"... in any civilized society."
Ontario Superior Court Judge Robert Maranger chose his words
carefully as he concluded the verdicts
and when he talked to the press about convicting three members of the
Shafia family on four accounts of first
degree murder.
You can learn more about the case here:
"It is difficult to conceive of a more heinous, more despicable
and more honourless crime . . . . The
apparent reason behind these cold-blooded, shameless murders was that the four completely innocent victims offended
your twisted notion of honour, a notion
of honour that is founded upon
the domination and control of women, a sick notion of honour that has absolutely no place in any civilized
society."
On one level, the verdict was a statement about Canadian
values. Just because Canada embraces different cultures and different
ways of life does not mean Canada is morally
relativistic. Just because you
come from murder-ville, or push-you-in-line state does not mean we will tolerate your imported values no
matter what. Mohammad Shafia, his second
wife Tooba Mohammad Yahya, and his son Hamed Mohammad Shafia seemed to have
been under a different assumption. They
honestly believed they would get away with their sloppy plan. They thought they could play the Canadian
system in order to do as they pleased.
On another level, the judge pointed out that these actions were
wrong, regardless of culture. The
Canadian media backed the judge's message by asking other Afghan-Canadians what
they thought of these crimes. The
general consensus was that these murders were fundamentally wrong. One woman emphatically said, NO parent does
that to their own children. What this
translates to is that Shafia family values are not evidence of a different
culture with an opposing moral compass, but that their values reflected a
twisted and warped version of their own culture. Their actions fell outside the bounds of ALL
civilized societies.
I applaud Judge Robert Maranger for his courage. I'm sure this was a difficult case, not due
to a lack of evidence, but due to the world holding its breath to see what
Canada would say about morality. And
because I'm sure there will be some who will disagree with his verdict.
For an article about Muslim reaction to the trial:
IN ANY CIVILIZED SOCIETY
UNDERSTANDING THE NEWS:
1.a)
What did the chief Crown prosecutor Gerard Laarhuis hope the guilty verdicts
would say about Canadian justice?
- That the verdict would send out a message about Canadian values.
- That the verdict would send out a message about core principles in a free, democratic society, such as Canada.
- That these values and core principles apply to Canadians and visitors to Canada.
- That the government is committed to protecting vulnerable persons, such as women, from all forms of violence.
- That perpetrators will be held accountable for their actions.
1.b)
What are some of the worries
from muslims, on how the trial was portrayed by the media?
- That the media focused too much on the idea that these were honour-killings, rather than focusing on the broader issue of domestic violence.
- That the media focused on religion as a key issue, even though the Qur'an and Islamic religious readers denounce domestic violence and gender inequality.
- That murder is not just a breach of Canadian ethics, but of religious ethics, and perhaps universal ethics.
GROUP ACTIVITY:
Where we perceive our values coming from can impact our outlook on
society, and affect how we prioritize our objectives. For instance, if you feel that your values
around courtship come from your genetics, this will affect how you go about
dating. In this activity, there are no
wrong or right answers. The point of the
activity is to explore the diversity and commonality in all participants ideas.
2.a)
Where do our values come
from? Brainstorm all the possible
sources of human values. List some
examples of specific values that might come from each source.
2.b)
Compare your lists with
others. Do some of the values listed
fit with any other sources of values?
Could some of your sources fit into broader categories?
2.c)
As a group, decide on 5
categories of possible sources of where values come from. These 5 categories have to encompass all of
the ideas presented by everyone in the group.
As a group, decide how much of our values come from which sources, and
depict this on a pie chart.
2.d)
If there is more than one
group, compare your pie charts. Are
there similarities? Are there
differences? Discuss why or why not.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
Judge Robert Maranger's verdict implied that some values are
universal ('universal' meaning characteristic of, applicable to, understood by
or involving all*). However, the very
existence of police, justice systems and murder trails is evidence that not
everyone believes or adheres to values we think should be inherent within
everyone.
3.a)
In your own opinion, how
should we, as human beings, determine whether a particular value should be
considered universal to all human beings?
*http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/universal?s=t
BRINGING THE DISCUSSION HOME:
Recall a time when someone seemed to react negatively to something
you were doing, but that you felt was a part of your culture.
4.a)
How did you react?
4.b)
How did you decide whether you
or the other person was right?
No comments:
Post a Comment