Article Info

Like it? Share it!

RSS Feeds

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds: culture RSS

Home Activism Will the real feminists please stand up?

Will the real feminists please stand up?

| Print |  E-mail
Written by Dahlia Liwsze   
Thursday, 25 June 2009 00:00

Since being declared "persons" in Canada on October 18, 1929, women have come a long way in terms of gaining rights, which include the right to be educated and to vote, to freely express themselves, to have a career, family or both, to own property and to get divorced. It is therefore disturbing that a Canadian woman living in the 21st century can risk death should she choose to exercise her right to live her life how she wishes. This is of concern because of a disturbing form of murder of which we've been hearing too much of lately: "honour" killings.

Khatera Sadiqi, a 20-year-old Afghan woman, was shot to death by her brother, Hasibullah, on September 19, 2006 in Ottawa. Aqsa Parvez, a 16-year-old Pakistani girl, had her life strangled out of her by her father, Muhammad, on December 10, 2007 in Mississauga.

The reasons for these killings? Khatera planned to marry her fiancé, Feroz Mangal, but had not asked her father's permission and had moved in with Mangal's family. Aqsa had refused to wear the hijab and wanted to be a regular girl who wore the clothes and dated the boy she wanted. Both young women came from strict Muslim homes where their actions were seen as having brought shame to their respective families.

dahlia
Women protesting for women's rights in Tehran, Iran in June 2006. Photo courtesy of Iran Press News.
During his trial, Hasbillah Sadiqi was adamant that he was not guilty of the two counts of first-degree murder. His close friend, Hasbillah Assadi, testified that: "He said that he got rid of them. He said that he shot them." His mother, Nasima Fayaz, testified that her ex-husband, Ghulam, was a traditionalist who had beat her and the children and had almost smothered her with a pillow one day. When Fayaz spoke with her son about his father, he told her, "Don't talk about my dad like that. I would slap you in the face if you were here."

Over the fall of 2007, Aqsa sought refuge in youth shelters and homes of friends because she feared her father and her 26-year-old brother, Waqas. When interviewed by Toronto Life magazine for 'The Immigrant Experience' issue in December 2008, Ebonie Mitchell, one of Aqsa's closest friends, said, "A week before Aqsa died, we were walking to the plaza to get food and she said, 'Last night, my dad swore he was going to kill me.'"

Fortunately, Hasbillah Sadiqi, now 23, was found guilty of two counts of first-degree murder this May and sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years. Ontario Superior Court Justice Douglas Rutherford called the young man's actions the product of his "twisted sense of values."

While the investigation is ongoing, Muhammad and Waqas Parvez have both been charged with first-degree murder.

Sadly, Khatera and Aqsa are not the only young Muslim women who will die at the hands of their family members.

Dr. Amin Muhammad, a psychiatry professor at Memorial University in St. John'swho has studied honour killings, has said that:In some cultures, people feel some boundaries are never to be crossed, and if someone would violate those practices or go against it, then murder is justified to them."

The killers, Dr. Muhammad added, consider their murderous acts "appropriate" based on "long-standing traditions and cultural beliefs." He pointed to the example of his native Pakistan where there are hundreds of honour killing cases each year. "People can get away without being punished [because] the courts actually sanction them under religious contexts."

What disturbed Raheel Raza, a diversity consultant, interfaith advocate and public speaker, about the brutal murders of Khatera and Aqsa, in particular, was "the denial by the community leaders."

"Instead of rallying against such atrocities, they tried to justify this as domestic violence," she said in a recent e-mail interview.

Sheikh Alaa Elsayed, the head of the Islamic Centre of Canada, the largest mosque in the GTA, however, was an exception. He was one of two imams who held a press conference the day after Aqsa's murder and denounced the barbaric act. He read Koranic passages to demonstrate how Islam condemns honour killings, because "taking a life is an act against all humanity."

While there haven't been any honour killings in her family, Raza said she recently met a couple where  a Muslim girl was dating a non-Muslim boy. "Her brother has already damned her as a non-believer and told her she has shamed the family. In cases like this, unless she has some recourse, it could sometimes result in violence if the brother took it upon himself to be the 'saviour' of her soul and protect the honour of the family, which is [a] total farce. How can the life of a woman become the honour of a family?"

Raza, who is also the author of Their Jihad ... Not My Jihad, a journalist and a filmmaker, calls on her fellow Muslims to "speak out at once - openly and frankly about violence in the name of my faith."

