When stoning is men's business

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 20^th 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.