How Tarek Fatah got it wrong on both “honor” killing and domestic violence November 19, 2008
Posted by Faith in Culture/Society, News, Politics.Tags: Aqsa Parvez, Canada, domestic violence, honor killing, Tarek Fatah
trackback
Recently, there has been much discussion in the media over the use of the term “honor killing”. Is the term racist? Does it implicate Islam for killings that are not religiously sanctioned? Are “honor killings” really domestic violence that is no different from domestic violence that occurs in every society?
The National Post published a feature this past weekend that looks at these questions. The story itself was balanced, getting a variety of viewpoints and presenting the issue in a balanced rather than sensationalist manner. So to the National Post I give kudos.
However, while reading the article I couldn’t help but notice Tarek Fatah’s comments:
“For all these lefties who have formed alliances with Islamists, I accuse them of racism of lower expectations,” said Tarek Fatah of the Muslim Canadian Coalition.
Mr. Fatah believes that honour killings should be viewed as sui generis crimes. “The courts must recognize the unique nature of the crime. If honour killings are not mentioned and defined in the Criminal Code, it will allow apologists of this crime to continue to deny its existence.”
He said the case of Aqsa, for example, who allegedly was entrapped by family members and killed in her house last December, was something that bears little relation to the common arc of a domestic dispute.
“Domestic abuse is usually about a dispute between partners. Child abuse is different, and [the Aqsa case] is about a girl who did not want to cover her head and did not want to live in the lifestyle imposed on her by her brothers and fathers,” Mr. Fatah said. “We also know that one of the brothers didn’t want to live in these conditions and he left home. But did they kill him?”
There are so many disturbing things said in Mr. Fatah’s statements. The first is the idea that people who abhor the term honor killing are “Islamists” and the dismissal of non-Muslims who abhor as “lefties”. He shows little respect for people who see honor killing as a problematic term and instead of debating the position resorts to ad hominem and sensationalist attacks that add nothing to the discussion. Would it have been that difficult to discuss whether or not honor killing is a racist term?
Then to make it worse, he accuses his opponents of being racist and borrows from a term from President Bush “the bigotry of lower expectations” replacing bigotry with racism. Again, one has to wonder why Mr. Fatah feels the need to attack people who don’t agree with his position in such a sensationalist manner.
What really upset me about Fatah’s argument however is his “definition” of domestic abuse. Mr. Fatah believes that honor killings are different from domestic violence, but his reasoning rests on the wrong idea of what domestic abuse is. Fatah says that domestic abuse is usually about a dispute between partner. One has to wonder if Mr. Fatah has ever taken a course on the family, taken any Women’s Studies courses or at least read a book on either. Domestic abuse is about much more than a “dispute between partners.” It is about a desire to control. Additionally, domestic abuse or more appropriately, the intimate terrorism that resulted in the death of Aqsa Parvez and is the domestic abuse that we commonly think of, is rooted in patriarchy. So domestic abuse, which can also include child abuse, is about much more than a dispute between partners.
Thus, I ask how Mr. Fatah’s distinguishes between Aqsa Parvez’s death and domestic violence that occurs in Canada. Does the distinction ultimately come down to the ethinicity and religion of the perpetrator and victim? More importantly I ask whether Mr. Fatah can speak about this issue in a manner that is informed and non-sensationalist? If Mr. Fatah wants to help women, including Muslim women, then this will be necessary whenever he speaks about “honor killings” or domestic violence.
i’d like it explained to me what it matters what we call the crime, and whether it’s domestic abuse or not. it clearly fits well within common criminal provisions. why not just slap a murder charge on perpetrators, just like any other? where’s the debate exactly? is the debate whether ther term “honour killings” is racist? who cares what they call it. sui generis, pfffft.
It matters what crime is called because they imply two different things. When people think of “honor” killings, they think of 1) non-Western, specifically Arab or South Asian cultures and 2) they often think of Muslims. It’s another way to make these cultures seem barbarian and brutal. No one ever says that a man from a Western culture commits an honor killing. If a man in say the US killed his wife or girlfriend because she was he thought she was flirting with another man, no one says he committed an honor killing.” We would say he committed murder.
