The OP’s quote says that the woman was the man’s “childless first wife,” so I’m assuming that the woman who was amongst those convicted was their mother.
I agree. Watching the news every night was hard. The whole thing is just so sad.
Both the Globe article and the Blatchford article are very well done.
And yes - she was their mother.
Yes, I read that fact too, but forgot it.
Sweet Jesus.
I stopped here:
I remember The Flying Dutchman was at some point trying very hard to convince us that Muslims as a whole were untrustworthy because of taqiyya which is actually a very specialized thing in Shia Islam, not a license to lie to infidels. So anybody who mentions this to try to convince us that some Muslims are lying, even while saying that it doesn’t “quite” explain them, isn’t worthy of listening to. Anyway:
Does this include complicity after the fact? From my reading it only seems to include complicity in the preparation of the act. Unless “abet” means to aid afterwards?
Maybe, but she struck me as a woman who comes from a culture where all her life is geared towards being a “good wife” and doing anything to stand by her man and her family. I’m sure Shafia didn’t ask for her permission or her input when planning the murders. That’s none of a mere woman’s business. And of course she couldn’t say anything, even if she might have known of the planned murders (which might not even have been the case: why should a mere woman have to know about the men’s business?) For one, it’s been drilled into her that she has to stand by her man, and for two, she might have been killed as well. And of course she lied constantly during the trial. I mean, I even half-expected her at some point to take the stand and claim entire responsibility for the whole thing, say it was her and her alone who killed these three women and that her husband and son didn’t have anything at all to do about it. Because, you know, that’s what a good wife would do. (But I’m sure her laywer wouldn’t have allowed her to do that.)
I may be wrong, but that’s the kind of figure she struck me as. And yes, surely there’s something criminal in all that. Maybe it rises to complicity which would make her equally culpable. But I can’t help but think she had some sort of diminished responsibility in the whole ordeal. I don’t view her as equally guilty than her husband.
What, does it mean something insulting in Persian?
I don’t think I can ever understand the mentality of a culture that embeds a fear of shame so deeply as to warrant the killing of your own family member. If my parents both starred in beastiality porn videos and sent them to my friends and co-workers, I’d be ashamed, but in the end, I’d probably be able to laugh it off. It’d make a good story and its not me doing it, so I wouldn’t be that ashamed, certainly not enough to kill them
There has to be something wrong with people who can live with and presumably love their own flesh and blood for decades then turn around and kill them for something as simple as dishonor. It shames the family? So fucking what??! I want to grab the father and the brother and shake them (and do other painful stuff to them) and ask them how they can prize honor over actual living, breathing people. The brother never spent time with his sisters? Never talked to them about the future, never confided in them? Didn’t he ever protect them from bullies, or stand up for them against his parents, or when they were kids, didn’t they play tricks on their parents and then ran away laughing? How can you prize that person who made those memories over some fucking family honor? I’d kill the father for even daring to suggest murder if it came to that. The fact that I have female relatives just makes me think that these men deserve whatever hell that exists for doing that. It makes me god damn sick
For that matter, this whole tragic, sordid affair reveals a misogyny so pervasive that it boggles the mind. Don’t any of the men in this family understand they wouldn’t even be alive had it not been for a woman?
Inactivity can also implicate someone under the provisions of s. 21 of the Criminal Code. I think that may have been what happened here: the mother’s inactivity, in spite of knowing what the father and brother planned, made her complicit. She could have (and should have) reported their plans to the police; the fact that she did not made her a co-accused in the matter.
See, for example, R. v. Nixon, 1990 CanLII 407 (BC CA), at the Conclusion:
Emphasis added. Note that this was the best I can do in a few moments of legal research; I’m sure that, given more time, I could find more examples where inactivity (in the form of not reporting a planned crime) constitutes complicity.
Geeti was not the youngest: there were two younger daughters and a younger brother. Christine Blatchford’s articles speculate that she was killed because she was the most likely to blow the whistle on the murders. She had been acting out in school and had already called Canada’s equivalent of Children’s Services down on the family’s heads several times by reporting abuse.
And, apparently, the authorities took little notice, because the girls were well-dressed, and retracted their statements in the presence of their parents.
In this case, the authorities were in Quebec, but I have no doubt that the same occurrence would happen in any province of Canada. That’s how afraid we are of upsetting cultural norms.
I would suggest, as Blatchford inferred, that there is a base “pan-Canadian” cultural norm–that is, women have rights, and they will be listened to. Anybody who states that they should not be because “that’s not how we do it in Afghanistan or Sudan or Jordan,” or similar, should be automatically suspect. Canadian multiculturalism was never meant to extend to killing female children in the name of Islam; or lacking that, to some bizarre definition of “family honour.”
