By now, we all know about Mel Gibson’s vulgar and vicious tirades against his former girlfriend, Oksana Grigorieva. In one of the recordings, released by RadarOnline.com, Mel claims to “own” Oksana. Disgusting.
Nearly as revolting, though, is how my some of my feminist friends have been using this story. They’ve effectively told me, “See? Muslim women aren’t the only ones who face heinous male behavior. It’s a global phenomenon.”
Violence against women is, indeed, a global phenomenon. But — and this what many of my fellow feminists don’t own up to — Mel’s aggression is almost universally condemned. The same can’t be said of the “honor crimes” so often experienced by Arab and South Asian women.
That’s not splitting hairs. Fact is, the communal validation that honor crimes receive allow them to continue with very little debate among Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus. And if those communities won’t raise these issues, no wonder Western feminists rarely do. But feminists should. As long as we aren’t pounding away at honor crimes, how can we expect media coverage by network TV or punishment by law enforcement?
I’ve blogged my brains out about this problem. So let me turn to a new voice: Aruna Papp. She’s a Canadian social worker of South Asian heritage. Ms. Papp has just written a ground-breaking report called Culturally Driven Violence Against Women. She hammers home the point that the deadly self-censorship enveloping honor-based violence needs to end.
Highlights from her report:
* “[C]ulturally driven violence… is condoned and even facilitated by kinship groups and the community.“
* Regarding Aqsa Parvez, the Muslim-Canadian teen strangled by her father and brother to ‘cleanse’ their family’s honor, “the 12 adults living in the house condoned the abuse of this girl… After killing her, the father told his wife, ‘My community will say that you have not been able to control your daughter. This is my insult. She is making me naked.’“
* “South Asian culture glorifies self-sacrifice in girls and women and puts a premium on their chastity. In addition, tensions around dowry expectations, the idolization of males and arranged or forced marriages — traditions that run directly counter to Canadian values — all play a role in creating a favourable climate for the abuse of girls and women.“
* “[T]he most insurmountable obstacle of all: a community-wide conspiracy of silence… Community leaders point to cultural traditions, religious values and norms in defending their way of life. Thus, they consciously exploit multiculturalism-inspired fears of appearing racist or of perpetuating cultural stereotypes” — fears, that is, among members of wider society, from feminists to journalists to police officers to judges. For example:
* “[T]here are more than a few cases in Canada of crimes committed in the name of cultural values where judges imposed lesser penalties on the perpetrator in deference to his cultural motivation.“
In one such instance, “Judge Monique Dubreuil sentenced two men convicted of sexual assault to 18-month conditional sentences and 100 hours of community service each, stating, ‘The absence of regret of the two accused seems to be related more to the cultural context, particularly with regards to relations with women, than a veritable problem of a sexual nature.“
Given their ‘cultural conditioning,’ so to speak, Judge Dubreuil handed the men lenient sentences. Writes Ms. Papp, that’s how “abused women are forced to remain silent while the abuses continue even into the second and third generation.“
Already, Mel Gibson is fleeing the United States for an isolated ranch in the Australian outback. He knows he’s in trouble. He’s perfectly aware of his outcast status. The Mel Gibson Haters Club has officially launched.
When will good-hearted, broad-minded Westerners begin pushing Arab and South Asian communities in North America to react with remotely the same intensity toward their Mel Gibsons? Or do Extra and Entertainment Tonight need to show political progressives the way forward?
Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani has became the symbol of a hideous practice that the Iranian government inflicts on its people: death by stoning.
In a 21st-century version of burning heretics at the stake, stoning victims are draped in pristine white sheets, lowered into freshly dug dirt pits and attacked with fist-sized rocks. The rocks are hurled hard enough to cause pain, but not hard enough to kill quickly. As Amnesty International puts it, stoning is “specifically designed to increase the suffering of its victims.”
A group of entrepreneurs, authors and artists have come together to win the fight against death by stoning. We’ve launched a website — freesakineh.org — that allows citizens of every country to send a crystal-clear message to Iranian authorities: “We’re watching and we won’t let you off the hook.”
Already, Iran’s regime has reacted to the worldwide citizens’ campaign by promising that Ms. Ashtiani will not be stoned. However, she remains subject to execution. The regime hasn’t yet clarified by what means.
None of us should take comfort from this response. Fact is, Iran’s regime lies about stoning. At the World Economic Forum in 2005, I publicly confronted Iranian vice-president Masoumeh Ebtekar about it. She assured me that Iran had proclaimed a “moratorium” on the hideous practice.
