View Full Version : Honour Killing

4th Nov 2005, 19:51
Before anyone starts, this is not intended as an excuse for Islamophobia or any racism.

I just find it deeply disturbing that people living in this country find the concept of honour killing acceptable and more to the point, fear that prison will do nothing to make these guys see that what they did is wrong. I do not believe in capital punishment, but can't really think of any suitable punishment for their misguided actions.

I am curious what y'all think?

From the BBC web site

Family guilty of 'honour killing'

Arash Ghorbani-Zarin was stabbed 46 times
A father and his two sons have been found guilty of murdering his daughter's boyfriend in an "honour killing" after she became pregnant.
Arash Ghorbani-Zarin, 19, was found stabbed 46 times in a car in Rosehill, Oxford, on 20 November last year.

The Iranian Muslim had been studying at Oxford Brookes University.

Chomir Ali, 44, was found guilty of ordering sons Mohammed Mujibar Rahman, 19, and Mamnoor Rahman, 16, to kill Mr Ghorbani-Zarin, at Oxford Crown Court.

We miss him every second, every minute and every hour of every day. His death has crushed our family
Family of Arash Ghorbani-Zarin

During the trial, the court heard the two sons killed Mr Ghorbani-Zarin due to the "shame and dishonour" brought on the family by his relationship with Manna Begum.

The pair met in 2003 through school friends, who described them as devoted to each other, with Miss Begum becoming pregnant in August 2004.

But Miss Begum's father, a Bangladeshi-born waiter, had planned for her to have an arranged marriage.

Her brother, Mujibar Rahman, was also furious at his sister's "blatant" defiance and had previously slapped her for refusing to end the relationship.

'Intelligent and loving'

After the killing, the DNA of Mamnoor Rahman was found on a knife.

The Rahman brothers' blood-stained clothing was also found in a plastic bag, which street sweepers saw being thrown into an Oxford allotment by their father, three days after the murder.

In summing up the trial, which lasted four weeks, Mr Justice Gross said the Western-style relationship caused a "battle of wills" in Miss Begum's family, as she resisted pressure to conform.

The defendants were convicted of murder at Oxford Crown Court

The jury took four-and-a-half days to reach a decision and there were loud cheers in the court as the verdicts were read out.

Mr Justice Gross adjourned sentencing of all three defendants, while pre-sentence reports on the youngest defendant were prepared.

Following the verdicts, Mr Ghorbani-Zarin's family said in a statement: "Our son was intelligent and loving and had a wonderful lifetime ahead of him.

"We miss him every second, every minute and every hour of every day. His death has crushed our family."

Det Ch Insp Steve Tolmie, of Thames Valley Police, said the murder was "a horrific, violent attack on an innocent young man with a lot to live for.

"No-one has the right to take away someone's life for whatever reason and people who choose to do this will be punished, as shown today."

4th Nov 2005, 19:58
I don't think anyone comes out of this with much honour.

African Tech Rep
4th Nov 2005, 21:54
What was their plea ? – I take it that it wasn’t “guilty” – so “not guilty / self defence / ?”

In another thread I was “shot at” for suggesting the Death penalty for murder admitted to backed up by DNA (in case of the odd one who’ll confess to anything) and Life meaning life for all others.

I also favour if not “repatriation” time to be served in a prison of your “ancestral” country - too often these crimes are committed by immigrants from third world countries who care little about “doing time” in a first world prison – they would think more than twice if being caught meant their time will not be done in a holiday camp.

The father & son have proved unfit to live in and unwilling to become good citizens of the UK – so bye bye – deport them.
If their family is in country due to the fathers “status” – bye bye – they go too.
Now that would make them (and/or others) think a few times before popping out to kill.

the above dosen't come under my definition of racism - if it does yours phnuff - sorry

4th Nov 2005, 22:05
This is a disgusting case that even gives the word honour a bad feel.

Just one thing though - the death penalty will never again be used in a European country, so give up yearning for it. If you want lots of executions you should contact a good estate agent in mainland China, North Korea, or the good old US of A.

Failing that you will find plenty of judicial bloodletting in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and quite a few others.

In Europe, forget it.

Kaptin M
4th Nov 2005, 23:04
It's murder, plain and simple.
In undeveloped, fourth world sub-cultures that still abide by cavemens' base instincts, "honour killing" is apparently accepted.

