Okay, here's what's bugging me.

A few weeks ago, a car was found submerged with the bodies of three teenage sisters and an adult woman associated with their family inside. Charged with first degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder (4 counts) are the girls' father, mother, and brother.

Now, when this was reported on CBC news, the reporter and anchor repeatedly suggested that these might have been "honor killings".

I want to know what the reason was for selecting that phrase and emphasizing it. Does it explain anything about what happened? Does it help us to understand the event?

Let's assume those charged are guilty. In that case, these were murders, and the specific details surrounding the crime are unique to itself. Why are we lumping them in with a 'type' of killing?

If a French Canadian man snaps and murders his family, we say "Oh, he must have lost his mind." But if an Indian Canadian man does the same, "It must have been an honor killing." What? The Indian guy DIDN'T lose his mind, but killed his family anyway? Why is his crime being treated differently than the other man's? The two crimes may have been triggered by much the same motives. Perhaps a wilful family disobeying a deranged father and inflaming his need to dominate. A fragile ego and violent nature might 'snap' for any number of perceived 'reasons'.

By speaking about this crime in collectivist terms, the crime is reduced to a cultural phenomenon, and the criminals and victims to players in an event the significance of which is no longer tied to themselves. They're just acting out the form of a conflict between clashing cultures. It wasn't a multiple-murder, it was 'honor killings'. This demeans the victims and attempts to obliterate the crime. Blame is transferred from the individuals who commit the crime to the group to which they are perceived to belong. It's not the man who's guilty - it's his race.

Notions such as this are collectivist in origin and cannot help but promote racism and error. A thoughtless observer might say "Well, he IS Indian and he DID kill his family out of a misguided sense of honor.", and find himself adopting a racist attitude without even knowing he's done so. If the news had reported that the hypothetical French man above killed his family "Because he is French." would we be saying "Well, he IS French and he DID kill his family."? The terms "honor killing" are nothing more than an attempt to define an event in terms of non-essentials. Sure, they MAY have been committed with some sense of family honor as part of the motive, but that's not essentially what happened, and it's not essentially WHY it happened.

Don't try to tell me they did it because of their religion or culture or race. Lots of religions advocate that disobedient children may be put to death, including Judaism and Christianity - but no one actually DOES kill their kids, because they aren't insane. Same goes for these people. What they did was not rational and was not the product of the influences of their religion or other affiliations. If we want to know why these killings occurred, we cannot dismiss them by grouping them into a meaningless category. We have to look into the fact of this case itself. Inconvenient as that may seem in an era of easy answers and instant gratification, it is true nonetheless.

So again I ask, WHY is the CBC advancing this story to us in these terms? Why the repeated implication that these murders might be so-called "honor killings". I'm not a paranoid lunatic. I don't believe they are deliberately advancing an agenda of racism, even though that's precisely where their kind of talk leads. They would no doubt be outraged at the suggestion they might be racist, but there it is for all to see. Is there anyone who believes that if the family involved were white, they'd be talking about "honor killings"? It's irresponsible journalism no matter how you look at it. What ever happened to knowing what you're talking about BEFORE you report it? Speculation isn't the job of a reporter.

I think that they are simply people who think in collectivist terms because they honestly believe in collectivist ideology. They prefer to think of people in terms of groups than as individuals, because they prioritize the collective over the individual. In other words, like so many evils performed in the world today this one was committed out of a sense of well-meaning. The way to hell is paved with good intentions, my friends. Don't swallow ANY idea that you haven't chewed to find the gristle.