Difficult Daughters
Another pesky disobedient unsubmissive daughter eliminated.
In the garden, buried under a metre of soil and with her jeans and blouse soaked in blood, was the body of the missing girl. Her throat had been slit.
(Why is the Independent calling her a girl? She was twenty-one. Do men of that age get called boys? No. So why is the Indy calling Hina Saleem a girl? Especially in this context? Some strange unconscious desire to trivialize her or make it seem that she really belonged to her father in some way? Or just dumb as a post habitual belief that women really are childish?)
At the beginning of July, she was said to have refused her father’s insistent demand that she return with her mother and sisters to the city of Gujarat in Pakistan, where she was born, to get married. Police believe that her father, a brother-in-law, Mohammed Tariq, and another man, Mahmood Zahid, tried to persuade her one last time. The female members of the family had already departed. It is thought that Hina was told: “Either you come back with us to Pakistan or you’re not going anywhere.”
So now she’s not going anywhere.
Italy’s Interior Minister points out the obvious but still necessary:
The case of the Pakistani woman murdered by her father says a lot about the aims of citizenship, because it is clear that it is not enough to require adhesion to the values of the Italian Constitution. Adhesion to fundamental rights is also necessary, such as the fact that women are to be respected according to rules which I consider universal.
The Indy finds a retort:
In the midst of the rising tide of indignation, some small voices have made the point that not long ago Italy would have understood Mohammed Saleem’s feelings better. The law offering the possibility of clemency in cases of “honour crimes” – still far from rare in the south – was only repealed in 1981.
Yes – and? What of it? What follows from that sly observation? The Indy doesn’t say, it leaves it to us to determine.
You know, I used to believe that once women in such circumstances stood up for themselves – even at the risk of -estranging themselves from their families – things would eventually work out. They’d leave home, as Hina did, struggle to find their own way in life and finally live relatively free from coercion and violence. But it is apparent that women like Hina or Samaira Nazir can never really break free. They’ll get lured back home – and who’d blame them for falling into that trap, for being unable to resist a plea to return home for a brief visit? – for the inevitable gory slaying. These were the stronger women, the ones who fought back and such is their end.
Honour killing is a very, very effective control strategy; just one loving paternal hand has to raise the knife and the lesson has been effectively conveyed to all women of that group : there is no escape.
I sincerely hope that the Italians’ indignation goes through the roof, that they clearly understand this is one murder too many.
And, fuck the indie for that last bit of relativising.
I know, isn’t that horrible? I had a similar thought – first, oh, if only she hadn’t gone home, if only she’d known not to go back – but then, well her cousin was passing through, she was being – cousinly; naturally affectionate; polite; kind; whatever. And that’s her reward. The only way women such situations can be safe is to cut that entire source of affection out of their lives entirely. (And even that doesn’t do it: Hatan Sürücü’s brothers shot her at a bus stop.)
And yeah: bad Indy.
why is the Indy calling Hina Saleem a girl? Especially in this context? Some strange unconscious desire to trivialize her or make it seem that she really belonged to her father in some way?
I don’t see how it trivializes her. Surely, most people find it even more horrific for a girl to be murdered than for a woman to be, and so the reporter may (far from trivializing what happened) in fact have been trying to maximize the impact of the report?
I know she was a woman and she should have been described as such, but I guess my point is maybe you (reflexively?) looked for the worst interpretation and read too much into it.
Having said that, there is a common and annoying tendency amongst many men to speak patronisingly about women, so maybe you’re right. I don’t know. I shouldn’t try to think and write at this time on a Sunday night..
Ian
That’s exactly how I took it: that the victim of the crime was even more pitiable being described as a girl, and that the crime was even more horrendous in view of her youth. Of course it wasn’t technically accurate, but not that far off either. The woman was only 21, after all.
How a father can cut the throat of his own daughter is beyond me. Really unfathomable. How can he ever again sleep through the night?
