Woman raped before honor killing: court

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 12:33 am

Crazy freaks.

LONDON (Reuters) - A Kurdish woman was brutally raped, stamped on and strangled by members of her family and their friends in an "honor killing" carried out at her London home because she had fallen in love with the wrong man.

Banaz Mahmod, 20, was subjected to the 2-1/2 hour ordeal before she was garroted with a bootlace. Her body was stuffed into a suitcase and taken about 100 miles to Birmingham where it was buried in the back garden of a house.

Her badly decomposed body was found in April 2006, three months after the killing.

Last month a jury found her father Mahmod Mahmod, 52, and his brother Ari Mahmod, 51, guilty of murder after a three-month trial. Their associate Mohamad Hama, 30, had earlier admitted killing her. On Thursday at a pre-sentence hearing for Hama, the Old Bailey heard details about Banaz's last moments.

Prosecutors said the three convicted men, along with two other suspects who are still at large, had carried out the killing fearing that the authorities were closing in on them.

They believed Banaz had brought shame on the family by leaving her husband, an Iraqi Kurd she had been forced to marry at 17, and falling in love with Rahmat Suleimani, an Iranian Kurd.

Her former unnamed partner had raped her as well as repeatedly beating her, the court heard.

Hama, who prosecutors said had been a ringleader in the murder, was caught by listening devices talking to a friend in prison about the murder.

In the recordings, transcripts of which were relayed to the court, Hama and his friend are hearing laughing as he described how she was killed with Banaz's uncle "supervising".

"I was kicking and stamping on her neck to get the soul out. I saw her stark naked, only wearing pants or underwear," Hama is recorded as saying.

His lawyers say there is no evidence to support the prosecution's claims.

The decision to kill her came after a meeting on January 23 -- the day before she was murdered -- when the family decided to take action before the police could foil their attempts, said prosecutor Victor Temple.

Hama is due to be sentenced on Friday with Mahmod Mahmod and his brother, Ari.

Attached files

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 12:55 am

The United Nations Population Fund estimates that the annual worldwide total of honor-killing victims may be as high as 5,000 women a year. The last estimate I saw for the UK was 12 a year and a police taskforce exists to monitor, intervene and prosecute, largely as a response to this particular case. Some cultures have it as part of their history, others don't.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 1:01 am

spot;665253 wrote: The United Nations Population Fund estimates that the annual worldwide total of honor-killing victims may be as high as 5,000 women a year. The last estimate I saw for the UK was 12 a year and a police taskforce exists to monitor, intervene and prosecute, largely as a response to this particular case. Some cultures have it as part of their history, others don't.

Is honor killing peculiar to women or are men and children also killed?

Is that number in the UK among Muslims or others?

I know I'm supposed to be tolerant of other religions and cultures but there's no way I can be understanding about this stuff.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 1:25 am

RedGlitter;665254 wrote: Is honor killing peculiar to women or are men and children also killed?

Is that number in the UK among Muslims or others?

I know I'm supposed to be tolerant of other religions and cultures but there's no way I can be understanding about this stuff.

I'd much rather refer to it as culture-based rather than religion-based.

The UK figure is a total of all honour killing convictions in the most recent year for which figures are available, as far as I remember.

I'm sure none of us would consider honour killings acceptable under any circumstances.

I've never heard of a non-female honour killing. I imagine the term wouldn't be used regardless of the motive.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 1:33 am

Thanks for explaining that, you guys.

I find it very upsetting even if it is in their culture. I wish there were some way of getting a "bird's-eye view" of just how prevalent it is in the culture as a whole.

Magenta, that's a new one for me- I've never heard of FGM being tagged as Islamic or religious at all. Guess they'll say anything to justify.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 1:43 am

Here's a contentious question based purely on the coincidence. The total worldwide annual estimate of the number of people killed in honour killings worldwide is the same as the number of people killed in the USA by drivers reversing their cars over them, and the majority of those victims are aged five or under. Do we get the same "crazy freaks" reaction to that? Which practise is easier to stamp out? The victims of honour killings have chosen to put themselves in that position of risk, after all.

