“Honour Killings” May Become Separate Crime
Rona Ambrose, Minister for Status of Women, held a press conference today at the Punjabi Community Health Service Centre in Mississsauga, Ontario, during which she addressed so-called honour killings. The speculation — see the National Post story, for example — is that her publicity exercise was in reaction to the release last week of a report by the Frontier Centre for Public Policy entitled Culturally-Driven Violence Against Women. An executive summary is available here; and the whole 21-page report is available in PDF.
During the press conference, Minister Ambrose said that the government is considering creating a separate crime for honour killings. She did not address how such a move would do anything to lessen the likelihood of such murders. None of the fourteen recommendations of the report calls for the institution of a new crime.
According to the introductory material in the report, one of the difficulties involved in coming to grips with the killings of some immigrant women has to do with a reluctance to entertain an open discussion of cultural differences that may reflect “badly” on immigrant communities.
Creating a separate offence of ‘honour killing’ is a terrible idea. Not only does it duplicate an existing offence (murder …), but it would presumably involve additional elements largely of mental state, or mental perception of community opinion, that would be (a) hard to prove and (b) potentially a fatal flaw in the prosecution. If one fails to prove the additional mental element, then the accused is acquitted and can’t be retried for plain murder.
There are lots of ways for the justice system to show disapproval of crimes that victimize particular groups, besides a separate offence.
Defining the content of ‘honour’ sufficiently precisely to make out a separate crime would be no easy task.
When I was much younger, honour killing (as reported in the press) generally involved a cuckolded husband killing his wife’s lover and perhaps the wife too. One was led to believe that in some countries (of nominally Christian persuasion), such crimes were seldom prosecuted or, if prosecuted, seldom harshly punished.
Would existing laws against hate crimes be useful for honour killings, at least those inspired by a desire to keep women in ‘their place’? I am inclined to hope not but am open to persuasion.
I also believe this is a terrible idea. It would be one thing to codify harsher punishments for femicide, in particular killing one’s wife/partner/sister/daughter for real or perceived moral breaches…which is what “honor killings” are when one strips away the cultural biases…but this would also catch all the non-minority murders of women for imagined slights.
The perception is, when a white anglo man kills a woman, it’s murder; but when a visible minority man kills a woman, it’s an “honor killing” and a sign of how alien the other is. It’s a straw man argument which ignores the culturally inbound, institutionalized acceptance of violence against women which is still a part of Canadian culture (all Canadian cultures) although all of them have taken steps to fight it. Instead of creating a “new” crime which can only stir up prejudice, why doesn’t the government concentrate on funding education and shelters for women from newcomer communities and taking other steps which, rather than demonizing and othering newcomer men after they’ve committed a murder, will help to prevent such crimes from happening in the first place?
If we feel we really need to punish so-called “honor killings” more than other murders, well, shouldn’t that really be an issue for sentencing?
I second the sentiments above. This does not appear to be a policy intended to actually address the problem, but rather a political move to undermine the notion of multiculturalism,
The current cabinet member holding the position relating to multiculturalism has long espoused a vision of a melting-pot over mosaic. To me, this proposal is just another attempt to push Canada in that direction.
The report itself is not bad, and steers clear of some of the more sensationalist elements that typically characterize this discussion. But the graphics used, as on page 5, are rather inflammatory and have the propensity to perpetuate stereotypes. I especially like the concrete recommendations found at the end. I don’t see any recommendation there though suggesting a specific crime for honour killing.
The FCPP who presents the report also has very close ties to the Federal government. One group describes their policies as,
Call me cynical, but when a policy institute that opposes gender or minority based pay equity starts talking about women’s rights in minority populations, I tend to get suspicious.
As I’ve challenged the Minister in question, I’m highly skeptical that politicians and policy groups situated in contexts where they lack adequate diversity and consultation with minority groups are prepared to address difficult issues like this without increasing discrimination and prejudice in Canada.
In other words, the vision of multiculturalism means we can address issues like this without acting in a “colonial” manner and “racializing” entire communities.
What a disturbingly horrible idea! As noted above, it does nothing to address the real issues here. All it seems to do is promote and evoke emotions of hatred and anger, perhaps even revenge, to go the distance on the range of reactions. Is this “Honour Killing” new offence going to be regarded and treated as more serious than normal murder? If so, then what may stop prosecution of such crimes from labelling any muder an “honour killing”? If the statistics were checked, I’m sure many assaults and murders would fall under the scope of people trying to find redemption for themselves or their families against perceived wrongs they have suffered. I recall as a student, many years ago, the principle of removing emotional content from the due process of law. This seems a few steps backward to me. Education, exposure, and communication are the keys here for resolution.
The immigration laws should be changed such that immigrants are made to abide by the laws of Canada. Our laws should not conform to them. They chose our country so why should we let them change it. We are expending valuable public money to be “politically correct”. In doing so, we are selling out Canada. Enough already.
@Rose: Immigrants are already required to abide by the laws of Canada.
@Everyone: I agree with the commentators above that creating a new offence would be a terrible idea. At best, they should make “honour killing” an aggravating factor on sentencing. The main benefit would be symbolic. Murder (for whatever motive) is already punishable by life in prison, and recent decisions have demonstrated that courts already treat “honour killing” as a very serious aggravating factor when determining parole ineligibility periods.
Agreed with most of the commentators here (Omar and Sarah lose me at places but nonetheless). I don’t know what a separate offence adds to the existing framework. If anything the sentences doled out in the Aqsa Parvez case show that our current laws are sufficient to deal with the problem. Life in prison with no chance for parole for 18 years ain’t no slap on the wrist.
At the risk of all of us sounding sensationalist as well, I will point out that although Min. Ambrose suggested the possibility of a Criminal Code provision on honour killing yesterday, and reports today seemed to indicate this as well, this might not actually be the case.
A subsequent inquiry by The Canadian Press dispelled the possibility,
The print version of today’s Star was corrected to include this statement, but the online version still has the earlier stance. Aaron Wherry of Maclean’s doesn’t have much to say on this, but what he does say probably is enough.
“Not the case” that they’re considering a change or “not the case” that she said it? I trust that it’s the former (in which case, good), embarrassing though it may be that the Hon. MIn.’s words are now “inoperative.”