Honor Killings are Always "Barbaric"

On Tuesday, Canadian MP Justin Trudeau took issue with describing honor killings as "barbaric." He's backtracking now, but it's too late to hide his goof-up.

Even if one tries, it’s pretty hard to see Justin Trudeau as anything but something of a jerk.

Yes, he’s an MP, but that’s no excuse.

And he’s his father’s son, but his dad did positive things as well as goofy things like going to China and praising the humanity of Mao Zedong.

Even when he was PM, Justin’s dad wasn’t immune to goofiness – like his adoration of Cuba’s Fidel Castro and his curious view that the KGB was similar to our RCMP – or vice-versa. That was when he was in denial that the Soviet Union had subversive designs on Canada, contrary to evidence to the contrary.

But it’s doubtful if Justin’s dad would ever object to viewing so-called honor killings and female genital mutilation and spousal abuse and forced marriages as “barbaric,” as Justin did in his role as Liberal Justice critic.

Justin said that instead of calling these practices “barbaric,” the government’s booklet Discover Canada (to help immigrants to adjust to our peculiar way of life) should have used the term “absolutely unacceptable.”

Baloney. Why a euphemism to soften or justify disgusting and cruel practices masquerading as cultural traditions?

Justin has since backwatered – perhaps because a lot of Liberal MPs as well as Tory MPs found his indignation weird and misdirected.

In a radio interview Justin said he was “uncomfortable” with so-called honor killings being called “barbaric.”

Why “uncomfortable?” If not barbaric, what are they? Female mutilation, forced marriages and the rest of Sharia law are obscene by civilized standards, and to pretend otherwise is hypocritical and wrong.

Justin has now apologized. Postmedia News reports he emailed them: “Perhaps I got tangled in semantic weeds in my comments, particularly in view of the Conservatives’ cynicism on these issues. I want to make it clear that I think the acts described are heinous, barbaric acts that are totally unacceptable in our society.”

Sorry Justin, that’s not good enough. Maybe even “absolutely unacceptable,” to quote your initial view.

Just how are Conservatives “cynical” about honor killings and female genital mutilation? And what “semantic weeds” would these be? He now calls the practices “barbaric,” so why the complaint that the government pamphlet for immigrants uses the word?

“Cynicism” applies more to Justin’s reaction than to the Tories.

Surely, this is one issue on which most Canadians – especially elected ones – can agree. It’s pretty hard to see Justin’s dad objecting, but then his dad had done something with his life before entering politics and becoming PM to irrevocably change Canada.

And what does Justin mean when he opines that the publication in question “needs to be a little bit of an attempt at responsible neutrality.”

Oh? What sort of “neutrality,” one wonders, is there in opposing or condemning honor killings and such? “Neutrality” is the last thing needed in condemning such “barbarism.”

Anyway, Justin now regrets his impetuous outburst – but he’s still a jerk, and one who should give pause to those who fancy he’d be an ideal choice to someday lead the Liberal party.

Justin, it seems, has his mother’s brains, rather than his father’s.

Tweet