Women are not their possessions
Shaher Bano Shahdady was just 21, a young mother who wanted to live her Canadian life as a free Canadian woman. And for that, she was strangled to death in front of her toddler.From the Baloch region of Pakistan, she came to Toronto as a little girl. [When she was] 14, her father, Mullah Abdul Ghafoor, sent her back to Pakistan to study at a religious fundamentalist madrassa and a few years later she was forced into an arranged marriage with her first cousin.
That would be a forced marriage, not an arranged marriage. If she’s forced into it it’s forced, not arranged.
She was able to get back to Canada though, and she had hopes for her life.
She’d registered at the Adult Learning Centre to work on her high school diploma this fall and was hoping to one day realize her dream of becoming a doctor…
But she had to sponsor her husband here and his arrival in May forced her back into the cage she had struggled so long to escape. He wanted her to wear a burka, to stay away from Facebook, to put aside any plans she had of resuming a secular education.
“She rebelled,” explains Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress. “With the help of social services, she got an apartment for herself and her son. She was leaving her husband and asking for a divorce. How dare she? It would dishonour everyone.”
She and her son moved out July 1. After just three weeks of freedom, she was dead.
Strangled. In front of her child, age 3 – who was alone with her body for 15 hours.
Her estranged husband Abdul Malik Rustam, 27, turned himself in to police the next morning. He’s been charged with first-degree murder.
“Absolutely, it was an honour killing,” contends Fatah. “This is the fundamental issue here that no one wants to address. Nobody wants to tell Muslim men that women are not their possessions. It’s about women’s sexuality and men who say they own the franchise to it.”
Tarek says that a reporter from the Toronto Star called him today “and spoke like a true apologist for those who say using the term ‘Honour killing’ is akin to being racist against Muslims. If this is how low the Taliban Star has sunk in efforts to appease Islamists, shame on them. I have never net or spoken to a more biased and unprofessional journalist.”
No, I think the forced is clear. I understand why you’d want to simplify it, but “forced into an arranged marriage” is descriptive of a marriage partner she didn’t choose, as opposed to being forced to marry someone she was dating or actually liked (the cliched Southern “shotgun” marriage”.) Forced into an arranged marriage is worse than “forced to marry” which leaves open the idea that she might have chosen/loved the person she was forced to marry.
I’m not sure why this is being called an “honour killing” as opposed to what the facts suggest: run-of-the-mill misogyny that leads to domestic violence. There are lots of cases of vengeful estranged husbands who happen to be Catholic, Protestant, or atheist abusing or even killing their wives because they think that having a penis gives them the right. In most cases the woman chose the husband who kills her for love.
Incidentally, the term honour killing refers to a woman being murdered by her own family for some transgression they think reflects badly on them. Usually male relatives are the murderers, but in some communities female relatives or even whole villages, will get in on the act.
Aasiyah Hassan, decapitated by her husband when she left him for (documented) abuse and sued for divorce. Buffalo, New York, 2009.
Medine Memi, 16, buried alive by her father and grandfather for “looking at boys”. Turkey, 2010.
Shamsia and Atifa Husseini (2010) and countless nameless women in Afghanistan and Pakistan; killed or burned by having acid thrown on them for insisting on going to school.
I could go on — the litany of horrors never ends. In the US, miscarriage has become murder in several states and Utah has petitioned to legalize polygyny.
As James Tiptree (aka Alice Sheldon) said in one of her stories: “When the next real crisis upsets [the men], our so-called rights will vanish like—like that smoke. We’ll be back where we always were: property. And whatever has gone wrong will be blamed on our freedom.”
So many societies make much of “honor.” We have whole societies dedicated to it. Books and movies that gush over it and romanticize it. And yet it begets so much violence, from the duels over trival slights in the Elizabeth era (like those Shakespeare mocked referring to duels over cracking nuts too or for having hazel eyes) to similar machismo duels in urban areas between gang members for looking at somebody “the wrong way. Add to that the “honor” killings to remove the “shame” of a woman who doesn’t toe the line, and I have to think that honor based societies have some serious flaws.
These stories make me despair over humanity (not completely, just a whole lot.) That someone who probably thinks of themselves as a liberal and caring human being can’t recognize that this is naked misogyny and there is no way to excuse it, it just makes me despair.
I’ve read the Star coverage of this. How this justifies calling them “the Taliban Star” escapes me. Ironic, comparing a newspaper to the Taliban for their reluctance to just assume that because it’s a Pakistani family it must be an “honour killing” and then saying that they should be ashamed.
I fumbled the link, sorry.
@CW:
I think Ophelia should double check the story. .