"Although this is not Islamic, it so happens that these are cases in the Muslim community, and unfortunately, we sometimes spend so much time in denial and as apologetics, that we bypass the main concern which is the fragile life of these women who are victims of male dominance and violence."

According to worldwide studies, there is a consistent pattern of events that trigger violence: refusing sex, talking back, not obeying the husband, not having food ready on time and not asking permission to go somewhere. For instance, 80 per cent of women surveyed in rural Egypt said, "beatings were common and often justified, particularly if the woman refused to have sex with her partner."

The UN Population Fund reports that over 5,000 women and girls are victims of "honour" killings worldwide each year. These killings tend to be more prevalent in countries with a majority Muslim population, but are not limited to those countries.

In a press release, Yakin Erturk, the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, was quoted saying, "[h]onour killings are among the primary causes of unnatural deaths among women in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq, and a number of reports are also documenting the practice of female genital mutilation."

When it comes down to it, murder is murder. "Honour" killings are an oxymoron: there is no honour in killing. If the murderer believes that the woman is the one who has brought dishonour to the family, he should think again.

The UN says the number of honour killings is continuing to rise. It will not decrease anytime soon unless both men and women make a united stand against this horrific form of murder. Deaths of women like Aqsa Parvez and Khatera Sadiqi signify more than the dark side of multiculturalism or violence against women, but rather represent a gross violation and abuse of women's rights, particularly those of Muslim women.

In the most basic sense, feminist.com defines "feminism" as "the movement for social, political and economic equality of men and women." The site adds, moreover, that "feminism means that women have the right to enough information to make informed choices about their lives." Equality is therefore "a balance between the male and female with the intention of liberating the individual."

My question therefore is: Will the real feminists please stand up?

As a feminist, I'm disturbed by the hijacking of women's rights through violent crimes such as honour killings and especially by how a number of feminists describe these killings as a multi-cultural issue. It is much more than that! We need more female and male voices to condemn these barbaric and illegal acts occurring in our peaceful country. Canada follows Victorian law, not Sharia law after all. We, as Canadian citizens must not remain silent any longer!

I will always be appalled by violence such as the Ecole Polytechnique Massacre in Montreal on December 6, 1989, when Marc Lepine, a 25-year-old disturbed man who hated feminists, gunned down 14 women.

While the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence against Women commemorates women who have died because of violence and calls for the end of discrimination and violence against women, it largely dwells on the past.

In her December 6, 2006, National Post column, 'Lone gun man: The Ecole Polytechnique massacre was a freak tragedy. So why is every man made to feel guilty about it?' Barbara Kay criticized how "both male and female feminists colluded in promoting the myth of lone killer Lepine as the symbol of all males' innate hostility to women, however dormant it might appear."

dahlia2
Image courtesy of djiin.wordpress.com.

Kay went further, saying, "Honouring the dead should draw people together - the whole country, not half - either to heal historic wounds, acknowledge sacrifices made on all our parts and strengthen our sense of national purpose, or to affirm solidarity in the face of calamities inflicted by a real, external enemy."

In turn, men were criticized for their inactivity during the 1989 massacre, and newspaper columnist, Mark Steyn, wrote: "Yet the defining image of contemporary Canadian maleness is not M Lepine/Gharbi but the professors and the men in that classroom, who, ordered to leave by the lone gunman, meekly did so, and abandoned their female classmates to their fate-an act of abdication that would have been unthinkable in almost any other culture throughout human history," he wrote in his "The war on terror is the real women's issue" article on www.macleans.ca  on January 9, 2006.

Steyn pointed out how Lepine was born Gamil Gharbi (he later changed his name), the son of an Algerian Muslim who beat his wife, "though you wouldn't know that from the press coverage."

Lepine's father believed that women weren't equal to men and beat both his wife and son. As a result, Lepine became an anti-social man who was awkward around women and is not known to have had any intimate relationships. He hated women, particularly feminists, and blamed women for stealing men's jobs and for his own personal failure. In his suicide note, he wrote that he was ending his life for "political reasons" and how "feminists have always enraged me... They want to keep the advantages of women ... while seizing for themselves those of men."

While the Ecole Polytechnique Massacre was not an honour killing per se, it serves as a reminder that parents must teach their children, especially boys, that violence is wrong. If children are educated to respect both sexes early on in life, the chances are greater of them leading peaceful and healthy lives.

Raza insists that "where we are and how progressive we are" is critical to determining if the honour killings situation will worsen or improve in the next 15 or 20 years.

"In Pakistan, if the Taliban impose their version of Islam, then such happenings will continue. Unless Muslims in Canada learn to bring Islam into this century, we are doomed to live like the Tribes of Arabia 1,400 years ago."

