It all looks like violence against women to me
Moncton Times & Transcript, Thursday August 27th, 2009
In the true story that inspired the book and the movie Burning Bed, one of the first times the husband is violent is after he sees that she had her blouse tucked in her pants while he was away.
That's something to remember when we pass judgment on 'honour' killings that occur in North America or elsewhere.
Victims of partner violence are often also victims of his obsession with controlling her, especially her exposure to others -- she may be made to wear baggy clothes, not allowed to visit family, not allowed to have a job. If these women leave, they are at high risk. Many a murder by a partner -- and New Brunswick has its share -- has been about his jealousy or suspicion that she has been or will be unfaithful.
And then there's the general attitude. In a 2002 attitudinal survey of a few hundred New Brunswickers by the provincial government, 48 per cent said it is not a crime to slap your girlfriend around if she flirted with another man in a public place and 35 per cent said it is not a crime to rape your wife.
When 'honour' killings occur in North America, our reaction and that of the media is so much greater than to our more usual violence. We sometimes hear comments that 'honour' killings are an abomination and that immigrants need to learn that such traditions are not tolerated here.
It all looks like violence against women to me. The difference seems to be one of degree.
'Honour' killings -- the murder of a female believed to have brought dishonour to her family by acting independently -- are not part of any religion but are a tradition in some regions of the world -- the United Nations estimates 5,000 women die from it every year. In Canada in the last decade, about a dozen women have died as a result of such dishonourable acts.
There are obviously differences between our brand of violence against women and 'honour' killings.
In 'honour' killings, brothers might kill sisters, male cousins kill female cousins, or fathers kill daughters. Women might be killed for having been raped. (We might want to remember that here, until recently, and still never far from the surface, a woman's style of dress could be said to invite rape, and sexual assault victims faced 'fishing expeditions' into their medical or sexual past.
Still today in Canada, most sexual assaults are not reported because of the stigma and the fear of mistreatment in the justice system.)
A victim of an 'honour' killing might have married for love, disrupting a planned marriage and her family's expectation of a bride price.
A recent Amnesty International report on 'honour' killings said that women who have sought divorce through the courts are sometimes killed because seeking divorce "is seen as an act of public defiance that calls for punitive action to restore male honour." Many Canadian women killed by their partners were guilty of wanting a divorce.
Some 'honour' killings feature more than one family member plotting the murder. In some regions, those who commit an 'honour' killing don't face the social rejection that we like to think our wife batterers get, though the minor sentences sometimes handed to our wife batterers or murderers seem to point to a lingering ambivalence.
The most devastating difference between our brand of violence against women and 'honour' killings is that, in some countries, courts commute or reduce sentences of 'honour' killers, and sharia law authorizes the murder of women who have sex outside of marriage.
But then again, for a long time 'crimes of passion' were not sentenced as strictly as others, and even today in Canada, people who have admitted killing may invoke the 'provocation' defence, which can reduce the offence significantly.
The provocation defence is used almost exclusively by men who have killed their partner or ex-partner, often when she tried to leave.
As the National Association of Women and the Law says on this topic, "It is not passion or loss of control that allows an accused to commit the offence; it is his belief system of male supremacy that empowers him to do so."
I note in passing that there was a time when English common law classified a wife's murder of her husband as 'petty treason' -- rebellion against authority, just like a slave rising against a master, or a subject against a sovereign.
In Canada, great strides have been made here to recognize women as equals, and to make violence against women a crime.
Some would argue that the denigration of women remains part of our culture.
That is a notion that is harder to dismiss on days when our news is dominated by domestic hostage-taking and murders, sexual assaults by United Nations peacekeepers and gunmen who seek out groups of women.
Though we have made great strides, it would be ill-advised -- if not racist and chauvinist -- to look down our nose at groups where violence against women is even more rampant or barbaric.
Cultures have treated, and are treating, women as second class citizens to varying degrees.
We need to support the women and groups who are trying to end 'honour' killings in their cultures.
We need to reach out to newcomer women here who may be at risk.
We are our sisters' keepers.
- Elsie Hambrook is Chairperson of the New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of Women. Her column on women's issues appears in the Times & Transcript every Thursday. She may be reached via e-mail at email@example.com
(sorry, no URL)
So what's the point? Are honour killings not to be condemned by decent-minded people [b]at least[/b] as vigorously as other forms of violence against women?
This is the point:
Of course, we should condemn honour-killings, but in so doing, we should not pretend or be blind to the fact that men of all races and religions kill women. How many times do we read an article in the paper about a so-called "honour killing" and then read the comments below which say things along the lines of "go back to your own country"; "barbarians" "this is not tolerated in Canada" etc.
Violence against women is a problem in Canada. By dismissing it as someone else's problem we make no progress and we do nothing to help any women.
