Simon Longstaff

In Australia, there is an event called the Festival of Dangerous Ideas, with some high-calibre contributors, like Salman Rushdie and Steven Pinker. One of the speakers they invited was one Uthman Badar, of Hizb ut-Tahrir. The title of the speech was Honour Killings are Morally Justified. Badar says he did not choose the topic himself, but accepted it upon the urgings of the board. The festival’s co-curator Simon Longstaff said he had nominated the topic for six years in a row, because the point of the festival is to push boundaries ”to the point where you become extremely uncomfortable”. Yet again, misogyny, racism and violence against minoritised women is considered edgy, rather than banal and conservative.

Aya, burned to death by her father

What’s more edgy and dangerous and uncomfortable than suggesting the world is a better place because a Tunisian father burned his 13 year old daughter alive? What’s more edgy and dangerous than saying certain women and girls don’t deserve to live?

For Aya, it was ‘dangerous’ to walk home from school with one of her classmates, and no doubt somewhat more than ‘extremely uncomfortable’ to die of burns a few days later.

It is a wonder that Longstaff didn’t realise that other speakers had balked the topic for six years in a row not because it was “uncomfortable”, but because it was morally repugnant: hate-speech as clickbait, where the names and faces of the victims are erased for the sake of a headline.

Enter Uthman Badar, the only man vainglorious enough to make the attempt. There are, of course, many experts in ‘honour’-based violence, people who have dedicated their careers to exploring its dynamics, conducting research, developing protection measures, supporting victims. Badar is not one of them. According to his page, he’s an economist (although apparently, he is not actually a student of the university that he claims to attend).

hOnour killings are morally justified

Even Badar doesn’t seem to have wanted to defend the murders of girls and women and young men: his preamble suggests he’s not even going to try and justify ‘honour’ killing. Let’s look at what he was going to say:

Overwhelmingly, those who condemn honour killing are based in the liberal democracies of the West.

This is untrue.

300 Tunisians

300 Tunisians demonstrate against ‘honour’ killing

Here are 300 Tunisians demonstrating against the murder of Aya.

We in the West know about ‘honour’ killings only because they were brought to our attention by local activists: it was Asma Jahangir‘s decision to exceed her brief as Special Rapporteur into Extrajudicial Executions that brought the subject up; it was Rana Husseini‘s activism against the laws of Jordan that told us how embedded such crimes were in their societies, and it was Fadime Sahindal‘s prediction of her own death that raised the topic as something which occurred in the West.

Perhaps it is true that many of those who commit honour killings may not be based in the liberal democracies of the West but that doesn’t mean that they are accepted within their societies. Of all the Muslim countries surveyed by Pew, only in two did more respondents approve than disapprove of ‘honour’ crimes. Overwhelmingly, the scholars and activists who work against ‘honour’-based violence are people working in their own countries and communities, both within and outside the ‘West’. To ignore this fact demonstrates a strangely Eurocentric world view.

Aya’s father is taken as an exemplar of Tunisia: Aya herself is erased, the 300 Tunisian protesters are erased, Tunisian women’s rights activists are erased, the fact that ‘honour’ killings are vanishingly rare in Tunisia is erased. And this is all done in order that Badar can synechodically present ‘honour’ killers as the true representatives of ‘Eastern’ culture. This smacks of orientalism in itself: the presentation of a diverse culture and people as homogeneously violent, and obsessed with ‘honour’, against reams of evidence to the contrary.

And so, the next sentence:

The accuser and moral judge is the secular (white) Westerner and the accused is the oriental other: the powerful condemn the powerless.

The person at the actual nadir of powerlessness, the victim, is totally absent from Badar’s analysis. The actual situation — where the accuser and moral judge is the enculturated (brown) Easterner and the accused is the feminine other: where the powerful not only condemn, but slaughter the powerless — is erased. The victim is erased, and the murderer is granted victimhood in her stead.

And on:

By taking a particular cultural view of honour, some killings are condemned, while others are celebrated: in turn, the act becomes a symbol of everything which is wrong with the other culture.

Let’s ignore this strange position where we are led to believe that some killings are celebrated, which seems to be an attempt at whataboutery and decontextualisation too vague for me to parse. On the other hand, his point that the discourse of ‘honour’ is used to demonise the ‘other’ culture is unavoidably true. However, there are many more people who are far better qualified to argue this than Badar. Aisha Gill and Avtar Brah have done this excellently, and are feminists to boot.

Stolen Honor

Katherine Pratt Ewing, to give another example, has written an entire book on the topic, and a speech by her on how ‘honour’ crimes are used to stigmatise minorities would be informative, and moreover, informed by research. That is not what Longstaff wanted though: it wouldn’t have have got him in the headlines.


After the cancellation of the speech due to public outcry, Badar produced a petulant statement which attributes the outcry to Islamaphobia, as did Longstaff: ‘Have not the ‘Islamophobes’ already won the day when a person dare not speak on controversial matters because he is Muslim?’, he tweeted, rather pompously.

Let’s consider this charge for a second. Almost all Muslim organisations take pains to distance themselves from ‘honour’ killings. Almost all serious scholars address the issues of culture with caution, and with due attention to the worrying levels of xenophobia in the West. Training materials in use by professionals to help them respond to ‘honour’-related violence in the family stress the importance of not making cultural assumptions.

Just as a thought experiment, consider this: if you really hated Muslims and Islam, what would be the best way of overturning all this good work done in balancing the rights to life and freedom of young people (many, but not all, of whom are Muslim) with respect for the culture of their families? How about promoting a speech called Honour Killings are Morally Justified, and getting a speaker whose only qualification is being a Muslim to present it? Would that work? I think it would.

PS: Edited to add this image by Lejla Kurić and also to reorder the other images to suit WordPress’s requirements.

Oriental Other


  1. Gerry says:

    A wonderfully forensic dissembling of the topic and of Badar’s cynical attempt to make him and his ilk the victims.

  2. Joanne says:

    I’ve just noticed this response from Simon Longstaff where he (wordily) denies selecting the title himself – So I guess I am wrong in presenting this in terms of a sensation-seeking organiser passed on the dirty work of delivering the speech to the first person foolish enough to do so. I found it here – — a damn good post in its own right.

  3. James Robb says:

    Thanks for this penetrating analysis. Another reactionary misogynist attempting to cast himself in the role of victim. It strikes me as not unlike the Taliban spokespeople trying to justify the cowardly attempted murder of Malala Yousafzai on the false claim that she had ‘rejected Islam’. Malala remains a Muslim. I am sure the majority of those who marched in Tunis in protest against the murder of Eya El-Abed are Muslim. These woman-haters have no right to speak in the name of all Muslims, still less to claim that criticism of their reactionary views constitutes ‘Islamophobia.’

    My post from last October on Malala:

  4. Lamia says:

    Great article and analysis, Joanne.

    (I found it crossposted at Shiraz Socialists and have pointed readers to it at Harry’s Place).

    You bring out well the gulf between chatting in comfort about ‘dangerous’ ideas and what real danger is, as experienced by victims of actual killings. It shouldn’t need saying – but evidently it does. I will be coming back to read other articles on this blog. Thanks and good luck.