And as for the reference to similar crimes being perpetrated in southern Italy, I thought that was a useful piece of information. Kind of a warning to look around and see how misogynistic many men are.
I agree with Doug – I read Indy’s remark as a reminder that we “the West” are not *that* far from this level of barbarism ourselves, and that we fail to be outraged by that fact the way we are outraged by barbarism of some Muslims.
Come on chaps – there is a sleight of hand though: “some small voices”. Whose ? “still far from rare in the south”. How common then ? Isn’t this a far – far – bigger story? Southern Italian rednecks practicing familial murders in the name of the holy father? (That’s if it’s true of course and a few scraps of anecdotal evidence been amplified and distorted in an indie editor’s quest for ‘balance’?)
No, you’re too kind to the Indy. It was insinuating that we should not condemn the actions of the murderous family because the Italians offererd clemency for “shame crimes” up to 1981. But they were still crimes then, and were still punished, You did not get off scot free.
It is a sly way of sneering at the West and mbunderstanding the benighted Muslim people, which is just as patronising. I gave up on the Indie in 2003 when its hatred of Blair overwhelmed its critical faculties and it became a cheerleader for all who oppose Enlightenment values. I fear the Guardian is going the same way.
Jeffrey I echo that, but for the minute was more concerned with the linguistic minutae, and how a small but deliberate re-asignment of meaning can make a five out of two twos in the mind of the naive or already partisan reader. I measn Jesus we learnt to eschew these cheap tricks in 1st year ay Uni, or woe betide us! So no, I don’t that disagree they’re b@stards for doing it. Making a statement like “still far from rare in the south” demands much – much – further investigation. Story of the year if true. So, is it ?
I, too wondered about the Grauniad, but since they got rid of Al-Bunting, things seem to have stabilised, at least.
They are still very wobbly, which I put down to Seamus’ Milne’s lack of critical faculties, but they doo seem to have finally realised that religious beliefs (esp. muslim ones) are not compatible with clear, rational thought.
These papers are just trying to retain the sympathies of the Asian readers (stereotyped version of) while running a story which is critical of Asian culture. Understandable, I suppose, if frustrating from a Western point of view. Why temper the criticism? But this self-censorship is very common now in a multi-cultural society. This is where the real dilemma lies – not with liberalism itself, but with non-liberal elements within a liberal society. If liberalism doesn’t impose itself on the non-liberals, we can be sure that, by their very nature, they will impose themselves on us. Therefore, liberalism must not be afraid to get tough at times and be non-liberal about its own very survival.
I think the tone might have been a bit snide at the end, but I think it is a valid point to raise. Such killings still happen today in Italy. Towards the end of the article about the ‘Ndrangheta.
http://tinyurl.com/pfycu
A brother attempts to murder his sister for getting pregnant by a man not her husband. Admittedly he comes from a section of Italian society that prides itself on ‘honour’, however (speaking as some one of Italian descent with many Italian relatives), such attitudes about honour are surprisingly widespread. It may take a criminal to turn such attitudes into murder, but women do get rejected by families for getting pregnant out of wedlock, as happened to a relative of mine. They are on the wane, but they do exist.
Bruno, thanks, that’s useful – but aren’t we dealing with gangsterism rather than a purportedly religious phenomenon ? ” ‘Ndrangheta is punctilious in its observance of old-fashioned underworld values.”
And how many deaths/beatings per year are we discussing here ? As many as the Independent implies asserts when it says they’re “far from rare”? I do understand that familial rejection happens accross many societies, for religious reasons. But murder ?
In which case my criticism stands: A) They’re not operating on some faith-based pretext which can then be flipped over by apologists as ‘Islmophobic’, but rather an avowed dysfunctional criminal tradition. (Different species, although related via male homicidal thuggery)
And B) The Indie would have us believe they’re happening almost every day, so who are we to criticise, etc. You yourself say they do exist; that’s not in dispute, and it’s truly awful – one only has to watch the Sopranos to get a flavour of this – but are they happening every day ? I just don’t think the Indie has been totally honest here, and it’s malignant subversive cr@p.