To put it plainly: in Canada, regardless of “old country” culture, girls may have boyfriends, girls may hold hands with boys in the mall, girls may wear what they please, and girls may seek their own future. If that bothers the girls’ parents, then I would suggest that Canada may not be a place where the girls’ parents should choose to settle. Because we will not let you control your girls as you did in the old country..
Actually, be it Canada or the US or many other western nations, “Child Protection Services” agencies have historically had a terrible reputation for inconsistent or incomprehensible performance of the “protection” part. Of taking some kids away for what seems like minor imperfections in the home environment or what are clearly BS allegations made in the heat of a custody fight, while *not *taking them away from abusive environments because, well, yeah, because they’re well dressed and fed so it can’t be that bad.
(See also the thread on the Norway feeding-by-hand = abuse incident. )
Until very recently in historic terms, the relevant agencies had a self-contradictory mission element of preserving the family if possible, and a vision of “endangerment” kind of socioeconomically skewed to favor “well dressed and fed” as a criterion for a good enough family environment, and that mentality takes a loooong time to change. It did not click on “it’s multiculturalism’s fault” for me right off the bat.
Would the woman’s “duty to act” have arisen due to her status as:
- mom to the threatened child
- a relative, in any degree, of the threatened child
- a person, related or not, who is aware of a murder being planned
- something else?
It got a lot of flack at the time, and I’m not sure they went about it entirely in the correct manner, but discussions like the Bouchard-Taylor Commission on reasonable accommodation need to take place and lines do need to be drawn. Mentioning things like that tend to lead to accusations of xenophobia, racism and bigotry, which poisons the well right off the bat, but you are correct that we cannot allow situations like this to develop ever again. These weren’t the first or only honour killings in Canada - here is a randomly googled articleabout another alleged one (the killing took place in India, though the parents were in Canada).
We cannot force people to take on all aspects of our culture. But we cannot allow all aspects of other cultures - particularly those that are damaging or criminal in our society - to continue here either.
I don’t know how to go about it, and there is a lot of education that need to take place, both of immigrants and Canadians, but things like these murders should never happen again.
Update: The son has filed an appeal
From today’s Globe and Mail:
Can we start with the “aspects of culture” that led a white British Columbian to be able to murder nearly fifty women sex workers, many of them Aboriginal, before he was stopped? Or is it only “other” cultures that are to be under scrutiny?
Um. What?
I’m discussing this particular case, involving foreign cultural elements and differences that led to the deaths of four women in Canada. Yes, we should look into the aspects of culture - whatever they may be - that led to Pickton killing nearly fifty female sex workers, many of the Aboriginal. If something is harmful or dangerous, it needs to be examined and discussed and possibly fixed or accommodated or whatever in order to make it not dangerous or harmful. I don’t see why talking about potentially harmful aspects of some cultures precludes us from talking about our own culture. I’m under no allusions that ours is perfect.
Did you actually read what I wrote, or did you just go with the knee-jerk reaction?
We cannot expect people to take on all aspects of our culture. Meaning that there are many, many aspects of other cultures that people should and can keep or continue with in Canada.
But we cannot allow all aspects of other cultures - particularly those that are damaging or criminal in our society - to continue here either. There are many aspects of other cultures that are different from ours - that’s what makes them other cultures, and most should be celebrated - but there are some things that we, as a country, as a culture, have determined and agreed are harmful or criminal and they shouldn’t get a pass just because it’s allowed somewhere else.
It’s rather disingenuous to imply any sort of racist or other negative motive to my words, and I’d appreciate an apology.
What the devil does this have to do with anything? You think a serial murderer, who preyed on the most vulnerable, is a cultural thing? His victims were prostitutes, and aboriginals, and any other disenfranchised, like hookers and addicts. People society had largely given up on and no one would likely look too hard for. They’d just assume, they went with a bad john, or overdosed, or fell into a hole. There is no evidence that he was selecting specifically aboriginals, just street people who made easy victims.
But, hey, way to jerk that knee, even tangentially.
Being too busy/lazy to look it up, what are the rules on hearsy in Canadian jurisdictions.
At least some Canadian Criminal lawyers (some of whom are actually not the Counsels ;)) are convinced that any Appeal has a realistic prospect of success. To my mind from what I have read in this case and being also trained in common law jurisdictions, there are certain questions which could make an appeal very interesting. Feedback from Canadian lawyers would be greatly appreciated.
I’m not Canadian, but I do agree with this. No society can afford an all-or-nothing approach to cultural differences. You can’t force someone to adopt all of the new country’s cultural norms, and that’s a good thing, but at the same time, you can’t excuse bad behavior away by ascribing it to the cultural norms of the country from which they emigrated. Murder is murder, and Canada (or the US or France or wherever) has the right and, I would also argue the obligation, to protect its citizens and residents from being murdered, no matter if it’s a white serial killer or an intra-family honor killing.