Liberals on Honour Killings

barbaric
-adjective

Of or relating to a barbarian; uncivilised, uncultured or uncouth.

Um, when it comes to people, all killing is wrong.

Using an adjective to modify “honour killing” implies that the writer feels comfortable passing judgement on the subject, as if to say that this type of people and/or the manner of killing is somehow worse than your regular run-of-the-mill killing. Whatever that is…

It’s a questionable choice of adjective, too, since the societies that still practice honour killing are usually many centuries older than Western society. Making us less “civilized” by comparison, though we own way more kewl stuff than they do.

The killing of thousands of civilians by coalition forces during the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq might also be regarded as barbaric, particularly if you happen to be Afghani or Iraqi. And literally as well, considering that killing occurred during invasion and occupation, which is the sort of thing that real barbarians usually did.

So, who feels comfortable labeling the killing of Afghani citizens as barbaric? Because that’s what the coalition, including our soldiers, did. Under orders, of course, so I don’t fault the coalition soldiers per se, the fault lies with… us. We’re no slouches either, apparently when it comes to barbaric killing. And we are much more efficient too.

I’m fairly certain that the vast majority of Canadians don’t approve of honour killings. So there’s really no need to qualify it with a poorly-chosen adjective.

Besides, I have little doubt that the CPC would be agitating for capital punishment if their polling ever hinted that it would fly with their base. So maybe they should be a little less judgmental with the adjectives when it comes to other people’s practices.

Don’t try to defend the undefendable it only makes you look as foolish. There is a hell of a difference between a war where people get killed by mistake, and by getting killed by a family member as part of ones “culture”. Not being able to see the difference just makes you one of the poor robots the Liberals count on so much to swallow anything they pedal.

OMG, this is your worst effort to defend yet. Stunning really.

OMG, this is your worst effort to defend yet. Stunning really.

Definition for barbaric
- cruel: cruel or extremely brutal
- uncivilized: uncivilized or unsophisticated when compared to highly developed civilizations

Seems pretty much bang-on to me.

Not a whole lotta difference if you happen to be the one who’s dead.

If you sleep well knowing that thousands of innocent civilians have been killed in Afghanistan in our name – in an INVASION, not a war, and a botched and inconclusive one at that – but you toss and turn over honour killing (13 in Canada since 2002), then you’re the one with misplaced priorities.

Before you accuse me of hating on the military, re-read who I’m blaming, and appreciate that I have had family in Canada’s armed forces going on 25 years.

What is it about you “conservatives” that you feel you have the right to pass judgment on others, even in official publications…. but never on yourselves? And what gives you or Canada a pass on the first commandment?

I deliberately put conservative in quotes above, because no fiscal conservative worthy of the name would have p!ssed away $1+ Billion on the G8/G20, or sole-sourced our fighter purchase.

“We accept that these acts are absolutely unacceptable. That’s not the debate. In casual conversation, I’d even use the word barbaric to describe female circumcision, for example, but in an official Government of Canada publication, there needs to be a little bit of an attempt at responsible neutrality.”

Absolutely incredible: “responsible neutrality”>?

In the case of honour (sic) killings, no neutrality could possibly be termed “responsible.” In certain instances, neutrality is immoral, and being neutral about honour killings is one such instance.

“We accept that these acts are absolutely unacceptable. That’s not the debate. In casual conversation, I’d even use the word barbaric to describe female circumcision, for example, but in an official Government of Canada publication, there needs to be a little bit of an attempt at responsible neutrality.”

Absolutely incredible: “responsible neutrality”>?

In the case of honour (sic) killings, no neutrality could possibly be termed “responsible.” In certain instances, neutrality is immoral, and being neutral about honour killings is one such instance.

Nobody here is neutral on honour killings, but a citizen’s guide is no place to get preachy on other cultures. It’s questionable why honour killing even merited mention in the guide, since it’s not exactly common (13 in Canada since 2002). And, do you actually think its inclusion there would change a mind?

You transmit values most effectively by living them.

For the curious, the Qu’ran does not prescribe or excuse honour killing. It is not a practice of all Muslims or all Muslim societies.

Most immigrants come here because we have a free, open and inclusive society (for the moment, anyway).