“Surely, most people find it even more horrific for a girl to be murdered than for a woman to be”
Uh – do they? I don’t! And I hope most people don’t. Why would they, why should they? Because children are thought to be more innocent? But why is that a reason?
No; sorry; being a woman myself, I’m no happier to see women being murdered than I am to see girls being murdered. Being a woman, I have an odd tendency to think women matter just as much as girls do.
Uh – do they? I don’t! And I hope most people don’t. Why would they, why should they? Because children are thought to be more innocent? But why is that a reason?
Well, I do. And I hope most people do. Sorry to disappoint you, but children are more innocent and more dependent on (and more trusting of) adults. So when that trust is betrayed in such a horrific manner, that to me makes the act itself more horrific.
But there’s no need to intellectualise the explanation; I think it is just instinctive for normal adults to feel more protective toward children than they do toward adults.
Sorry I can’t take the Mr. Spock approach; I’m not as highly trained as you are.
Sorry if I was rude just now – the point I was originally trying to make was that it does not trivialise a murder of a woman to describe the woman as a girl.
Most people think that for a girl to be murdered, raped or otherwise abused is even worse that for the same thing to happen to a women (terrible though that is).
It was irrelevant to my point whether such a view can be rationally justified; it’s just how most people feel, and so by misdescribing the woman as a girl, the article was if anything actually maximising the story’s impact (and certainly not trivialising it). I hope you can see what I mean here, even though you cannot empathise.
“Sorry to disappoint you, but children are more innocent”
What do you mean sorry to disappoint me? Why would that disappoint me? And notice I didn’t say they weren’t, in fact I implied they are; I asked why that would be a reason. I realize they’re more innocent, but that’s not what I was questioning.
“But there’s no need to intellectualise the explanation; I think it is just instinctive for normal adults to feel more protective toward children than they do toward adults.”
Ah. Well that’s where we differ then. I think there is every need, because I think some things (quite a few things) that it is “just instinctive” for normal adults to feel are bad and harmful and need to be looked at – or “intellectualised” as you put it. Why do you use “intellectualise” as a pejorative? Why is attempting to think rationally about an instinctive reaction something to be deprecated? And then, of course it’s instinctive for normal adults to feel more protective toward children than they do toward adults, but that’s a completely different question. Feeling more protective toward children is not at all the same thing as thinking it is worse for children to be murdered than it is for adults.
And what’s Spock got to do with anything? And I bet you are every bit as highly trained as I am, because I’m not highly trained. But what’s Spock got to do with anything? I’m not being dispassionate, I’m not being frigidly logical, I’m simply saying it is not worse for children to be murdered than it is for adults; I don’t think it is.
“Most people think that for a girl to be murdered, raped or otherwise abused is even worse“
How do you know that? Do you know that? Is it true? Do you simply think you know that because you extrapolate from your own feeling? But that’s not knowledge.
Yes, I see what you mean about maximising the story’s impact, but (whether or not that was the intent, which of course we don’t know) it did so by trivialising the woman herself. Ask yourself – would a 21-year-old male who was murdered be called a boy in order to maximize the impact? I really don’t think so. If I’m right, then there is an asymmetry here, and one that does have the effect of condescending to the woman.
By the way, your point in the original comment – “I guess my point is maybe you (reflexively?) looked for the worst interpretation and read too much into it.” No, as a matter of fact. One, it wasn’t “reflexive” (nice of you to suggest it though) and two I wasn’t “looking for” any degree of bad or worse interpretation; the absurd “girl” jumped out at me, so I commented on it.
You certainly are snide. Maybe I should pretend to be six years old.
Oh and also the “even though you cannot empathise” – nice touch.
What is your problem? Are you threatened by opinionated women, or what?
