I don’t want to pile on a redundant rebuke of Justin Trudeau’s thoughtless comments about the new Citizenship and Immigration guide, since I’m quite certain he’s already been filleted by more than enough other people today. Needless to say, many of those people were Liberal supporters who cocked their head to one side, raised an eyebrow and shot Justin a rather stern glare.
Yes, of course it’s ridiculous to say that the government should not call honour killings “barbaric” when they clearly are. In fact it’s probably the most appropriate use of an oft misused word.
I guess Justin was just trying to say something, anything, as he felt he should as Liberal immigration critic. Unfortunately, he decided to pick a fairly sensitive topic that Canadians uniformly agree is repulsive.
“There’s nothing that the word ‘barbaric’ achieves that the words ‘absolutely unacceptable’ would not have achieved. 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.”
I don’t see why Canada should take a neutral stance on female genital mutilation, nor should it be encouraged to sit on the fence on this one. Such a thing is blatant cultural relativism, and is largely responsible for the toleration of a great deal of gender violence and misogyny the world over.
But as I say, I’m not here to pile on. Sufficed to say the remarks were a gift to the Conservatives, who can now stand safely on the side of women while firing back at the Liberal party who, in all likelihood, don’t share Justin’s views on this matter.
Still, that remains to be seen as well. The best thing to do in this situation for Michael Ignatieff would be an unequivocal clarification that Justin’s comments don’t reflect the Liberal Party’s views on honour killings, and that the term “barbaric” is certainly a fitting description for the wanton murder of women for culturally-fostered prejudices.
The sad thing is that although the vast majority of Canadians, and most likely immigrants as well, would have no problem with the term, Justin’s words are indicative of the deranged mentality of the relativists. These people espouse fervent belief in liberal notions of equality and women’s rights, but usually they only expect those things for western women.
The women living in misogynist societies who are culturally subjugated are viewed with a kind of self-determination from people like Justin. Which is probably why support for fighting the Taliban has been so low. People assume that’s the way women want to be treated anyway.
I don’t see a problem with telling immigrants to leave their “violent, extreme or hateful prejudices” at the door, and describing the murder of women as “barbaric” is perfectly reasonable. Let’s hope Justin comes around to that realization.
“He’s a flake” – Chantal Hebert
Yes, and barbaric probably translates very clearly into many languages; “unacceptable”?? …. maybe not so clearly.
The whole point of the info kit is to be CLEAR!!!!! Justin is soooo pc.
Can we use the descriptive “medieval”? Thank goodness we have Trudeau to lecture and hector Canadians on word choices acceptable to the heir apparent. Not ready for prime time any time soon. Cheers.
“I don’t want to pile on a redundant rebuke of Justin Trudeau’s thoughtless comments about the new Citizenship and Immigration guide, since I’m quite certain he’s already been filleted by more than enough other people today.”
More than enough ? Not possible. He deserves to be as you filleted by all. Then carefully re-assembled and filleted all over again.
He’s an effete relativist moron and everyone should feel perfectly free to put the boots in when he’s down. Don’t feel at all restrained.
He deserves it.
Looks good on the little puke. Barbaric is not a strong enough word to describe ‘honour’ killings.
It really just goes to show the extent to which Liberal Party of Canada has become the Islamic Party of Canada. They bend over backwards to appease and court the Muslim vote.
Maybe Omar Kahdar gave him his talking points. Hug a Thug Liberals. Just throw acid in womens faces and thats not BARBARIC?
Trudeau Jr., the gift that keeps on giving. I say give him as much publicity as possible. If he represents the future of the Liberal party, as many supporters claim, Conservative fortunes are positive.
I’m not a tremendous fan of Justin Trudeau, and I’ve only read the quote you made, but I think I can see where he’s coming from on this one. And after the ridiculous flak he took for wearing coyote fur, I’m inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
(I’m not anti-Justin either. I think people are often pro or anti Justin Trudeau based on common assumption that he is the second coming of his late father. Both seem silly to me, we should let the man make his own career).
Mr. Trudeau made it quite clear that so-called “honour” murders are barbaric. He also applied the term to female genital mutilation. Given that, any attempts to score political points off his comments seems to be little more that “gotcha politics”. Implying that he thinks that “honour” murders aren’t *that* bad is just plain dishonest. There’s plenty of that dishonesty in politics, but I dislike it and it has the opposite effect on me than is intended when I see it.
And he has a point about the language we use in personal conversation vs. public documents. There is a difference between personal conversation and public writing. The culture of social media doesn’t change this.
What’s the point of these documents anyway? No one with any sense thinks that there’s some guy who just murdered his daughter for wearing pants who’s thinking “gee, if they’d only told me it was barbaric to kill her, I’d have taken her out for icecream instead”. No, the point is either to make ourselves feel better for denouncing something, (a goal of dubious value), or it is to make a distinction between Canada’s ways and the ways of the old country to people who aren’t going to kill their daughters, but who might have a soft spot for the idea that family honour comes first.
If that’s the goal, I’m not sure that aggressive language is really going to help. In fact, I can’t see how talking about “honour” murders is going to achieve much. Men who will kill their own daughters aren’t going to listen to the government, they’re too busy listening to themselves and their pathetic ideas that they can puff themselves up by abusing women.
It seems to me that it would be far more sensible to direct the message to people who love their children and already seem them as human beings. We should say that in Canada, honour comes from being a good person, not from controlling others and that honourable men are men who rejoice when their daughters grow up to be strong women who can think for themselves and look after themselves. You could go on from here…
The nuts never fall far from the tree.Justin is truly his fathers son and is guaranteed to entertain us for many years to come.