally in support of removing national restrictions in favour of a socialist world government of sorts.

[Guest Manny]

Ok, fair enough. I like answering questions, so feel free.

I'm trying to figure out whether you have any evidence that this attitude is a problem - whether enough immigrants actually think this for us to care or try to do something about it.

I may not say as much as others, but maybe I'm more careful about what I say.

Anyway, these questions - what are the issues with immigration and so on - are overdone. They've been posted a bazillion (that's bazillion with a 'z') times on here on all sides of the spectrum. It's clear that immigration isn't going to be stopping anytime soon, and that the government isn't doing anything to change multiculturalism meaningfully.

My point of view largely supports the status quo, although I'm generally in support of removing national restrictions in favour of a socialist world government of sorts.

I don't have any questions for you at this time.

The evidence is what I see on the streets of Toronto. Many people of different cultures, who are becoming increasingly isolated from each other. They don't really understand each other nor do they care to. There is a real sense of separateness, not tolerance, and a thinly veiled hostility.

I never wanted to discuss immigration per se, which I don't oppose, but that multiculturalism is failing, and the problem is not that multiculturalism is a flawed idea, but that our approach to multiculturalism is flawed. And we need to somehow understand what it is that would make it work. I think it used to work, better than what we have today.

The 'status quo' you support is a road to nowhere. We have changed the formula. What you call status quo is not the actual status quo.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't have any questions for you at this time.

Fair enough.

The evidence is what I see on the streets of Toronto. Many people of different cultures, who are becoming increasingly isolated from each other. They don't really understand each other nor do they care to. There is a real sense of separateness, not tolerance, and a thinly veiled hostility.

First hand experience is as valuable or more valuable than statistics, academic studies and so on IMO. However, it is also subjective. What we have in Toronto, to my viewpoint, is a melting pot more than anything else. This effect happens naturally, and goes both ways: counter to multiculturalism, and aligned to multiculturalism.

I never wanted to discuss immigration per se, which I don't oppose, but that multiculturalism is failing, and the problem is not that multiculturalism is a flawed idea, but that our approach to multiculturalism is flawed.

That's what I can't jump to - how you come to that conclusion. Other countries in the world look to Canada as a model. We don't have frequent race riots (though we have had them) nor is it even acceptable to convey bigoted opinions in mixed company.

I'm not going to ask you for a cite, nor will I give one: Based on my observations, I think it's succeeding.

The 'status quo' you support is a road to nowhere. We have changed the formula. What you call status quo is not the actual status quo.

The status quo for 2012 is what I'm talking about. Maybe I would actually do something differently, namely to monitor attitudes towards race and multiculturalism especially as the economy falters.

Is it a road to nowhere ? It's a way to grow the economy, and our PM is an economist who doesn't seem to be changing anything to do with immigration.

[Scotty]

If there were ever a person who grew up without any culture whatsoever, maybe we could trust them to make such a judgment. As such, I'm still waiting for someone to provide the formula for measuring the good of a culture...

Cop-out. You're saying you're not intelligent enough to make a distinction between cultural practices which are merely different than ours, which we don't choose or want to practice, and cultural practices which ought to be abhorrent to any civilized people? Let's get back to honour killings. This is a practice we find abhorrant, and which we find so abhorrant our society never gave rise to them. Sure, individuals have killed their loved ones, invariably out of intense psychological despair and rage. But we've never seen families agree to murder people because their actions were considered 'dishonorable', nor anything remotely similar.

Now you can say, well, not for us to judge. But let's let them judge. If they truly thought this was an acceptable thing, then honor killing would be legal. But it's not. They know damned well, those societies in which it flourishes, that it's an evil thing which is indefensible. Oh yes, they know it. That's why it's not legal. And yet at the same time it flourishes, and their societies largely ignore it. People are rarely, if ever prosecuted for it, and if they are, they're generally given a slap on the wrist.

