Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

When stoning is men's business

By Jocelynne Scutt - posted Friday, 13 July 2012


Is stoning men's business?

On 11 July 2012, Iran media announced that the Guardian Council, comprising mullahs responsible for ensuring conformity of state laws with Islamic law, had approved changes to laws governing executions. Reportedly, 'legal' executions of minors would be ended, and stoning would cease as a method of execution. The changes must be signed into law by the President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Yet even prior to his endorsement, doubts are expressed as to the scope and application of these changes, long demanded by humanitarians and human rights activists.

On 11 December 2010 women – together with some men – marched on the streets of New York, their protest directed toward the United Nations (UN) in a call for a resolution requiring all members to criminalise stoning, rather than standing by whilst governments endorse this state-sponsored violence targeting women. Marchers demanded that the UN remove from all its 'equal rights for women' bodies those nation states allowing, promoting or sanctifying through law this inhuman and inhumane punishment. Iran was at the top of the list.

Advertisement

On 19 December 2011, consequential upon women's organisations consistent lobbying, a resolution with 89 votes 'for', 30 'against' and 64 abstentions was passed by the UN 'expressing deep concern at reports of human rights violations in Iran' and 'pervasive gender inequality and violence against women'. 'Deep concern' was also expressed at prisoners continuing to face sentences of execution by stoning' even though there has been a national directive against it'.

On 14 January 2012 in London, women joined together in a resolution denouncing stoning and demanding an end to femicide in all its forms. Roj Women's Association, the International Free Women Foundation and the Organisation for Women's Freedom in Iraq called for all concerned to ensure the safety and security of women worldwide to:

'1. Raise awareness about these crimes and to encourage and support struggles against them in Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere where states legitimise women's slaughter.

'2. Work in partnership with other campaigns bringing awareness about stoning and execution of women.

'3. Continue efforts for recognition of femicide as crime against humanity like genocide is in international Law and to form an alternative women judicial system against femicide.

'4. Denounce these crimes and mobilise our societies to take stands against these medieval practices.

Advertisement

'5. Raise awareness among men and help them to engage in the struggle for women's equality and freedom.

'6. Reform laws and create new laws against all forms of violence and establish Constitutions recognising full equality between women and men.

'7. Highlight Kurdish women's struggles and oppose all forms of violence against them.'

It was no surprise that women's organisations hosted the conference, and that the majority attending were women.

Consistently, on 26 June 2012 in Geneva, women's voices denounced stoning, calling for action against it. At an informal meeting held with the 20th session of the UN Human Rights Council, 'Mapping Stoning' brought home the extent of this cruel and unusual punishment, which is not isolated to the Middle East, reportedly extending into Africa, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia and parts of Papua New Guinea. A presentation by WUNRN (Women's UN Report Network) reported on stoning in Afghanistan,Iran and Pakistan, and the mob rule which led to the murder by stoning of Saroya M. in Iran.

So it is that all over the world, women accept responsibility by taking action to stop crimes against women. Women being stoned for adultery; women being beaten, bashed and abused at home; women being raped and sexually exploited; women being burnt, injured from acid throwing, damaged and destroyed as wives; women being killed for 'honour' where the criminal dishonour of those doing the killing should be the focus.

We accept this as women's business.

Why do women take responsibility, when it is men's laws that condone, even demand and authorise, this violence against women? Why do we call all this horror, aggression and carnage women's business, as if men have no responsibility, no business here? Why do we believe that it is our role to take action, our role to do something, our role to change the world which promotes, condones, legitimates and even makes lawful the killing, abuse and destruction of women? Why do we see this as women's business, even just women's business, or mostly women's business?

Men have a central role in the stoning of women, (dis)'honour' killings of women, crimes against women as wives, ex-wives or partners, and crimes against daughters, granddaughters, nieces or sisters.

On 4 December 2006 in Iran, nine women were awaiting death by stoning on charges of adultery. At the same time, only two men were in prison for the offence. In August 2008, at least eight women and one man were in custody under sentence of stoning, the charges being prostitution, incest and adultery. Why this disparity in numbers, when clearly men are equally implicated in adultery, incest and prostitution – and perhaps even more so. We know that a woman may be convicted and sentenced for adultery, when she has engaged in no activity for which she can be legitimately held responsible. She has engaged in no offence at all. Rather, she has been raped. Similarly with incest. Yet in all countries the crime of rape is rarely prosecuted as rape, because the woman is seen as to blame or complicit. In countries where adultery is a crime the woman will be classed as a criminal – an adulteress - when she was a victim who survived this horrible crime of rape, an offence against her bodily and psychic integrity. Now, having survived, she is labeled as a criminal herself, to be subjected to another horrible crime, this time death by stoning.

Who makes the laws that convict women of crimes they have never committed, that sentence women to death by stoning? The law makers are men who stand on their authority, committing what should be crimes in the letter of the law. But because these men are in authority, their word is law; they turn women into criminals when they – these lawmakers – should themselves be chastised for their lack of humanity and the wrongs they do in the name of the law.

