Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Government at work

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, July 14, 2010 10:35am - 0 Comments

In the middle of an article that notes, in part, the superfluousness of changing the Criminal Code to cover “honour killings,” this explanation for Rona Ambrose’s comments.

While a spokesman for Justice Minister Rob Nicholson on Monday shot down Ms. Ambrose’s assertion that the government is “looking at” the change, his director of communications, Genevieve Breton, yesterday said “minister Ambrose’s comments are consistent with our approach” to law-making.

Tags: Criminal Code, honour killings, Rob Nicholson, Rona Ambrose

More by Aaron Wherry

Lord Kitchener's Own

So, they're probably looking at it, but many people seem to think that once the idea of a change to the criminal code has been looked at, the final conclusion will most likely be that it is unnecessary, and perhaps not at all productive.

Sorry, I still just don't see much of an inconsistency here, and certainly not one worth spending any time over. We now seem to be spending as much time on Ambrose's supposed "inconsistency" as we are on Ignatieff's silly "sulfur" remark and, imho, we'd probably all be better off ignoring both stories, and moving on.
http://intensedebate.com/people/MostlyCivil MostlyCivil

Annnnd, here comes your bus, Genevieve …
http://www.dangardner.ca Dan Gardner

I really wish they'd make it a crime to commit a crime. That'd make the bad guys think twice.

http://www.dangardner.ca Dan Gardner

They could call it the "double-plus-ungood" law.

Cats

Like hate crimes laws ?

Mice day.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Like making speed racing not just illegal but double-plus-ungood illegal.

Cats

Shorter Ted Betts:

The Conservative party isn't conservative enough so lets replace them with leftist Liberals!

Best fishes.

Emily

I originally opposed hate crime legislation on the grounds that we already have laws against assault and murder.

However it was pointed out to me it was meant to stop an attack on someone as a member of an identifiable group.

That is, anyone who would attack a black, gay, Muslim, whatever… and say 'we don't want your kind here, so take this as a warning'.

Someone who would use a 'common assaut' etc out of a bar room as a signal or warning to others …making an example of him.

Plus it applies to anyone who might stand on a street corner and say 'I hate Group X, Group X is evil and should be eliminated, go out and attack/maim/kill Group X.'

So then it makes more sense.

Harder to do with women though, because it involves families and every family is different. Plus it runs smack into Freedom of Religion.

Gaunilon

"Harder to do with women though, because it involves families and every family is different. Plus it runs smack into Freedom of Religion. "

Yes, one wouldn't want to condemn honour killings if it infringes on freedom of religion. If someone's religious beliefs dictate they slaughter their daughter, who are we to enforce our cultural values on them? After all, every family is different.

Good grief.
Bob

Not sure that was Emily's point….
Emily

You raise your children in your religion, and expect them to follow it. So does everybody else.

If your child refuses, they probably get punished.

In a courtroom it can easily be argued you have the right to do that….it's been argued on here!

Each family is different in how far they take it. How many rows have there been over the years of the morality/legality of spanking? Or hitting in general? When does it cross over into assault?

Murder is beyond the pale…but Islam is no different than Christianity in demanding severe punishment. You'd know that if you read the Old Testament.
Bob

We already have laws that intrude on this Emily – for example, the Supreme Court has upheld decisions forcing under age Jehovah's Witnesses to have blood transfusions.

And the Supreme Court's spanking judgment made clear that corporal punishment that inflicts physical damage (i.e. spanking that produces bruises or blood) is contrary to the Charter.
Emily

Yes, because the questions have come up before. Honour killings [at least the ones we know of] are relatively new in Canada.
Bob

umm, so the Court will uphold laws on those things but NOT on honour killings? Are you serious?

(Note: I'm opposed to the idea myself, from a policy perspective, but from a constitutional perspective, if the Court will allow interference in religious rights for things like corporal punishment and medical decisions affecting children, it'll allow it here).
Emily

We have no idea what the courts would do…that's my point. It hasn't been argued out yet.

One would think polygamy, especially involving girls raised in a commune-religion and denied education of any other way of life, and then married off at an early age to an elderly man who already has 6 'wives' would have been stepped on as well by the courts….but somehow we haven't managed to do that.
Bob

I'm just saying that we have good basis for knowing the Court would uphold such laws.

