[Wamvan] 'Should we call it 'honour killing'? No!' (Montreal Gazette)

[Lindsay Miles]

"The reality we as a society must face is that these murders are about
gendered violence." - yes, but they are also about racism. they are about
colonialism and imperialism. these murders speak to how women of colour and
indigenous women ar...e marked as "violable" and how men of colour and
indigenous men internalize racist, colonial logics. i appreciate how
several articles including this one have touched on the Western-centric
bias and anti-Islam sentiment in media coverage on "honour killings"
however intersectional analyses are lacking.

link to article and comments:
http://www.montrealgazette.com/opinion/Should+call+honour+killing/6074266/story.html

  Should we call it ‘honour killing’? No!

 It’s a false distancing of ourselves from a too-common crime: the
murder of females

By Yasmin Jiwani and Homa HoodfarJanuary 30, 2012



 Rona Shafia, left and Sahar Shafia, in a photo recovered from Sahar's
cellphone, taken June 26, 2009 while the Shafia family was in Niagara Falls.
*Photograph by: *From Archive

The extensive media coverage of the Shafia trial and convictions raises
important questions about how violence against women is framed in the
media. Just as a photograph is framed by the photographer, so is the
media’s framing of a particular issue; the focus of our attention is on
what is in the picture only. Out of sight is the background we will never
know. In the case of the Shafia murders, the media frame the story as an
honour killing.

Some authorities argue that the notion of honour is key to defining this
type of crime involving family members. Typically, the victims are women
pegged as having deviated from the moral code and thus undermined the
family’s honour; by killing them, family reputation and honour may be
restored. Premeditation is put forth as a core component to differentiate
honour killings from other types of murders, such as crimes of convenience
or crimes of passion.

But recent studies indicate that premeditation is as much a component in
other cases of domestic violence and murder as it is in “honour killings.”
So what separates “honour killings” from other murders of intimate partners
or family members? More important, what is to be gained by framing the
murders of the Shafia women and girls as honour killings rather than simply
defining them as acts of femicide (the murder of women and girls solely on
the basis of their gender)?

Calling the murders “honour killings” accomplishes two goals. First, it
makes it seem as if femicide is a highly unusual event. Second, it makes it
seem as if femicide is confined to specific populations within Canada and
specific national cultures or religions in the world at large. But Canadian
statistics prove otherwise. According to StatsCan figures, from 2000 to
2009 an average of 58 women a year were killed in this country as a result
of spousal violence. In that same period, 67 children and young people aged
12 to 17 were murdered by family members. In contrast, recent estimates
tell us that there have been 12 or 13 so-called honour killings in Canada
in the last decade. It does not take a genius to see that comparing 12 or
13 against the hundreds of women and children who were victims of familial
violence serves only to frame “honour killing” as peculiar, when in reality
it is part of a larger pattern of violence against women.

There is also, critically, the issue of affixing familial femicides to
particular cultures. But if “honour killing” is truly reflective of
particular cultural groups, what kind of cultural frame should we apply to
the widespread murders of aboriginal women? Aboriginal women’s
organizations have documented more than 500 cases of women murdered or
missing (and by now we know that “missing” probably means murdered).
Amnesty International has corroborated these figures, and the United
Nations has requested an inquiry. The arrest and conviction of Robert
Pickton, a serial killer who preyed on aboriginal women, suggests that many
of these missing and murdered women were killed not by aboriginal men but
by white men. A cultural frame typically affixes blame on the perpetrator’s
cultural affiliation. The media, in this, and similar cases, did not.

Going back to the coverage of the Shafia murders, many reporters referenced
the family’s Afghan cultural background and adherence to Islam, suggesting
that the murders were motivated by cultural and religious beliefs.
According to the 2006 census, there are 48,090 Canadians with Afghan
ancestry. Yet the media have unearthed only this one high-profile case of
multiple familial homicides. If the phenomenon of “honour killing” is
reflective of cultural practices or religious traditions, why is the number
of incidents not higher?

The reality we as a society must face is that these murders are about
gendered violence. They symbolize a wider, more prevalent logic that shows
women and girls what is likely to happen to them if they don’t behave and
conform to social and patriarchal expectations. Recall the Guy Turcotte
case, where a father killed his own children after their mother began a
relationship with a mutual friend. It is a notion that women are property:
if they do not conform, they are likely to suffer the consequences.

Femicide is about gender. It is about women and girls being killed because
they are women and girls. That is the particularity of this kind of
violence. It has nothing to do with honour, passion or convenience. These
are merely excuses and rationalizations.

Yasmin Jiwaniis an associate professor in the Department of Communication
Studies at Concordia University.Homa Hoodfaris a professor in Concordia’s
Department of Sociology and Anthropology.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/wamvan/attachments/20120131/97cc186b/attachment.html>