Canadian Lawmaker: Honor Killings, FGM Not That Bad...

[nuvistors]

Canadian Left Calls for ‘Neutrality’ on Honor Killings & Female Genital Mutilation

Cultural relativism has reached a new point of absurdity in Canada when the “barbarity” of female genital mutilation and honor killings is questioned and becomes a controversy.

A recently introduced manual by the Government of Canada intended to teach newcomers about Canadian values and Canadian society has been met with ongoing hostility from left-wing Canadians and politicians over the choice of words in describing female genital mutilation and honor killings. Jinny Sims, the immigration critic of the opposition New Democratic Party of Canada, suggested the word “barbaric” might “stigmatize some cultures.”

Aside from official protestations, everyone can imagine the type of cultural relativist rhetoric that has been used to attack the Conservative government for releasing this guide. The blogosphere has been filled with “liberal-minded” Canadians continuing in the same vein as Ms. Sims, suggesting the term “barbaric” is somehow discriminatory or offensive to a particular group. However, reasoned thought on the matter should conclude on the exact opposite; that it is offensive to those forced to endure such ordeals to call them anything but barbaric. Unfortunately, sensitivity towards this group (as per usual) is ignored.

Taking up the relativist banner was also none other than Justin Trudeau, front-runner for leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada, and son of the infamous Canadian Prime Minister who brought multiculturalist policy to Canada. He attacked the Conservatives for using the term “barbaric,” and suggested that the term was a “pejorative” and that “there needs to be a little bit of an attempt at...

Of course the term is a pejorative, as it should be. Have we gone so mad with political correctness that we can’t even call cold-blooded murder of a family member “barbaric” in case it might “stigmatize” or offend? Rightfully, Mr. Trudeau was forced to step back from his comments as even members of his own party realized he had gone too far. This was done in the usual callous fashion people expect these days from politicians: Trudeau claimed that his words were somehow taken out of context and that they may have “misled” people

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/michael-kravshik/canadian-left-calls-for-neutrality-on-honor-killings-f...

[ilurkthereforiam]

These acts are barbaric.

Anyone who thinks otherwise should leave the planet.

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

There is an old saying...."if you were born where they were born and taught what they were taught you would believe what they believe".

Certainly these acts are barbaric, but if we want people to change, you don't start by insulting them. There are better ways with better success. If one word is all that is being debated in Canada then the only reason some would want that word to continue to be used is because they are looking for trouble.

[brandeentertainment]

YA I prefer the word scum, or piece of #%$#  or physco either way barbaric is way too friendly ...

The term Politically correct comes to mind .. Really most people I know would say Barbaric is a nice way of putting it but because were talking politics they have to be careful

[ilurkthereforiam]

They're supposed to be coming here to make a better life for themselves and their families.

I feel blessed that my grandparents immigrated here and wouldn't want to live anywhere else.

If they're offended by the word then they shouldn't come here. There are other places for them.

[brandeentertainment]

Agree on that one ... We all have to follow the laws of the land so if you come here you follow our laws and your beliefs mean nothing against our laws.. Granted everybody has the right to believe what they want but their is still rules to follow..

They should make an example of these people so the rest know that if you wish to practise every aspect of your beliefs stay where you are because this is a different country with different laws ..

The term honor killings makes me want to puke all over ... that is not honor not even close .. T

[nuvistors]

There is an old saying...."if you were born where they were born and taught what they were taught you would believe what they believe".

Certainly these acts are barbaric, but if we want people to change, you don't start by insulting them. There are better ways with better success. If one word is all that is being debated in Canada then the only reason some would want that word to continue to be used is because they are looking for trouble.

If someone murders their little girl because she did not  wear the traditional  "slaveware"   then  the Killer  looking for trouble.

Anyone who wants to remove the word  barbaric      is hiding his head in the sand   (or under the rotting dock )  since the only  apt description for some of these acts  is Criminal and Barbaric.

[my3dotties]

If someone murders their little girl because she did not  wear the traditional  "slaveware"   then  the Killer  looking for trouble.

Anyone who wants to remove the word  barbaric      is hiding his head in the sand   (or under the rotting dock )  since the only  apt description for some of these acts  is Criminal and Barbaric.

LMAO "under the rotting dock"

More and more becoming isolated incidents by fanatic individuals.

- A young barbaric ontario kid,slays a innocent asian,and mails said slayed asian across canada in pieces. Canadian values??

- bernardo holmoka ring a bell. canadian values??

- High ranking canadian forces official convicted of murdering and assaulting women while wearing womens panties. canadaian values

Should I continue ?

W1B-)

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

How many people of one society have tried to change the people of another society (by many means) through the history of the world?

A short 50-60 years ago no one cared about the traditions of other people and other lands. Then along came 9/11 and suddenly things changed. Those who 'really' committed 9/11 certainly succeeded in accomplishing what they wanted after the fact.

I'm not saying that I equally don't think that some 'traditions' of other societies are 'barbaric', but I know that they think some things about our society are equally as wrong.

And how do you change people, by condemning them? How would that work if others decided to condemn us. We wouldn't stand for it, because this is OUR society.....leave us alone!

I've always felt that the an invented concept in a fictional series had a lot of merit....."The Prime Directive dictates that there can be no interference with the internal development of alien civilizations."

Societies change on their own, the same as ours have. Not all that long ago we had slaves, Black people couldn't vote, women couldn't vote, women were classified as possessions....and a long list of other 'barbaric' things. Now we act like we have always been perfect. How did all these changes come about, from external pressure? No. It changed from 'within' and so other societies will change, from within, in their own time.

Certainly they have to follow the rules and laws of our society when they live amongst us....but to condemn them for who they are and what they believe is only done by those who are bigots and racists looking to stir up trouble for their own amusement.

[pierrelebel]

"...absurdity in Canada when the “barbarity” of female genital mutilation and honor killings is questioned and becomes a controversy."

Let's be serious.  This is a comment by the extreme right wing press criticizing Canadian members of Parliament for discussing the meaning of the word "barbaric".

The right wing would like to prevent any discussion.  That is not democracy, that is not Canada.

Nobody suggests one should agree or disagree with the word "barbaric" but our members of Parliament (from all parties) should have the right to openly discuss any issue. Any attempt to link the discussion against political parties for purely partisan gains is plainly wrong. 

To censor Parliament is uncanadian.

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

That is not democracy, that is not Canada.

Hasn't been Canada since Harper took his throne. Which hopefully won't be for much longer.

[pierrelebel]

“Everyone is in favour of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.”
― Winston Churchill

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
― Daniel Patrick Moynihan 

“All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently, the first condition of progress is the removal of censorship.”
― George Bernard Shaw, Mrs. Warren's Profession 

“The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.”
― Hubert H. Humphrey 

“When widely followed public figures feel free to say anything, without any fact-checking, it becomes impossible for a democracy to think intelligently about big issues.”
― Thomas L. Friedman 

“But I think what's important about this debate is not written into any specific 'gotcha' on this, but asking the question: What about freedom of speech? Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking?

I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilised behavior because that's one of the things freedom requires: is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilised, but that doesn't mean we approve of it.”
― Rand Paul

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

“I once watched several criminals engage in an organized argument, while an audience of supporters cheered them on, but I was so disgusted that I had to turn off the political debate. 
”  
Jarod Kintz,

[ilurkthereforiam]

At one time anyone could immigrate to Canada.

Now we can and should be more selective about who we let in.

I don't care where they come from.

I have my biases and so do most people, but we shouldn't let that affect who we let in.