Not to nitpick, but wouldn’t it technically be intrafamilial (not interfamilial) murder? That is how I describe it in my book.

Ellen

The funny thing about Gordon Brown is that for all the impression of statesmanlike gravity the Labour PR men are trying to associate him with, he seems to have practically nothing new to say or of any relevance to the future. In reality GB is obsessed with the minutie of politics and getting one over on his opponents and remains the one remaining standing member of the original New Labour PR project (the others being Blair, Mandelson and Campbell).

thank you for such an informed and interesting comment.

You are right – I studied the concept of family honour when reading Lope de Vega at university in the 80s. That’s really my point, though: this concept of loss of family honour was never current in Britain and, in western Europe, existed in the Iberian Peninsula up until the 18th Century (as I recall, although it was 20 years ago that I studied, so I am prepared to be corrected by any historians out there!).

You may have to use the term when conducting research in the countries where it is recognized, but my point is that we, in the UK, should not give the term currency. In so doing, we appear to support the idea that there is something different about these murders, something distinctive, that makes them a little less like murder, and a little more like justifiable homicide. Even if that is not the intention, every time a British broadcaster uses the term ‘honour killing’, rather than murder, he or she reinforces the idea that there is a different dimension to such crimes.

Those involved note that we use the same description as they do and are left with the impression that we acknowledge the difference, even if we don’t approve.

There is a perfectly good phrase – inter-family murder – which would suffice; it makes the point, but carries with it no vestige of glamour or self-justification.

However, until most of the rest of the world joins us in our thinking (and until “honor” crimes are more commonly investigated, prosecuted, and denounced as other crimes), and for lack of a better way to connote that I do not view these crimes in the same way as the people trying to justify them, I will continue to use quotes around the term honor when I refer to them. I am often in the position of having to bridge two worlds, and this is the most effective way I have found to let the people who believe in these crimes know I am speaking about them, but also to telegraph to those who don’t believe in them that I am not using the term out of personal conviction in my belief in these crimes, nor am I in any way justifying the underlying thinking.

Also (and I hope I am not telling you something you don’t already know), the phrase “honor” killing is really just shorthand for killing in an attempt to cleanse or restore family honor. The words “honor” and “killing” are almost oxymoronic in English, but they translate differently in other languages. In most, if not all, of the cultures in which these crimes originate, a family’s honor resides in its females, not its males. While I believe that a family’s honor is worth maintaining, I do not believe that it resides solely in its females, nor do I believe summary execution for actual or perceived or imagined sexual transgressions is ever justifiable.

Another complication in all this is that, in some of the countries where these crimes originate, there is actually a legal distinction between “honor” killings and other murders. In Jordan, for example, there are three penal code articles (Articles 97, 98, and 340)on the books that offer leniency to the perpetrators of “honor” killings. They are treated as misdemeanors, and the average sentence is six months (not a typographical error). In contrast, other types of murder are handled in ways we’d be more likely to recognize, with stiffer penalties, sometimes even the death penalty. I have been advocating for eliminating this legal distinction but, until there is legal reform, whether I like it or not (and you can probably guess I don’t), “honor” killings are accorded special status under the law.

It’s a tricky thing. I totally understand the point you are trying to make, though. It’s valid. And I couldn’t be more weary of the softly, softly line. To the extent that we allow it, we are somewhat complicit. Some things are just wrong. This is one of them. As one ambassador’s wife in Jordan told me, “There is no gray area here.”

At the moment, I am struggling to understand all the hand-wringing about this in the U.K. and on the continent. It seems there is more political correctness there about these things than in the States. . .or maybe the assimilation of immigrants is a newer problem or somehow more difficult or something. I’m not aware of any “honor” killings that have happened here in recent times, but I’m pretty sure they’d be investigated and prosecuted just like any ol’ murder. They’d probably get more press, though, if only for their unusualness.

Truthfully, most people in the States have never heard of “honor” killings. When I speak of them, I almost always have to preface my comments with an explanation of what they are and/or spend time correcting misconceptions about them. Can’t decide whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing.

Ellen R. Sheeley, Author
“Reclaiming Honor in Jordan”