Now, the substantive answer. I can agree that the murder of a child has more pathos, may seem more poignant, is perhaps more heart-rending to outsiders. But I flatly and categorically disagree that it is actually worse. If you really think it is (as you said), I’d still like to know why; I’d still like to know why innocence is a reason. You didn’t answer the question, you just said most people (most normal adults – aha, I missed that particular dig – thanks again) feel that way. I’d still like to know why innocence is a reason.
Well, I wasn’t using ‘intellectualise’ as a pejorative – I was saying there was no need to come up with particular rational justifications for being more shocked at the murder of a child, because most people don’t go that far themselves – they just think it is more shocking without necessarily having introspected about it enough to determine whether they can justify their beliefs rationally. That is why providing reasons is not necessary. I am not arguing about whether the belief is rational or not. Maybe people shouldn’t feel this way, but this is not relevant to my point.
And of course I don’t know whether ‘most people’ really do agree with me on this. I should rephrase it as ‘most people I have had this type of discussion with’, something along those lines.
I don’t think I am threatened by opinionated women – do you think that men who disagree with you must do so because they feel threatened about arguing with a woman? Because I was disagreeing with what you wrote.
Looking over my comments, I agree that they are snide in parts and do contain unnecessariy digs at you. I apologise.
No, I don’t think that a 21-year old man would ever be described as a boy, so yes, I do think that the reporter was being patronising. But I never claimed otherwise.
I’d still like to know why innocence is a reason.
My whole point is that it doesn’t matter whether innocence is a reason (hence my saying that ‘there’s no need to intellectualise’) for the purposes of this discussion – if it is true that most people just instinctively think that crimes committed against a child are worse (despite not being able to justify this belief) than similar crimes committed against an adult, then the passage in the report describing the murdered woman as a girl did not trivialise the murder by the erroneous description. If anything, it increased the power of the report. That is my only claim.
I am in total agreement with the rest of your commentary, including the describing of the woman as a girl being both incorrect and patronising.
Maybe an evolutionary psycholologist could back me up on this?
OB: “Ask yourself – would a 21-year-old male who was murdered be called a boy in order to maximize the impact? I really don’t think so. If I’m right, then there is an asymmetry here, and one that does have the effect of condescending to the woman.”
I agree with the asymmetry and its implications.
For reasons which I can’t really explain, there seem to be subtle differences between boys/men and girls/women.
By the way, when I said ‘normal adults’, I meant to say ‘ordinary adults’ – the man/woman on the street. Joe or Jane Sixpack. Sorry about that.
OB: “I can agree that the murder of a child has more pathos, may seem more poignant, is perhaps more heart-rending to outsiders. But I flatly and categorically disagree that it is actually worse. If you really think it is (as you said), I’d still like to know why; I’d still like to know why innocence is a reason.”
As soon as we try to arrange things on a scale (best to worst), we need to come up with some criteria for doing so.
One common criterion is brutality but that doesn’t fit the case here.
Another is “amount of potential life lost”. On this basis, the murder of a child is worse than the murder of an octogenerian.
Disease in children — particularly if it is a disease that normally afflicts the elderly — often seems to be regarded as worse than that in older people.
That, to me, seems to be a perfectly reasonable and rational argument.
All other things being equal — and they never will be — I think you can rationally argue that the murder of a child is worse.
This discussion is very thought provoking, with excellent points on both sides. I honestly don’t know whom I agree with more, but there is a point that I don’t think has been emphasized enough.
Don’t we think a murder victim is more tragic when we know that she had few defenses? Don’t we usually think, the more defenseless the victim, the worse the crime?
And I mean this line of argument only to apply to conscious beings. This is no anti-abortion line.