In western society the person concerned would just leave her family and cut herself off. In cultures with a tradition of honour killings women tend to be less able to live independent lives. The problem where it occurs in the UK is that here they can, but their family structure is still based on the culture their parents were brought up in. Twelve murders a year probably indicates a higher proportion of such killings than the originating cultural average, it's an indication of the tension that can stem from transplanting two generations with different expectations into a setting where each thinks the other is wrong.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 1:59 am

spot;665262 wrote: Here's a contentious question based purely on the coincidence. The total worldwide estimate of the number of people killed in honour killings worldwide is the same as the number of people killed in the USA by drivers reversing their cars over them, and the majority of those victims are aged five or under. Do we get the same "crazy freaks" reaction to that? Which practise is easier to stamp out? The victims of honour killings have chosen to put themselves in that position of risk, after all.

You would get that reaction from me, Spot. Or at least "negligent morons." I still question how routinely people run over kids here. Obviously that would be the easier to stop, except that we're dealing with (I think anyway) partially, human stupidity, which is also what the other seems to me to be based around- that and a hatred of the female gender.

The victims of honor killings putting themselves in that position- could we call them martyrs? Is that anywhere close to appropriate? They're going against their cultural grain and paying the ultimate price for their beliefs.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 2:05 am

I'd describe it more as a hormonal bolshie rebellious streak myself, rather than one of belief. Teenagers do that. Killing them is extreme and uncalled for. There's a lot of "leave my house and never darken my doorstep again" in the West as an alternative. Some societies are more family-focused than others.

As far as hatred of women goes, the statistics for sex-selection (either by primitive or more technological means) give a better indication than honour killings do, and they involve a lot more child deaths.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 2:07 am

magenta flame;665263 wrote: REd here's the kurdish girl video It's uncensored and not very nice a lot of blood i'm afraid http://foehammer.net/2007/05/islamic-ev ... -iraq.html notice the number of mobile phones at the scene.

Did you notice how they kept covering her lower half with that jacket? What was that about? Is it like they cared?! Every man there should be executed for not stopping it and their mothers should be shot for birthing them. That was sickening. I was sitting here thinking how long that film seemed to me; imagine how she felt.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 2:25 am

magenta flame;665267 wrote: DO you find that video spot equivalent of backing over a kid? Do you honestly see a martyr there RED? A victim of a pack is a martyr? a victim of murder is a martyr? WEre those in the twin towers martyrs then RED ? Do ou notice there is only footage of the girl and her face and her struggle and not of those hitting or kicking her or throwing the rocks and the building bolder that eventually kills her.

DOes it bother you that that footage is a snuff film that is being shown as a warning to other women ? And spot all you can do is sit there and talk about how women and young girls are stepping out of enslavement and know the risks? Am i on the same planet as you guys WTF?

Sure, I can see a martyr in that girl. What's so hard about that? You do know what a martyr is, right? And no, the twin towers people were not martyrs, how could you even draw a parallel? The girl in the video may have been an infidel which under any other circumstance I would loathe, (but I'm not getting into that now) but basically she died for love. A love that was considered wrong. It's not her fault that they stomped and stoned her to death, even if she knew that would be the outcome. Her going against tradition (or whatever you call it) does not make men any less evil or any less wrong in what they did.

magenta flame;665268 wrote: There own mothers had no choice RED they probably had them at 13 or 15 and were shown no maternal skills at all

Okay, that's fair enough BUT...I don't completely buy it. There is solidarity in numbers. What do you think would happen to that culture if the majority of women put a stop to it? One girl is no match for a crowd of men, understood. But what if the women cut off the poontang and refused to birth these mens' children?! I expect you'll tell me the rape and murder figures would go up and you might be right...for a while.

If women exist in control in matriarchal societies, do you think they didn't work to get there? What is to stop these women from turning things around over time? Cultural conditioning and brainwash? Yes, but you can't tell me that there are no women in that culture with their own brain and a strong will. It wouldn't happen any time soon. But i don't believe that it couldn't happen.

Okay I know you're going to jump on me for that and I'm ready for you.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 2:28 am

A few comments on the video - which, I might add, I haven't watched and have no intention of watching.

Firstly it's of the killing of someone who converted her religion to Islam - not from, but to. That's the reason for the crowd, the anger and the killing. It's a sectarian killing with the same roots as the tribal killings in Northern Ireland during the Troubles.

Secondly, the reaction of the neighbourhood was to kill 23 Yazidi men from the area involved in retaliation.

