The other day I asked: Would our era would be willing to fight a war like the civil war to end slavery? Obviously, the people with "War is not the answer" on their rear bumpers wouldn't. But what about the rest of us. Is there a cause we'd be willing to fight such a war in support of?
But it isn't just the heavy cost in human life that is the issue. The other thing about the civil war is that it was fought by people who were willing to destroy a way of life in order to win. That is what the war required. I don't think Lincoln or anyone else realized that going in. But then Lincoln doesn't seem to have realized that emancipation was a necessary requirement of preserving the union until that was forced on him either. There was a deep dark night of the soul for the North when they realized part way through just what the real costs were going to be. And, when faced with those questions, they pushed through.
Would we?
Here in Canada this morning, we are all abuzz about a guilty verdict in a recent "honour killing" trial. A lot of people don't like that term: honour killing. There are a lot of arguments, most of them disingenuous, being put forward against using the term. "There is no honour in murder" is a favourite. Yeah, I suppose. I could also argue that we shouldn't use the term "slave" because "human beings aren't property". But that is dodging the central issue which is that there was (and still are) ways of life in which human beings can be and sometimes are property. And solving the problem meant being willing to destroy that way of life if required.
There are ways of life wherein killing women who refuse to subject their sexuality to a male relative can be a matter of honour and there are people who follow that way of life moving to Canada everyday.
We don't want to face that or to think seriously about what confronting that might require. We blanch at the person who will even stand up and say some ways of life are worse than others or that some ways of life are evil. But go read that link, it's an article written by Canada's very best crime reporter and ask yourself if this is really just the acts of a few individuals or a clash of ways of life.
Anxious to avoid the second interpretation is James C Morton. Morton is not just any guy but a past president of the Ontario Bar Association. He is also a good guy to start with because he recognizes that the term "honour killing" is not what the debate is really about. Here is his conclusion:
Does motive matter?
On his way to the conclusion I cited above, Morton makes a number of dubious moves. The first is when he says this:
Which brings me to an interesting hypocrisy here. It jumps right out at us if we cite just one paragraph from a Montreal Gazette story that Morton links to:
The Kingston police chief interestingly referred to the case as one of "domestic violence" and that it certainly is. But I have yet to see a single spokesperson from a group fighting domestic violence step forward to condemn it as an example of domestic violence.
Why not? I'd say because there is a way of life involved.
* I say imputed motive for the media figures and other people who have commented on the Marc Lepine case have shown very little interest in the actual Marc Lepine or his likely motives for doing what he did. He has just been taken as proof of a widespread hatred for women that is supposed to exist in men. The known facts of Lepine's life and beliefs don't support this.
But it isn't just the heavy cost in human life that is the issue. The other thing about the civil war is that it was fought by people who were willing to destroy a way of life in order to win. That is what the war required. I don't think Lincoln or anyone else realized that going in. But then Lincoln doesn't seem to have realized that emancipation was a necessary requirement of preserving the union until that was forced on him either. There was a deep dark night of the soul for the North when they realized part way through just what the real costs were going to be. And, when faced with those questions, they pushed through.
Would we?
Here in Canada this morning, we are all abuzz about a guilty verdict in a recent "honour killing" trial. A lot of people don't like that term: honour killing. There are a lot of arguments, most of them disingenuous, being put forward against using the term. "There is no honour in murder" is a favourite. Yeah, I suppose. I could also argue that we shouldn't use the term "slave" because "human beings aren't property". But that is dodging the central issue which is that there was (and still are) ways of life in which human beings can be and sometimes are property. And solving the problem meant being willing to destroy that way of life if required.
There are ways of life wherein killing women who refuse to subject their sexuality to a male relative can be a matter of honour and there are people who follow that way of life moving to Canada everyday.
We don't want to face that or to think seriously about what confronting that might require. We blanch at the person who will even stand up and say some ways of life are worse than others or that some ways of life are evil. But go read that link, it's an article written by Canada's very best crime reporter and ask yourself if this is really just the acts of a few individuals or a clash of ways of life.
Anxious to avoid the second interpretation is James C Morton. Morton is not just any guy but a past president of the Ontario Bar Association. He is also a good guy to start with because he recognizes that the term "honour killing" is not what the debate is really about. Here is his conclusion:
In the end, this was just a sordid case of a tyrannical father, who convinced a second wife and a deluded son to help murder his first wife and some disobedient daughters. Nasty yes. But not very different (except in scale) from spousal murders across Canada.Just a sordid case of a tyrannical father? Yeah, just like that meanie up the street when you were growing up who wouldn't let his daughter go out on dates of wear lipstick. Except for the killing part. And except that the tyrannical father in this case comes from a culture where honour killing is widely supported. Again, read the Christie Blatchford piece and note how relatives back in Pakistan responded when told of the murdered girls' behaviour.
Does motive matter?
On his way to the conclusion I cited above, Morton makes a number of dubious moves. The first is when he says this:
Broadly put, the motivation for murder is irrelevant. The question is not 'why' but 'if'?That is nonsense on three levels.
- It's nonsense because establishing motive is often a key element in establishing guilt.
- It's nonsense because motive makes a difference at sentencing time. There was a case a few years ago in Ontario where a guy ran down a cyclist and the lack of skid marks or evidence of any attempt to steer away was taken by the courts as evidence that the guy did just for the thrill of killing someone and that ended up mattering a whole lot at his sentencing.
- It's nonsense because it would have mattered a whole lot if the victim had been a gay teenager or a member of a visible minority group killed out of hatred.
Which brings me to an interesting hypocrisy here. It jumps right out at us if we cite just one paragraph from a Montreal Gazette story that Morton links to:
It’s rare for a coverage of a crime to fixate so strongly on motive, she added, citing the example of Marc Lépine’s 1989 shooting spree at École polytechnique in Montreal.She in this case is Alia Hogben, executive director of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women. And she is speaking nonsense. Every year in Canada there are commemorations of the Montreal massacre and every year those commemorations are used as an opportunity to speak about the supposed motives of men to hurt women. The imputed motive* for their deaths is absolutely central to the way they are remembered. If the fourteen women killed that day had been in a building that collapsed they'd be long forgotten by now.
“We did pay a bit of attention to (Lépine’s motive), but in the end ... we focused on the deaths of those women.
The Kingston police chief interestingly referred to the case as one of "domestic violence" and that it certainly is. But I have yet to see a single spokesperson from a group fighting domestic violence step forward to condemn it as an example of domestic violence.
Why not? I'd say because there is a way of life involved.
* I say imputed motive for the media figures and other people who have commented on the Marc Lepine case have shown very little interest in the actual Marc Lepine or his likely motives for doing what he did. He has just been taken as proof of a widespread hatred for women that is supposed to exist in men. The known facts of Lepine's life and beliefs don't support this.
No comments:
Post a Comment