” … a citizen’s guide is no place to get preachy…”: If not in a citizen’s guide, then where?

It’s entirely appropriate for a government “to get preachy” if they feel like it, in a pamphlet setting out guidelines for any topic. That’s what governments tend to do. And, while we’re at it, let’s not exempt the Liberal$ from being preachy, which they constantly are, offensively ad nauseum, seeing as they seldom practise what they preach vis a vis effectively transmitting values by living them. Don’t forget Gomery’s assessment of Liberal values as existing within “a culture of corruption.”

It’s this culture of corruption that not only the CPC and a great many born-in-Canada Canadians recoil from, but that more and more new immigrants are seeing through. The Liberal$ have only ever wanted new immigrants in Canada for their votes; the CPC may want their votes, as well, but regard new immigrants as valuable citizens of our country who share many of our core values concerning families and civic responsibilities. To the CPC, new Canadians are not just hyphenated isolate communities here to benefit the LPC ballot box; they desire to see them as fully integrated citizens of Canada, who share in all of our rights and freedoms, which means that barbaric cultural practices from their countries of origin be left behind once they step on Canadian soil.

What could be more clear or more just?

The LPC and Justin Trudeau are simply being spoilers: Talk about being preachy. Unfortunately for them, however, it’s the wrong sermon at the wrong time.

” … a citizen’s guide is no place to get preachy…”: If not in a citizen’s guide, then where?

It’s entirely appropriate for a government “to get preachy” if they feel like it, in a pamphlet setting out guidelines for any topic. That’s what governments tend to do. And, while we’re at it, let’s not exempt the Liberal$ from being preachy, which they constantly are, offensively ad nauseum, seeing as they seldom practise what they preach vis a vis effectively transmitting values by living them. Don’t forget Gomery’s assessment of Liberal values as existing within “a culture of corruption.”

It’s this culture of corruption that not only the CPC and a great many born-in-Canada Canadians recoil from, but that more and more new immigrants are seeing through. The Liberal$ have only ever wanted new immigrants in Canada for their votes; the CPC may want their votes, as well, but regard new immigrants as valuable citizens of our country who share many of our core values concerning families and civic responsibilities. To the CPC, new Canadians are not just hyphenated isolate communities here to benefit the LPC ballot box; they desire to see them as fully integrated citizens of Canada, who share in all of our rights and freedoms, which means that barbaric cultural practices from their countries of origin be left behind once they step on Canadian soil.

What could be more clear or more just?

The LPC and Justin Trudeau are simply being spoilers: Talk about being preachy. Unfortunately for them, however, it’s the wrong sermon at the wrong time.

kenn2 wrote, in response to DougM:

“Your anecdotes were sincere. When is the death of someone close not affecting? That’s my point. Whether you were close to one of the 13 “honour” killing victims in Canada since 2002, or close to one of the tens of thousands of civilians (or fighters, or coalition soldiers) killed in Afghanistan, the experience is painful. Especially when the death was unnecessary. Whether the person doing the dying had a “good death” or not is 1st year philosophy stuff. If you’re dead, you’re dead. If your death was pointless and preventable and untimely, it was wrong, a crime.”

You need more life experience. My father flew bombers during WW II and at one point wound up sponging the remains of his best friend out of the Bombabiers compartment. At 86 ordered the doctor to pull his feeding tube out and died 6 days later content with his decision. My mother died of cancer. While certainly mourned, neither death was particularly traumatic. Nor was my friend who died doing something he loved when his racing boat turbined. But on Monday I go into court for the next 6 to 7 days. For the first three the CP and RCMP will detail how our best friends daughter was tortured before they killed her. In my previous post (I dont’ repeat them if they are scrubbed) I explained how they stripped, raped, cut and stuffed things into her front and back, before they put her in the freezer beofre stuffing her into duffle bag and taking her to where they burned her. My wife will read her (the girls) mother’s victim impact statement as her mother couldn’t get through it. My wife has taken three weeks off to recover. So if some first year Philosophy Prof tried to tell you there is no difference, go back and get your money back – you got screwed for your education. (Btw I have a friend who has a Master’s in the discipline and he’s never heard of that gem) And yet, though criminals who have ruined peoples lives (Ian Thow?) are being released due to overcrowding in prisons, there are those who consider themselves rational and object to building more. I’d love to see Iggy or Jack explain that publicly to my friend, the girls father

In this modern time, whether there was a “declaration” of war or not is largely immaterial. A piece of paper does not make organized murder ethically OK. We all acknowledged that some sort of response to 9/11 was inevitable, and in some respects justified, but who in 2001 would have said yes to a 9+ year fuck-up, the huge expense, and the thousands of pointless deaths?