While Raza encourages women to stand up for one another and speak out against all kinds of violence, she has a special message for her fellow Muslim women: "Understand and acknowledge your rights under the faith and arm yourselves with weapons of mass instruction, so no one can violate your rights. Form support systems, and most of all, don't let anyone tell you what Islam is - learn for [yourselves] because very often the voices are clouded with dogma. Allah has given us equal rights and responsibilities, so implement them in your lives and support your sisters in solidarity for the right to take charge of their own lives."

Comments (10)Add Comment
0
Sarah
July 05, 2009
Votes: +1
A Real Feminist, Standing Up.

I find this article offensive for more reasons than I'm confident I can make intelligible. In a feeble attempt, a list:

1) The title of this piece is grossly misplaced. The lead in is feminism, but the article speaks only of the negative rights of women. If you intend to invoke such a powerful and controversial term as feiminism, make sure you have a constructive definition, and make sure you make it relevant in your work.

2) You seem to be losing a battle up the slippery slope of xenophobia, particularly when you use turns of phrase such as "barbaric acts", "the dark side of multiculturalism" and "Canada follows Victorian Law, not Sharia Law, after all." As much as you bandy about the feminist flag, your condemnation of these acts of violence seems to be more concerned with culture than sex and gender.

3) Publishing an article that invokes something that society has already been guiled into thinking is only a practice of Muslim men and deranged nutjobs in an issue entitled "Bananas"? Classy, (Cult)ure, way to make anything and everything that is a little too far beyond your experience seem completely irrational. No one is going to benefit from painting such practices, abhorrent as they are, as nuts rather than trying to engage with the underlying beliefs and power imbalances.

It's a pity that the very serious issues of intra-family violence that women of all stripes face in this country can get dragged down by the weight of societal fears concerning anything and everything different. Condemning cultures (and presenting one-sided, or misguided, or underinformed opinions, however democratic and right it may be to allow such expressions) is never going to lead to a solution for the women who also claim and love these cultures as their own (not because they're brainwashed, or weak, or in need of rescue, but because these cultures are what they know, what they have experienced, where they come from and what makes them who they are). For an insightful and look at the pressures faced by South Asian girls living in Canada from the perspective of a feminist scholar, take a look at Amita Handa's "Of Silk Saris and Miniskirts"

0
Jerome
July 07, 2009
Votes: -1
...

Wow Sarah, a nice of example of using 1000 words to say nothing.

Us normal people, who didnt waste ours and taxpayers money on a wowens studies degree think that feminists are supposed to stand up for the basic rights of women of all nationalities and creeds. We dont think the term is specially "powerful or controversial".

The fact that some barbaric misogynistic practices originate in muslim countries is no reason to ignore them.

I think its hilarious that you write "our condemnation of these acts of violence seems to be more concerned with culture than sex and gender". You think condemning acts of violence shows concern with culture? Well, quite frankly, yes, if the culture condones acts of violence, there is good reason to be concerned with that culture. However, the reason this is a "gender" issue is because those acts of violence are specifically directed at women because of their gender. That feminists choose to look the other way for fear of being branded racist is so very cowardly.

I know I know, you've been taught to hate the patriarchal amerikkkan-zionist oppressive corporate power structure and those poor brown people are just really acting out because something George Bush did.

Fact is, in the West most would agree that women have achieved parity with men (or even superiority, if one were to look at the number of university degrees awarded to women versus those awarded to men). That the feminist movement right now is mostly preoccupied with making sure a 14 year old can get a tax-funded late-term abortion without telling her parents instead of advocating for equality of women world wide is why "feminist" is now commonly used as a derogatory term.

Kevin Johns
kevinjohns
July 08, 2009
Votes: +2
Jerome, as usual, I disagree with your attitude.

Just because it's the internet doesn't mean you have a right to be rude.

That said, I do tend to agree with you that there is an element within the radical left that is never going to be happy. No matter what you say, its never going to be inclusive enough and you are always going to offend them somehow.

I presented a paper at an academic feminist conference years ago, and I will never forget the moment when a lesbian presented a paper on how, "Gay marriage is just heterosexual culture's way of co-opting gay radicalism."

So yeah.

There are the leftists who think gay marriage is a good thing and that honour killings are a bad thing. Then there's the faaaaar leftists, like Sarah up above, whom we are never going to be able to please, no matter what we say.