As for polygamy, the laws are in place – they're just not being enforced. The only way the Supreme Court will get to rule on them is if the government show's a willingness to enforce its own laws! (Which sounded like it might be happening in B.C., but I'm not sure what the latest is on that…)
Emily

Then it amounts to the same thing. An unenforcable law is no law at all.

Polygamy is difficult because its a case of individual freedom and rights v freedom of religion.

The most difficult part is getting anyone to complain or testify…and people in that religion from birth, maybe even generations into that religion…are certainly not going to complain or testify about it.
Lord Kitchener's Own

Polygamy is difficult because its a case of individual freedom and rights v freedom of religion.

It's also about individual rights in a different way than you imply, that being the individuals "right" to marry as many people as they want to.

The complicating factor for me regarding polygamy has always been the dividing line between theory and reality. In theory I have no objection to an adult choosing to have more than one adult spouse as long as all of the spouses freely consent to the arrangement. The problem of course is that in many (most?) polygomous communities we're not talking just about adults, and even when we are, the concept of free "choice" is, at best, murky.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

"Each family is different in how far they take it. How many rows have there been over the years of the morality/legality of spanking? Or hitting in general? When does it cross over into assault? "

I'm pretty sure it's crossed over into assault when the child in question ends up dead. Freedom of religion is not relevant once one reaches that point.
Emily

Obviously. But by then it's too late isn't it?
Bob

All legislation dealing with crime is, in part, meant to send signals to prevent the repeat of similar crimes. A guy who stabs another person for their wallet should face as much penalty as the guy who stabs another person because of their race. We might decide we are 'more opposed' to hate than we are to greed, but you can't find solutions in criminal legislation. The solution to dealing with hate should be education and other policies that promote tolerance.
Emily

Except that 'muggers' aren't an identifiable group. You can't tell a mugger from anyone else until s/he um….mugs.

So you can't 'send a message' to them as a group. They aren't listening….and they aren't all the same.

But if a member of Group X is assaulted or murdered because they are a member of that group….everyone in that group gets the 'message'
Bob

You're conflating the perpetrators on one hand and the victim on the other. I'm talking about the fear instilled in victims of crime – yes, if someone kills someone for being gay, that might instill fear in the gay community. But no less so than someone being killed on a street corner because they were in the wrong place/wrong time instills fear in the general community. Murder is murder, and that's what's criminalized. Criminalizing the "hate" aspect of it comes dangerously close to the notion of thought crimes. There are other, and more effective, ways of dealing with the problem of hate.
Emily

If you know your particular group is being hunted down and assaulted/killed on purpose its much scarier than a random killing. Bad timing/luck can happen to anyone.

If there were more effective ways of dealing with hate, we'd use them.
Bob

"If there were more effective ways of dealing with hate, we'd use them."

By that logic, we couldn't be doing more to alleviate poverty.

OF COURSE there are more effective ways, unless you think our education system couldn't be better or our media couldn't do a better job or… etc. etc.
Emily

We know HOW to do a lot of things, we have no political will to do them….or money.

And humans, cranky as they are, often don't cooperate.
Bob

On that, we're agreed.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

Your statement is amazingly correct, even though you didn't intend it to be.
"no less so" indeed. "More so" I would say.

Cats

WHAT! These are the same groups, Liberals and NDP, who support the concept of "hate crimes".

Murder is murder might be a principled position if they hadn't pushed for hate crimes laws.
Are those laws "superfluous" ?

I see no reason why an extra penalty couldn't be charged for an honour crime. If for no other reason than because it would send a powerful social signal.

The mind boggles at lefties like Aaron Wherry and their double standards.

Lord Kitchener's Own

I don't entirely disagree with this line of reasoning, however I do wonder if "honour killings" wouldn't already come under the umbrella of the hate crimes legislation that already exists. I'm not certain about how our hate crimes actually work in a detailed sense, but I can see how it's at least possible that a murder that turns out to be a so-called "honour killing" could already trigger the relevant legislation.

I also think it's worth pointing out that if "lefties" are invoking a double standard in advocating against special treatment of honour killing, while supporting hate crimes legislation for example, then any "righties" who advocate for tougher sentences for honour killings, despite opposing hate crimes laws would be equally vulnerable to an accusation of applying a double standard.

