Â
Photo: “Honour killing” victim Banaz Mahmood
Forbidden Lie$ has opened to justifiably rave reviews. It’s a very entertaining film and should have audiences debating over their coffees for a long time to come.  Hopefully, the movie will inspire people to find out more about “honour killings” in Jordan, and elsewhere.  However, the use of the term “honour killings” makes these acts of violence seem almost alien to Westerners, which is patently false.  The religion might be different, but there are many ways perpetrators can feel their “honour” has been slighted.  At least violence against women is (mostly) condemned and punished in this country. What follows are some reports about “honour killings” in Jordan”:
Every year, 20-25 women are reported killed in Jordan in the name of family honour. Reports indicate that most killers receive as little as six months in prison because they are deemed by the courts to have committed their crimes while in a rage and because their families dropped charges against them.Â
(”Jordan: Project launched to fight violence against women”,  16 September 2007 IRIN).
So-called “honor” (sic)Â killings - the murder of a woman who is accused of tainting family honor (sic)Â - account for one-third of all violent deaths in Jordan, a country which otherwise has low crime rates. Until recently, honor (sic)Â killings received little or no attention. Most Jordanians preferred not to speak of the brutal killings - which are illegal though often prosecuted leniently. Often, the slayings gain no attention, and the women who are killed simply become Jordan’s forgotten victims.
(”Women Challenge ‘Honor’ (sic)Â Killings, 2 March 2005 The Christian Science Monitor)
In Jordan, when male family members find out that a woman has “dishonoredâ€? (sic) the name of the family for (sic) befriending men, having extra-marital relationships, or even marrying someone without the family approval, they do their best to put an end to her life. In most cases they succeed in doing so. But if the woman has a narrow escape and seeks the protection of the authorities (often the police) such women are…welcomed by these authorities and they are offered protective custody. Where do you think this custody is? It is in prison. Prison, according to the authorities, is the safest place for those threatened poor women.
It might be quite acceptable if those women are kept in prison for days till the police find them a better place of safety, but…many of them stay there, in jail, for years. Is it justice that people who are threatening to kill are free and those who are seeking protection are thrown in jail for years as if they are criminals?
It was interesting to receive comments on my blog about the Khouri film from a woman who’s an expert in the field of “honour killings”, the maker of Forbidden Lie$ and from Norma’s old friend from Queensland. They respectively argued that:
No one really knows what the true numbers are, and I personally don’t think it’s possible to know, partly due to the very nature of these crimes. They are often unreported or disguised as accidents or suicides. And, when they occur in countries under autocratic rule, such as Jordan, even if “official” statistics are kept (which I’m not sure is the case), there is every reason to understate them. In Jordan, there is very little accountability and transparency, so no one is held responsible for accurately reporting the figures or, better yet, resolving the problem.Â
(Ellen R. Sheeley, author of Reclaiming Honor (sic) in Jordan: A National Public Opinion Survey on ‘Honor” (sic) Killings)Â
I did my research in making this film. I know what the stats are. Per capita of women killed by male relatives, Amman comes out better than most Western cities.Â
(Anna Broinowski, director of Forbidden Lie$)Â
The fact that there is one murder in this way in Jordon is too many, and we should all look at woman around the world who are either being murdered…(or) abused either sexually or mentally.
(Rachel Richardson, former friend of Norma’s who appears in Forbidden Lie$)
“At least violence against women is (mostly) condemned and punished in this country”
I don’t wish to seem pedantic [as I proceed to be precisely that], particularly because the post is a good one.
But the quote above is, as I’m sure the writer is aware and deliberately alluding to, only mostly, not entirely, accurate.
And before we rush to condemn ‘honour killings’ in other countries, particularly Islamic ones, we should at least consider our own back yards.
As in Jordan no one really knows how many women are murdered in Australia each year by ex-partners.
But some groups give a reasonably accurately estimate of at least 20 per year with several times that number of children sharing the same fate.
Unfortunately state and federal govts. have yet to allow the compilation of such killings in a single statistic, instead they are ‘buried’ along with piles of other death statistics.
This is despite various groups calling for a single nationwide statistic that reflects such homicides that in many ways resemble the ‘honour ‘killings in the post.
[But if you want to know how many cars, what types, years, models, colours etc are stolen you can get a daily update].
The treatment of the murders in the media is also reflective of a different attitude to murder in general, and again reflects to some extent the ‘honour’ ethos mentioned in the post.