By calling murders “honor killings” I think we’re lessening the impact of what it really it is because we’re labeling the murder with a term that is highly racialized. The term “honor killings” makes the murder of women seem like a crime that is “normal” in certain cultures (i.e. Muslim) but abhorrent in others (i.e. Western). It’s almost as if we’re saying “well, those Muslims men care so much about their honor that they’ll kill for it but we wouldn’t dare do the same. So even though it’s murder it’s not like a typical murder.” Murder is murder. Abuse is abuse.
The name that is used matters very much. The term ‘honour killing’ suggests that the murder is committed because of a particular cultural or religious attitude towards women that only exists in Those Societies Over There. If you read about such incidents in the press, you will find that the term ‘domestic violence’ is used when the perpetrator is white and one of ‘us’.
If the perpetrator is a Muslim, it becomes an honour killing.
The truth of the matter is that such horrific cases are nearly always the result of the killer’s distorted sense of ego – his ‘honour’, if you will. But according to the popular press, it’s only Muslim men who are prone to such outbreaks of self-aggrandising violence. When the killer is a white non-Muslim Brit…well, maybe she provoked him.
There is a vital distinction, a distinction essential for the comprehension of ‘honour’-based violence and for the protection of potential victims. The distinction is not in the race or religion of the perpetrator of the victim, nor in the motivation: its the collective nature of the crime (I am speaking as someone who works professionally with victims of gender violence). Can you honestly watch the stoning-to-death of (Yezidi) Du’a Khalil and say that it’s a form of domestic violence like any other jealous husband or boyfriend? The structures in place to protect women from domestic violence are normally built around protecting a single woman from a single antagonist, but when the matter is family ‘honour’ this is inadequate: you may have a large extended family with presence in many cities so finding a safe refuge is practically impossible. You may have professional agencies dedicated to searching for and retrieving women who have escaped from the family–here in the UK, one in eight ‘honour’ killings are committed by professional hitmen. You may have people in positions of influence violating confidentiality because of their beliefs about women’s rights, passing on addresses.
Believe me, we deal with DV, and we deal with HBV. We have different procedures for each form of violence because they have different demands and responses. It’s important for professionals to understand this, particularly police, social workers and teachers who may deal with HBV.
However, it is also important to dissassociate HBV from any particular group: if you associate it entirely with Muslims, you would have missed the first victim of ‘honour’ killing in Canada, Amandeep Athwal. Awareness needs to be raised, so that no more women share the fate of Banaz Mahmod: however, awareness needs to be raised accurately, so that the next victim of family ‘honour’ and racism and ignorance in society on the other is not a Druze, Christian, Hindu or Sikh woman, girl, or indeed man.
Great critique Faith.
I’m so sick of anyone who doesn’t agree with the “Progressive” Muslims being labeled an Islamist. It seems that in Canada the definition of Islamist should be “A Muslim who does not completely agree with the Muslim Canadian Congress.”
As salaamu alaykum,
Thank you Faith, for taking the time to tackle this issue. I had some interactions with Tarek F. a few years back and he seems to prefer attacking to discussing.
Thank you Joanne for offering an alternative point of view. I’m thinking about your distinction between a domestic violence case that involves a large family network and one that does not. That seems, to me, to be the key distinction in which case I still don’t understand why you need a special term. Its still domestic violence. Also, that statistic you quoted about hit-men is shocking for me. I live in the U.S. and I don’t think we deal with these issues as often as you do in the U.K. Where did you find that statistic? Are there online resources that discuss the work you do and how you go about educating social workers, police officers etc. differently in these cases?
Dear Joanne,
I think the problem is that the term “honor killing” gets associated with Islam far too often. Just like the word “terrorism” seems to be synonymous with Islam.
Anyway, I agree with you when you say it’s important to make that distinction.
A clear distinction between Honour Killings and ordinary murders is that in the case of the former, the killer takes pride in the killing and without remorse hands himself over to the police while admitting guilt. In the event of a murder, the killer usually goes missing and is in almost 100% of the cases denies guilt and pleads innocence.