Regardless of what some people interpret their religion as justifying, once they leave their primeval country to live in one with civilised laws, they either need to adjust or pay the penalty - gaol time and/or deportation.

5th Nov 2005, 00:25
The thing is, I am opposed to then death penalty, and I mean really opposed but I am at a loss to think of a punishment that fits the crime. I don't know about the individuals concerned; it may be they were born in the UK and so deportation may not be appropriate, so what to do? I am in favour of tolerance of all views that dont impose on the freedom of others, but somewhere along the way, someone has convinced these guys that murder can be justified to save honour. All I can think of is that whoever instilled the thought that 'honour must be satisfied', should also be locked up as well (or deported back the middle ages), but I am sure the PC element would find a reason that they shouldn't.

its hard being liberal faced with this crap !!

tony draper
5th Nov 2005, 00:37
Always struck me that those with the least reason for pride, those with their arses hanging the furthest out their kecks who make a great deal about honour and being respected are also the ones who have achieved absolutley buggah all to be proud or honoured about.

5th Nov 2005, 00:49
The phrase Honour Killing is a contradiction in terms. There is nothing honourable about ANY murder.

And it's about time these third world neanderthals realised that what a woman chooses to do with her own body is none of their damn business.

5th Nov 2005, 07:29
They're not Third World neanderthals, those yoofs. They live in the UK and were probably born there, too. Just like the tube bombers.

That makes them First World neanderthals in a slightly lower league than football hooligans and DeBurcs.

Anyone who has stepped outside of WA for 5 seconds (and I don't mean Rotto or Bali) will see that, unfortunately, things are done a little differently in the Middle East and "East Asia" and, obviously, this is where Chomir Ali gets the ideas on social behaviour which he proudly passes down to his offspring.

Bleating about womens' "rights" won't help much (it won't even register in their heads) but simply not not letting them into the UK will at least mean the poms don't foot the bill for it. Hey good idea, let's do the same.

Alas, Little Johnny has other ideas and we will soon be awash with others from that region, many of whom think the same as Chomir Ali does.

Like the three who are currently doing time AND awaiting further prosecution for gang rape of several teenagers here in Sydney.So glad we let them in...

edited to say:

Drapes :ok:

African Tech Rep
5th Nov 2005, 10:51
Unwell – I sort of agree but wouldn’t say Never – it seems to be that it could be getting to a stage where reintroducing limited death penalty is becoming a “vote catcher” and as we know politicians don’t care about ethics – just votes – sooner of later there will be a poll showing a majority support and then we’ll see “policy makers” claiming to support a re-introduction.
One place that’s surprised me is SA – the majority are scared of the penalty due to how it was used pre ’94 – but it’s definitely getting to the stage where a reintroduction is supported “if it is used “right””.

While they may have been born in the UK doesn’t this make it worse ? A recent immigrant could be said not to fully understand UK moral standards, whereas second / third generation immigrants who are still living with the moral standards of their parents / grandfathers country can be said to have made no attempt at integration.

It may be difficult to deport people born in the UK or of “UK parents” – but not 100% impossible – many hold two passports (ie my daughter (SA / UK) – alternatively some country’s would accept payment to hold UK prisoners – alternatively the UK immigration laws could be altered to allow [say] upto third generation immigrants to be deported under certain circumstances to their “country of origin”.
Easily = No – Possible = Yes – will it be done = yes if the politicians think it’s a vote catcher.

OK – considering the number of voters from an immigration background – it’ll probably never happen.

2 sheds
5th Nov 2005, 11:02
"Det Ch Insp Steve Tolmie, of Thames Valley Police, said the murder was "a horrific, violent attack on an innocent young man with a lot to live for.

"No-one has the right to take away someone's life for whatever reason and people who choose to do this will be punished, as shown today." "

Going off on a slight tangent, why do the police always think they have the right to give their opinion to a press conference after the verdict in a prominent trial? Surely their function is to investigate, obtain evidence and make recommendations about possible prosecution?

Flying Lawyer
5th Nov 2005, 11:33
2 sheds
I entirely agree with you.
If, in truly exceptional circumstances, there is a real need for a statement by the police, it should be in the form of an official statement written or approved by a very senior rank - not by investigating officers giving interviews to the Press. Their jubilant comments following a conviction sometimes give the unfortunate impression that the police conduct of the investigation/role in the prosecution process was rather less than impartial and objective.