The usual line here is that ‘love went sour’, ‘love triangle’, a ‘tragedy’, ‘he loved too much’ etc..
That is when it is mentioned at all, usually there is no direct connection made that a man has killed his ex-partner.
Of course sub-judice is cited as a reason for such but the fact is that the public here is not given an understanding of the true frequency of such murders.
And sometimes blame and responsibility is shifted onto other elements [family court /the police] without full acknowledgment of the responsibility of the perpetrator.
For an understanding of the ‘honour’ ethos as it applies here check out the action and statements of ‘The Men in Black’, a male group that actively stalks and harasses women, ex-partners of their members, whom they term ‘adulteresses’, on behalf of those members.
Extreme perhaps in their attitudes but not totally divorced [sick joke] from the attitudes of a much wider section of our community.
Anyway its a good post and I just wanted to highlight that we here are not immune to similar and should not be too smug in our condemnation.
Firstly, crazies like MiB are the irrational over-reaction to often unreasonable divorce settlements as One Nation was to illegal immigration. Just because they’re nuts doesn’t mean there isn’t a problem.
Secondly, when it comes to spousal murderers at least this society treats them with the contempt and punishment they deserve. That’s the real problem with honour killings - their defacto support from these communities. At least our society has made efforts to solve these problems, so some righteousness (or smug condemnation if you prefer) is warranted.
What’s anyone going to do about it though? Stone-age religious and cultural beliefs sometimes need a General Napier to jog them into modernity:
But that’s that whole colonial mentality which people don’t like anymore. Pity really.
Gee, that didn’t take long, did it?
“However, the use of the term “honour killingsâ€? makes these acts of violence seem almost alien to Westerners, which is patently false. The religion might be different, but there are many ways perpetrators can feel their “honourâ€? has been slighted. At least violence against women is (mostly) condemned and punished in this country.”"
Hannah’s Dad, I agree with what you’re saying. I think we’re capable of condemning violence wherever it is. Yes, the media have very set ideas about how it represents such crimes. Certainly the women who suffer from them are usually either saints or sinners. Of course, nobody fits totally into either of those categories.
I don’t want to get into the politics of radically conservative men’s groups (I’d like to stick to the topic and I don’t think they add anything productive to the discourse about violence against women). This post was really just meant as a chance to get some statistics out there, and to consider the issue in the light of the fact that some people think that the whole Kouri scandal hasn’t helped discussion of the issue.
Craig Mc, the link from IRIN indicates that attempts are being made in Jordan to address the problem. Note also, that one of the quotes comes from a website that has been set up by young Middle Easterners in an effort to fight against certain attitudes. Culture is important. The post about the Bra Boys movie discussed a certain kind of working-class masculinity that still exists in this country, however, theoretically their members have to co-exist with others, including working women, queers etc This is not to argue that Australia is not still a sexist society because it is.
Extreme religiosity (like extreme beliefs about anything) can make people do indecent and unbelievable things.
I do a bit of work as a Justice of the Peace in the town I live in, part of that involves violence restraining orders being taken out.
I ALLWAYS have one piece of advice for the lady (it always is) who takes it out. That old biddy down the road who twitches her curtains every time a car goes up the street is your best friend. Your VRO is useless if you are the only person who knows it has been taken out. If a couple of stay at home mums or similar know to ring the police if they see your ex in the street, then they can do something.
Sorry to be a bit OT but its something Im quite passionate about, I hate hearing people say the orders are useless, they are, if you are the only person who knows about it.
That sounds about right. Very common sense advice.
Although I suppose the other people in the street would have heard stuff going on before.
It’s important, of course, that women also don’t become isolated.
The discussion seems to have segued a bit to violence from exes, but isn’t it the case that the Middle East ‘honour killings’ (surely the ultimate oxymoron) are usually inter-familial affairs, carried out by the girl’s father, occasionally by her brother, and sometimes with the collusion of her mother?
I think part of this relates to tribal social organisation.
It predates modern religions I think.There are descriptions about this subject in The History of the Arab People by Albert Hourani.
Tribal justice is extreme but has really started to fall over as globalisation breaks into it’s sphere of influence showing the tribe’s members they don’t have to live as they did before.
Religions seem to co-opt what existed before so the criticism of this as a religious matter is a little back to front.
Darlene. It’s the blogosphere. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
By raising this issue, you lay yourself open to charges you’re not doing anything about it. By not raising this issue, then you’re ignoring it right?
Always amused by how some men suddenly become strident advocates of women’s rights once they see a opportunity to metaphorically beat up the women espousing them.