Thirdly, four men involved in the killing who were subsequently identified were arrested and prosecuted. What was filmed was an illegal act, not something condoned by the society in which it happened.

"they probably had them at 13 or 15 and were shown no maternal skills at all" is an appallingly uninformed and inaccurate comment which stands no scrutiny whatever. "that footage is a snuff film that is being shown as a warning to other women" is an interpretation I also find hard to credit, unless you have substantial reason to think it's true.

What part of "know the risks" is unlikely?

Oh... eta: I missed one. "Do you find that video spot equivalent of backing over a kid"? Backing over a kid is far more reprehensible and inexcusable. At least the people in the video had a reason for what they were doing, however much I disagree with their reason or the action itself. The idea that five thousand people die under the back wheels of cars every year, in the USA alone, fills me with a great deal more disgust at the total lack of care which it implies, not just on the part of the drivers but on the part of the authories as well. Every incident should be national news.

Ali. · Post by **Ali.** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 2:57 am

Spot what exactly is your point.Killing in any shape or form is wrong and those who commit the crime must do the time.Me personally would castrate them then hang em all together.A lot of theses people are still very primative in there behaviour, It might be ok in there countrys but not in the western world,Why do they think they can do that in anouther country that dosnt have there beleifs.If they wish to continue that practice they should return to their own country.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 2:58 am

spot;665270 wrote: The idea that five thousand people die under the back wheels of cars every year, in the USA alone, fills me with a great deal more disgust at the total lack of care which it implies, not just on the part of the drivers but on the part of the authories as well. Every incident should be national news.

And I'm the exact opposite on this one. I think it's terrible about running over kids but I can allow (although not excuse) human stupidity. (what other kind of stupidity is there anyway?) No way could I even remotely feel such for these sick puppies who killed that girl. Even if they felt they had a reason.

magenta flame;665275 wrote: No red I do not see her as a martyr, to do so would be to collaberate with those who perform this task. It's giving permission for martyrdom for a cause I will not do that.

And why wouldn't you? Could you elaborate on that? Martyrdom is always for a cause.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 3:10 am

magenta flame;665275 wrote: You sure about that spot? Ayaan hirsi Ali is a liar? Irshad Manji is a liar? Ledama Olekina is a liar? I've read their books and writings and I can assure you unless they are lying I have not been ill informed.Am I sure about what? I made several points. Either quote or summarise what they say or at least tell me what their topic is.

What you wrote was that the average age at which women give birth to male children in at least some societies is either 13 or 15. Surely you have to realize that you either wrote badly and meant something else or that "they probably had them at 13 or 15 and were shown no maternal skills at all" is an appallingly uninformed and inaccurate comment.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 3:13 am

Ali.;665276 wrote: Spot what exactly is your point.Killing in any shape or form is wrong and those who commit the crime must do the time.Me personally would castrate them then hang em all together.A lot of theses people are still very primative in there behaviour, It might be ok in there countrys but not in the western world,Why do they think they can do that in anouther country that dosnt have there beleifs.If they wish to continue that practice they should return to their own country.

Killing in any shape or form is wrong and those who commit the crime must do the time. Me personally, I would castrate them then hang them all together. A lot of these people are still very primitive in their behaviour. I'm talking about the drivers who kill people while reversing carelessly here, you understand. Are you really trying to tell me that these killers are adequately sentenced by the courts? It might be ok in the Western world but it wouldn't be in any civilized country.

guppy · Post by **guppy** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 3:15 am

This was nothing more than a film of a murder of an innocent girl..

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 3:17 am

guppy;665290 wrote: This was nothing more than a film of a murder of an innocent girl..

I don't think any of the posters in the thread dispute that.

Ali. · Post by **Ali.** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 3:20 am

That was a comparison spot the subject is honor killing of a helpless young girl.That is wot I was talking about,not people who run over children.In most cases that would be described as a horrible accident.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 3:24 am

Ali.;665293 wrote: That was a comparison spot the subject is honor killing of a helpless young girl.That is wot I was talking about,not people who run over children.In most cases that would be described as a horrible accident.

So "Killing in any shape or form is wrong" doesn't actually mean what it says?