Bob

Bingo. As a sometimes-righty and sometimes-lefty, I'm opposed to the idea of both hate crimes legislation and legislation referencing honour killings. The crime is in the act, not the motive. And as others here point out, these type of circumstances might come into play in sentencing…

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

Really? Not in the motive?

Murder 1, vs Murder 2, vs Manslaughter

Bob

Um, those distinctions aren't based on just "motive" – they're based on how much fore-thought went into the crimes. AND these degrees are precisely for sentencing purposes, as I stated.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

Wait.. I thought you said the crime is in the act. The act is killing someone. Murder 2 and manslaughter have the same amount of fore-thought (none) but differ in motive. Murder 1 and murder 2 differ in fore-thought, but have the same motive.

And while the degrees are for sentencing purposes, they are listed separately not simply as a matter of precedent or common law.
Olaf

This is not technically true. They differ in "intent", not "motive". So if I intend to rob a bank, then I have the requisite mens rea, regardless if I was motivated by greed or was planning on building a new orphanage. See Lewis v. The Queen for a discussion of the difference.

Marion

You mean other than the fact that there's no higher penalty than First Degree Murder? I'm sure it could be an agravating factor at sentencing (and it probably already is).

This would only work if the victim survives, I think.
tedbetts

'Scuse me? Where did Aaron venture any standard that could be denounced as single, double or triple?

You on the other hand are saying double standards are good. No to "hate laws" because murder is murder but no if it relates to honour killings?

Like you said, the principled position is to say murder is murder. That is something I believe.

An unprincipled position and double standard is to say some murder (the kind I choose) is worse and deserves an "extra penalty".

Cats confusedly pointing fingers at a mirror.

Cats

Ted Betts = inventing my positions out of whole cloth.

When did I say I opposed hate crimes laws ? I was pointing out a double standard. The CPC government has put foward no initiatives to roll back hate crimes legislation.

I support both when used wisely.

Cats catches Ted Betts chasing his own tail.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

The idea of a law for honour killings makes no sense… however it is worth looking at whether honour killings bring forward issues that can be improved by changes to existing laws.

On a second issue, as LKO has kinda pointed out Ambrose consistently gets skewered for either minor or nonexistant mishaps. I suspect this is in part to her early tenure as Minister of the Environment, however that trainwreck was hardly her fault. Harper was in those days bent on playing hardball on his do-nothing leanings toward carbon, and Rona was more or less forced to defend a fairly idiotic position. When he decided to retreat on the issue he had to change Ministers… but the original position was clearly his.

Since then, while not one of the stars in the Harper government she has done much better than say Toews, Nicholson, Finley, Cannon, Ritz, Kent and Lund while consistently receiving poorer press.

Anon

Plus she's hot!

http://intensedebate.com/people/john_g2708 john g

You joke about it but…all attractive conservative women seem to be subject to this. Ambrose, Guergis and Stronach have all been treated rather brutally by the media (excepting of course when Stronach became a Liberal, at which point it stopped completely).

The American media has been even more brutal on the likes of Palin, Coulter, and Malkin.

Bob

Wait, you think Coulter is "attractive"???
http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

john… the attacks on Stronach certainly did not stop when she switched sides or left politics. Women on all sides of the political spectrum get treated differently than their male counterparts and attractive women get treated different from their female colleaques.

john g

The attacks from Conservatives certainly didn't stop, but the rehabilitation of Stronach's image in the media began shortly after her floor crossing. As a Conservative she was widely panned as an air-headed dilettante ("Let's bake a bigger economic pie!"). After crossing the floor she was considered a reasonable candidate for the Liberal leadership a few races ago…the only strike against her then was her lack of French, not her intellect. Now she is widely regarded in the media as a staunch feminist and defender of womens' rights. Do you think for a moment she'd be portrayed this way if she had remained under the Conservative banner?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

I guess you don't read the National Post, or any of the Sun papers. Funny, I would not have taken you for a Star reader. What is true that any criticism of Stronach was drowned out by the viciousness of the Conservative personal attacks at the time.
JamesHalifax

Stronach wasn't attacked due to her looks, or lack thereof. She was attacked because she is a clueless buffon who would probably be working at a greasy spoon somewhere if it weren't for her Daddy.

http://intensedebate.com/people/MostlyCivil MostlyCivil

"(excepting of course when Stronach became a Liberal, at which point it stopped completely)"

Really? I thought the yelling simply changed directions…Same crap, different sources.