Fuck ‘em. Good post.
A good point. However as religions always promote themselves as a force for good therefore shouldn’t it would be incumbent on them, even a tweensy-weeny bit, to do something about making everyone’s lives a bit better, would it not?
And Craig Mc, I fully agree with General Napier’s sentiments. Some of my ancestors were lined up behind him as he delivered such messages to the locals, fingering their Brown Bess and Baker rifles, polishing their mountain guns and bribing Nabobs and generally making it clear the Victorian Empire wasn’t fucking around.
I just wonder now where the line is now being drawn over drawing the line on social engineering.
If those groups were really interested they could compile the statistic themselves. There is nothing to stop them and they certainly don’t need the government’s permission. Under our system the deaths and their causes are a matter of public record and have been so since the coronial inquiry was entrenched in Magna Carta, for God’s sake. Does the government have to do everything?
There is nothing in the rule of sub judice to stop the media from reporting the fact that a person was killed by their partner, if that is the evidence. Sub judice forbids speculation but does not stop factual reporting. I have never, ever, seen a case where the Press has not, during the course of a trial, mentioned the relationship between a perpetrator and a victim where that has been a relevant factor in the trial. You must live in another country than I do.
The usual defence is to try to shift the blame onto the victim as in the provocation defence, in order to claim diminished responsibility and hence cop a conviction for manslaughter rather than murder. This is hugely problematic and the courts are trying to grapple with it. For my own part if I were on a jury and the defendant uttered the words “then I just lost it” in order to establish diminished responsibility then that would be fatal to their efforts to get a reduced conviction. I’d be advocating to my fellow jurors that the only decent thing we could do would be to convict of murder.
It is in the sentencing phase where the perpetrator tries to shift responsibility onto others such as the Family Court, the police and society at large. But the sentencing rules have been written to require judges to take into account all of the circumstances in which a crime took place in order to come up with a just sentence.
Oh, boy, there is so much I could write.
Firstly, I suspect Anna got whatever statistics she has from government sources, either directly or indirectly. Those are quick and easy to come by, but they aren’t reliable or verifiable. Her line is almost exactly the government’s line. . .most of us who’ve lived and worked there have heard it over and over again. But she seems innocent about how autocratic regimes work and seemingly too willing to drink their Kool-Aid and believe the propaganda. It’s an easy mistake to make, especially for Westerners who are so unfamiliar with dictatorial regimes and their modus operandi.
But it is just not wise to rely on the accuracy of those figures. Who knows how they were derived and for what purposes? And, anyway, by comparing Jordan with the West, they’re comparing apples and oranges. Just to cite a few things that need to be factored into the government’s supposedly reliable data, the GID and the military are totally woven into the fabric of life there, and people are taken into custody on sometimes no or very weak evidence. Their presence is pervasive in Jordan. . .some days, there are even HumVees and manned vehicles with turrets hanging around the traffic circles and the intersections of Amman. Not something one often sees in major cities in the West. Other countries are more likely to have due process, to value freedom, to assume people are innocent until proven guilty, to not remove people from society unless and until they’ve transgressed. In Jordan, there is no free speech, no free press, no freedom of assembly, etc. You can be imprisoned for criticizing the king, the royal family, or the government. All these things are state controlled. I wrote and published a book there, and the state had to approve what I wrote before it could be published. Telephone calls, Internet activity, hotel comings and goings, pretty much the activities of daily life are monitored and detailed dossiers kept. Having this much infiltration of big brother into one’s life tends to stifle a lot of activities, not just criminal ones. We have just opted for a very different set of trade-offs in life, and these affect not only crime statistics, but the accuracy of how they are reported. And, as one of you pointed out, in the West (and elsewhere), people abhor and decry violence, whereas in Jordan, a lot of effort is devoted to covering it up and attempting to explain it away.
Craig, you make a critical point. Some people seem to be confusing crimes of passion, which have occurred in all societies throughout the ages, with “honor” killings, which have not. They are two different things. “Honor” killings are believed to have their origins in misinterpretations of pre-Islamic Arab tribal codes (so, Sheik, you are correct). Thus, since they pre-date Islam by centuries, it is not fair to blame them on Islam. Similarly, since they are misinterpretations of tribal codes, it also isn’t fair to blame them on the tribes. In truth, these crimes are un-Islamic, and the tribes have much more humane ways of dealing with sexual improprieties. But something got horribly twisted along the way, and now we are seeing these crimes actually increase in some countries.