0
Emily
July 09, 2009
Votes: +2
yikes

This is pretty dismissive of commenters. An article such as this one is generally going to attract differing opinions, no need to dismiss Sarah as a faaaar lefty, unable to be pleased.

In any case, Sarah’s opinion is clearly not “honour killings: yay!”, and dismissing it as such is as nonsensical as painting yourself as a feminist and then ridiculing the entire field of women’s studies. Feminism is about more than preventing honour killings, just as Muslim women are more than helpless victims who need to be saved by our magical Western ways.

The fact is that misogynistic violence and murder are hardly confined to the Muslim world, and over-simplifying this issue will not help matters.

0
Jerome
July 09, 2009
Votes: -1
...

kevinjohns and Emily:

good points from both of you.

however, i maintain that feminist inaction in response to honor killings and other muslim misogyny is quite telling of misplaced priorities. what's even more hilarious though is sarah's lengthy gobbledygook offered in response to a fine article.

emily, your points that feminism is more than preventing honor killings, that muslim women are more than helpless victims, and that women's issues are not confined to the muslim world are all correct, but fail to address any issue raised by either the article or sarah's denunciation of it.

sarah's point seems to be: "muslims are not white, how dare you criticize them you racist xenophobe!" which is quite telling of today's feminists attitude taken from a women's studies department (which, yes, i will ridicule, these are barren areas of studies, who produce nothing but man-hating ideologues, and bring nothing to society but said man-haters, not equality-seekers).

such a distorted and unbalanced view of the world deserves to be exposed to scorn at every opportunity, and I will gladly do it, no matter the amount of scorn directed at me as a result.

0
Sarah
July 10, 2009
Votes: -1
...

The point I was trying to get across seems to have been lost somewhere in the controversial nature of this subect matter, so I'm going to take another shot.

Full disclosure, here: while I'm not a women's studies major or a faaaaar leftist, I am a discourse analyst. This is probably why my first instinct was to pick apart the language Dahlia Liwsze uses to frame the issue.

As I said earlier, and maintain now and always, I think the practice of honour killing is abhorrent. In terms of the issues of honour killing, women's rights, and the extent of multiculturalism (ie the incorporation of Shari'a into Ontario law), I do think that we need a public discussion about the limits of multiculturalism and the precedence of individual rights over group rights. I think that perhaps Liwsze was trying to criticize those feminists who would accept certain practices for fear of coming across as racist, but the article simply fails to bring this message across.

Liwsze does not follow through with her own proposed critique of feminism. She paints a whole lot of Muslims and a whole lot of Islam with a very broad brush. The words and phrases she chooses make it sound like all Muslims are necessarily woman-haters and abusers. And the way she does it is not by arguing in favour of women's rights, but by making cultural difference out to be the bad guy.

I agree that the practice of honour killing needs more attention from feminists, and I agree that the practice is condemnable. I also think, though, that this article is socially irresponsible in the way that it portrays cultural difference, and a weak piece of writing, as it fails to argue or prove the point it sets out with.

0
Jerome
July 10, 2009
Votes: +0
...

Sarah, you say:

"The words and phrases she chooses make it sound like all Muslims are necessarily woman-haters and abusers. And the way she does it is not by arguing in favour of women's rights, but by making cultural difference out to be the bad guy."

I didnt read anything that suggests that. Perhaps your comment is the "weak piece of writing, as it fails to argue or prove the point it sets out with".

Rather, I find that Dahlia went out of her way to quote muslims who condemn honour killings. A few examples:

Dr. Amin Muhammad, a psychiatry professor at Memorial University in St. John'swho has studied honour killings, has said that:In some cultures, people feel some boundaries are never to be crossed, and if someone would violate those practices or go against it, then murder is justified to them."

Wow, that Muhammad guy is a big time islamophobe.

I also note this quote from Raheel Raza:

"Although this is not Islamic, it so happens that these are cases in the Muslim community, and unfortunately, we sometimes spend so much time in denial and as apologetics, that we bypass the main concern which is the fragile life of these women who are victims of male dominance and violence."

My guess is that Raza is some kind of white supremacist.

And presumed KKK grand wizard Sheikh Alaa Elsayed said that "taking a life is an act against all humanity."

The fact is, even these people, Raza, Elsayed, Muhammad, acknowledge that this is a cultural issue - it's sad and unfortunate, but honor killings are related to culture. Violence against women is a universal problem, but honor killings are cultural. That's a fact, and ignoring it and calling anybody who points it out a racist wont change it. It doesnt follow however that every muslim does it, or that we ought to treat muslims differently.