Ali. · Post by **Ali.** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 3:36 am

You seem to read things very differant from other people u put ur own spin on it.premedetated murder is wrong, accidental is differant,Im not saying there shouldnt be any punishnent,people who plan and carry out a murder should pay in the stronges way for there crime.Accidentally running over someone is horrible and needs delt with in a differant way.You understand.:-2

guppy · Post by **guppy** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 3:43 am

how is this for derailment? spot how many people are murdered by drunk drivers every year? that you could compare this movie too...both are premeditated and senseless..

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 3:47 am

Ali.;665302 wrote: You seem to read things very differant from other people u put ur own spin on it.I expect I think words have meaning, Ali. If you meant premeditated murder it would be wise not to type killing.

My own opinion is that if the premeditated murder has an emotional component as opposed to a profit motive then careless killing is a lot worse and should have a stiffer sentence.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 3:50 am

guppy;665304 wrote: how is this for derailment? spot how many people are murdered by drunk drivers every year?Practically none at all, at a guess. Drunk drivers, when they cause a death, are guilty of manslaughter.

Hang on - you're in the US - I'd need to go and look up the equivalent words and get back to you. Maybe the US does use murder in this context. I'd be surprised if that's so, but it's possible.

eta: found it:Driving under the influence may be elevated to a felony (punishable by a longer term in state prison) if the incident caused death (vehicular manslaughter or vehicular homicide). California, which is being followed by a growing number of states, now charges second-degree murder where the legal state of mind of malice exists - that is, where the defendant exhibited a reckless indifference to the lives of others.So, second-degree murder in California, vehicular manslaughter or vehicular homicide in the rest of the country.

Ali. · Post by **Ali.** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 3:52 am

If u murder someone u are killing that person,

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:01 am

Ali.;665311 wrote: If u murder someone u are killing that person,

And how very very true that is. If you kill someone you are not necessarily murdering that person though. We had "Killing in any shape or form is wrong", which seems not to be true if you think accidental death is excusable. "Murdering in any shape or form is wrong" we can both agree on.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:05 am

magenta flame;665317 wrote: don't worry about it Ali you won't get through to him he gets on a tangent and goes off the rails. He'd prefer to point out that you havent pointed out something rather than get to the point of what everyone is talking about.:wah:Where have I gone off topic or tangentially? I'm bang on topic throughout. I'm famed for it. If people say one thing while meaning another it's worth trying to get the expression to fit the point they're trying to convey. Once we're agreed on what they mean we can proceed to disagree on the point meaningfully.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:05 am

spot;665309 wrote: Practically none at all, at a guess. Drunk drivers, when they cause a death, are guilty of manslaughter.

Hang on - you're in the US - I'd need to go and look up the equivalent words and get back to you. Maybe the US does use murder in this context. I'd be surprised if that's so, but it's possible.

eta: found it:Driving under the influence may be elevated to a felony (punishable by a longer term in state prison) if the incident caused death (vehicular manslaughter or vehicular homicide). California, which is being followed by a growing number of states, now charges second-degree murder where the legal state of mind of malice exists - that is, where the defendant exhibited a reckless indifference to the lives of others.So, second-degree murder in California, vehicular manslaughter or vehicular homicide in the rest of the country.

Not to derail even further, but everyone of drinking age nowadays knows not to drive drunk, so if you do kill someone it is murder because you were reckless with their safety and you knew better. Maybe this is an idea for another thread? Although it's probably been done to death already huh?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:20 am

It probably doesn't matter that much since we're talking about this incident in particular...or were. And it was great while it lasted.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:23 am

magenta flame;665259 wrote: Remember in Salem they burnt "witches" not just for the loss of crops or giving the evil eye, but also bewitching men

It's not that long ago, either. The view of women as culpable inspirers of lust is illustrated by a comment made in a radio interview by Graham Leonard, the then Bishop of London, to the effect that, 'if he saw a woman in the sanctuary, he would be unbearably tempted to embrace her.' [in Dowell and Williams 1994: 33]. (from http://extra.shu.ac.uk/wpw/femprac/walsh.htm) - this was one of his reasons for opposing the ordination of women to the priesthood. There's bewitchment for you.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:24 am

That sounds like his personal problem and not the fault of women.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:28 am

RedGlitter;665322 wrote: Not to derail even further, but everyone of drinking age nowadays knows not to drive drunk, so if you do kill someone it is murder because you were reckless with their safety and you knew better. Maybe this is an idea for another thread? Although it's probably been done to death already huh?You really do rely on gut instinct rather than fact, don't you. Where the legal state of mind of malice exists - that is, where the defendant exhibited a reckless indifference to the lives of others - there is a more serious charge brought. In most cases it isn't brought, because in most cases the prosecution doesn't find it to be a supportable charge. "if you do kill someone it is murder because you were reckless with their safety and you knew better" just doesn't fit the facts. If you do kill someone it is often manslaughter because you were *not* recklessly indifferent to the lives of others. Were you right the proportion of convictions for each offence would be quite different.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:29 am

RedGlitter;665332 wrote: That sounds like his personal problem and not the fault of women.