Aha, Now you’re getting into the philosophy. So, by yor definition, to go after Hitler was unethical right? And just becuase the papers you read call Afghanistan a fuck up, who are you? Ever notice that the people who are over there doing the dying are the strongest proponents of the mission? That’s the problem with the elitests istn’ it. We can’t count how many young girls weren’t hanged in the soccer stadiums for the crime of going to school, so they claim there is no value. If we don’t fix absolutely everything, then nothing was worth it. That’s a pretty defeatist philosphy for someone who thinks they’re intelligent don’t you think? England was alone at the beginning of WW II and it didn’t look at all like they would win. Why did they bother? Taliban Jack didn’t get his name for his position, he got it for his lack of courage, conviction and backbone.

Since the end of the second world war, the majority of “wars” led by the US have been fuck-ups, many based on fraudulent premises, even when the ideals behind them were occasionally reasonable. It’s time to cut that shit out.

There is some truth to that. The War of 1812 was an war of invasion passed off as a reaction to British ships taking American sailors and “trade”. In fact, the Order in Council to deal with that was already in place and the US had already enacted the Embargo Acts of 1807 and 1811 (I may be off in the years). The USS Maine (The Spanish-American War) blew up in Havana from an internal explosion in her coal bunkers not from Cuban actions hense Randolf Hearsts, “You give us the pictures, we’ll give you the war”. The Gulf of Tonkin incident which was the justification for Viet Nam never happened, and we all know the the WMD in Iraq were a flashback of George Bush’s to his crackhead, alcholic days. Welcome to geopolitics. Britain’s Opium wars were to force the Chinese to trade with them, only space prevents me form pointing out how badly England screwed everybody they came in contact with. Our Navy was formed becuase they were surrendering our resources to curry favour with the US. But in spite of all that crap, if you think they were bad (and they were) they are a sight better than having China as a neighbour. They now consider the South China sea as an inland lake. Most people already know what they are like with Taiwan and Tibet. Gee whiz, we dont get perfect. But then we have our own bag of dirty tricks and use them just as effectively.

“And the F-35 isn’t the only game in town, nor is it likely to be the cat’s meow for all of the next 25 years. It’s too expensive, and not markedly superior for the defense of Canada; it’s more suitable for engaging in global romps like Afghanistan, and makes us a source of ready support for the US. Not exactly in our best interest. It’s just another aspect of how Harper’s outsourced our foreign policy.”

Yeah it is actually. As I said, there is a reason the air war over Iraq in 91 lasted 48 hours, the Air war over Kosovo about 16 and the one over Libya about 8 and all were lead by US sorties. No question it would be better to have a twin engine, but there really is no prize for second best in air combat. The fact is, as JFK said, Geography has made us neighbours, history has made us friends…” Hate the US all you want but the fact is that like it or not, they are our neighbours. I have no problem with trying to make them play fair and I know they never will but our economy is tied to them and until China (who is a lot worse) gets to the point we have competing markets, we’re stuck with them

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/03/23/f-vp-stewart.html

Patrick Stewart is a half wit CBC reporter who now attempts to pass himself off as a Military/Security expert becuase Monk hired him. If you want a Milhist or Strategic expert go to someone who knows something and has worked/taught in the field – try David Bercuson from UCalgary – he’s only been into reseach his whole life and written about 40 books on the subject. Stewart couldn’t find his own ass with both hands when it comes to conflict.

In truth, the #1 threat to Canada’s sovereignty is the same country that sells the F-35.

You spend too much time listening to the Bubba’s and reading the TorStar, neither one is any brighter than the other. The movers and shakers in the US want nothing to do with enveloping us – it would change their political landscape irrevocably.