Honor killing in Pakistan

[Belz...]

How can cultures have rights if people don't?

A very interesting question. Society vs the individual. A pretty much neverending dilemma.

 

[Nessie]

We have laws against killing, don't we ? I wonder why that is... maybe it's because we actually do kill each other a lot when left able to do it, which is why there's been so much of it so far. Look at how many people scream "death" as punishment when they hear of certain forms of crime.

And seeing how animals kill each other routinely as well, even within their own groups, I don't think empathy is that much engrained.

Killing is rare, even for humans with their wars. If we and animals killed to the extent you are making out, we would have died out. Instead our population has rocketed.

 

[Belz...]

Killing is rare, even for humans with their wars. If we and animals killed to the extent you are making out, we would have died out. Instead our population has rocketed.

You can't possibly be serious. Millions have died just between 1939 and 1945. Wars have been ubiquitous throughout human history. The "skyrocketing" you are refering to is recent.

 

[westprog]

You can't possibly be serious. Millions have died just between 1939 and 1945. Wars have been ubiquitous throughout human history. The "skyrocketing" you are referring to is recent.

Increases in population are related to available resources. When resources are scarce, population is controlled. One way it is controlled is by one group denying the resources necessary for survival to another group. This might not involve violence at all - just the potential threat of it.

The denial of access to resources by one group to another is almost the definition of how the modern world works.

 

[Kaylee]

Thanks for taking the time to share your experiences and opinions AH, its very interesting and well, sad also.

I also did a lot of skimming of various articles available on the web last night -- I've no idea how accurate they are but they did give me a few more random thoughts and ideas.

What I'm driving at is the hypocracy of things. Materially, these Afghan's lives have improved - they embrace aspects of 'Westernization' (particularly the internet porn part.) They embrace the ability to get a salary beyond the wildest dreams of most Afghans - schoolteachers received $165 USD a month when I left. But while they're gazing at porn & enjoying comforts that a reasonable salary allows, they will still say 'the lives of Afghans haven't improved since the West got involved'. They will still say 'I liked it when the Taliban was in control because it was safe, and they respected Islam.'

The reality is that outside of Kabul & major centers (Jbad, Herat, Kandahar, Mazar etc...), the West hasn't been able to improve the lives of the average Afghan very much, if at all. Afghans don't connect (semi)democratic elections with any sort of a 'win'. They want to see running water, sewage, schools, hospitals, roads, a live outside of subsistence agriculture. Or perhaps for many of these remote Afghans, really they just want to carry on with their simple existences and be left alone.



Hard to say. The peak of aid spending in Afghanistan has definitely been reached. Unlike other post-conflict places I've been (East Timor for example), I think there is some caution about pulling the pin too soon. Because if this fragile middle-class where there is at least SOME progress collapses, they will likely become extremely disenfranchised.

I read that Afghanistan is not only a desirable place for the natural gasline project favored by the US (TAPI - to pipe natural gas from Turkmenistan south through Afghanistan, Pakistan and India) but also has deposits of natural gas within its own borders. I also was reminded that Afghanistan has many minerals and gems, and learned that some of its minerals include the "rare earth elements", especially important in modern technology including cell phones, computers, aerospace technology and more.

My personal opinion is that any US politician who tells you they are 'pulling out' of Afghanistan is lying. The infrastructure built there is clearly built with a long-term view. Kandahar and what has been put in place there is staying - and the US/NATO will patrol Central Asia from that location for years to come - no question.

Because of the proposed gas pipe line and Afghanistan's natural resources, I can see why there is going to be an American and NATO presence there for a long time. Some articles said that there will probably be continued American military presence equivalent to about 2004 levels and that the biggest change is that the military will be relabeled from being called military combatants to military support.


I am curious as to how well the Afghanistan govt will handle the negotiations for their natural resources. Would they be able to get enough royalties to maintain their current middle class and perhaps even grow it? To get enough royalties to build their own generators and sewage plants though out their country? Are the people currently in power in the Afghanistan govt motivated to do that?

In addition to the recommendations made by TimCallahan earlier, probably building a larger, stronger and educated middle class with access to electricity (including the internet and fax machines) would go a long ways towards eliminating the excesses of the Taliban.

We may not have the right to do so, but if America and NATO are going to continue to have a military presence in Afghanistan for a long time ... it would probably end up being a less expensive proposition to do so if we did in fact end up changing the culture. My guess is that putting in a wide distribution of electrical wiring along with free internet, computers and fax machines would probably end up being the easiest and most effective way to do so.