From the link:
In calling The Star the “Taliban Star” over this article I think Ophelia has rather egregiously mis-parsed the article. The reporter may well have been awful, but like you, CW, I just don’t get the outrage over the article. Nothing in it is supportive of forced marriage or murder, as far as I can tell.
@Scote: It’s Tarek Fatah who called it the ‘Taliban Star’, not Ophelia. I thought it was clear that Tarek was infuriated by the pro-mysogynist apologetics spouted by the reporter during the interview. At any rate I doubt a Canadian jury will see this as anything but premeditated murder, no matter what the defense might call the crime.
#3
Polygyny specifically? Not just polygamy? That’s a pretty weird move. Seems to limit their range of plausible arguments.
Svlad: most people in the US use polygamy as an incorrect synonym of polygyny, in part because they cannot conceive of polyandry (or don’t want to). I predict that this petition will either argue that the request is for polygyny exclusively, or will be rejected precisely because it opens the door to legal polyandry.
Shannon has a point – the involvement or tacit approval of the victim’s family is not yet ascertained and this may not be an ‘honour” murder as such. Her father is reported as distraught on finding her body. Yes, admittedly he has not done well by his daughter, what with ruining her education and her life with that forced marriage, but there is no indication that he or her family approve of the murder or support the murderer. It is only fair to reserve judgement.
Scote – as MadScientist said, it was Tarek Fatah who said that, not I.
Tarek actually talked to the reporter, so he has a better sense of what the reporter was doing than we do. He’s from Pakistan himself, so he’s not part of some racist agenda against South Asians.
“Honour” killing – is that title ruled out when the husband alone does the killing? First I’ve heard of it. I didn’t get the sense that anyone was saying her entire family, or her natal family, were guilty of murdering her.
Her father isn’t totally innocent though. He married her off against her will. That all by itself is to treat a woman as an item of property that belongs to the man. He chose the man, he forced her to marry the man, the man killed her. The father is not uninvolved.
Poor Shaher bano, so determined to escape her cage and almost making it.
Yeah, ‘garden variety’ misogyny or male rage is pretty terrifying and it is a mistake to think that muslims have a monopoly of it. We then fall into our comfort zone like say a famous atheist of recent times and think that the only demons to slay are out there. That we have no such hatreds to combat.
There is a certain category of men who cant accept rejection from women and who murder their wives and girlfriends when these women want to walk away from them. Culture, race or religion or the lack of religion dont appear to be the determining factors in this kind of murders. They are not ‘honour’ killers.
Strictly defined, “honor” killings are murders of women by male family members for anything considered to affect the family reputation. This includes: refusal to marry as ordered, a stated wish for divorce, suspected flirtatiousness or adultery.
However, in many cultures the definition has expanded to include “breach of promise”, which targets women who try to walk away not only from an abusive marriage, but also from an engagement. These crimes are often considered “crimes of passion” and rarely receive more than nominal penalties. They happen across heavily hierarchical cultures (often codified in the laws): the Middle East, Latin America, India and, even today, the rural Mediterranean.
The obvious underlying concept is that women are property to be disposed as the men around them deem fit. If they act as humans with agency, they are defective and must be discarded.
True, mirax. That “don’t you dare leave me you bitch” thing is a recognizable pattern here – OJ Simpson being the most notorious example.
How is that part of a litany of horrors? If it’s one sided (one man, multiple wives) then its not great, but at least it opens the door to group marriages that aren’t one sided.
Nathan – check out Warren Jeffs for the beginning of an answer.
Nathan, you’re either disingenuous or clueless. Most polygynous marriages (across cultures) are contracted with underage girls and/or without the woman’s consent in cultures where the power differential is enormous.
Ophelia, you’re referring to the Warren Jeff’s of the FLDS Church? He’s the one that pops up under a Google search. I would argue that the problem with what he did, and what his supporters have done, is treat women like possessions. The group marriage doesn’t do that as a function of being a group marriage, anymore than monogamous marriage does (and as the post above shows, monogamy is no defense against the “women are possessions” crap).
Group marriage that is only permitted as “one husband, many wives,” with no allowance for “one wife, many husbands” or “many wives, many husbands” would definitely smack of possession, . . .
Wait, I need to think about this. I was about to argue that it would open the door to group marriage as I’d like to see it down the road, but I’m suddenly finding myself uncertain the problems in the meantime would be worth it. For the record, I still support a group marriage that doesn’t have one gender being the only “group.”
Athena, do you have a link for info on that petition? I can’t find anything on Google for it.
