Friday, 20 April 2012

The basis for "Honour Killing" ...

has the exact same origin as the blathering of antichoice concern trolls.

Yesterday on Twitter I had to smack down "lettingsmokeout" who spouted pseudo high-minded crap about *Western civilization* defending human rights; eventually his tweets devolved to the point where it was apparent that the only right he defended was that of men controlling women's fertility and their capacity to breed.

There's "tedgurk" who seized upon the idea of appropriating one sentence from Madame Justice Bertha Wilson's complex judgement and cross-dressing it up as an excuse for Wankworth's M312.

The creepiness of male antichoice trolls - whether they slip themselves into the skin of a powerful woman to put their dicks words in her mouth or to flog the disingenous CON Attack Parrot©™ re-framing of issues to fit their fundamentalist religious ken - is boundless.

They manipulate the realities of women violated in many, many, many ways by patriarchy. They chose to ignore the pervasive social, political and religious forces that pressure women to behave in the ways that serve the needs of the men in their families, their husbands and their communities. Those who try to disobey their cultures' misogynist dictates are mutilated or killed.

So this CONvenient shrieeeking
about the termination of pregnancies within specific ethnic communities, and using loaded words "missing women", "exterminated" and "snuffed out" is surely not happenstance.

Just imagine if these rightwing apologists for their own cultures' gynophobia were as MASSIVELY outraged over the thousands of Aboriginal "missing women" and girls, "exterminated" and "snuffed out" by the likes of Robert Pickton and his brethren of christofascist gynophobes. And directed their fury towards the cops who deliberately screwed up the original investigations with their racist, sexist behaviour.

Meanwhile, this.
Men who kill female family members tend to be treated more leniently by the courts if they are white, rather than non-white males perceived to have committed a so-called honour killing, a study suggests.

University of Ottawa law professor Pascale Fournier and two researchers analyzed 54 cases where men were convicted of killing their wives or close female family members.At trial, the men all argued the killings had been committed in the heat of passion after they were provoked and lost control.

Under the Criminal Code, this "defence of provocation" can reduce a murder charge to one of manslaughter.Fournier said that when the men in the study were divided according to ethnicity, the courts differed in how often the defence of provocation was accepted. "It was more likely that it would be accepted by judges, by the courts, when the individual was a Western white male," she said.
Chris Little didn't use that "defence of provocation" since he claimed that his estranged ex-wife had been killed by someone else. Fortunately a jury rejected his preposterous fabrication.

And then, there's Richard Wills, another entitled, privileged, pallid "honour killer".

It's only fitting the Maurice Vellacott Award be bestowed upon those who defend Motion 312 by piously proclaiming that feminists are murdering female and gay "preborn children".


Lucid Glow said...

Those beyond crappy attitudes are still deeply ingrained in "western civilization". All kinds of horrible acts are justified in the name of tradition.

Pseudz said...

. . . proof-reading snafu . . .

Source memory fails me, but I've heard it said that, "Before every battle, the contestants exchange vices." I hope that this isn't true . . . 'cause when I consider the motivations and self-image shared by Woodworth, Vellacot, McVety and the other panzer-kinder of Gilead, I imagine that they see themselves as valiant new N. American colonists - bravely quelling the heathens and saving souls. The evangelists' necessary presumptions of superior humanity add an hilarious irony to Woodworth's choice (sic) of the modifier "respectful" to describe the work of his proposed committee. His middle-weight muddle is Mobius (read: twisted and closed) right outta the box. I don't think that I could exchange anything like that.

I believe that rationality and the principle of universal equity should underpin our public affairs. That's a belief - have I already exchanged a vice with my opponent?

susanodo said...

Friends of Janet: Those of us who were around the first time we needed handmaid costumes can give a few words of encouragement. Personally I learned that the state will use its powers to challenge resisters. I was one of the women arrested in Vancouver in 1990 when the funding was cut for women's centres across the country. In Van, we were never charged. Aside from the indignity of spending the afternoon together in a pissy and filthy holding cell, the police treated us well and released us with a warning but no charges. Our sisters in Montreal were not as fortunate. In other cities, such as St. John's, the women resisted arrest for many days. Anyway all this to say is sisters, prepare yourselves! Warm wishes from Fredericton.

sooey said...

These mad men need to be more specific as to how they intend to enforce mandatory procreation.

deBeauxOs said...

Round One is over, but there is another hour of the M312 *discussion* that is scheduled for June.

We take counsel from your wise words, susanodo.

Post a Comment