Honi soit qui honneur y pense
What to make of the arrests and murder charges in that tragic and bizarre drowning last month when a car inexplicably was submerged in a canal near Kingston?
Now we hear that the father, mother and brother of the three teenage girls who died have been charged with first-degree murder. But there's more:
Begbie and chief Stephen Tanner would not directly say why they believe the family committed the murders. Asked whether he believed they were "honour" killings, as suggested in an email to police by Mohammed's sister Diba Masoomi, who lives in France, Tanner suggested it was possible but not certain.
The reflexive use of ''honour killings'' when it comes to the murder of Muslim women racist and repulsive -- not to mention inaccurate. There is no ''honour'' in killing wives, daughters and sisters. Quite the opposite.
Femicide is femicide.
If a man -- any man, whether a member of a criminal biker gang or just some goof -- takes out another guy as payback for being disrespected, do we say ''honour killing?''
No, we do not.
When a Christian husband born and bred in Canada kills his wife for walking out on him, or cheating on him, do we call it an ''honour killing?''
No we do not.
True, as La Presse points out, while the possibility of ''honour killings'' were raised by Mohammed's sister in correspondence with police obtained by the Kingston Whig-Standard, there are no explanations of why she would allege such a thing.
I find it sickening how quickly we veer away from the deaths of these women to go in for another round of Muslim-bashing and stereotyping.
Witness how many comments have been removed by CBC moderators on its website plus the reason why The Globe and Mail has disabled comments on its report:
Editor's Note: Comments have been closed on this story because an overwhelming number of readers were making offensive statements about other commenters and/or the individual or individuals mentioned in the story. That kind of behaviour is a breach of our commenting policy, and so the comment function has been turned off. We appreciate your understanding.
What's more, it's not known what the motives were in these slayings.
And, always maintaining the presumption of innocence -- get a grip, media! -- I'd like to point out that we are not talking tribal hillers.
The Shafi family hails from Kabul, Afghanistan, a country in which honour crimes are more common, and lived in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates, for 15 years before arriving in Canada two years ago.
The Shafis are not conservative Muslims, a Montreal relative of Tooba Mohammad Yhaya, Said Fazel, has told the Star.
The deceased teenage girls are Zainab Shafi, 19, Sahar Shafi, 17, and Geeti Shafi, 13. Tanner said that the behaviour of one or more of the teenagers may have contributed to the motive for the killing.
No, it was the behaviour of the killer or killers that ''contributed'' to their murder.
Why are the police blaming the victims? Why are the media playing this obscene -- and unprofessional -- game?
UPPITY WOMAN DATE: The National Post -- surprise! surprise! -- has gone all out on the ''honour killing'' angle. It quotes Kingston Police Chief Steven Tanner describing the deaths as
"senseless and needless loss of innocent life. The four victims in this case, three of which were teenage girls all shared the rights within our great country to live without fear, to enjoy safety and security and to exercise freedom of choice and expression and had their lives cut short by their own family."
This can mean anything.
The bottom line is, they were murdered.
Our language to describe despicable acts keeps changing. Mass murder of a selected minority became "ethnic cleansing". Female mutilation became "female circumcism" . Now police and media have given us "honour killings" (as a somehow recognised and time worn ethnic cultural practice) to replace murder and femicide. And meanwhile in the USA some religious leaders and politicians struggle with a law that would hand down stiffer sentences to murderers who kill gays and lesbians. Now "pro life" means anti-choice for women's reproductive rights and "pro family" denotes heterosexuals who do not want anything positive associated with homosexuals (forgetting that gays are a part of families and even make their own families).
Posted by: John McLaren | July 23, 2009 at 09:44 PM
Well said, Antonia (excellent title, btw). I hope that the police have a solid evidentiary case against the alleged premeditated and carefully planned murderers of the four women.
The trial must go forward on the basis that crimes were committed and proof against those held to be responsible will be presented correctly. Any rightwing media ranting about "honour" killings will only taint legal procedure.
My first reaction upon finding out that family members had been charged was to wonder if the motive behind this elaborate scheme involved life insurance fraud, as in this famous case.
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/03/us/guilty-plea-in-fraud-that-led-to-boston-slaying.html
Posted by: deBeauxOs | July 23, 2009 at 09:46 PM
"The bottom line is, they were murdered."
Can't argue with that. "Honour killing" is a way of describing the motive. And once that's been established, what would be the objection to classing honour killings as hate crimes?
"There is no ''honour'' in killing wives, daughters and sisters. Quite the opposite."
Well, yes, we know, but "honour killings" describes them from the point of view of the perpetrator.
Posted by: The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs | July 24, 2009 at 12:15 AM
Excellent comment. The usual avalanche of words is SO -predictable. You have it right. Murder is murder. Period.Bravo.
Posted by: Cold North Wind | July 24, 2009 at 02:16 AM
I'll continue to hold my powder on that one until facts come out. And I agree - until they do - we'll simply be reading the predominant narrative, for better or worse.
As it pertains to this discussion though, I do find it interesting though, the sudden notion that the characterization of the crime of murder is unimportant. Is it?
How do you reconcile that notion against the countless posts and talkbacks specifically on beating deaths of women by their husbands? If murder is murder, surely the overwhelming amount of men that are murdered, beaten and/or conscripted into conflicts (worldwide) should attract a proportionate amount of attention by these same people. Instead, stats that indicate a rate of death comparable to random chance (lotteries and lightning strike deaths) are defined as a War on Women.
What about the overall discussion that characterizes crimes against women as being symptoms of the larger context of popular or institutional misogyny? It seems a defining quality of the discourse in this place - the fascination with characterizing the crime - the kind of victim matters, the cultural context matters, the motivation and characterization of the crime apparently matters. The term "wife-beater", as an example, has a special resonance here, doesn't it.
Like I said, I'll hold my powder on the case, but as for your condemnation of people using it as a pretext for an outpouring of Muslim-bashing -- there are a lot of people on this blog who do the same thing all the time. They just do it against men, and that's ok, or even applauded.
Posted by: PaulR | July 24, 2009 at 11:55 AM
The use of the term Honour Killing is very descriptive and should not be associated with any reiligion. It is a part of the culture of any Patriachal society which has customs and laws that descriminate against women and allow men to use violence to punish the women when they do not follow the rules set by the men. Obviously, these murders were thought out and supposedly justified by the customs and code of conduct passed on from generation to generation. When the violence occurs in a country such as Canada where these customs are foreign and not supported by law, then the killers are punished. In a country where the customs are supported by a large community and permitted by the law, then the killers are not punished.
Posted by: alan | July 24, 2009 at 03:28 PM