Most polygynous marriages (across cultures) are contracted with underage girls and/or without the woman’s consent in cultures where the power differential is enormous.
And they tend to lower the age of marriage for the girls. The issue of consent also becomes tricky.
Sorry but that seemed to need repeating in very simple language.
I try not to be disingenuous, I’m sometimes clueless, but in this case, I didn’t think it through, and am currently trying to do that. I’m aware of the issues with children and forced arranged marriages, I just wasn’t thinking about them when I originally posted. My apologies. I should’ve thought a bit more before writing. My only excuse, for how little it’s worth, is being polyamorous myself, I felt a knee-jerk desire to defend, and didn’t stop to consider who I was likely appearing to ally myself with in this case (given that its Utah). I should’ve thought it through.
It is not just Utah, Nathan. The rising tide of religiousity in muslim countries has led to religious fundamentalists championing polygyny and that has always been to the detriment of women and children. Family law has been amended in previously fairly secular countries like Malaysia to accomodate this pressure and women’s groups like Sisters-in-Islam have lost some battles already in this war. It is not some fringe issue.
Bottom line: “polygamy” (polygyny, for all practical purposes) is condoned or legally recognized in countries that operate under partial or complete fundamentalist theocratic law. This is now leaking into communities that want to practice this legally under freedom of religion statutes.
Connect the dots. Polyamory by mutual consent between free, fully enfranchised adults could not be further from this.
Dot 2: The petition Athena mentioned is taking place in Utah, a state with heavy Mormon influence.
Dot 3: It’s most likely that its the Mormon influence (specifically the more fundamental Mormons) driving the petition for polygyny.
Dot 4: The Mormon church is not exactly friendly to the idea of full equality for women, and supports men being in positions of power over women (in general, there are probably sects that are an exception).
Dot 5: Polygyny, as practiced in the fundamental Mormon churches, is very oppressive to women in practice, as well as in theory.
Dot 6: Polyandry is unlikely to be supported by the Mormon church, or any configuration of group marriage that they haven’t traditionally practiced.
Dot 7: Given that they will likely make their arguments on religious freedom grounds, its an open question whether forms of marriage not traditionally part of some religion would be permitted (unlikely, given the track record on same-sex marriage).
Dot 8: The harm to women if passed is not outweighed by the small chance that it would eventually lead to genuine polyamorous marriages being aloud.
You’re right.
Nathan, I wish I wasn’t! But I’m glad you walked through the maze.
@MadScientist and Ophelia:
Thanks for the correction on attribution. I missed the open quote mark when I read the post.
I think the issue of calling “honor” killings “honor” killings is one that shouldn’t be considered in a knee jerk fashion. Does calling a murder an “honor” killing really describe the unjust murder best? Or should we get rid of the term and just call the craven murder of women “murder,” and deny people any claim to “honor” by removing the abuse of the term “honor”.
@Athena:
Yea, me too. I’m wondering now if even decriminalization would be a beneficial thing. I can’t find the link right now, but if I recall right, the argument is that women who want out of abusive relationships that are polygamist won’t want to go to the cops because they are part of committing a crime themselves. That makes sense, and decriminalization would help with that. But how much shelter would it give to the men? Are there other legitimate ways to minimize the woman’s fear in such a case (where’s Rieux when you need legal insight)? I want polyamorous marriage legalized at some point, but culturally I think there’s going to be a lot of work to be done first.
@Scote:
Motive does make a difference, I think, when investigating murder, and if a defendant were to try to justify the murder, then motive would definitely be important. In that sense, it may make sense to continue using “honor killing” to describe certain murders. It can also help to highlight the barbarity of the concepts that lead to “honor killing,” which in turn can makes it easier to fight not just the murders, but the culture that leads to and allows them. That last sentence is probably more important than the motive issue.
Nathan,
Even if it said “polygamy” rather than “polygyny” I doubt they’d be prepared to give legal recognition to your or my relationships (I have a complicated web that includes a husband and a girlfriend–Utah is not going to get its mind around the idea that she is my girlfriend <em>and not his</em>.
In fact, I suspect it might be useful tactically to point out that any such bill would, in practice, open the door to some same-sex marriages, because behind closed doors, how do they know that it’s the man, not the woman, who is taking a second wife?
These types of cromes are occuring more often. There was one in montréal a few months back wherein a 12 year old girl who had been refusing to pray was kicked to death by her 71 year-oldfather.
As hard as I tried, I could only find one news report on it, one in which a sobbing neighbour who had struck up a friendship with the girl described how she had been profusely bleed from her eyes, ears, nose and mouth as attendants loaded her into an ambulance.