In the case of Aqsa Pervez, after killing his daughter, the father himself called 9/11 and then gave himself over to the cops.
This is why it is an ‘honour killing’, not an ordinary murder.
5,000 such honour killings take place in Pakistan alone every year and every single case the killer proudly confesses and the family feels relieved that their honour has been salvaged. Jordan, Kuwait and many other Muslim countries have laws that give ‘honour killers’ a much lesser sentence.
By putting our heads in the sand, the problem will not go away.
The obsession among Muslim fathers and brothers over their daughter’s or sister’s virginity is obsessive and Muslim women must stand up to this false notion of honour instead of going on the defensive and screaming Islamophobia.
Tarek Fatah:
“A clear distinction between Honour Killings and ordinary murders is that in the case of the former, the killer takes pride in the killing and without remorse hands himself over to the police while admitting guilt. In the event of a murder, the killer usually goes missing and is in almost 100% of the cases denies guilt and pleads innocence.”
You were in the National Post as saying that because honour killings are different in nature to regular murder, the former should be treated as sui generis crimes. However, this is difficult to understand given that the facts of any honour killing would easily fall under the the rubric of muder. If honour killings *were* accepted as sui generis, what would the test for determining that an honour killing took place be? Considering the crime is distinct to regular murder the test therefore should, potentially, acknowledge such differences. You state in your post here that a distinguishing feature between murder and honour killings is that (male) family members typically take pride in their murder. Would there therefore be a threshold test for the “pride” the family member took in the killing? If there was no “pride” would the case fall down?
“5,000 such honour killings take place in Pakistan alone every year and every single case the killer proudly confesses and the family feels relieved that their honour has been salvaged. Jordan, Kuwait and many other Muslim countries have laws that give ‘honour killers’ a much lesser sentence.”
Your submission here glosses over the fact that honour killings occur not solely within Muslim communities. It is not uncommon in Hindu communties in India and Jewish and Christian communites in the Middle East. It is not an obsession among “Muslim fathers and brothers” alone. Similarly, while Muslim countries have laws that give honour killings lenient sentences, a number of Western countries have a number of laws still rooted in gender bias. In Victoria (Australia) specifically, rape has one of the lowest conviction rates of any other crime. Further legislation was introduced a number of years ago but has failed to improve the conviction rate.
In addition, a number of common law countries allows men to muder their wives in flagrante delicto in the act of committing adultery. Specifically here in Victoria provocation was a partial defence to murder. It was only abolished in 2005. Provocation is now only to be taken into consideration at sentencing, but only in Victoria (see further http://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/Law+Reform/resources/file/ebefd54e6f401eb/FinalReport.pdf). While admittedly provocation it isn’t specifically analogous to honour killing, it is similar. More importantly, it is a symptom of a wider “justice” system established by white, middle class men for their sole benefit.
You’re right, by putting our head in the sand, the problem won’t go away. However, suffering from tunnel vision however is just as bad.
Salaam Alaikum,
“5,000 such honour killings take place in Pakistan alone every year and every single case the killer proudly confesses and the family feels relieved that their honour has been salvaged.”
Really? In every single case? All 5000 (such a nice, neat figure of them) of them? How exactly do you know this?
Also, the laws concerning domestic murder in some Muslim countries are not so much related to concepts of ‘honour’, but are often inherited from their colonial predecessors, which gave out lower sentences for ‘crimes of passion’.
Thanks for telling us Muslim women what we should do, like we couldn’t figure that out for ourselves. Such chauvinist behaviour from one so supposedly progressive.
There are 12 ‘honour killings’ a year in the UK, which is around 10% of all murders of women within the family.
