Blatchford tweaks the Kingston police chief for reacting cautiously to a question about whether the Shafia deaths were honour killings. The chief was right to be cautious and to leave such a description, if indeed it is accurate, to be presented and tested in court. Blatchford and other commentators would do well to exercise similar prudent judgment in what they say and write – but they are paid to have opinions and to be minor celebrities.
Meanwhile, Dawg's take on the matter from a couple of days ago is worth a read if you haven't looked at it already. I've said that I would not be against a specific law against honour killings if a precise and rational definition could be given of the term. The upshot of Dawg's piece for me is that such a definition is not forthcoming or, could one be given, if would collect too many instances of white-on-white violence to be politically useful to any Conservative government that might wish to introduce legislation based upon it.
By the way it is not clear that the Shafia murders had anything to do with offended honour. This guy, for example, says they didn't.
7 comments:
Blatchford's opinions would have struck me as weird 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago. Which makes me wonder: maybe it's Blatchford who's having problems integrating into Canadian society. In as much as she was part of that weird Conrad Black clique who as long as my parents can remember, always seemed at odds with mainstream society, that probably goes much further in explaining matters than whatever she's grasping at to explain events occuring around her.
Good post by Gruending.
Dennis Gruending's and Dawg's posts are both pathetic examples of the left's ongoing attempt to rationalize (and by default, legitimize) the practise of possible honour killings.
Both bloggers, like bad magicians, consciously and dishonestly perform a pseudo-intellectual sleight of hand to avoid the uncomfortable fact of ever even considering the issue of honour killings and their apparent existence in the Muslim community.
The greatest vulgarity of all is that the left is not even capable of considering the murdered individuals as victims. Instead, as is all too common with the amoral left, the murderers are the true victims.
Pathetic.
avoid the uncomfortable fact of ever even considering the issue of honour killings and their apparent existence in the Muslim community.
Yeah, they avoid it by addressing it right in the posts Paul S. is referring to, but obviously didn't read.
Swing and a miss, douche.
Address it my eye. Both are pathetic apologist pieces for a horrific multiple murder.
Of course, that little sac of yours doesn't contain the balls required to argue that to their faces, eh Polly? You have to snipe at them here, behind their backs.
=="You have to snipe at them here, behind their backs."==
I'm following your pathetic example Ti, as I just know you didn't e-mail Blatchford to criticize her either.
Putz. . .
You have no testicles, Polly.
Post a Comment