Yes Doug, it is interesting – I was personally getting into the debate about what is the difference between sheer gangsterism and purported religion in instances where both approaches have the same outcomes – the murder of relatives/sibblings/children due to violation of some ‘code’ ? The Italian examples seem to veer much more towards the historically, de facto, extralegal origins of cosa nostra / Ndrangheta, and the codes they developed as crime orientated social groupings. Is there a difference between that, and say, a tribal, perhaps feudal, traditional code develped in East Pakistan over centuries, which draws contemporary gravitas from a notional observance of religion, but isn’t based on any written part of any sacred text?… Can anyone shed some light / observations on this ?
I meant the Eastern of Pakistan by the way, not Bangladesh !
I agree that we have stronger emotions about the death of a child, whether they are rational or irrational. The sad, fugitive, life of Mary Bell and the problems facing the killers of James Bulger are, to my mind, proofs that this is the case, regardless of the horror of their original crimes.
I don’t see much difference in “honor” killings when committed by gangsters or godsters, Nick, except that the religious nut undoubtedly thinks that some deity approves of the deed, and not just the social group.
After more thought, I have to amend my own post above. The tragic aspect of a murder is measured more by the loss felt by those who loved, admired or relied upon the victim, rather than the degree of defenselessness of the victim, e.g. a mother with several young children, or Robert Kennedy in ’68.
But still, the ability of the victim to defend him/herself and the innocence of the vicitim has immense significance to us, I think. When there’s a shootout between police and gangsters, and we hear that a couple of gangsters and one policeman were killed, and that a child playing in a nearby yard caught a bullet in the head and will probably be blinded, don’t our sympathies go most toward the girl, and then the cop, and least to the gangsters?
Nick,
in answer to you comments. The actions of the Italian brother are based on a widespread Italian cultural values, which have a strong religious basis. Same for the Pakistani woman’s family. People with different religions and cultures, but very similar values, both equally odious.
Which still makes the last paragraph of the Indy article valid, pointing out that the same form of sexism is alive in Italy today. It could have been better written and researched, but the comparison is valid.
Fortunately, such attitudes are on the wane in Italy. I can’t speak for Pakistan.
Doug, yeah that’s where I was going with this. The murder/crime is validated just because it has a so-called ‘religious’ aspect.
Because it’s also an interesting thought that in Japan, where the sectarian combination of Shinto, Confuscianism and Buddhism has no historical ethical or moral equivalent to Abrahamic style ‘morals’ nor notions ‘good’ or ‘evil’. (There is not even a ‘right ot life’ anywhere in it’s post 1949 constitution.) It merely has ‘correct’ (from Confucsian) ways of conduct and in some quarters strict observance of filial piety. The same inhuman bullying behaviours may be observed there too, as well as notions of shame and disgrace on the familly. Why do we (or at least apologists the west) accept the plea for a special case from reactionary Imams ?
Bruno, thanks – I was writing my reponse to doug when you posted that. An interesting aclarification – my point being that I presume no-one is hitting the streets in Calabria shouting ‘defend our way of life and our desire to beat our sisters up’ though ? Whereas in the UK (let alone abroad) the police reckon on about 1 ‘honour’ murder per month… 12 per year and counting… and some people on the Indie say its only relative…
Nick,
no riots in the Calabrian streets, however no need when sexism is part of the wider culture.
“some people on the Indie say its only relative… “,
Sorry, I cant agree with that base on the article in question. The comparison is valid, to do so is not an exercise in empty relativism.
Bruno, ok I bow to your wider knowledge of the region, and both cases the behaviour is utterly repugnant.
I feel there is a distinction between one form of sexism albeit malevolent and widespread but on the wane and confined to less brutal and murderous outcomes, when there is another apparently on the ascent, and condoned by inference by people who have given up on ideas of universal rights, who find Enlightenment values distasteful.