In the UK, now, thanks to pressure from women’s groups, you can get the police to give a client facing HBV protection based on the Witness Protection Scheme rather than standard DV practices, which is far more appropriate to the different risks involved. It was essential for us to use the paradigm of HBV to describe the differences in risk: and to encourage the inclusion of ‘honour’ as an item in the police’s risk assessment, as a factor in their training so that their response is appropriate. It’s also important for refuges to be aware: it has often been the case that when a woman facing HBV is admitted to a refuge, her aunts, sisters and cousins also pretend to be in violent relationships to access all the local refuges, in order to track the girl down and return her to the family. All professionals have to be aware of a heightened need for confidentiality, for sensitivity, and of the particular emotional needs of the client. Sadly, a potential victim of HBV often lacks resources that a DV victim may have, because they are typically young, have no income, no home, and no support from family; many are also particularly emotionally dependent, because they are used to large families and don’t have much in the way of survival skills. It’s also important that police understand ‘honour’ motivation to detect crime as well…they need to be aware that their may be multiple perpetrators they must try to prosecute. Another problem is that HBV doesn’t have the rhythms of DV– DV has its incidents of violence, its ‘honeymoon’ periods, the cycling physical and emotional violence which intensifies by the month or year has predictable patterns. HBV on the other hand can come out of the blue: a hitherto perfectly affectionate family can plot and carry out a murder despite having never shown any violence to the victim before. If there was a better term than ‘honour’ in common use, to apply to signal this kind of motivation, and this kind of collective crime, we would use it. So far there isn’t an accurate one.
I don’t believe we can easily collapse HBV and DV either, despite the similarities that both are (mostly) male violence against women, and both are motivated by male privilege and a desire to control (mostly) women. In Turkey, before the EU pushed them to accepting legal reforms the law was particularly strange: killing a family member was counted a more serious crime than killing a stranger, and judges were encouraged to punish perpetrators of these crimes more harshly; however, killing a relative with the justification of ‘family honour’ gained a lessened sentence, of a year or less. I guess the point to make is, you might not see the distinction between these forms of violence, but that this distinction is very important to the perpetrators and influences their behaviour, is very important within the community (police will tell you that once a crime is labelled HBV the community close ranks and refuse to cooperate with police enquiries), and that the distinction is also often important to the clients too, who often have deep guilt and need extensive counselling; in many cases they still at least partially subscribe to the patriarchal beliefs that threaten their lives. You can’t submerge the different experiences of minority women in the West into those of the majority without doing a disservice to those experiences: this is why we need to understand HBV as a phenomenon, but also why we need to understand it accurately without any race-baiting.
The best source of information in the UK is in fact the Forced Marriage Unit, an excellent and very effective agency with excellent guidance which can be applied in cases of HBV. They have PDF’s online which are very useful if you can google them up. These guidelines will shortly be made mandatory for teachers, social workers etc in what will be a great step forward for the protection of minority women. Many women’s groups provide training, lectures etc to inform service providers in the issues of VAW for minority women.
The statistic on hitmen comes from the London Metropolitan Police, but our professional work bears this out as well. I recall one case involving a young couple, neighbours from the same origin who eloped when their families would not accept their relationship. Unbelievably to me (but not to more experienced caseworkers) the families clubbed together to pay an assassin to kill both of the couple. It’s also unbelievable to me that such agencies are legal in the UK, as long as they ‘return’ the individual and don’t hurt her themselves.
Apologies in advance, I won’t be able to return to this thread today.
There is indeed a difference between honour killings and other domestic violence. This admitting guilt which Tarek Fatah points out demonstrates it very well.
And for instance this:
Du’a Khalil Aswad – another “honour killing
http://www.freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=51409
In this case there is a mob of hundreds of men stoning a girl. Of course this is cultural and the concept of “honour” very different from some other cultures, where this sort of thing does not happen.
THIS IS NOT TO SAY one culture is inferior to another. Of course it is important to discuss the (prevalent) domestic violence in western cultures too. But there’s no point denying the cultural differences in relation to violence to do with family (values).
But yes, the word honour killing doesn’t seem right. Shame is the more adequate concept here.
@ Tarek: This isn’t about putting our heads in the sand, it’s about examining the language we (and others) use and how it affects our community and the perceptions of us.
@ Safiya: SNAP! ;)
but regardless of the different motivations and community acceptance of the crimes, and the different strategies needed to combat them or whatever: the fact remains that it’s still the same crime. murder. the elements of the offence are the same. whether or not it’s attributed to one community or faith over another makes no difference, ultimately, in its prosecution. although personally, i think it would be great if proving some kind of honour related motive was an aggravating factor that went to sentencing.