Lord Kitchener's Own

For the record, I'm quite confident that I'll end up tearing in to Ambrose at some point for saying something completely idiotic.

I just don't think this is one of those times.

Gaunilon

I completely agree that the law as it stands is fine: murder should be prosecuted based on the deed, not the reason for the killing. And I'm delighted that the Left is now on board on this. Perhaps now we can get rid of hate-crimes legislation, which punishes murder differently depending on whether the killer was motivated by bigotry regarding the race/sexuality/religion of the victim.

From Hogben's comments in the article:
"Let's not go that route. A murder is a murder. Let's not separate us as new immigrants or ethnic groups from the rest of Canadian women. It doesn't matter which culture, which religion or which ethnic origin we come from, the same laws should apply to us."

Amen. Let's stop such idiocy altogether by eliminating hate-crimes legislation while we're at it.

EDIT: and on looking through the comments, I see that this point has been made. Interestingly, it does not seem to be met with general agreement from Wherry's readership. Justice for me, but not for thee, as they say.

Lord Kitchener's Own

There are those that would argue that, as with terrorism laws, if the intent of an act of violence is arguably more than to harm the direct victim of the violence, but to also instill fear in law-abiding citizens beyond the actual victim of the violence, that said intent needs to be recognized in the law, and addressed.

I go back and forth in my opinion of hate crimes and anti-terrorism legislation in this context, so I'd be glad to see a debate, so as to help me sort out what I actually think about it all.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

Fair point.

There are two considerations imo: (1) What is right, and (2) What is effective.

Regarding (1), terrorist attacks are actually an attack on the whole society since the intent is to intimidate us into some particular course of action. It's therefore an act of war and should be treated differently from ordinary murder. Intimidation of a minority, despicable though it is, does not reach this standard. Justice requires that all citizens be treated equally under the law; therefore an attack can be made on all of us (act of war) or on some of us (ordinary murder regardless of who the victim is), but if we differentiate according to race/sexuality/religion of the victim then we violate the foundational principle of equality under the law.

Regarding (2), as Hogben pointed out, it's not a good idea to single out a particular culture/race/religion. Not only is it unjust, but it leads to bitterness that one group receives different justice from another group. This exacerbates prejudices even as it tries to eliminate them.

Stewart_Smith

So wiping out the population of PEI is just mass murder and not an act of terrorism. An attack on a military base is just aimed at the military minority? An attack on left handers is just murder, but an attack on right handers, well that is different?

Your mistake is that you think the issue is the singling out of a particular culture/race/religion, it is not. The issue is that crimes of "selective" terrorism remove the individual rights many individuals to ife, liberty and security of the person.

Gaunilon

I'm going to make one attempt at benefit of the doubt here, and assume I just didn't express myself clearly enough above.

Wiping out PEI would be mass murder. It would be an act of war/terrorism if it's done with the intent to weaken Canada as a whole.

An attack on a military base would also be an act of terrorism/war if intended to weaken Canada as a nation. If, on the other hand, the perp simply hates soldiers then it's mass murder but not war/terrorism. Since soldiers are no different under the law from the rest of us, it should then be prosecuted as ordinary murder.

Likewise handedness (I'm struggling really hard here with this benefit of the doubt thing…but onward). An attack on left-handers should be no different from an attack on right-handers. "All are equal under the law" is the principle to be upheld at all costs.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

Ok, so in your view is a systematic attempt to kill all left handers terrorism if the intent is simply to purge the world of lefthanders and has nothing to do with weakening Canada as a state?
Gaunilon

It wouldn't be terrorism; it would be genocide. Again, already covered in international law. Hate crimes aren't prosecuted as an attempt to wipe out an entire minority – they're prosecuted as an attempt to target members of said minority because of that membership. This violates the principle that all are equal under the law, even members of minorities.

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

I sway on this as well, though most days I lean heavily to G's reasoning. Healthy responsible debate welcomed.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP Phil

Similar sway, although more away from G than towards…I can tolerate a wide range of sentencing factors/options/considerations…others probably prefer a system that tends to be as close to binary as possible.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

No one is arguing for a system that is "as close to binary as possible". That is a binary characterization of this argument.