The practice has increased significantly in recent years, as has the practice of the police tipping off journos that arrests will be made at a certain time/place so that journos and photographers can be in attendance. It is thoroughly unprofessional.


"No-one has the right to take away someone's life for whatever reason"
I don't agree with that proposition.
Leaving aside where there's a legal right, I can think of circumstances in which I'd consider there's a moral right - or, perhaps more accurately, circumstances in which I wouldn't on a personal level condemn someone for killing even though on a professional level I'd say it constituted murder according to the law.

5th Nov 2005, 11:50
Yes well, you just have to remember this is Plod you're referring to. I guess it's fairly obvious he is referring to so-called honour killings and similar nefarious circumstances when he says no one has the right to kill, etc.

Maybe he doesn't have the time or the inclination to elaborate on all the possible exceptions to the sweeping statement he made.

Maybe he just means to reinforce, as strongly as possible in a 10 second media "bite", the notion of certain laws in the heads of the viewers, as they generally apply to the masses.

I don't think he's expecting a dissertation on the legal and moral arguments for killing, state-sponsored, in war-time or whatever else it is you might be alluding to.

I reckon he's just trying to say something along the lines of, "It stinks that these maggots have killed this bloke just because he knocked up their sister. Do not get the idea this is acceptable behaviour. We have laws here."

What's wrong with this Plod, who might still yet hold some modicum of influence over a fraction of the populace, venting his own opinion on this disgusting crime? Especially when it probably coincides with the opinions of most other balanced individuals out there?

People need to be reminded that this is not to be taken lightly or gotten away with.

It might just be that his ranting is intended to pass the correct message to an otherwise desensitised audience that no murder is "just another murder". Especially apt for children, I suppose, if they are the future.

And it might just be that his passing on "personal opinion" is mandated in his Standing Orders as a message to the public.

Good on you Plod for putting a personal angle on it.

Flying Lawyer
5th Nov 2005, 12:40

Perhaps his force 'Standing Orders' do permit him to comment. If they do, then IMHO they should not.

"Good on you Plod for putting a personal angle on it."
There we differ.
We're all entitled to our personal views but when acting in a professional capacity we should keep them to ourselves in case it be thought we have allowed our personal views to affect the way we've conducted ourselves professionally. IMHO this is especially important when the nature of our jobs means we have enormous power over other people's lives.

Personal views are inevitable, but they should play no part whatsoever in the investigative or judicial process at any stage. The root cause of some of the worst miscarriages of justice in British criminal history has been the personal views of police officers investigating - the problem subsequently being exacerbated by judges allowing their personal views to influence the conduct of the trial.

I've prosecuted more murder cases than I can remember, some every bit as awful as this and some worse - and some for far less "motive" than this one. It may be surprising to some here but, in most cases, the murderers were home-grown, white Brits.

I obviously don't defend/justify the actions of the murderers in this case, but your (earlier) support of Draper's comment suggests your views of the meaning of 'honour' and 'honourable' differ from mine. Some of the most decent and honourable people I've met in my life have "achieved absolutley buggah all to be proud or honoured about" by Draper's criteria. They may not have achieved much or anything in materialistic or career terms - but they are a darn site more honourable in the way they conduct their lives than some I know who have.

We can all justifiably condem taking 'honour' to an extreme such as in this case, but some people even sneer at the importance certain racial and/or religious groups attach to honour and honourable behaviour. IMHO, this country in common with many (most?) others would be far better if we hadn't reached a stage where such things as honour, integrity, responsibility, duty, family values etc hadn't been relegated to history as old-fashioned notions.
eg It's interesting how some people in the UK are quick to condemn or sneer at cultures where arranged marriages are the norm when the UK has one of the highest divorce rates and highest percentage of births outside marriage in the world. It's a matter of opinion which 'culture' is the better.

5th Nov 2005, 13:14
There we differ. Perhaps you missed my point, then. Would you care to read it again?

As for my "comment" on Drapes' comment, it was not intended as an indication of my views on honour, "honourability", culture, religious outlook or other virtues or characteristics, real or imagined, whether mentioned here or not by you or anyone else.

I just thought what he said was funny.

tony draper
5th Nov 2005, 14:04
Part of the promotion ladder now is being "Meejad" up, **** the public, tiz the media that runs GB Ltd, don't matter that the case is won or lost, it has to have its spot on the news to have any Kudos, National is poss, but if not local will do.