Psychological bullying and codified bullying in behaviour is awful; the slitting of throats and multiple beatings and torturings seems to speak of a different order of brutality, and one which is excused too readily by relativists,and apparently by this article
I don’t think anyone anywhere should be happy about either mode of oppression, which bboth have pernicious ans awful outcomes for the victims, but I *hope* there is more than a difference of emphasis based on my prejudice here… The distinctions as I see them have not been alluded to by the Indy, quite the opposite and it’s upsetting
That said you know much more about Italy and it’s history than I, so I accept I may be tilting at windmills …
Ian,
“I don’t think I am threatened by opinionated women – do you think that men who disagree with you must do so because they feel threatened about arguing with a woman? Because I was disagreeing with what you wrote.”
Absolutely not. But when there are a lot of gratuitous personal digs – or ad hominems, as the highly trained call them – I sometimes suspect some form of hostility to women, especially when the digs are of a certain type – the ‘you think you’re so clever, don’t you’ type, let’s call it. Your digs struck me that way.
“Looking over my comments, I agree that they are snide in parts and do contain unnecessariy digs at you. I apologise.”
Thanks, I appreciate that.
Now the substance –
“if it is true that most people just instinctively think that crimes committed against a child are worse (despite not being able to justify this belief) than similar crimes committed against an adult, then the passage in the report describing the murdered woman as a girl did not trivialise the murder by the erroneous description. If anything, it increased the power of the report. That is my only claim.”
Got it. And you’re right, I hadn’t thought of that. That could be the explanation – but I am still skeptical, partly because of the asymmetry aspect.
Actually of course it’s perfectly possible and indeed likely that the reporter called Saleem a girl for a variety of reasons: habit, haste, your suggested reason, etc. But it’s interesting that by doing so, even if he did increase the pathos and thus the impact of the story, he also undercut one obvious aspect of the case which is that Saleem was fully adult rather than a minor child: we (we liberals, universalists, secularists, human rights freaks, feminists, etc) usually think a father has less right to tell an adult daughter what to do and much less right to punish her for not obeying. So the reporter sort of goosed up one aspect of the story but dropped another.
The thing about instinctively thinking child murder is worse than adult murder is that I think a lot of that is not actually instinctive at all, it only seems instinctive; I think most of that instinct is in fact created precisely by mass media. The bottomlessly weird fact that the BBC news site and World Service gave huge prominence to the new suspect in the Jon-Benet Ramsey case is one example of that kind of creation. So I would guess that the reporter was not so much appealing to an instinct as continuing the media work of constructing a pseudo-instinct.
Keith,
“As soon as we try to arrange things on a scale (best to worst), we need to come up with some criteria for doing so.”
But why do we have to or want to do that? Let’s not. That’s part of my point. Let’s not do that; let’s instead just say that all human lives are equally valuable, because to their owners, they are. Let’s not decide which murders are better than which. None are. We’re not in a lifeboat here, we’re not stranded on an island with insufficient food for our numbers; let’s not rank the quality of murders.
Frankly, it makes me a little uneasy that people seem so content with the idea that a girl’s life is worth more than a woman’s. It does (frankly, and despite the disclaimer) remind me of the anti-abortion gang who seem to think embryos are worth infinitely more than the conscious adult women they are inside.
“Another is “amount of potential life lost”. On this basis, the murder of a child is worse than the murder of an octogenerian.”
Yes; on that basis, and on that basis alone; which is relevant in the lifeboat, and in medical ethics, but not, as far as I know, in murder trials. ‘Hey, M’lud, no biggy, the bitch was eighty-five, she didn’t lose much.’ And in any case it still depends what one means by ‘worse’. Experientially, it is probably worse for the octogenarian; at any rate it is horrible for both and really shouldn’t be ranked as one might rank a restaurant.
“All other things being equal — and they never will be — I think you can rationally argue that the murder of a child is worse.”
Do you? You haven’t done it though. You’ve given just one argument, which actually applies to the death of a child versus that of an octogenarian, rather than the murder; and as you point out it uses just one criterion. But there are many, many criteria, so to rest your case on just one seems to me to be inadequate.