What lessons do we learn from Du’a’s murder?
Ata Mala Karim UK
30 Apr. 07
www.klawrojna.comInternational Campaign against killings and stoning of women in Kurdistan Du’a Khalil Aswad, the 17 year old Yezidi Kurdish girl was murdered by stoning to death for the so-called honour killing on or around 7 April 2007, according to a public statement by the
Amnesty International on 27 April 2007. Honour killing is not new and it is not limited to a certain ethnicity, nationality, religion or region, but it has been practised in many parts of the world. It is apparent that these kinds of killings are widely practiced in Eastern and especially Muslim communities; however, there are evidences of other cultures such as Sikh and recently Yezidi religion.
The case of Du’a was one of the cruelest killings of this kind as she was stoned to death by a group of eight or nine men, according to Amnesty International, at the presence of a huge crowd of hundreds of people in the town of Bashika, near the city of Mosul. However, the video film which was widely published on the internet and the wide media reactions to this brutal killing, made it to look as a unique crime which have never been heard about it before. The bitter reality is that this crime is not unique as there are many crimes which go under carpet because there is nobody to film it or report it. Nowadays, at the age of information and globalization, technology and media can reach many remote parts of the world, people may hear or see things that otherwise they could not hear about it at all, or at least until few years later. The Amnesty International declares that:
There are frequent reports of "honour crimes" in Iraq - in particular in the predominantly Kurdish north of the country. Most victims of "honour crimes" are women and girls who are considered by their male relatives and others to have shamed the women's families by immoral behaviour. Often grounds for such accusations are flimsy and no more than rumour.
These kinds of crimes have deep roots in our culture, in our way of thinking, in our relationship with women and in our general view of the role of women in the society. It can be argued that, there is no one single reason for them or one single group, religion or ethnicity which can be held responsible for such crimes. It is a notion of power and control from men over women. Geraldine Bedell, in an article published in the Guardian, Sunday 21 November 2004, states that:
There is a deeply embedded notion in our culture that men experience passion, while women excite it - which meant that, until recently in Britain, men who killed their wives could claim provocation. There is also a common idea that it is possible to own another human being.
Although, nowadays many good people condemn these acts, however the unjust treatment of women by men is still widely accepted. There are few women and girls who revolt against the norms of the traditional society, otherwise the outcome could be much more. This could be now more widened because of the imbalance development of the information technology which does not come in line with the traditions of some communities. To be more specific, satellite dishes and internet connections reach every corner of the globe; however, the other necessities of economic, cultural, educational and social development remain as they were decades ago. This imbalance development may bring clashes between people or generations, and may stimulate acts which are not accepted by the traditional society and cause chaotic incidents. At the same time, women are also responsible for a great deal of these acts. Women were supporters, whistleblowers or even perpetrators in many occasions. Aisha Gill of the University of Surrey noted, from her work experience with South Asian women, that ‘female loyalty to honour-related violence is deemed to be a sign of warmth and goodness. Women in particular are brought up to believe that the welfare of the group should take precedence over that of the individual’. Although this view is about the South Asian women but it exactly fits the position of the Kurdish women in the traditional society also. Bedell argues that honour killing is about the position of women in the society in general:
"Honour killing is not about one woman, or about 10, it is about an entire gender," Diana Nammi says. "What honour killing does is to make women's lives conditional - on wearing the right clothes, on not speaking too loudly, on not being seen with the wrong person, not even being the subject of rumour, for rumour is enough to stain the family's honour.
Honour killing is mostly accepted by the community, or at least by the majority of members of that community as a ‘collective decision’ on those women who violate the traditional values of their community. Many states, openly or tacitly may sanction honour killing, however they may close an eye on the act, as Bedell mentioned:
The Turkish penal code has no specific clause relating to honour killing, but the judiciary commonly hands down lesser sentences or even acquittals where there is "assault on a family member's manhood." The Jordanian penal code specifically accepts that the "purifying" of wrong to a tribe is necessary: when honour killings come to court (which they do infrequently), the sentence averages about 6 months.
In The Kurdish region of Iraq, it can be argued that there are many developments and many respectful people have been working to eradicate honour killing and to abolish such an excuse and make murder the only word for killing a human being, no matter be a male or female. However, as Amnesty International reported, ‘while the Kurdish authorities introduced legal reforms to address “honour killings” they have, however, failed to investigate and prosecute those responsible for such crimes’. The reason is that legislation and law are not sufficient and there are much to be done in order to change the mentality of the legislators, politicians, leaders, police and the wider community towards women’s position in the society. In this respect, it can be argued that the problem of honour killing is the responsibility of us all. We are all guilty for the deliberate killings of women and girls as long as it finds grounds in the society and we cannot do something about it. The victims of honour killings, even in the Western societies rarely receive the justice they deserve:
What is it about the power of shame that drives a father, brother, even a mother to slaughter a close family member? In the UK alone, 117 murders are being investigated as "honour killings." But over-sensitivity to cultural differences means that many victims are denied the justice that they deserve.
It is virtually impossible to estimate the international scale of honour killings; the UN has estimated as 5000 cases a year, however, there are so many cases go unreported or unregistered. Bedell continues to comment on honour killings as part of an international injustice against women, by saying that:
Honour killings are, clearly, specific to certain communities. But not so long ago, British women could be locked in mental asylums for getting pregnant out of wedlock; in living memory in the UK, it was preferable to have a daughter who was mad than one who was bad.
However, these reports and not brought here for making an excuse for honour killing and making it more acceptable and normalizing it. The aim behind it is that honour killing cannot be eradicated by legislations or campaigns only. It is a social construction that, unfortunately, supported by many people, despite the wider condemnation of a single brutal killing which is filmed and published. Honour killing should be eradicated in the mentality of our children, in the daily routine of our young girls and boys and in the streets, markets and neighbourhoods, through better education and teaching the principles of a civilised society. If we only react to a video film or a brutal killing and neglect the daily incidents which indicate that there are grounds for such acts, we cannot learn any lessons from any honour murder, including Du’a’s. Many groups campaign for women rights but they need more support from governments and the public:
The most effective campaigners against honour killings have been South Asian, Middle Eastern and Kurdish women. Murder is murder and, as Mike O'Brien pointed out when he was Home Office minister, in the matter of honour killings, multiculturalism has too often become an excuse for "moral blindness." [Bedell, 2004]
These acts can be abused for other ends and by other groups who could be in favour of such killings if it happens to them. They may answer killing by killing innocent people because they belong to that religion or group. The Amnesty International reported the killing of ‘23 Yezidi workers’, as retaliation by a ‘Sunni armed group’, as the statement announced, which means that there are people who try to use such acts as an excuse for their sectarian or tribal hatred. Du’a’s murder is not the first and there are no indications to show that it will be the last. In order to eradicate honour killings in a society different government and non-government agencies should work together in order to control the mentality which provide the ground for such atrocity to grow. The government, it is argued has a big responsibility to organize investigation committees and to enforce law and order, however government decision or law is not sufficient if it is not supported by a wider sector of the society, Bedell concludes by saying:
In the end, honour killings will only be eradicated when power over women is not seen as central to a man's self-respect, and domination of women and girls is not seen as reassuring social glue.