Yet since then, human rights watchdogs have documented it at least six times. On top that, Iranian anti-stoning activists have had to intervene and rescue several more targets. Today, 12 women and one man face death by stoning in Iran.
Stoning cases themselves tend to be built on a pile of indignities. Consider the allegation against Ms. Ashtiani: adultery. The charge is manifestly trumped up and the investigation has been stacked from the get-go — so much so that a loophole had to be invoked to convict her. That loophole lets judges claim special “knowledge” for which there’s no evidence. How convenient.
In any event, Ms. Ashtiani had already submitted herself to lashings — 99 of them. Why, then, the indescribably gratuitous threat to pulverize the life out of her too? Why any kind of execution for her? And even if her life is spared because of the international spotlight, what will happen to the other women and men who still face the stoning sentence?
This fight isn’t over as long as you sign the petition at freesakineh.org.
How could your signature help eradicate stoning? For starters, the petition is being sent not just to Iranian officials, but also to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The UN is Iran’s cherished playground. Shaming the regime there could go far to tipping the scales.
Some will scoff that Sharia (Islamic) law won’t be influenced by secular cries for human rights. But Iran subscribes to Shia Islam, which was born of dissent. As minorities in a Sunni-dominated Muslim world, shia clerics and thinkers don’t always reject the idea that human interpretations of divine will are exactly that — human. If exposed by more international outrage, Iranian arbiters could use Shia tradition to ban stoning altogether.
Others might argue that Western involvement will be spun as interference, complicating the work of campaigners on the ground in Iran. It’s true that outcries from the outside sometimes hurt causes. But in Iran, activists say that global pressure works. Indeed, the Iranian human-rights icon and Nobel peace laureate Shirin Ebadi has urged us “to make as much noise as possible.”
Clearly, worldwide concern about Sakineh Ashtiani has made a difference. Remarkably, Iran’s regime felt the need to react. Still, let’s not be duped by the Kafka-esque content of its reaction. A public-relations victory for the regime isn’t our goal. Sustained respect for human dignity is.
That’s the simple message of your signature to help save Sakineh. After signing, please circulate the link far and wide. We’re now translating the site into multiple languages, so don’t hesitate to get friends and family involved, wherever they live.
Credit: faratarazmarzha.org
While discussing Afghanistan — the “graveyard of empires” — a friend of mine blurted something that I’ve never hard before, but that I think should be tattooed on the forehead of General David Petraeus so he sees it every morning when he peers into the mirror.
What my friend said is simple: in Afghanistan, “culture eats strategy for breakfast.”
Translation: You can craft the savviest military strategy ever. But unless God intervenes, deep-seated culture will surely defeat your tactical smarts.
The tribal culture of “honor” has already trumped democracy in Afghanistan. Despite being suave and sophisticated, President Hamid Karzai rarely defends individual rights, a cornerstone of democracy. Instead, he quietly condones punishments inflicted in the name of tribal honor, from widespread gang-rapes of women to acid attacks on schoolgirls.
Why would a Muslim, routinely described as a “moderate,” hand so much power to feudal warlords? For years, military strategists have told me it’s because Karzai has to avoid carnage at all costs.
But does violating innocents to pre-empt further violence make sense?
Sadly, yes, and that’s where the power of culture enters Afghanistan’s grim picture. In societies influenced by Arab culture, a massive motivator of action is asabiyya or tribal solidarity.
This analysis originated with the Muslim intellectual Ibn Khaldun, sometimes known as the father of sociology. He studied how Muslim peoples evolve, especially in environments that are arid, remote, or, in the case of Afghanistan, mountainous. Wherever the land is harsh, there’s virtually no division of labor. Human survival depends on bonds of kinship, and those bonds can easily degenerate into feelings of group superiority.
Now what happens when tribes compete for superiority? You get a cycle of vendetta and counter-vendetta. In the end, warlords could be more legitimate than any democratically elected parliament — more legitimate because they’re more authentic to the Afghan experience.
No wonder a moderate president serially submits to thugs. No wonder military might has been a feeble backwater to the tide of history. No wonder I’ve got the sinking suspicion that Barack Obama’s decision to deploy more troops can’t adequately help the good people of Afghanistan.
Soldiers can restore stability to the neighborhood. But when “stability” means “cyclical violence,” what does it really mean to win?