The other distinction, as one of you accurately pointed out, is that “honor” killings, by definition, are intrafamilial. . .brother against sister, father against daughter, uncle against niece, etc., husband against wife. In many Arab/Muslim countries, a family’s honor resides in its females. So if there is a transgression, or even a rumor of one, it is the females who pay the price. This phrase “honor” killing is probably better thought of by Westerners, who find the phrase an oxymoron, as killing in an attempt to restore family honor. By ridding the family of the one who has shamed it, the family can supposedly earn back its social standing and respect. Or so the thinking goes.
That said, it is the case that the overwhelming majority of the estimated 5,000 “honor” killings per annum globally (the U.N.’s figure as of 2000, but most experts believe it is understated by quite a bit) occur in Arab/Muslim countries and in Arab/Muslim immigrant communities elsewhere. So there is a correlation, but no causality (for the fellow statisticians out there).
Another point that I think needs to be made is that in some countries where “honor” killings occur, there are actually laws on the books that offer leniency to the perpetrators. Some countries have overturned them (e.g., Iraq, Pakistan, Turkey), though they have left loopholes or encountered enforcement problems. But Jordan has not yet reformed its laws. There are three penal code articles on the books (Articles 97, 98, and 340) that offer great leniency to the killers, so much so that the average sentence is six months. You get more time for bouncing a check in Jordan than you do for killing your sister and saying you did it for “honor.” In effect, the state is sanctioning these murders, even though they go against the Jordanian constitution and are against 17 different international agreements and conventions the country has signed with the wider world.
Pavlov, the answers to your questions are all yes. Sometimes people from the outside try to characterize “honor” killings as a gender issue. While it is the case that 90 to 95% of the victims in Jordan are female, part of the horror of these crimes is that female family members are sometimes complicit in them. Sometimes it’s just something minor, like the busy-body neighbor lady gossiping that little Fatima just received an SMS message on her mobile from Ahmed, that sets off the whole horrid chain of events. Or, as one female university student in my study reminded me, a girl often confides her first boyfriend to her mother, and even something this seemingly normal can get the ball rolling. So, personally, I no longer see these killings as strictly a gender issue. . .more cultural and societal. And sometimes I am sad when it is characterized this way, because not only does it lay too much of the blame for them at the feet of males, but it also tends to marginalize the problem.
I have nattered on too long, but I hope at least one or two points I’ve made have been helpful in some way.
Ellen R. Sheeley, Author
“Reclaiming Honor in Jordan”
“However as religions always promote themselves as a force for good therefore shouldn’t it would be incumbent on them, even a tweensy-weeny bit, to do something about making everyone’s lives a bit better, would it not?”
Not sure that islam has as one of it’s tenets that it is inherently “good”- rather - you submit to the belief that there is no god but the one god and the Koran and associated lessons will direct and “save” your life.
Get on board and the rest takes care of itself. Promoters will say it is for the good but that is defined as being submission to the code.
I understand your sentiments Good Infidel Nabakov but don’t think that it will occur because groups of people asociate by force of agreement about religious thought or law.
Tribal justice works to limit retribution and minimise conflict. Those from other tribes in the view of one’s own tribe essentially don’t exist. They have no value and are entirely dispensible.Conflict between tribes must be avoided so severe punishments are used to satisfy both sides but to also stop further conflict.
a couple of links - they are pretty long.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/schacht.html
http://polyzine.com/arabwomen.html
Well I think you will find that wherever it is being drawn, the plans don’t apply to those who get to pay for the plans.
“The discussion seems to have segued a bit to violence from exes, but isn’t it the case that the Middle East ‘honour killings’ (surely the ultimate oxymoron) are usually inter-familial affairs, carried out by the girl’s father, occasionally by her brother, and sometimes with the collusion of her mother?”
Fair point, although wouldn’t all “inter-familial” violence be regarded as domestic violence, whether it’s here or in some supposedly exotic country?
“I think part of this relates to tribal social organisation.
It predates modern religions I think.There are descriptions about this subject in The History of the Arab People by Albert Hourani.
Tribal justice is extreme but has really started to fall over as globalisation breaks into it’s sphere of influence showing the tribe’s members they don’t have to live as they did before.
Religions seem to co-opt what existed before so the criticism of this as a religious matter is a little back to front.”
Yes, good point. That’s something that comes out very much in Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s book.
“Darlene. It’s the blogosphere. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
By raising this issue, you lay yourself open to charges you’re not doing anything about it. By not raising this issue, then you’re ignoring it right?
