Wednesday, November 18, 2009

It appears there are some people unwilling to close their eyes

to crimes by protected species:
Madam Justice Lynn Ratushny of the Ontario Superior Court did a good thing Tuesday. She sentenced a man to a year in jail for threatening his daughter with violence. She also identified his deed for what it was: a crime of honour, committed in the name of a “seriously dangerous belief system.”
Many groups – not just Muslim ones – refuse to admit the existence of honour crimes in Canada. After all, they point out, domestic violence is universal. As Mr. Al Mezel's lawyer argued at his sentencing hearing, “What you have is a loving and caring father who thought his daughter was on the wrong path.”

The judge didn't buy it. She found that this particular father believed that violence is a wholly justified response to female disobedience. Mr. Al Mezel, she said, “deliberately and repeatedly invok[ed] the concept of violence against her in the name of honour.”
A very important point: there is a difference between someone who's a general jerk who threatens or hurts a family member, and one who believes he's religiously compelled to do it.* The general jerk can often get the idea that "We'll drop on you like a ton of bricks if you do it" and back off; the "Deity/Sacred Law orders me to do it" jerk often will not since he thinks he's compelled by said higher order to do it. Which makes the latter more likely to carry through(generally speaking), and when the boob is a member of a protected species far more likely to get the benefit of stupidity on the part of many observers and legal authorities. For instance, the reluctance of many to call this crap what it is: a crime of 'honor'. At least this judge wouldn't back off.

*from here on is an addition; a comment made me see that I'd not completed my thought originally.


Anonymous said...

Either one / both do a great deal of harm to the one being beaten. No excuses for any "reason".

B Woodman

GuardDuck said...

"there is a difference between someone who's a general jerk who threatens or hurts a family member, and one who believes he's religiously compelled to do it."

I don't know, a crime is a crime. I oppose "hate crime" laws for the same reason.

Firehand said...

Bad wording on my part, and I need to correct it. Take it as "There can't be an excuse for this crap based on religious belief".

GuardDuck said...

I can get behind that.

Keith said...

I think you just found the marxist's justification: "Progress" told them to do it.

Windy Wilson said...

"After all, they point out, domestic violence is universal."
Now we know why for decades leftists went after all manner of Christians for cross looks and disapproving words and made all sorts of logical contortions to call them abuse; so some thug can say that "domestic violence is universal" (the fact that his version is concrete and physical and every one else's is abstract and indistinguishable from advice and disapproval shouldn't be held against him, because after all, all cultures are equal under the law.
It's time some Sir Charles Napier tells these thugs that it may be their tradition to stone women to death if the tent they are wearing should slip and a calf be revealed, it is his tradition to execute those who stone women for that.