"Honour killing"

Goth, I hope you don't mind me asking, but are you conflating SaF and Posie? I think you've confused what's said by which (or I'm not following, which is always possible!).

I am uncomfortable with the thread going from 'honour' killings to a discussion of whether or not muslim women should wear the veil. Does every discussion have to end up discussing women's choices (or the things women are pushed into), not men?

And believe it or not, the clothing worn by Hassidic Jews was adopted to enable the community to blend in with the wider population so as to better avoid persecution.

No offense, but might it be time for an update?!

Just to point out that the Quar'an requires modesty not veils.

No Posie. An item of clothing is not the same as toy based on a hideous racial steretype.

And this thread is about Honour Killing not yet another excuse to trot out some very ill informed opinions.

Goth, for me it's the same as the Golly argument. The origins are inherently prejudice....

"so whilst it [the wearing of religious attire] may feel empowering on an individual level it kind of is damaging on a group level."

It's not tricky. Muslim women and others should be able to dress as they please. If others have a problem with it, it's their problem.

The thing is you wrote your previous posts and thought you were being oh so reasonable, you didn't think any actual Muslim women, or other wearers of religious attire would read it, did you? Like so many others when talking about those women who insist on wearing those veils, you talk, pity and hand wring about us, but never talk to us.

Tell me, would you go on any website aimed at Muslim women (or others) and talk to them about how wearing religious attire is "damaging at a group level"?

Have a think about that and you'll know why I'm not apologising to you.

SaF "one problem with the wearing of religious attire is that it helps the othering. the woman wearing it is somehow less human to people not of that culture and appears to be consenting to the misogyny and going along with marking herself out as a cultural object."

The problem is with those doing the othering, the ones who hold the prejudice.

Anyone else you fancy telling to change their behaviour because of the bigotry of others, or is it just Muslim women you feel happy lecturing?

And who the hell are you to tell Muslim women that it's "damaging on a group level"?

You see I completely agree with Saf. I am an anti theist and so can't think that even women wearing traditional religious attire isn't instantly going along with that control....

Former Home Office Minister Mike O'Brien put it best when he said Multicultural sensitivity is no excuse for moral blindness ?

For me, seeing issues through a human rights lens helps to make it clearer as to whenit is OK to critique culture.

It's also worth bearing in mind that 'culture' is rarely homogenous: for example, both members of the EDL and I are part of 'British culture' but I assure you we have little in common!

Exactly SAF.

Some people do get mixed up in their heads between 'respecting cultural differences' and tolerating misogyny.

I thought the following was helpful from the AI report on Pakistan;

"Government of Pakistan has taken no measures to
end honour killings and to hold perpetrators to
account. It has failed to train police and judges to
be gender neutral and to amend discriminatory
laws. It has ignored Article 5 of the Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
against Women, which it ratified in 1996, which
obliges states to ?modify the social and cultural
patterns of conduct of men and women? to
eliminate prejudice and discriminatory traditions.

Some apologists claim that traditional practices as
genuine manifestations of a community?s culture
may not be subjected to scrutiny from the
perspective of rights contained in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. Against this, the
1993 World Conference on Human Rights in the
Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action
stated: ?All human rights are universal, indivisible
and interdependent and interrelated? and asserted
the duty of states ?to promote all human rights and
fundamental freedoms?. The United Nations
General Assembly in 1993 adopted the Declaration
on the Elimination of Violence against Women
which urges states not to ?invoke custom, tradition
or religious consideration to avoid their obligation?
to eliminate discriminatory treatment of women.

While recognizing the importance of cultural
diversity, Amnesty International stands resolutely
in defence of the universality of human rights,
particularly the most fundamental rights to life and
freedom from torture and ill-treatment. The role of
the state is to ensure the full protection of these
rights, where necessary mediating ?tradition?
through education and the law."

The killing of women by men they know is always about ownership, objectification and entitlement. Is this a revelation to some on here?

From the same link;

"Two main factors contribute to violence against
women: women?s commodification and
conceptions of honour. The concept of women as
a commodity, not human beings endowed with
dignity and rights equal to those of men, is deeply
rooted in tribal culture. Dr Tahira Shahid Khan of
Shirkatgah, a woman?s resource centre worker,
explains: ?Women are considered the property of
the males in their family irrespective of their class,
ethnic or religious group. The owner of the
property has the right to decide its fate. The
concept of ownership has turned women into a
commodity which can be exchanged, bought and
sold...?"

It is awful and I really feel for the girls. It also upsets me that this happens in GB where we are meant to be living in the 21st century.

An interesting report on honour killings in Pakistan (by Amnesty International).

"The victims range from pre-pubescent girls to
grandmothers. They are usually killed on the mere
allegation of having entered ?illicit? sexual
relationships. They are never given an opportunity
to give their version of the allegation as there is no
point in doing so -- the allegation alone is enough to
defile a man?s honour and therefore enough to
justify the killing of the woman."

I know we all know this but the complete lack of value placed on women's life is so chilling.

And this bit (for Hully) talk about a backlash .

For the most part, women bear traditional male control over
every aspect of their bodies, speech and behaviour
with stoicism, as part of their fate, but exposure to
media, the work of women?s groups and a greater
degree of mobility have seen the beginnings of
women?s rights awareness seep into the secluded
world of women. But if women begin to assert
their rights, however tentatively, the response is
harsh and immediate: the curve of honour killings
has risen parallel to the rise in awareness of rights.

You aren't missing anything QuitePrettyInPink. The examples that you give are fine. They aren't oppressive.

Honour has different meanings and uses. www.thefreedictionary.com/honour

I think what we are talking about in terms of honour killings is 'family honour'. The vessel for family honour is women and their virtue, obedience and submissiveness to the patriarch of the family.

Does that make sense?