Always amused by how some men suddenly become strident advocates of women’s rights once they see a opportunity to metaphorically beat up the women espousing them.
Fuck ‘em. Good post.”
Thanks, Nabakov.
All true. Not interested in the “convenience feminists” or the “I’ll care about the broads when I can have a go at the (insert name of group here) or the broad doing the talking. Nuts to them.
But that’s that whole colonial mentality which people don’t like anymore.
Of course they don’t. “So perverse is mankind that every nationality prefers to misgoverned by its own people than to be well ruled by another.” That’s Napier again.
You couldn’t make this stuff up!
“Firstly, I suspect Anna got whatever statistics she has from government sources, either directly or indirectly. Those are quick and easy to come by, but they aren’t reliable or verifiable. Her line is almost exactly the government’s line. . .most of us who’ve lived and worked there have heard it over and over again. But she seems innocent about how autocratic regimes work and seemingly too willing to drink their Kool-Aid and believe the propaganda. It’s an easy mistake to make, especially for Westerners who are so unfamiliar with dictatorial regimes and their modus operandi.”
Thanks for that response, Ellen, and I think you make a good point. One should also be sceptical about accepting what all governments say, and this is especially true for autocratic regimes. People should bear this in mind when watching the film, particularly as it relates to the scene with the friendly and laughing doctor.
“Craig, you make a critical point. Some people seem to be confusing crimes of passion, which have occurred in all societies throughout the ages, with “honorâ€? killings, which have not. They are two different things. “Honorâ€? killings are believed to have their origins in misinterpretations of pre-Islamic Arab tribal codes (so, Sheik, you are correct). Thus, since they pre-date Islam by centuries, it is not fair to blame them on Islam. Similarly, since they are misinterpretations of tribal codes, it also isn’t fair to blame them on the tribes. In truth, these crimes are un-Islamic, and the tribes have much more humane ways of dealing with sexual improprieties. But something got horribly twisted along the way, and now we are seeing these crimes actually increase in some countries.”
I guess the problem with the term is that it makes the violence seem very different from the violence which goes on in Western countries (thus giving some people who hold generalised opinions about Muslims another chance to respond with their repulsive views). Nevertheless, “honour killings” will never be addressed properly unless we understand the true background and motivation of these things.
Thanks for your feedback, Ellen, and kudos for continuing to spread the word about this important issue.
“Just as Marxists incorporate Judiac eschatology and Spartan fascism, Foucauldians incorporate Christian providentialism, so they must take responsibility for the horrors they have wreaked upon the globe.
You couldn’t make this stuff up!”
By the way, JG made the original statement about Marxists etc. His comments seems to have disappeared. Apologies to him for that.
That’s odd.
But that quote was most of it. From memory the first sentence was a loud denunciation of “luvvies”…
It’s a bit off topic, but I would be fascinated to hear how “Foucauldians” were responsible for “the horrors they have wreaked upon the globe.” I’ll grant you some poor academic articles…
“But that quote was most of it. From memory the first sentence was a loud denunciation of “luvviesâ€?…”
I find that (cough cough) hard to believe.
“It’s a bit off topic, but I would be fascinated to hear how “Foucauldiansâ€? were responsible for “the horrors they have wreaked upon the globe.â€? I’ll grant you some poor academic articles…”
Which horrors was he referring to? I would have thought most horrors have been caused by the old inflexible ideologies (e.g. communism and fascism). “Foucauldians� have had minimal influence, while they seem to be (who knows?) about pulling apart the old certainities and binaries that have plagued the past.
Wouldn’t have the foggiest, Darlene! That’s why I was curious. Though I suspect JG’s answer won’t be particularly convincing.
Mark, I think you should follow your own advice to ignore the troll known as Greenfield.
We’re only feeding his seemingly insatiable desire for attention, and whover decided to delete his most recent posts is doing us all a favour.
True, adrian. I’m not sure who deleted them but you’re quite right.
Darlene:
“Honour? Killings” is indeed an oxymoron. It is the most obscene oxymoron in the world.
There are two insults to God that distinguish the real servants of Satan from decent human beings and both these insults involve destroying the lives of young females: “honour”? killings …. and hacking off the genitalia of little girls.
Neither atrocity can possibly be excused by invoking “religion” or “culture”. Never. Not in Heaven. Not on Earth. Not in Hell …. which is where all those who show they truly hate God by harming their very own daughters and sisters will surely go.