6th Nov 2005, 20:07
Flying Lawyer,

Some of your mail does deserve comment.

I agree with you that personal opinions in service or police matters where the media is concerned should remain just that, kept to one’s self. Your comment about the greater number of murderers that you have prosecuted were mostly ‘home grown whiite Brits’. This should come as no surprise since the great proportion of ‘white Brits’ is in the order of about 85% of the population.

Honour and honourable as defined, encompases many and varied definitions and chastity and virginity are addressed, however, as you rightly say 'some people even sneer at the importance certain racial and/or religious groups attach to honour and honourable behaviour'. This is quite sad for these people but you go on to say: ‘this country in common with many others would be far better if we hadn't reached a stage where such things as honour, integrity, responsibility, duty, family values etc hadn't been relegated to history as old-fashioned notions’. True, but I’m sure that you will find that most families do hold the values which you somehow feel have been lost. I know that and my friends do! The media and popular entertainment are probably more responsible for giving the impression that they have been lost.

I am not of the persuasion that every culture has much to offer and is of equal importance and therfore should not be criticised, neither am I in any way ethnocentric. Arranged marriages are the norm in the East and not limited to the Muslim community. They are done for various reasons: political, retention of social groupings, caste, racial, religious; the list is endless….what they do not have is the freedom of choice.

With regard to this particular incident; the young woman concerned had no choice, by her very background she would have been regarded as less worth than her brothers, she would have been bound to someone she had never met, who in all probability, comes from some Bangladeshi peasant background, and therefore ultra conservative, she had been born in this country and therefore used to the ways of this country just as her potential husband would not have been. Can you imagine the tensions in the family grouping given the above?. And, if it was back to Bangladesh that she would have to have gone, all the above plus the inevitable "sword of talaq’’ would be present. It does not take much imagination to realise whose culture is the better one in this instance. PC has no place in one’s thinking when crimes lof this nature have to be addressed. and mindsets from the sub continent have no relevance in the UK today.

6th Nov 2005, 20:45
The fact that the father had lived in the UK for 30 years and was 'proud' not to speak English is perhaps a small commentry on the willingness to integrate and embrace the culture for the country to which he had chosen to immigrate to. :confused:

Perhaps a realisation that economic immigration is a substantial driving force behind large sections of the various communities living here goes some way to explaining the continuity of the mores and rather different standards and values that exist, persist, and in some cases intrude, sometime jarringly, upon the way of life here in this country.

For many, mini replica states of where they have come from have been created in this country from which they travel back to the home country to study, marry, and generaly commute with no wish to do anything except enjoy a better standard of living and with the benefits that can be had here.

Many do wish to integrate, have successfully done so and are welcomed. Many however do not.

6th Nov 2005, 21:05

Nothing to disagree with...however, with immigration , citizenship and the benefits thereof comes responsibility and obligations, and citizenship, if the people concerned are in fact citizens, is not an a la carte thing.


6th Nov 2005, 21:17
Unfortunately here the buffet is spread and many partake exactly as they please.

6th Nov 2005, 22:27
Police are called OFFICERS. As such it is their duty to carry out orders (in this case to uphold the Law). I believe that, having done their duty (to investigate, arrest and present the evidence to a prosecuter) their work is done. They should have no further involvement (apart from victim protection) and certainly shouldn't comment on cases, except through their professional body in GENERAL terms. Media involvement through Police information should be forbidden (except as mentioned above). It's rather akin to criminals selling their stories to the Press.

7th Nov 2005, 02:45
There are men who won't touch a drop of alcohol and who insist on growing long and untidy beards, insisting that these are fundamental requirements of their religion - despite their holy book providing no support for either claim. Men who treat their women as chattels despite their holy book declaring that "women are the twin halves of men". Yet they are quite willing to kill another human - being despite that being unequivacably forbidden in their holy book as the most heinous of all possible crimes.

In cases such as this, where the crime is extra-judicial killing on allegedly religious grounds, Shariah Law might be applied. A guilty verdict would then automatically require the death penalty, unless the victim's family agreed to a 'blood money" reprieve. Aren't these despicable people fortunate to live in such a liberal country as the UK?

7th Nov 2005, 19:59
The doors are open the feast is spread. PC rules