Orthodox Islam prescribes punishments for fornication and adultery. The whole idea of criminalizing adultery is rooted in medieval notions of honor, jealousy and possessivenss, demanding that society be avenged if a woman has deceived her husband or family. One cannot ignore the spillover effects of Sharia provisions on Muslim “culture”. The man has been “dishonored” because of her immorality and he must protect his “ghayrat” by kiling the offenders to reclaim his honor in part. He will do so also because of his entrenched belief in adultery as a crime against him, or in the case of an unmarried girl, a crime against the father and family. Sure, domestic violence is a worldwide issue but that’s only stating half the truth. There can be many reasons for the prevalence of domestic violence and some of these happen to be motivated by religious bigotry. And when this is the case, it needs to be stated.Farzana.
I don’t want to get into a theological discussion since that isn’t what MMW is about but the fornication and adultery issue has been discussed ad nauseum on both this site as well on the web and in a ton of books. Here is a post that I wrote on fornication and adultery a few months back. The punishment for both prescribed in the Qur’an and hadeeth have nothing to do with “honor” killings. For one, the punishment for fornication and adultery were to be carried out by an Islamic state like the caliphate. Secondly, the requirements to even bring a charge of fornication and adultery are really stringent (four witnesses to actual penetration). Lastly, the traditional punishment for adultery and fornication could be carried on both men and women.
That is nothing like “honor” killings which are usually carried out by family and are done for a variety of reasons ranging from flirting, picking one own spouse, “dressing “inappropriately” or suspicious of fornication or adultery. “Honor” killings are done to protect men’s honor in patriarchal societies.
“Honor” killings existed before the advent of shari’a and exist in other cultures besides Muslims cultures. So I don’t buy the argument that honor killings are a spillover from shari’a. Some Muslims erroneously use shari’a to justify them but that isn’t the same as saying that shari’a is the cause of honor killings.
I don’t see how “honor killing” and “domestic violence” are mutually exclusive. There are many forms of “domestic violence,” and “honor killing” is one form of it. Certainly particular forms of domestic violence are going to involve different community responses than others, just as Joanne states.
That said, I disagree with Fatah’s opinion that the courts should treat honor killings as special cases. I don’t understand why we need to rewire our legal system to accommodate for crimes that are more politically incorrect than other forms (such as “honor killings”). Murder is murder, domestic violence is domestic violence. I agree with you, Faith, on that point.
i have a friend who lives in mississauga in canada, da same city where aqsa was killed but no one in da community is really clear what da real reason of her murder is—my friend, also a muslim, as well as i believe that her murder had very little 2 do if anything with wearing or not wearing hijab—its thought that she fell in luv or was emotionally attached 2 a non-muslim, non-paki guy and this enraged her father—in any event, what he did was wrong anyways but i dont believe that this crime is religious in nature—i think its more cultural but becuz mostly muslims happen 2 commit such crimes, its given a religious twist to it
Tarek Fatah,
Could you please explain why it’s permissible for you to freely label those who disagree with you as “Islamists”?
When are we allowed to “scream Islamophobia”? When the murders of Aqsa Parvez and Homaira Rahman get sensationalized as Islamic-related incidents in order to perpetuate the hackneyed West versus East myths, are we to just shut our mouths and welcome more stereotypes and misconceptions about Islam? (May Allah bless their Souls and bring Healing to their Loved ones)
It’s not about putting our heads in the sand, but I believe it would serve a great benefit for some to step off of their high horses and see things from the marginalized Muslim’s point of view.
Just a note, if anyone actually want some 1st hand accounts of “honor killings” there is a book by the name of “angel of grozny” that has a chapter where the author interviews a Chechen brother who kills his sister.
After reading it i found that lot of the ideas i had about honor killings were actually wrong.
@ Philip: I’ll definitely have to check that out. Thanks for the suggestion!