In order to confront it however, we ought to be able to talk about it frankly, which is what I believe Dahlia did. Unfortunately its all too common that as soon as the topic is raised by somebody, someone else gets a kick from calling that person a racist, in a pathetic attempt to bolster their own non-racism. That is why I believe feminists are timid to speak up - not because they approve of it, but because as soon as the target of criticism is not a white male, they open themselves up to the phony charge of racism. Your comment just perpetuated that tradition of stifling discussion on complex topics such as honor killings.

0
Nadia
July 13, 2009
Votes: +0
...

Far from being, as one points out "a weak piece of writing" and a "socially irresponsible" article (I mean, this is Canada not the USSR), I am glad someone is drawing attention to this issue. Great job!

0
Sarah
July 15, 2009
Votes: +1
...

Okay, Jerome. It seems like we're finally finding some common ground. I agree that Liwsze does bring in a more balanced perspective in the latter half of her article. The problem I see, though, is that she does so after using terms like "barbaric" and "the dark side." The point of presenting more than one perspective in an article is to let the reader draw some of their own conclusions. By framing them with such language, Liwsze sets a certain tone and sends a clear message about the conclusion that should be drawn.

Further, in the course of identifying some 'liberated,' 'enlightened,' and 'civilized' muslim voices, she also makes it seem like honour killing or something like it is commonplace in the lives of muslims: "While there haven't been any honour killings in her family, Raza said she recently met a couple where a Muslim girl was dating a non-Muslim boy. "Her brother has already damned her as a non-believer and told her she has shamed the family." Yes, many Muslim women have to deal with such crap in their lives, but this makes it seem like it's something we all go through, and all at the same extreme level of threat, which is simply untrue.

Also, I still strongly disagree that honour killing is best understood as a cultural issue. Honour killing is a violent manifestation of the desire to control women, their bodies, their actions, and their sexuality. Other acts that are accurately described in these terms include partner abuse, pimping, female infanticide, marital rape, sexual abuse, intimidation at work, trafficking, and refusal of birth control.

I don't think there's anything wrong with calling all of these acts barbaric, because they are. Using culture to draw distinctions between these acts and label one as more barbaric than another based on culture, though, is, for lack of a better term, racist. Non-racist: violence against women sucks, period. Racist: violence against women sucks when it is prepetrated by Muslims.

Sure, honour killing, like all violence against women, is terrible and needs to be stopped, but I disagree with the notion that it's a cultural practice. It has everything to do with a desire to control women, and that is unfortunately pretty common in this world. I'm not convinced that we really gain anything by focusing on the cultural particularities of one type of violence against women.

0
Jerome
July 16, 2009
Votes: -2
...

Sarah:

You're right that the article is framed to sway the reader towards a particular conclusion, and I see nothing wrong with that. This is drafted more as opinion piece than anything else.

And yes violence against women occurs in all cultures and it is wrong regardless of what culture the perpetrator belongs to. But it does a disservice to victims to ignore the cultural aspect of honor killings.

If a WASP husband beats up his wife and people learn about it, he will be stigmatized by his community. But an honor killing is different, its not just some violent guy losing his temper, the act of killing is done to "regain the family honor", which was presumably lost due to something the victim did. To do something to "regain family honor" has strong implications that the act is done in response to a level of community pressure. Ignoring this aspect doesnt do anybody a favor.

Also, I dont think that the author implied that violence against women sucks ONLY when perpetrated by muslims. I think the point was just to draw attention to this type of violence and how feminists have been silent in condemning it.

Like you said yourself, violence against women is a manifestation of the desire to control women. And I think you'd agree that in our society, although far from perfect, our own culture has evolved dramatically since 100 years ago. The way people think they can control women is a cultural issue. 100 years ago, our culture did not place women on an equal footing to men - today we at least acknowledge that they should be on an equal footing and we have certainly brought them closer to equality. That is, our culture is different from 100 years ago with respect to women.

I dont think its racist one iota to point out that some new canadians come from cultures who havent gone through a similar transformation.

I mean, in Saudi Arabia, women are not allowed to go outside without a husband or a father. That's not because Saudi Arabia has an unbelievable concentration of men who are inherently control-freaks, its their culture.

And other types of abuses against women, like marital rape, trafficking... all have specific causes and cannot be addressed in one fell swoop. A husband who beats up his wife probably has personal anger issues. A father or brother who kills a family member has anger issues also no doubt, but to kill a family member for mere non-compliance with cultural norms seems to me to require something more than just anger.

Write comment
 
 
smaller | bigger
 

security image
Write the displayed characters


busy