So can we not judge a society which shrugs off the doing of despicable things it KNOWS are despicable? Which makes little or no effort to stop such things from going on in their midst? We can use female genital mutilation as another one. We can use the general brutalization of women as a third. How many men do you think get prosecuted for beating their wives half to death in Lebanon or Jordan or Saudi Arabia or Syria or Iran? Maybe if the wife has a powerful family who care. Otherwise, those societies don't seem to care. The mistreatment of women is illegal, and yet the same time, largely acceptable to those societies, those cultures?

And what happens when we bring tens of thousands of those people here and yet don't put much effort into absorbing them into our culture? We don't actually know since we're far, far too polite to keep statistics based on race or culture. We don't KNOW what crimes they commit here, what level of spousal abuse goes on. We can infer it's higher than that of Canadians simply by what goes on in their own culture, but we have no proof because we willfully look the other way. But we've seen accounts of behavior in Sweden which leads us to wonder, and in Australia as well. What do you say to people who have been brutalized, whose lives have been destroyed by the immigrants you bring here? Tough luck?

[Michael Hardner]

Cop-out. You're saying you're not intelligent enough to make a distinction between cultural practices which are merely different than ours, which we don't choose or want to practice, and cultural practices which ought to be abhorrent to any civilized people?

Nope. Not saying that. I can distinguish very well between cultures, their practices and behaviors. I never said that I couldn't.

Let's get back to honour killings. This is a practice we find abhorrant, and which we find so abhorrant our society never gave rise to them. Sure, individuals have killed their loved ones, invariably out of intense psychological despair and rage. But we've never seen families agree to murder people because their actions were considered 'dishonorable', nor anything remotely similar.

Never ? I think I gave an example of someone who ended up murdering his daughter because she shamed her family and caused her mother to attempt suicide (which is a different kind of honour killing if you think about it) earlier in the thread.

Now you can say, well, not for us to judge. But let's let them judge. If they truly thought this was an acceptable thing, then honor killing would be legal. But it's not.

Right, it's illegal.

So can we not judge a society which shrugs off the doing of despicable things it KNOWS are despicable?

You can go ahead and do so. I've already passed judgment on those systems of government elsewhere on here - I think they're inferior.

Otherwise, those societies don't seem to care. The mistreatment of women is illegal, and yet the same time, largely acceptable to those societies, those cultures?

Ok.

And what happens when we bring tens of thousands of those people here and yet don't put much effort into absorbing them into our culture? We don't actually know since we're far, far too polite to keep statistics based on race or culture. We don't KNOW what crimes they commit here, what level of spousal abuse goes on.

If we did know, what formula would you provide me to determine the value of an individual ? Do you have any idea how much of a problem this actually is ? Are those people who come here entirely unaware that Canada doesn't have the same laws as where they came from ?

These are some of the questions I have.

I can't deny that people will come to Canada with attitudes from their home countries, but what I can't buy into is the idea that one culture is mathematically and absolutely better than another. More specifically, that we are objective enough to look at any culture and objectively determine whether they are good enough to mix with the great Canadian race.

We can infer it's higher than that of Canadians simply by what goes on in their own culture, but we have no proof because we willfully look the other way. But we've seen accounts of behavior in Sweden which leads us to wonder, and in Australia as well. What do you say to people who have been brutalized, whose lives have been destroyed by the immigrants you bring here? Tough luck?

The examples that have been quoted here in the past were pretty much picked apart as baseless, from what I remember. I don't doubt that there's truth in it, but it stinks of arrogance to say that we're just across the board better than other people.

What do I say to people who have been brutalized by immigrants that *I* bring here - you're saying that *I* bring immigrants here ? You're emotionalizing this, which is usually what people accuse liberals of doing. Immigration is a numbers game, and an economics game. When Harper starts saying he's going to stop it, I'll pay attention.

[cybercoma]

More specifically, that we are objective enough to look at any culture and objectively determine whether they are good enough to mix with the great Canadian race.

We're especially not objective enough to determine the value of our own culture.