I am not an Afghan legal expert - however I will say that 'murder' is definitely against the law, and I am unaware of any legal statute on the books that permits the notion of an 'honor' killing. My understanding of the situation is that in cases of an honor killing, a local judge would elect to consider the 'honor killing' aspect of the incident and perhaps judge accordingly - reducing the sentence, or perhaps letting the act go altogether. More commonly is the whole thing is covered up. These kinds of killings in Afghanistan tend to happen in small villages with very nascent rule of law to begin with. I'm not saying they never happen in somewhat more developed places like Kabul - they certainly do. But they are much more likely to take place in less sophisticated, rural areas with nominal policing.

I will send an Email to a friend of mine who spent several years there on the legal side of things, for her opinion. Maybe she will reply.


If I were king of the world,

I would tie it directly to aid. Policy for pay, if you will. Either the Afghan government accepts far-reaching and widespread legal reforms (with all the destablizing/sensitive issues to the notion of central government this entails) or the aid tap is turned off. Or a debt is not forgiven. Without going into details of my job, trading difficult and sensitive policy actions in return for debt forgiveness/aid packages was how we got traction early in the piece in 2002/3/4. The less-direct negotiations just fail to work in the Afghan environment - because basically they have developed a real knack in the past 100 years or so, how to milk anything they possibly can out of foreign governments...

Makes sense.

I'd also like to see sanctuary zones built for women. (Similar to what TimCallahan talked about upthread, but located within the country. I don't know how politically likely it would be to offer exit visas to a sizable percentage of Afghan women. Plus in a more perfect world, I like the idea of enabling people to be free within their own countries. ) Some protected cities or zones in cities where women would be free to relocate and support themselves away from tyrannical families if they happen to belong to the type of families that have no problems killing or maiming them if they just happen to look in the wrong direction, breathe without permission, or something similar. I would imagine that would be very difficult to get done ... but I'd still would like to see it.

Perhaps implementing it could be similar to how Saudi Arabia has separate sections of their cities set aside for foreign residents imported for long-term work contracts?

As a side activity, me and my partner were very involved with a local Women's NGO, that was seeking to empower women through small business development. Basically we assisted some 110 women to gain some measure of economic independence by helping them market their handicrafts to Westerners. We were hugely successful, and in our spare time over 2 years, these women raised over $200k USD which went directly to their pockets, through the sales of embroideries, dolls, simple jewellery etc...

Very admirable of you.

And still, almost weekly, some woman would come to the center having been beaten for some perceived impropriety, or some woman would have her money stolen by her worthless husband. In one case, one of our women was attacked with a caustic substance and we had to scramble to get her aid to save her eyes.

And, even though I am proud of what we achieved, this was simply a band-aid. These women, especially without the West there to perform some form of babysitting are doomed when we pull out.

I am perhaps cynical after my time in country. So my opinion is interesting in that is a real-life anecdote, but I also am admittedly somewhat jaded. My answer is no. The country is going to go back to being hell in a handcart. When we pull out, we should turn our back and shut our eyes, and wait until the screaming stops.

And whoever next goes in with a military intervention, should turn it into a parking lot.

The only way to break this cycle is actually to physically break it, and then try to do something with the pieces that are left.

You've left me with a lot to think about AH.

 

[Kaylee]

I would say that at least partly because countries consist of a range of special interests. There might be a general sentiment against the slave trade, but the people engaged in it would have a strong interest in keeping it going.

In the case of the USA, there was a majority feeling against slavery itself, but we know how that panned out. There were many people in the South who wished to make a living out of trading slaves. There were other people who disapproved, but who nevertheless did not want to see US ships halted by the British Navy.

Makes sense.

Overseas support for the Taliban probably goes back to the Russian invasion. The Russians were not a benevolent presence in Afghanistan, but they did have some benevolent ideas. Unfortunately the effect was to associate the likes of women's education with helicopter gunships - which led the mujahideen to oppose both.

That makes sense too. Thanks.

 

[westprog]

Perhaps implementing it could be similar to how Saudi Arabia has separate sections of their cities set aside for foreign residents imported for long-term work contracts?

When I was there it was chiefly the Americans who had their own enclosed little areas, which looked very like where I live in Arizona. The British and Germans just found property wherever. It was the Africans who tended to have their own districts. Dress code for women in Somali-town was very different.

 

[Antiquehunter]

Thanks for taking the time to share your experiences and opinions AH, its very interesting and well, sad also.

I also did a lot of skimming of various articles available on the web last night -- I've no idea how accurate they are but they did give me a few more random thoughts and ideas.



I read that Afghanistan is not only a desirable place for the natural gasline project favored by the US (TAPI - to pipe natural gas from Turkmenistan south through Afghanistan, Pakistan and India) but also has deposits of natural gas within its own borders. I also was reminded that Afghanistan has many minerals and gems, and learned that some of its minerals include the "rare earth elements", especially important in modern technology including cell phones, computers, aerospace technology and more.