I still don't get why the term "honour killing" gets thrown around only when its muslims involved. No, scratch that, I do know why that is.
Because that is what they call it?
My question was about "decent-minded people", not the scum who post racist and sexist comments on newspaper comment blogs.
For a pretty heated topic, that was a very balanced piece.
Thanks martin for providing the article.
And thank Elsie Hambrook for writing it.
Decent minded people consider it violence against women that has to be eradicated in every corner of the world. The expression "honour killing" is not only divisive, it points the finger to others as if jealousy-killing or control-killing or assumed ownership-killing is a more benign a death than honour-killing.
Honour killing is one of Tarek Fatah's favourite terms he uses to point the finger to the hordes of Islamists about to take contol of and declare Canada the US and Europe Islamic states. Apparently his rule is "tell me what is his religion and I will tel you whether he committed violence againt a woman or an honour killing."
itz not acutally muslims itz arabs and arab influenced cultures which is why it occurs in the mideast, north africa, and afganistan/pakistan (certain parts the ones who more delusional str8 up) u dont see for example africans in ameriKKKa who been muslims for generations now doing it. Itz an arab/wannabe arab aka sellout thing.
It's a man thing RP. Those type of killings are illegal here, but the home grown murders continue regardless.
So the point of the OP is "don't call it 'honour killing' - call it violence against women"? That's a bit of a no-brainer. I'm sure all decent-minded people would prefer not to use that term anyway.
If the point is a no-brainer to decent minded people why bother asking the question in the first place?
I think it's a no-brainer that it's not okay to hit your girlfriend.
Something tells me a lot of the 48% would consider themselves decent minded. Sometime you need to hit people over the head with the obvious and they still won't get it.
I "bothered" to ask the question because I wanted to know the answer. The answer I was apparently given seemed to me a trite point about terminology. I still don't believe I've been given a proper answer.
Really. Do "they". Do all of "them" call it that?
Your rant about Arabs and your false statements notwithstanding, I learn from this brilliant piece of yours that when a woman is killed by her male partner and the culprit is Arab or from an Arab influenced society it is honour killing and if the culprit is from a "miscellaneous" ethnicity or nationality, it is violence against women. I guess we should'nt confuse things here. Criminal code and educational policies should be reviewed accordingly.
By the way, is a theft still a theft when it is committed by an Arab? And when it is commited by a Native person? A French Canadian?
I know you're trying to make me seem like I'm using a racist remark.
I could go on copy and pasting quotes. Every reference I've seen made to honour killings involves Islam.
Am I trying to be sneaky and say Islam is the big bad devil and responsilbe for all things wrong?
Am I refering to Islamic culture when I say "they" and "them" because the word phrase honour killing seems to come from their culture?
I said THEY call it honour killing because that's where the phrase origionates from, why would they now call it something different?
I'm guessing it's a sociological term which has been picked up by the MSM and flogged to death in it's campaign to impugn Islamic culture. In sociological terms, an honour killing would be called that to make it distinct from, say, a murder for profit, ie., contract killing. Obviously, in this context "honour killing" is universal and not unique to any particular culture or location.
Have you noticed that you are adhering to a term that according to your reference attempts to justify killing women and to covert a murder into defending a "cause" ?
Carry on, buddy!
There was a time when dictionaries gave Mohamedan as synonym of Muslim. Mohamedan is a heresy for Muslims but they were not asked their input when the (Western) dictionaries were being written.
Here is the type of ethnic singling vocabulary you seem to adhere to: "to welch" (to break one's word), of course only in Wales they do that, "to gyp" (to steal), of course only gypsies do that, "to jew" (ostracize), of course that should be done only to Jews.
Carry on, buddy!
I'm not muslim.
If my brother or father kills me because of my lifestyle choice (gay) what do you think the news headlines would read?
I guarentee they won't call it an honour killing even though I'm not white.
Which is precisely the problem at hand.
I agree with you 100% Remind.
Well not the whole Salem witch trial-racist addition you and others have going on.
But the rest of your post I agree with totally. It's used as a bullshit excuse. It's sad that is actually quoted so often as being art of Shira law when it's actually not.
I wish I could remer her name. We had a speaker one day discussing women in Islam and how men purposefully distort and change their laws and customs to include the abuse and victimization of women.
I don't see a difference between crime of passion and crime of hate. Giving it a pretty name doesn't take away from what it truly is-monsterous.
Apparently sparkyone, in your rush to be biased, while pretending not to be, you did not even bother reading your own quoted snippet, as below, from above post 18 of yours.
They are misogynist fuckwads, just as the men here, who murder women they profess to love, are.
Only those men are exploiting a religion, to do so, though it has absolutely nothing to do with Islam.
The predominently white men misogynists here who murder women, need no excuse/justifgication of their misogyny, they know it will be depicted as a crime of passion, as opposed to the act of hate that it is.
