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.

Which horrors was he referring to?

Wouldn’t have the foggiest, Darlene! That’s why I was curious. Though I suspect JG’s answer won’t be particularly convincing.

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.

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…

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.

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!

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.

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.

I just wonder now where the line is now being drawn over drawing the line on social engineering.

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.

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

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”

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.

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?

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.

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.

And sometimes blame and responsibility is shifted onto other elements [family court /the police] without full acknowledgment of the responsibility of the perpetrator.

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.

I just wonder now where the line is now being drawn over drawing the line on social engineering.

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.

Religions seem to co-opt what existed before so the criticism of this as a religious matter is a little back to front.

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?

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.