I have direct knowledge of the negotiations & discussions specifically around the Aynak & Hajigak projects (copper & iron). While these are highly lucrative (potentially) the costs of doing business in Afghanistan, combined with the overall security & stability questions are significant barriers to major investments. Suffice to say there are major issues with regards to transparency & the success of these and other mining initiatives. I would say broadly that the mineral wealth of Afghanistan is indeed its only hope for economic development, but it is a chicken & egg situation. You can't really do much with the minerals until the place settles down. The place won't settle down until you have economic development. And plus ca change.

Because of the proposed gas pipe line and Afghanistan's natural resources, I can see why there is going to be an American and NATO presence there for a long time. Some articles said that there will probably be continued American military presence equivalent to about 2004 levels and that the biggest change is that the military will be relabeled from being called military combatants to military support.


I am curious as to how well the Afghanistan govt will handle the negotiations for their natural resources. Would they be able to get enough royalties to maintain their current middle class and perhaps even grow it? To get enough royalties to build their own generators and sewage plants though out their country? Are the people currently in power in the Afghanistan govt motivated to do that?

The revenues from mining activities are indeed a priority for the international community and the Afghan government, and is something that I worked on, personally. Lets just say that interests on projects/revenues of this scale quickly get muddled/blurred with exterior/ulterior motivations. Do some googling around the central banking scandal / banking supervision scandal, and stories of how much of Dubai is owned by Afghan elites, if your stomach can handle it.

In addition to the recommendations made by TimCallahan earlier, probably building a larger, stronger and educated middle class with access to electricity (including the internet and fax machines) would go a long ways towards eliminating the excesses of the Taliban.

We may not have the right to do so, but if America and NATO are going to continue to have a military presence in Afghanistan for a long time ... it would probably end up being a less expensive proposition to do so if we did in fact end up changing the culture. My guess is that putting in a wide distribution of electrical wiring along with free internet, computers and fax machines would probably end up being the easiest and most effective way to do so.

Telecomms & internet infrastructure is a qualified success story in Afghanistan, as communcation was seen (correctly) as a way to combat the ability of 'the bad guys' to isolate & infiltrate. Domestic mobile phones are widely in use, and are priced competitively, within the reach of the average Afghan. Internet access, however, is VERY expensive & runs on mostly VSAT links. The Afghan government has not hesitated to attempt to impose Machiavellian censorship when it has suited their political or 'moral/ethical' wishes. That said, the capacity of the ISPs to perform the requested censorship is very limited.

'Free internet/computers/fax machines' - utopian pipe dreams, those. The private sector is driving the push, and they aren't doing anything for free.

I'd also like to see sanctuary zones built for women. (Similar to what TimCallahan talked about upthread, but located within the country. I don't know how politically likely it would be to offer exit visas to a sizable percentage of Afghan women. Plus in a more perfect world, I like the idea of enabling people to be free within their own countries. ) Some protected cities or zones in cities where women would be free to relocate and support themselves away from tyrannical families if they happen to belong to the type of families that have no problems killing or maiming them if they just happen to look in the wrong direction, breathe without permission, or something similar. I would imagine that would be very difficult to get done ... but I'd still would like to see it.

Nice ideas, but I don't see it working. The women themselves simply wouldn't use such a resource - its not culturally sensible/acceptable to them. There are a few NGOs that offer 'safehouse' protection to abused women already. The women are so beaten down/battered, that their mentality isn't that they believe they are being abused. It is almost as though they see it as their lot in life to be treated this way. Building a 'safe zone' for women as you propose - I don't think you'd get a single woman to go there voluntarily. And the broader Afghan populace would just snicker at this structure being some wacky infidel/Western driven entity.

Perhaps implementing it could be similar to how Saudi Arabia has separate sections of their cities set aside for foreign residents imported for long-term work contracts?

If you spent time in one of those places, I don't think you would ever wish that on anyone. Do a little googling on how Dubai treats its Pakistani migrant workers. Or how the USAID community treats its 'third country nationals' working on construction contracts in Afghanistan....

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You can't possibly be serious. Millions have died just between 1939 and 1945. Wars have been ubiquitous throughout human history. The "skyrocketing" you are refering to is recent.

Relative to the 6 billion plus people alive today and their ancestors that spawned them, killing is rare. Most people do not kill most of the time.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

We have laws against killing, don't we ? I wonder why that is... maybe it's because we actually do kill each other a lot when left able to do it, which is why there's been so much of it so far. Look at how many people scream "death" as punishment when they hear of certain forms of crime.

