A dumb thing for Justin to say, even if he has a point.
We don’t tend to call any crime “barbaric” in any official capacity. Why would we need to? Horrific crimes are horrific implicitly. To overdo the adjectives is redundant at best – and at worst, it reveals a suspicion on the part of government that immigrants are somehow likely to engage in the practice, and they need a firm talking down to dissuade them.
The Cons use of the word barbaric here does remind me of the Herouxville byelaw a couple of years ago. – a policy which essentially said: “By the way, immigrants, we don’t stone our women to death here, just in case you were planning on doing some of that.”
If you feel you need to be explicit about it, it betrays your fear they’re likely to do it.
So, Trudeau makes a good point. A good, philosophical point. But, as usual, being the master foot-in-mouth artist that he is, he’s now dragged the Liberal Party into an inopportune debate dominated by Conservatives turning red (as they’re wont to do) and shouting a lot of quick sound bites: “The Liberals like murder!”
Didn’t someone tell Justin that you can’t have a normal conversation in Canada these days?
Correction: made the first sentence grammatical 🙂
Filed under: Canada, Politics, barbaric, honour killings, immigration, justin trudeau, Liberals, reasonable accommodation
Polygonic 
The problem for both Justin Trudeau and Michael Ignatieff is being able to explain their thoughts at a retail political level. Intellectually, Trudeau makes sense. However, in retail politics, he will be seen as supporting barbaric practices that he actually finds offensive.
Ignatieff makes some sense on supporting cultural institutions such has arenas that fulfill community needs. However, in retail politics, he will be seen as supporting public funding of a potential private NHL hockey team–in Quebec! The optics don’t look good.
Cultural roller derby anyone?
Another example of how sad the state of affairs in Canada have become. The bigots, the paranoid, the angry and misinformed have to be pandered to instead of corrected and/or informed.
Even before Justin Trudeau opened his mouth, I found the citizenship guide oozing with hypocrisy that no one will talk about.
It condemns acts like forced marriage. Funny, it seems to be condoned in cults like in Bountiful BC where young underage girls are forced into marriage with dirty old men, forced to have sex with them and bear their children. To date, to my knowledge, none of those children have been removed and put in the care of the state, nor have those dirty old men had been convicted of such deeds.
And yes, I’m pretty sure so called ‘honour killings’ take place in those cults and/or Christian fundamental circles.
Conjugal violence? Please! Those Harpercons, especially Vic Toews have proven during the Long gun registry debates that they don’t care about battered spouses after Marlene Jennings called called them on it one Question Period.
It took ’em awhile to add one measly sentence regarding same sex marriage and gay rights, and ever so begrudgingly I might add.
And a piece of trivia while we’re at it; that whole idea of stoning women actually comes from the Bible.
[…] Polygonic, I am reminded of the time when oh little town of L’Herouxville came up with their laws […]
[…] dear. Justin Trudeau seems to have made a boo-boo – er, gotten tangled up in the semantic weeds (Cue the Jesus […]