Can you tolerate considerations such as the skin colour of the victim?
http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP Phil

Possibly…

Stewart_Smith

You might perhaps be more accurate by saying the Left on this board are on board. Although he wears that funny hat, I am not aware of any process through which Jack Layton et al answer to LKO.

On a serious note, a murder is a murder etc, I presume you would still differentiate between premeditated and nonpremeditated etc.

I think the issue with the hate-crimes legislation is that it was arrived at from a victim-based perspective. i.e. Gays would be justifiably upset about someone wandering around killing gays and pushed for specific legislation. However, the real issue is the intimidation sought by the criminal. I see no problem with highlighting crimes for which the result is to victimize entire segments of society regardless of motivation of the criminal. Hate crimes are really a version of terrorism and all terrorists deserve an extra dose of justice.

Gaunilon

"On a serious note, a murder is a murder etc, I presume you would still differentiate between premeditated and nonpremeditated etc."

See my correction below: I should have said that murder is murder regardless of the identity of the victim. Motivation does colour the seriousness of the crime.
Lord Kitchener's Own

On the less serious note, I should point out that I don't where the funny hat. Lord Kitchener arguably wore a "funny hat" (though I'm not sure he actually had any say into what a Field Marshal's hat should look like, so he can't really be personally blamed for any sartorial sins of the hat, I don't think). However, I'm not Lord Kitchener, I'm just one of "Kitchener's Own". (BTW, in the pic, Lord Kitchener is pointing and extolling YOU to become one of "Kitchener's Own" too… Uncle Sam stole his famous shtick from Lord Kitchener).

I only even bother to mention it because of the number of times people seem to think I'm taking on Lordly airs with the pic, when all I'm really doing is saying "I'm from Kitchener".

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

I do insttinctively have a problem with a man who kills his child for not obeying him facing the same punishment as a man who kills his child because said child is living in pain without end. I don't mind if the charge is the same, but I certainly think the former crime is 'more bad' than the latter crime and requires a different sentence. But we could play this all day, the guy who steals the loaf of bread because he is hungry vs. the guy who steals the bread to throw it all over the parking lot, just for something to do. I'm not advocating for separate laws for each possible motivation of each possible crime. As long as the sentencing has leeway.

Oh, I forgot. That's not on the Law and Order agenda, is it?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

Fair enough, but would you prosecute each case differently depending on the respective races/religions/sexualities involved? That's what's at issue in hate crimes legislation.

Jenn_

What? No, that would be dumb! Is that what's happening now, you're saying? So, if I attack a guy because he's, say, short, I get stiffer/easier jail time than if he'd been a Jew or gay or wears glasses? I do think if I attack a guy because he, say, insulted me or I don't know, took my parking spot at the mall, that would be entitled to a different penalty than if I attacked him because he belonged to a 'class' of people–whatever that class might be.

Gaunilon

That's exactly my understanding of current hate-crimes legislation. If the prosecutor can show that you likely killed someone because they were gay or non-white, you get a tougher sentence than if you killed them for some other reason.

I agree, it is dumb. Worse than dumb actually, it's dangerous and inherently unjust.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Hold on. You're saying hate crime legislation specifies who can be the victim under hate crime legislation?

So if I have a huge hate on for . . . tall women with blonde hair. Man, all tall women with blonde hair are just awful and I'm out to kill them all.

I may have fourteen counts of murder to contend with, but hate-crime legislation won't touch me?

You have GOT to be kidding. Please, be kidding.
Gaunilon

There are two sections concerning hate crimes in the Criminal Code. One limits freedom of speech, and the other (relevant to this discussion) affects sentencing for already criminal acts. That section is 718.2 of the Criminal Code. Listed grounds for enhancing the sentence are hatred concerning " race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor".

I suppose one could argue that "tall blond women" counts as a "similar factor", but I doubt very much that it would be treated that way, which is why all those other categories are listed explicitly. That's over and above the problem with interpreting someone's personal biases and applying sentencing accordingly.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

Gaunilon and I agree on the absurdity of the current situation. I believe however that the hate crimes listed in current legislation are just a subset of a more generic classification of horrific crime should be identified and treated differently.

