Should we call it ‘honour killing’?
NO. It’s a false distancing of ourselves from a too-common crime: the murder of females YES. It is an accurate term for an atrocious act, something we need to recognize and fight
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 highprofile 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.
Honour killings, polygamy and a family-wide coverup. Once upon a time this would have led Canadians to think of far-off and exotic places where such a heinous crime could occur. Distressingly, however, it took place on Canadian soil.
It took 2½ years for Mohammad Shafia, his wife Tooba Yahya, and their son Hamed to go to trial on charges of killing three of the Shafia daughters – Sahar, Zainab, Geeti – along with Rona Amir, the concurrent wife of Mohammad. The trial lasted over three months. And after a mere 15 hours of deliberation, the jury came to the conclusion that Mohammad, Tooba and Hamed were all guilty of first-degree murder.
The verdict is a cathartic end to a trial that revealed the horrors of living under tyrannical rule in an abusive, patriarchal household. Yet as a society we still take issue with the semantics of the crime. We are often uncomfortable labelling premeditated murders such as this one as honour killings, under the guise of political correctness and multiculturalism.
“Honour killing” is an accurate term for an atrocious crime. In that respect it is like the term “female genital mutilation.” Both practices are disgusting, archaic – and culturally sanctioned by some. Yet I see no movement to try to call female genital mutilation something like “culturally based vaginal reconfiguration.” So why the focus on the term “honour killing”?
Last spring, Liberal MP Justin Trudeau found himself in hot water when he objected to the federal government’s use of the word “barbaric” to describe honour killings. After back-pedalling himself into a brick wall, Mr. Trudeau conceded that honour killings are indeed morally reprehensible, and apologized for his comments.
I understand why many white Canadians, including Mr. Trudeau, would tread softly around the subject of honour killings: they do not want to seem racist. Fair enough. But honour killings occur among various races and religions, in cultures that are rooted in patriarchy and misogyny. Unfortunately, those cultures span the globe and know no boundaries – religious, ethnic or linguistic.
I fail to understand when people, especially women, who belong to the cultural groups most at risk for this kind of violence object to qualifying honour killings as such. Community leaders are doing a disservice to their people by ignoring this profound problem, and instead chalking it up to racist tactics used to further marginalize immigrant communities.
Obviously there is no ethnic monopoly on domestic violence or murder. But the motive behind honour killings is one that is in diametrical opposition to our Canadian ideal of gender equality. Moreover, there is an insidious amount of collusion from other family or community members – including other women – in honour killings that is not usually present in other forms of domestic violence.
The judge in the Shafia trial, Robert Maranger, said it best: “It is difficult to conceive of a more heinous, more despicable, more honourless crime. The apparent reason behind these coldblooded, shameful murders was that the four completely innocent victims offended your completely twisted concept of honour … that has absolutely no place in any civilized society.”
Let us all take off our multicultural goggles and see honour killings for what they are: culturally motivated, violent crimes that are committed against women and have no place in a civilized society. Surely that is something all Canadians can agree on.