Who determines upon the customs that see men who kill their wives, their sisters or their daughters, asserting that they legitimately end these women's lives because the women have 'dishonoured' the 'family' name? Women are not in charge of making these customs, nor do women enforce or take the lead in carrying them to their end, in death. 'Family honour' is a masculine concept, promoted by men of law and authority, who are thereby compromised whenever, somewhere, a woman is killed in the name of the family. Thus, even if it is argued that some women 'participate' in enforcing these 'customs' against other women, those women are at risk, too. Should they refuse or fail to conform to the masculine demand of '(dis)honour', they are vulnerable to charges of 'dishonouring' the family name, too. Cowards they may be called, should they comply with demands of those in power. Yet cowardice is a charge made by those in power against the weak and the vulnerable, who are not the makers of the culture, nor the holders of the power to make it.

Death by stoning does not exist in every country in the world. Nor does (dis)honour killing, although it is spreading. Nor does killing of women because their dowry is classed as too small, or some other defect is found by the family into which a woman marries, or likely is forcibly married, so that they see themselves as entitled to end her life or destroy her person.

Yet in so many countries, women's lives and bodily integrity are at risk, because man-made laws classify women as responsible for the crimes committed against them. In western law, the crime of rape has been surrounded by rules that advantage men who impose their sexual aggression upon women. If a woman showed no signs of struggle or screaming, torn clothing or bruising, cuts or damage beyond the sexual imposition itself, she had little chance of being seen as an 'innocent'. The man would be acquitted of rape, if he were ever charged with the offence. If there was no corroboration – such as medical evidence of attack, or an eye witness to the crime or at least some surrounding circumstances showing the act had criminal implications – then an acquittal was likely. Even young girls were seen in the law as provocative and 'leading men on', so that the men were not held responsible for their sexual exploitation and abuse. These myths have not passed into history: their remnants remain, even in jurisdictions where law reforms have sought to eliminate them.

In western countries, a man who kills his wife is often let off a murder charge or conviction, and convicted of manslaughter only. Why? Because the woman 'provoked' him, 'nagged' him or was in some way 'brought the death upon herself'. If a woman kills her husband in self-defence, because she believes he will kill her unless she kills him, rarely can she use this as a defence to the charge of murder. If she escapes a conviction for murder, it will be because her responsibility is slightly lessened - and so she is convicted of manslaughter. The denunciation of 'provocation' as being a charter for wife-killing have too often met with contentions that the law is neutral and does not militate against the right of women to live.

Yet the difference between the woman convicted of manslaughter and the man who kills his wife or former partner and is sentenced for manslaughter is immense. The woman has suffered years of criminal assault at home and other forms of domestic violence – often sexual abuse, abuse against the children, and torturing of the family pets. This is not what men suffer who kill their wives. 'Nagging' has been portrayed as enough.

The law of murder, manslaughter, provocation and self-defence was developed over time by judges – all men in the western system, until in the twentieth century women were allowed to practice law, then eventually began to be appointed to courts as magistrates and judges.

For centuries in western countries, women were prosecuted and tried in courts where no other women were present. The judge, jury, lawyers, courtroom attendants, court recorders and everyone else was male. Women were found guilty by male judges, and taken to the scaffold to be hanged by hangmen, beheaded by axe-men, or electrocuted by men who threw the switch.

For centuries, women have fought for recognition and rights as human beings. For centuries, the fight has continued by women, for women to be accorded equal entitlements to dignity and respect. This is a world-wide struggle in which men of decency and justice ought to be engaged too. Sometimes, a few have taken up this responsibility. But the fact that women remain disentitled and unable to practice equal rights – and are too often explicitly denied them by law - means too few men have accepted that responsibility, must less joined the struggle.

No country, no civilisation and no society can operate justly without the full and equal participation of women. All men must recognise their responsibility when they live in a country and a world where women are denied rights, where women are treated unequally by the law, and where women can be put to death or abused in the name of the law.

For as long as one woman is at risk of death at the hands of a legal system devised and enforced by men, then men are responsible. As long as any woman is liable to death by stoning, men are responsible. As women, we take our responsibilities seriously. We lobby and strive to right the wrongs committed against women, just as we lobby and strive to right the wrongs committed against the whole of humanity. We must demand that men take their responsibilities seriously too – and men must demand this of themselves.

Men's responsibility is not to engage in crimes of violence and sexual abuse against women, whatever the relationship between them and their prospective victims. Their responsibility is to change laws that deny integrity and personhood to women. Their responsibility is to change a legal system that condones the death of women in the name of upholding the law. Their responsibility is to refuse to enforce inhuman and inhumane laws that end women's lives.

When laws end with the ending of women's lives, responsible people – women and men – know that those laws must be ended.

 

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

An earlier version was published in February 2007 on the website Stop Stoning Forever Campaign



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

63 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Dr Jocelynne A. Scutt is a Barrister and Human Rights Lawyer in Mellbourne and Sydney. Her web site is here. She is also chair of Women Worldwide Advancing Freedom and Dignity.

She is also Visiting Fellow, Lucy Cavendish College, University of Cambridge.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Jocelynne Scutt

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 63 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy