Whenever I talk to people from all around the world and the subject of honor killing comes up I always find an abundance of misconceptions thrown at me when it comes to such law. Those misconceptions might lead some to leap in defense of such laws and might lead to those who are against it to underestimate its total reach and affect.
The biggest misconception about such laws that people draw is that is strictly for women having sex out of wedlock, and that is once it is proven, a male family member has free reign to kill the female committing such act. However, after studying the articles behind such laws in six different countries I can confirm that to not be the case.
The articles in fact serve as exoneration laws in the aftermath should such actions be committed.So why does that matter? Well, while most laws provide cut and dry cases, this one doesn't. The punishment for the woman's action isn't decided by the law, constitution, or court, by rather other family members. Simply put, it is not a punishment for adultery but rather how it made a family member who is a man feel.
Another part that should be pointed out is that these laws do come off as gender neutral in language however the application is far from that. People who are pro the law see it necessary to protect families from dishonor brought by women while those are against don't care whether it is applicable to men as they want the whole thing rebelled all together. So the sexism aspect of it all matters little.
But the law's biggest problem isn't the strictness of it as much as it is the fluidity of its language. The sad fact is that Muslim women in the Middle East aren't killed by strangers, gangs -Hell, it is even a rule to not kill women and children during war or any kind of attack- but women in the Middle East get killed in the last place you would expect by the last people you would expect, their houses and rooms by their own family members.
While adultery laws -Which apply to both sides- require proof, honor killing is reaction-based-law that requires no proof and the problematic language gives space for the simplest explanations to work in justification of such heinous acts. Take the example of a thirty-year-old man identified as Ziad H.who had murdered his divorced sister for being absent from the family home for one week told authorities, all what Ziad needed to say was that "people started talking about us" and it served him as he was only sentenced to six months - the typical sentence per honor killings - which he had already served at the time. A pathologist’s report indicated that his sister, whom he stabbed thirty times, had not been involved in any sexual activity as per Human Rights Watch report
These laws allow honor killings based on how a man feels toward what is described as "Dangerous" and "Unlawful" acts done by the women. Taking the fresh case of Ahlam, a girl who was a victim of domestic abuse for years at the hands of her father and brothers. Reports are conflicting regarding how everything came to be, but what is agreed upon by everyone is that the girl escaped from the house with blood running down her neck due to the knife wounded caused by the intentions from the father to slash her throat. The father managed to catch up to Ahlam with her brothers serving as obstacles to prevent people from helping her. The father stomped her head multiple times and she laid dead on the ground as the father actually sat over the body of Ahlam drinking tea.
The outcome of the case above isn't clear yet, but much like the case I mentioned few articles ago about Israa Ghrayeb, the outcome is likely to be the father walking away. In any other place, this is an open and shut case of murder with no possible outcome but jail or a death sentence. However, a small look the Human Rights Watch report mentioned above is all it takes to not be so sure. in a 2001 case in which the defendant had killed his sister “after seeing a man leave her house. In 2003, a man fatally stabbed his daughter twenty-five times because she refused to tell him where she had been, following a three-week absence. The court, invoking article 98, reduced his sentence on the basis of the act being committed in a "fit of rage. The latter two of examples determined the WOMEN's behavior as unlawful.
For a second you might think that you have figured out the law, I know I have when I referred to it as a "reaction-based-law". But the aforementioned case of Israa includes a time period in which her older brother, booked a ticket in Canada, flew all the way to Palestine to murder her. And In another reported case, a man heard his sister referred to as a “slut” and confronted her. She told him to “mind his own business.” He went to bed, awoke the next morning and strangled her with a phone cord. The High Criminal Court ruled: “It does not matter that the defendant killed his sister hours after [learning of her supposed act]. He was still under the influence of extreme anger, which caused him to lose his ability to think clearly because of the unlawful act committed by his sister.
Follow this with another case in 2001 where a brother visited his sister in a hospital—she was being treated for burns—and she admitted to him that she had had an affair and that she was pregnant. He left and bought a gun. Twenty-four hours later he returned and shot her seven times at close range. As the court saw it, “although there were approximately twenty-four hours between the time the defendant learnt of his sister’s illegitimate pregnancy [and the time he killed her], his soul was not at peace…The irritated soul does not know calm thinking. Therefore, he should benefit from a reduction in penalty as stipulated in article 98 of the Jordanian Penal Code.
The loose-language-based law isn't restricted by any proof, reason, or time. It allows a man to kill his sister because he heard someone calling her a slut. In patriarchal systems controlled by patriarchal governments where men have more freedom, jobs, and accessibility, why is it that women have to carry the "Family honor"?
At some point you have to call a bad law a bad law and I would have been tempted to admit to it being a bad law if it weren't for the fact that all it serves as is a joker card that allows men to murder women at the slightest conflict.