Comments on: Honour Killings Are Hate Crimes Against Women

By: jnarvey

jnarvey — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 03:16:10 +0000

And… done. That’s six. Congratulations, babblehead. Knew you couldn’t resist.

And that’s… the last word!

By: balbulican

balbulican — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 01:28:49 +0000

Sorry, J. I’m too old and too bored to play compulsive last-wordism in the absence of substance. Bye bye.

By: jnarvey

jnarvey — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 22:50:11 +0000

I knew you had it in you. Dodge number six coming right up?

Can’t wait.

By: balbulican

balbulican — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 22:47:12 +0000

Please continue. I’m sure a commenter who actually understands what you’re trying to say will be along any minute now.

By: jnarvey

jnarvey — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 22:41:52 +0000

Balb: Fourth comment, still dodging the main point. Congratulations. Can we get a fifth? A sixth?

I’m waiting.

By: balbulican

balbulican — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 22:25:44 +0000

“Deterrence” as a synomym for “use of existing tools of our justice system”? Sorry: those terms are not even in the same ballpark.

Since you’re simply tossing phrases around without meaning, I’ll concede your point: I really don’t know what you’re talking about. I fear you don’t either.

Cheers!

By: jnarvey

jnarvey — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 21:50:50 +0000

Balbulican, you’ve missed the entire point of my post. Yes, I did use the term, deterrence, where perhaps a better term would be “use of existing tools of our justice system” (although the context of the rest of the article should have made my point clear to you). You’ve caught me in a point of semantics. Congratulations. I shall make the correction.

That was your third entry and you’ve STILL failed to respond to my points, instead attempting to distract readers with a straw man. Cheers.

By: balbulican

balbulican — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 19:16:58 +0000

“I have made no claims regarding deterrence.”

Ah. Well, you should be aware that someone pretending to be you said the following, above:

“Taking action to protect women against honour killings with better deterrence isn’t bigoted.”

Awful when those anonymous bloggers sneak into your site and pretend to be you, isn’t it? Maybe you should consult some Subway sandwich maker on basic site security.

But listen… if that naught anonymous blogger posting about deterrence under your name DOES show up again, do me a favour and ask him/her the same question you’ve dodged (quite appropriately, of course, since it wasn’t you who asked it).

(Smiles.)

By: jnarvey

jnarvey — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:06:46 +0000

Balbulican, you seemed to have missed the essence of my previous response, so here it is again:

“It’s very common for killers in Canada to plead guilty to a lesser offense. Very few murderers are ever found guilty of murder in the first degree. Honor killings defined as hate crimes would help judges determine more appropriate sentencing in these cases.”

I have made no claims regarding deterrence. It’s a red herring. If you’re fuzzy on how deterrence fits into sentencing judgements, please consult a criminal lawyer and/or Subway sandwich maker to explain to you how that works.

Cheers.

By: balbulican

balbulican — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 17:51:56 +0000

I’m afraid I don’t understand why you feel that distinction adds further protection to women or clarity to the law.

Under the current laws, Honour Killings will be prosecuted as first degree murder. You have not explained how reclassifying a specific category of homicide as a “hate crime” will increase the level of deterrence: you simply state that it will.

Your evidence for this assertion?