Ya, I reworded my post, and we cross posted,
I am so glad we are able to keep this small section of the internet universe relatively free from over bias, prejudice and ignorance... To pick up on a theme: How about "honour speeding tickets", "honour stealing", "honour fraud", and so on and so forth?
I like mahmud's extension of the notion of honour-killing to the almost trivial Canadian everyday realities of "jealousy-killing or control-killing or assumed ownership-killing", in that the average, Christian killer sees his honour at stake in punishing a woman he is losing control over. The excuse claimed for those who would justify or excuse authors of "crimes of honour" seems to be that the slight is experienced by the family/community rather than by the perpetrator alone.
However, the media and judicial comprehension afforded to Christian men (parteners, fathers, ex-partners, sons, brothers, etc.) who kill women out of jealousy, rage, etc. shows that the community does rally to a certain extent behind the killer. While his crime should be treated as worse since he (usually) exploited the victim's dependency to entrap her, the wife or partner-killer is treated as much less culpable. For instance, wife-killers are, in most cases, eventually allowed access and custody privileges over their victim's children in the name of "maximum contact with Dad", deemed always good.
Do you have a reference for this? I have trouble believeing that. Not saying you made it up Martin but it seems crazy!
That really happens?
Yes it does. It's the extreme end point of the attitude that draws a sharp distinction between a man's domestic violence and his traditional paternal entitlement, an attitude that bill C-422 would entrench into law by restricting any accounting of a parent's abusive behaviour to a secondary list of criteria for determining children's best interest, as in "He may have abused/killed her, but he is a good father". In a spirit of "harm reduction", people, including lawyers and judges, wll typically say things like : "Yes, he killed her, it's a terrible tragedy, but why worsen it by making his children complete orphans if we force their father, their only remaining parent, out of their life?" The same rationale is used to maintain access and custody privileges for fathers who have acknowledged having commtted incest. The perpetrator's own responsibility in fouling the family nest to that extent is systematically covered up and society bends over backwards to protect his privileges from his actions. Indeed, children and wives are forced into service to achieve this moral rehabilitation.
it wasnt even meant to be a rant but I see ur point though I take it bacc manz everywhere are messed up I seemed to forget that for a minute. Thats on me.
That is terrible, I wonder where these sort of ideas come from, is it the male domination of our society that creates this kind of idea or is it the liberalness that believes we all need a second chance, I don't think a man in this situation should ever have contact with his children, at least until they can decide for themselves to see him, and frankly I don't think any murderer deserves any more chances let alone the right to see his children, its disgusting.
Honour killing has arisen in almost all patriarchal societies at various times, including our own, which means most large societies in the last 3-5-7 millennia of organized warfare and hierarchical accumulation of wealth. To this day women still tend to be treated as the one at least partly at fault in cases of domestic violence (meaning hubby beating/threatening/killing wife and kids) and help is rarely there when neede, despite all the back patting by our managerial elites. So we have laws against it now, but then so do most other countries where it occurs; the question is why is it so poorly enforced everywhere and why are the penalties usually so light, even when compared to other rather minor offences(?) Is any of this still controversial?
Is any of this still controversial?
It won't be if the neo-liberalism in its various forms manages to crush feminist analysis and advocacy and things revert to patriarchy as usual, with women forced back to the straight and narrow of subservience to men's wishes.
Piss off, with your constant looking for a way to target progressives. This is like the 3 post where you have done tried to do an oblique attack, like you think you are too smart for people to get it, or something.
Especially erroneous in this instance, given that the highest incidence of spousal assault against women is in Alberta, and they are hardly known for their liberalness.
And it is the abusive father's rights crowd pushing for bill c-422
It seems to me that the issue yarg is addressing is not the dynamics of spousal abuse but "Why do we, as a society, refuse to take into account a father's violence and protect his father's rights (paternal privilege) against blatant indications that he is dangerous for his children?"
I think a misguided view of liberal principles is indeed part of the answer, except that the children's rights, those to security and a life free from pressure and overt terrorism, along with those of mothers, are simply kept out of the picture, folded into the rights of the Father, as if the more "other chances" we give him, the more opportunity he will have to do the right thing, show his alleged true nature, give his children one more chance to have A Good Father, the ultimate value in our heterosexist, patriarchal system.
This in fact is a very conservative view. But it is being defended by people with liberal sentiments who should know better but for whom, somehow, women and children simply don't count as much as the patriarchal principle equating morality with manhood - a principle that, paradoxically, allows men to act as immoral as they wish to without suffering consequences.
If anything they are exploiting progressive views for their own ends, nothing misguided about it.
Remind what are Progresive views?
I've seen the term Progressive thrown around a lot but I'm not sure what context it's used?