In much the same way as the people in Salem who accused the women of bewitchment were the problem rather than the victim. Precisely.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:32 am

RedGlitter;665328 wrote: It probably doesn't matter that much since we're talking about this incident in particular...or were. And it was great while it lasted.

So go back and pick up the dropped points, if there were any. What did we miss?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:34 am

spot;665336 wrote: You really do rely on gut instinct rather than fact, don't you. Where the legal state of mind of malice exists - that is, where the defendant exhibited a reckless indifference to the lives of others - there is a more serious charge brought. In most cases it isn't brought, because in most cases the prosecution doesn't find it to be a supportable charge. "if you do kill someone it is murder because you were reckless with their safety and you knew better" just doesn't fit the facts. If you do kill someone it is often manslaughter because you were *not* recklessly indifferent to the lives of others. Were you right the proportion of convictions for each offence would be quite different.

So are we talking about legalities or ethics here?

I say if you get in your car drunk and wipe someone out you are completely at fault and it counts the same as cold blooded murder because you knew not to do it before you started drinking. You must not have cared if you killed anyone or not or you would have been responsible. That one is impaired by booze means nothing. It is still completely their fault. That is what I am saying.

And yes, I do rely a great deal on gut instinct.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:35 am

spot;665342 wrote: So go back and pick up the dropped points, if there were any. What did we miss?

I'm not saying we missed any, I'm just disappointed that it turned into a talk about what kinds of killing are acceptable and such instead of focusing on this girl and her culture. Or were we at the end and I didn't know it?

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:38 am

RedGlitter;665347 wrote: I'm not saying we missed any, I'm just disappointed that it turned into a talk about what kinds of killing are acceptable and such instead of focusing on this girl and her culture. Or were we at the end and I didn't know it?

You could just go back and re-read the thread, picking up on comments that had no answer so far. That's what I do.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:39 am

RedGlitter;665347 wrote: I'm not saying we missed any, I'm just disappointed that it turned into a talk about what kinds of killing are acceptable and such instead of focusing on this girl and her culture. Or were we at the end and I didn't know it?

Which of the two women are you talking about in that comment, out of interest? The one in the court case or the one in the video?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:44 am

I had meant the girl in the video, actually.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:45 am

RedGlitter;665360 wrote: I had meant the girl in the video, actually.

Ah. The "diversion from the thread" video.

How about if we go back to the London case and stay on topic instead?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:46 am

That sounds like a plan to me.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:53 am

RedGlitter;665345 wrote: So are we talking about legalities or ethics here?

I say if you get in your car drunk and wipe someone out you are completely at fault and it counts the same as cold blooded murder because you knew not to do it before you started drinking. You must not have cared if you killed anyone or not or you would have been responsible. That one is impaired by booze means nothing. It is still completely their fault. That is what I am saying.

And yes, I do rely a great deal on gut instinct.

The only point I've tried to get across as far as this goes is that what you think and what society has enacted is its consensus opinion differ wildly. What you can't do is state your opinion as though it were the actual case, without prefixing it "My own opinion is", otherwise what you write is quite simply inaccurate as a statement of fact.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:58 am

spot;665375 wrote: The only point I've tried to get across as far as this goes is that what you think and what society has enacted is its consensus opinion differ wildly. What you can't do is state your opinion as though it were the actual case, without prefixing it "My own opinion is", otherwise what you write is quite simply inaccurate as a statement of fact.

I tend to presume that people will automatically know when I'm just stating my opinion. In fact I've been trying of recent to do that "IMO" thing in more of my posts.

I'm real sensitive about drunk driving. It's one of my hot buttons.

I think I've forgotten now what I wanted to say about that girl. Figures!