There is a rational for making it specific to the crime, which is there was evidence that convicted criminals were getting too much benefit of the doubt wrt motive. It would be a move forward if the punishment was set on the impact of the crime, rather than the motive (too hard to prove) or the victim.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

I'd be okay with an either/and/or impact/motive, because I think impact could be hard to prove as well.

But in my case, you have my written hate disclosure and the fact that all my victims are tall and blonde women and with no other common connection. If I was prosecuting my case, I would appeal to the Supreme Court where even I (not a lawyer) am truly confident I could get the hate laws to apply.
Marion

Yeah, but you'd probably be able to claim insanity, too.
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

If you were prosecuting your case, the SCOC might have something to say about the conflict of interest. Just sayin'.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

It does give added weight to Marion's comment, doesn't it?
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

It boils down to the "privileged victim" status assigned to certain individuals, and it is absurd.

I don't want to kill anybody, but now I guess I really don't want to kill [insert privileged category of potential victim here]."

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

"I completely agree that the law as it stands is fine: murder should be prosecuted based on the deed, not the reason for the killing."

I should restate: murder should be prosecuted based on the deed (including motive), not on the identity of the victim.

John

So Rona Ambrose is proposing new hate crimes legislation?

OH. This is going to be GOOD.
tobyornotoby

"Minister Ambrose’s comments are consistent with our approach to law-making."

That approach, by the way, consists of:

1. Complaining about criminals in the media after they commit crimes or get out on parole
2. Blaming the Liberals for not being tough on crime
3. Blaming judges, parole boards, commissions, etc. for not just doing whatever the Minister says that contradicts the law as written(and for not being tough on crime)
4. Introducing poorly conceived (and not costed) legislation that is badly written and fast tracking it through the House at the last minute.

Minister Ambrose is currently at Stage 1 in the law-making process.

BCer in Mtl

heh . . .beat me to it, and more eloquently I must say

BCer in Mtl

'Genevieve Breton, yesterday said “minister Ambrose’s comments are consistent with our approach” to law-making."

Of course its consistent:
(1) Lurid headline, preferably involving someone or group that Conservative base doesn't like
(2) Conservative government proposes policy purely on knee-jerk impulse

See also:
Life sentence convicts receipt of Old Age pension
Cancellation of mandatory census long form
Veil-wearing women required to remove veil when voting
etc.
Thirsty Mind

From the Criminal Code:

"718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:

(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,

(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor"

Why wouldn't honour killings come under the "sex" component of 718.2(a)(i)?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

Honour killings aren't motivated by the sex of the victim – if they were, all girls in such families would be targeted. Honour killings are motivated by a misbegotten belief that acts ranging from fraternization to adultery require punishment by death. It's not a crime based on bigotry so much as a wildly extreme form of discipline.

Lord Kitchener's Own

I do think however that it could still be argued that an honour killing is motivated by the religious beliefs of the victim, i.e. that the child's religious beliefs are less strict than the parent's, and they were killed as a result.

I'm also not sure that there's not an element of the sex of the victim involved in the motivation as well. You say that if that were the case all girls in such families would be targeted, but I would argue that all girls in such families WERE targeted, it's just that only in some cases did the person doing the targeting "pull the trigger". I could be mistaken, but I don't often hear of cases of boys being killed by their parents for breaking curfew, or for hanging out with girls. So, I'd argue that all of the girls in such families were targeted for murder based on their sex, it's just that some of them managed to avoid the final sanction.

Gaunilon

I think you're right that the victims are generally girls, but they weren't killed just because they were girls.

As to the argument that they're a different religion, again, these men don't try to kill everyone who wanders away from their particular religion, just their own children. It's a form of parental discipline gone horribly awry, with touches of vengeance (i.e. avenging the family's "honour") attached.

In short, I don't see how it's any more of a "hate crime" than murdering your brother because he stole your wife, for example. There's hatred, sure, but not the kind of hatred that the hate crime legislation is specifically trying to hit (i.e. hatred for politically protected victim classes).

Lord Kitchener's Own

Or, arguably, religion.

If a father kills his daughter for less strictly adhering to the commandment "Honour thy Mother and Father" than he would expect, is it not true that he arguably killed her for having different religious beliefs than him?

And, of course, there's also the additional "any other similar factor" which may well apply.