You should have googled it sparkyone, if you do not know what it means and are participating in this forum. As you should have gotten a good idea from the policy statement you signed to participate here. So you could reread it perhaps.
here I will get another def for you, there ya go
martin, yarg does not mean Liberals, he is using it in the american contextual value, or as the value of republican sentiment of:
"damn liberals have ruined society they should be....."
I find your last example interesting. What I've got from rabble is that we (and I use the term respectfull,as I am somewhat new here) only really like voices that are saying the same thing as the majority. Someone who doesn't have years at rabble exchanging subtle and not so subtle insults and personal attacks will have every word critiqued. Like I said in another post, a very salem witch trial feeling. You use the wrong word and you're done.
one doesn't have to worry about being taken out of context because people will read your posts in whatever darn context they please and they will TELL YOU how you really feel. Tell you what you're thinking.
I'm trying to understand is progressiveness everyone here is talking about but it's hard when the flavor of the day seems to not only attack issues plauging our society but to attack each other on a personal basis. I don't mean just call names, though it does happen, but a favorite tactic here seems to be to attack someones character and person.
I've even caught mself doing that when I said you, Martin, find a boogy man under every rock (which I appologise for).
Maybe I need to think mor eof this Progressive mindset.
That's cute sparky :rolleyes:
Thank's for the link Remind I didn't even think to Wiki it
Personnally, I call progressive views that favour more justice and equality, less oppression and privilege, and more voices at the table.
Remind, I think it's too easy to blame "they" for "exploiting progressive views" when many progressives are themselves busy protecting fathers' rights - even in situations where these should be curtailed - and intoning things like "jail is not a solution" or "a child needs two parents" to protect White wife batterers and rapists from sanctions or loss of paternal power, when the same self-alleged progressives do very little against the disproportionate jailing of First Nationas and POCs accused of economic crimes.
...Someone who doesn't have years at rabble exchanging subtle and not so subtle insults and personal attacks will have every word critiqued...
Get a grip SparkyOne, you will find that, on sufficiently important issues, even people with years at rabble will have every word critiqued. And I think that is a good thing. I flag personal attacks when I read them, but only to get back to a more exacting critique of statements.
...What I've got from rabble is that we (pseudo-caveat) only really like voices that are saying the same thing as the majority...
"Respectfully", you are completely out to lunch with this statement. Read back threads if you want to educate yourself as to the very substantive disagreements and minority positions most of us have.
...people will read your posts in whatever darn context they please and they will TELL YOU how you really feel. Tell you what you're thinking.
On key issues, babblers WILL try to ferret out the implicit suggestion behind certain statements. Again, a good thing, IMHO.
You have more patience than I
And mean while the issues at hand get burried by people trying to one up each other.
You tink it's a good thing that I read your posts and tell you what YOU really mean? It's not just key issues, it's anything and everything Martin.
How about the topic at hand sparky?
I think the term Honour Killing is an attempt for people (no not YOU people, like in Tropic thunder, just people) to try and justify murder. In pointing out it was commonly something you find in the middle east, I was called a racist and accused of being biased. Water under the bridge.
Here's m questioned for you Remind.
I'm an African-american female who is also gay. If my father or brother killed me because of my life choice would it be considered an honour killing in the media?
Ultimately I agree with Martin saying "It all looks like violence against women to me"
I think when we call it honour killing we are giving the action even the slightest bit of justification. There is NOTHING honourable about killig another human being.
That's in the west though. Do we have a right to go to countries where this is common practice and tell them they are wrong?
Credit where credit is due: "It all look like violence to me" is a concept from Elsie Hambrook, Chairperson of the New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of Women.
A few articles by her: The Good Fight
Violence against women will only end once men are ready to challenge the problem themselves.(...)
Sexism Around the World
Why has the entrenchment of sexism in Afghan law raised the ire of Canadians, while the pervasive other forms of discrimination against women worldwide leave most unmoved?
Common ground is preventing unwanted pregnancy
On his visit to Pope Benedict last week, United States President Barack Obama said he would do all he could to reduce the number of abortions.
What he has in mind to reduce the number of abortions may not be what those opposed to abortion have in mind. The common ground may be the end, not the means to the end.(...)
Conformity to the male norm can kill you
Men are more often victims of violence than women.
If you thought otherwise, it is because women have been effective in bringing attention to the pernicious types of violence that they are more often victims of: violence by an intimate partner and sexual assault. Men have not come together to change the culture of violence that makes so many of them victims, at the hands of other men. (...)
Martin speaking now: I think it is important to understand what motivations men have for beating and eventually killing women. If they call it "honour" in some cases, let's grapple with that instead of dismissing it as an excuse. What kind of "honour" requires the silencing and curtailing of women? What is our version of this "honour"? Don't we call it "self-esteem"?