Today is the Day of Memory for victims of HBV and it makes me wonder why the term "honour-killings" is seen as something that is solely reserved for victims of a specific background. The actual characteristics of an "honour killing" include the belief in taking action to restore the honour that men believe they have lost, so why doesn't any murder where a man kills a woman constitute as a so-called "honour killing"? Why is the term only used to explain murders when victims are from a South-Asian/Middle Eastern background?
 

7 Comments

  • GrannyBibi

    24/07/2020

    In some Islamic countries the law actually 'allows' protection of honour as a legal defence or mitigation to murder and those who commit honour killings can receive a reduced sentence on that basis. It is only in recent years that there has been changes to laws and even then you can still find sympathy in sentencing in countries, such as Egypt and Iran where the defendant says they were trying to protect family honour. So it is right that these murders are classed as honour killings, instead of every murder of a woman by a man being classed as one, because they are relying on being able to say they did so for their honour. Also, women also kill for honour. If they don't kill themselves, they force their daughters to kill themselves in the name of honour. Honour killings is not just male violence and thats why the term honour based abuse is very important to use.

    Reply Report Comment
  • MeowZee

    24/07/2020

    Heshu Yones was murdered because of a very specific concept of honour that was placed on her shoulders from the day she was born. Banaz Mahmoud was killed because of a specific notion that honour and shame are somehow tangible things that a family or community can 'possess' and that it is for her to guard. Shafilea Ahmed was murdered because being herself was seen as a danger that was about to destroy this so-called honour and her family needed to protect their honour at all costs. Surjit Kaur Athwal was killed because of an actual belief that killing her would get rid of the shame and restore honour. Although I understand the point being made, the very being of the above named victims was haunted by so-called concepts of honour and shame and it is my feeling that we will be disrespecting the victims if we didn't acknowledge the very real part that 'culture' played in all this. Whether we like it or not, it 'is' a problem is certain communities more than others. Instead of trying to say its a universal issue, I think our time would be better spent accepting that it is a prevalent problem in South Asian and/or Muslim communities and working on addressing this.

    Reply Report Comment
  • NazminA

    24/07/2020

    "In a literal sense, if a man kills his partner because she had an affair, is that not also restoring lost honour?" My answer to this is a qualified no because it really depends on the individual circumstances. Not every man who kills his partner because she had an affair does so because he is trying to restore his lost honour. Due to anger or jealousy? Maybe. Due to misogyny? Absolutely. But because 'shame' has been brought on them or their family or because they think it will restore their honour? It depends on the specific circumstances of the case - because of course there are some men who have killed their spouse specifically due to feeling dishonoured; Samia Shahid being the prime example. But does everyone kill for honour? No. I'm not saying that a white, non-Muslim man can never be guilty of 'honour based abuse' (of course they can because anyone can be a perpetrator) but what I am saying is that it is not helpful to try and broaden what would constitute an honour killing/honour based abuse or broaden what is understood to be 'honour'; A) Because it could mean a removal of identifying 'honour' as a risk factor which would only go towards increasing the risk of honour based abuse for victims (i.e. police will find it very difficult to assess risk of honour based abuse if they are told 'every' case is honour based), and B) because it dismisses the very real, lived experiences of victims of honour based abuse. On that note, does anyone have an example of cases of non-BAME/non-Muslim murderers whose motivation was in fact fuelled by 'honour' but it was not reported as one? It would certainly be interesting to see how media and the criminal justice system treat such cases.

    Reply Report Comment
  • Anonymous

    24/07/2020

    This forum discussion is interesting for me, not necessarily due to the question itself, but because I have recently been wondering whether my views have changed with age - and it turns out they have. About a decade ago I had put forward an argument along the lines that there is an element of 'shame' in existence in all communities which manifests itself in different ways e.g. 'shame' that you have failed an exam, 'shame' that your career hasn't taken off, 'shame' that you're single/divorced etc. I think (I am talking about a decade ago so my memory is hazy!) the point that I was trying to make was that we need to stop 'other'-ing because it is counter-productive to the fight against violence against women & girls as unfortunately it can make communities 'close ranks' and force more and more victims into silence; we see this all the time with female victims of sexual abuse/exploitation especially if abused by religious figures as they are told not to speak about their ordeal a) due to the "shame'' it will bring their family and b) the racism and Islamophobia that will be directed towards their community. My point was that we need to recognise that all crimes and injustices stem from patriarchy and looking at honour based violence as a global issue would be more useful in getting the whole cross-section of society to stand in solidarity to end all forms of violence against women and girls. Although I still agree that patriarchy is the root cause of all abuse and injustices, I no longer think it is necessary to try and find this 'commonality' (for want of a better word) around the concepts of honour and shame - because 'honour' is a very specific motivator and whether we like it or not, is definitely prevalent in certain communities much more than others. I mean, the key reason for trying to find commonality is to stop the racism and Islamophobia and well, Islamophobes are going to carry on regardless so let's just use our energies where it will actually make a difference.

    Reply Report Comment
  • Butterflies

    20/07/2020

    I remember growing up, I was told ‘izzat’ is something I, as a female need to protect from prying eyes and bad influences. This is my responsibility. I was 11 years old. I didn’t know what ‘honour’ or ‘izzat’ really meant. I just went along and agreed the I will do my best to uphold my honour. The onus is always on me to protect my honour, rather than the males who need to be respectful, lower their gaze. It is never the men who is in the wrong, it’s the women. I had a friend who was raped, she confided in her sister, who asked her, what did you do? she even wanted to check what outfit she had on? Shocking!!!!! what about HIM! Why did HE feel it was okay to force himself on her? Why can’t HE be held responsible for dis-honouring her. Unfortunately, this is a massive problem! Our community needs to open their eyes and ears and know that victim blaming in cases of honour will not help manage this problem.

    Reply Report Comment
  • Anonymous

    19/07/2020

    I think that the term 'honour' highlights a particular type of experience which moves beyond the actual act committed. It's definitely not just a Muslim thing! But unfortunately many Muslim communities wield 'honour' like a weapon in a woman's life- and this manifest in so many weapons. I feel the term is necessary - as without it, you're only getting half the story/experience.

    Reply Report Comment
  • Anonymous

    15/07/2020

    The term "honour-killings" is seen as something exotic that doesn't happen anywhere but amongst Muslim cultures, even though there is nothing Islamic about them. It is an automatic assumption that any woman who is killed who is from a Muslim background, was instantly killed because of "honour" and it is dangerous to make those assumptions. In a literal sense, if a man kills his partner because she had an affair, is that not also restoring lost honour? Or when a man attacks a woman who rejects him? These two examples would be considered "crime of passion" that happen on an impulse, not premeditated. But still, someone is being killed to restore lost honour, so why are they not called "honour killings"?

    Reply Report Comment

Join Our Movement

Raise your voice and get connected