Which is all a separate argument all together from whether or not 718.2 should exist, but as it does exist, what would be the arguments against it applying to a case that fits the classic definition of an "honour killing"?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

If his murderous intent was directed at anyone with a different religion, he'd not limit himself to family members.

frobisher

It’s a fair question. Most victims of these homicides are indeed young women. And, indeed, it could be argued (though what lawyer would?) that ‘national or ethnic origin’ is also a factor for consideration.

However, in one respect, the rage induced by being ‘dis-honoured’ could be argued as a ‘crime of passion’ (if such an anachronistic designation still exists): “M’Lord, the accused was consumed, nay, blinded to right by an uncontrollable rage and, as such, not responsible for his actions. “

On the other hand, there is a cultural fissure at play, too. And the willful disregard of Canadian law in service of cultural imperatives would seem to indicate a degree of contempt for those laws. As such, it should be accounted for in sentencing. For example, infanticide is a horrible crime. But isn’t infanticide of female children because of a cultural bias in favour of male children worse?

718.2(a)(i) cited above would seem to account for the latter, yet arguing the former could conceivably mitigate against a harsher sentence.

JamesHalifax

Emily wrote:
"Murder is beyond the pale…but Islam is no different than Christianity in demanding severe punishment. You'd know that if you read the Old Testament"

That may be true Emily, however, when is the last time you heard of Christians choking their daughter to death or stoning an adulterer or adulterous?

The main difference of course, is that Christianity has not really engaged in any barbaric practices for quite some time…… Islamic societies still practice it today as a matter of course.

If you can't see the difference, then your arguments are as doomed as a Muslim woman who falls for the wrong guy.
JamesHalifax

Someone has already mentioned the obvious double standard.

Why is murder due to culture not considered an "extra" motive that would add on to a sentence or punishment, but the assault of someone who happens to be gay or black BECAUSE they are gay or black is deemed more offensive and therefore due more punishment?

Double standard anyone?

By the way…I think the premise is correct, the ideology behind it is wrong.

Murder is murder…whether motivated by criminal intent, or hatred towards women/blacks/jews..etc..etc…

Assault is assault…whether motivated by homophobia, racism, etc.

Same crime…same punishment. Regardless of motive, with the exception of a crime like terrorism, where the goal is not so much killing, as instilling fear.

Terrorists….kill em all and let Allah sort em out.
Lord Kitchener's Own

As to the double standard argument, are we absolutely certain that a so-called "honour killing" couldn't trigger the relevant hate crimes legislation if a prosecutor should choose to do so?

Also, I don't entirely disagree with your final sentence, except that your use of "Allah" as opposed to "God" (which would be more traditional when writing in English) seems to suggest that you're only interested in killing Islamic terrorists.

Me, I'm more in favour of killing them ALL.
Lord Kitchener's Own

Also, one could argue that, like terrorism, the goal of an honour killing isn't so much killing, as instilling fear (for example, in the wives and daughters who are still alive).
http://intensedebate.com/people/criselis criselis

But an assault motivated by hate also instills fear in that group which was assaulted.
Bob

I don't think an honour killing would trigger hate crime legislation, because an honour killing isn't the murder of someone based on their innate characteristics (race, sex, sexual orientation), it is a murder based on the idea that the victim did dishonour to someone (usually a family member) by acting in a particular way (usually involves a female member of the family acting too "westernized" or somehow promiscuous).
Two Hats

That might true at the societal level, taking all killings in aggregate; I don't think it is a true motive in each particular act, however. That is, the culture that breeds the honour killing concept is guilty of different failings from the individual killers who belong to the culture.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Oh come on! A man has three daughters. The eldest daughter stays out late one night, and the next day she's dead. You don't think daughters two and three are going to rigorously adhere to their curfew?
Two Hats

That may be a result (more or less likely depending on the circumstances), but I doubt it is the prime motivation for the killing. It is also probably an intended result at the cultural level (ie, it a desirable outcome within the culture, for proponents of so-called "honour killings"; I certainly don't think it is myself!), but that just supports my point — the killer(s) has(have) different motives from the society as its own unit. (I'll be clear that I'm not supporting the action of the killers, nor the bent of the culture; it's an abhorrent practice. But to solve a problem requires understanding it, and I think I'm right when I say there are individual-actor-level and societal-level components that are qualitatively different here.)

And is anyone getting killed for staying out late once? Ratchet down the rhetoric a bit, please, it doesn't help your argument.