“When are we allowed to “scream Islamophobia”? When the murders of Aqsa Parvez and Homaira Rahman get sensationalized as Islamic-related incidents in order to perpetuate the hackneyed West versus East myths, are we to just shut our mouths and welcome more stereotypes and misconceptions about Islam? ”
Right. It’s so terrible for Muslims here. Muslims are so persecuted to the point where Muslims can’t open Mosques or practice the religion openly. Oh wait, sorry, I’m thinking of places like Egypt and Saudia Arabia. Christians and Jews are regularly persecuted in the Middle East, Muslims experience none of that here, but there is always the “Islamophobia” and race card to play. When in Britain, they wanted to start a task force to look into forced marriages, Muslims cried Islamophbia because they thought it would polarize the community.
Enough with this, “Muslims are such victims of stereotyping,” crap. Things are pretty good here.
@silverarrow:
No doubt things are better here in many respects than other places. we do have religious freedoms and yes, as Muslims, I think we do need to appreciate what we do have and the rights we do have here.
However, (I’m sure you knew there was a however coming) that does not mean things are perfect. That does not mean that racism and Islamophobia do not exist. That does not mean that we do not keep trying to make things better here. Just because things are better here than other places does not mean that we just shut up and accept whatever bad there is because it could be worse. Why not work to get rid of the Islamophobia there is.
And I would argue that those who have been physically and verbally attacked, those whose homes and places of worship have been attacked and vandalized, those who have had loved ones killed because of Islamophobia, those who have been strip searched at airports and borders, those who have been treated like criminals, would argue that things are also not that great here either.
Additionally, comparing what happens here to what happens “there” is like comparing apples to oranges. There are huge differences between the countries that are greater than culture but that feed into the cultures of today – ie economics, post-colonial politics, international racism, histories of countries etc. all have to be taken account when we speak about what happens over there. We cannot look at them through our glasses – we have to put on there glasses.
@ Silverarrow:
Comments like yours come up every so often on this site and others. What concerns me about what you’ve said is that it implies that Muslims in Canada can only compare our situation to that of other Muslims around the world, and not necessarily to that of other Canadians. In other words, Muslims are assumed to be more closely allied with and responsible for communities in Saudi Arabia or Egypt than with communities in Canada, even if many Canadian Muslims in fact have no ties to those countries (and very strong ties to Canada.) As members of Canadian society, even as Canadian citizens, can’t Muslims here stand up to comment on Canadian issues, without having to account for actions of other people in Muslim countries with which a whole lot of Muslim Canadians have absolutely no connection?
In addition, you’re right that there are no laws here that prevent Muslims from opening mosques or from practising Islam openly. On the other hand, a lot of communities wanting to build mosques in Canada have received huge amounts of backlash from the local communities who don’t want a mosque in their neighbourhood. And there are a whole lot of people who are afraid to dress or act in ways that explicitly mark them as Muslims, often because of racism that they have faced in the past. An absence of laws preventing free expression of religion doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone feels safe to express their religion freely.
Last, I want to reiterate Sobia’s point that there have been very real attacks on many Muslims in this country. To her list, I would add those who have been unjustly imprisoned (and even, in a couple cases, sent overseas and tortured.) Referring to Islamophobia isn’t just “playing the race card.” It’s responding to a system of oppression that is having very real effects in a lot of people’s lives.
As someone who organized the action against the Toronto Life article and was called a Islamist as a result I really appreciate this article.
@ safia:
Oh dear. :(
Don’t pay any attention to it and keep doing what you’re doing :) God bless!
[...] Tarek Fatah, whose brilliant sociological analysis of Muslim communities has been previously profiled on MMW. He always hits the nail on the head, especially during the moments of frustration and [...]
[...] are being used in relation to the recent murder of Aasiya Hassan (and see here and here for other discussions on the term “honour killing.”) Terms like these can easily be [...]
[...] “terrorist” are being used in relation to the recent murder of Aasiya Hassan (and see here and here for other discussions on the term “honour killing.”) Terms like these can easily be used to [...]
[...] “terrorist” are being used in relation to the recent murder of Aasiya Hassan (and see here and here for other discussions on the term “honour killing.”) Terms like these can easily be used to [...]
[...] Tarek Fatah, whose brilliant sociological analysis of Muslim communities has been previously profiled on MMW. He always hits the nail on the head, especially during the moments of frustration and [...]