Since then nothing, absolutely nothing.
Two years ago, four montréal women, all belonging to the same Afgan family, were found dead in Kingston, Ontario. All four women were “rebellious” and the police had been called to their home on numerous occasions to calm things down.
No follow up on that either.
The family members were nabbed on the way to Montréal’s airport. They were hightailing it back to South Asia and were only 2 hours away from taking off.
Four dead women ( multiple murders involving FOUR people don’t often happen here, but when they do there is extensive media coverage.
But in this case there’s been nothing, absolutely nothing.
Vicki:
At this point in time, I think you’re right, unfortunately.
You’re right about it opening the door to same-sex marriage, but I hesitate to point that out. Same-sex marriage has a good momentum going right now (in general; MN’s not looking so great, but I’m still helping in my own way), and potentially derailing it by letting the opponents know they’re right about it opening the door to poly marriage (because that particular door does open both ways) may not be a good idea.
Sonia, that’s . . . horrible. I don’t know what else to say about that.
@Sonia
The Shafia family murder was covered by every major newspaper in Canada, it generated multiple stories in every media outlet and spawned spin-off coverage of honour killings in general. Heck, the murder even has its own Wikipedia page. Once the actual trial gets started (in October IIRC) I have no doubt we will see more coverage of that and the eventual sentences. As there are publication bans on the information disclosed in all the pretrial hearings I’m not really sure what more you expected.
Sonia: I have seen some followups on the drowning deaths (I live in Ottawa, not far from Kingston where the killings occurred), and the family members have been charged, with a trial date set for October of this year.
http://www.cancrime.com/2011/05/02/date-set-for-start-of-trial-in-alleged-mass-honour-killing/
As for the use of the term “honour killing”, while it may be a good description of the motives for the killing, I have often wondered if setting this kind of killing apart with a separate designation risks making it more legitimate, along the lines of “crimes of passion”. Murdering other people is simply wrong.
@Theo
Does calling something a “crime of passion” really make it more legitimate? I’m not sure it does. Then again, I’ve never understood why there’s a distinction between “first degree” and “second degree” murder.
Some people are more sympathetic to something done “in the heat of the moment” as opposed to a cold blooded killing. Some people are inclined to excuse crimes committed by a person under the influence of alcohol, even if the accused person chose to get drunk. Calling a murder an “honour killing” could be seen as an attempt to explain (or even potentially excuse) behaviour that would otherwise be considered socially abhorrent. After all, as far as the murderers are concerned, they were “only following orders” (ie the dictates that they thought came from their God).
I can see why people feel more sympathy for something done under these conditions if I think about it. Most of us have felt strong emotions that have, at one time or another, moved us to do something that we wouldn’t do when our head is cool (they tried teaching me to create those moments when I was a salesman). And drugs and alcohol can certainly impact our judgement and reasoning ability, causing us to be more likely to do something that we would normally not do.
However.
I suspect that if you make strong internal rules for yourself that you can fall back on when you’re in those conditions, you don’t have to worry much. Personal example: I will not engage in sexual activity when drinking, or when the other person(s) has been drinking, to avoid any possibility of assaulting someone because my drunken brain can’t read the “back off” signals. Sure, I’ve lost a shot or two with that, but it’s worth it. It’s a no brainer to have such a rule about killing.
We still have moral culpability when in altered states.
(neuroscience may prove me wrong about the efficacy of “strong internal rules” when in altered states, in which case I would have to rethink this)
Certainly this is exemplary behaviour on your part, but I fear you may be in the minority here. Military training and religious indoctrination can go a long way to subvert or bypass these internal rules.
Absolutely. Which prompts (not begs :) ) the question: Why use the term “honour killing” at all? A man should know that it is immoral for him to kill his wife in response to her doing something he didn’t like. The concept of honour is (or should be) irrelelvant.
Theo:
It can also go a long way to create them. It may even be that such training and indoctrination creates different rules that happen to be stronger. I’m not sure what to do with that, other than stress the importance of choosing your rules carefully.
The only purpose that I can think of, which I mentioned above, is a form negative PR. If the media or anyone else talking about it were to make it clear that the concept of honor doesn’t really apply, it could highlight just how rotten the misuse of that term is, providing an impetus for changing the culture. Perhaps it’s as simple as adding the phrase “so called,” as in “so called ‘honor’ killings.” It wouldn’t be enough on its own of course (nothing ever is), but I think it could help.
On the other hand, a recent conversation with my wife highlighted the fact that I think in terms of labels and language, while others don’t. It may be that only those whose thought processes operate similarly would react the way I would to such usage.