And seeing how animals kill each other routinely as well, even within their own groups, I don't think empathy is that much engrained.

No one should have to document with citations the basic knowledge that the human brain experiences empathy. That's like saying because some people laugh, sadness must not be a human trait.

There are defective people who kill, there are circumstances where killing happens, any society of humans needs such laws. Your logic is a fail.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

For the readers general consideration, is morality biologically based? Yes.

Serotonin Transporter Genotype (5-HTTLPR) Predicts Utilitarian Moral Judgments

Time to shift paradigms, this kind of research is just beginning to be explored. Just because morality exists within a broad range, as opposed to finite positions, does not mean objective morality does not exist.

Here's another discussion of the above research: A Moral Gene?

The results were clear: although the three groups showed no differences when presented with morally neutral scenarios or those where harm is intentionally caused to an individual, there were significant differences between groups when it came to scenarios of foreseen harm. Those with the long form of the promoter were much more willing to approve of harming one person to protect five. They felt that doing so was the better moral choice:
Those with the short form of the gene, however, felt that harming the one was morally neutral.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

For the readers general consideration, is morality biologically based? Yes.

Serotonin Transporter Genotype (5-HTTLPR) Predicts Utilitarian Moral Judgments

Time to shift paradigms, this kind of research is just beginning to be explored. Just because morality exists within a broad range, as opposed to finite positions, does not mean objective morality does not exist.

Here's another discussion of the above research: A Moral Gene?

Of course, as the quote from Steven Pinker at the beginning alluded, this kind of result leads to bigger questions. How has natural selection shaped what we think is right and wrong? How much of our moral code is influenced by our genes? And what does this say about the nature of morality itself?

Right. So nothing conclusive then? So you have nothing that proves we are all born with an aversion to killing other humans 'built in'?

 

[Belz...]

Increases in population are related to available resources. When resources are scarce, population is controlled. One way it is controlled is by one group denying the resources necessary for survival to another group. This might not involve violence at all - just the potential threat of it.

The denial of access to resources by one group to another is almost the definition of how the modern world works.

Maybe your post should have something to do with the one you were replying to.

 

[Belz...]

Most people do not kill most of the time.

What does that have to do with my post ?

No one should have to document with citations the basic knowledge that the human brain experiences empathy.

Right. Because skepticism isn't about evidence or anything.

There are defective people who kill

You think people who kill are defective ? Do you have any idea of the reasons why people kill ?

Your logic is a fail.

Where was the syllogism ?

Who's talking about logic, here ?

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

You think people who kill are defective ? Do you have any idea of the reasons why people kill ?

Belz raises a very important question. Who is 'defective' in the following scenario:

A devout Muslim who sees no other option than to kill his only female child in order to maintain family honour because the weight of 3000+ years of his culture leaves him no choice, is just about to shoot her while she sleeps; his wife sees him about to do this and stabs him to death.

Which is the 'defective' human being - the man or his wife? Or both?

 

[Nessie]

Right. So nothing conclusive then? So you have nothing that proves we are all born with an aversion to killing other humans 'built in'?

Not all as some are clearly not averse to killing such as serial killers and others can be trained to kill such as soldiers. But enough that we as a species have not killed ourselves out of existence.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Not all as some are clearly not averse to killing such as serial killers and others can be trained to kill such as soldiers. But enough that we as a species have not killed ourselves out of existence.

Soldiers are not trained to kill in the sense that you mean. They are taught how to use equipment and techniques that if used correctly can result in the death of a person. They are also taught controlled aggression.

How would you train a person to kill another person?

Which reminds me... I'm owed another link showing that soldiers are taught, or learn to see people as 'less than human' in order to overcome the inhibition to kill.

 

[westprog]

Maybe your post should have something to do with the one you were replying to.

I was extending your point. People die because of the actions of other people all the time - possibly more now than previously in history. They don't have to personally kill them.

 

[westprog]

No one should have to document with citations the basic knowledge that the human brain experiences empathy. That's like saying because some people laugh, sadness must not be a human trait.

There are defective people who kill, there are circumstances where killing happens, any society of humans needs such laws. Your logic is a fail.

Applying the label "defective" to people who kill is a value judgement with has nothing to do with biology. In general, biology views people who kill as more successful as people who don't, because it's the survivors that pass down their genes. That's at least as obvious as the existence of empathy.

 

[Belz...]

I was extending your point. People die because of the actions of other people all the time - possibly more now than previously in history. They don't have to personally kill them.

It still seems irrelevant to me. Ginger said we are wired not to kill, when the evidence certainly contradicts that.