'Honour' killings

The Independent has, to its immense credit, had a series of excellent articles focusing on so-called 'honour' killings recently, mostly the work of Robert Fisk.

It's all worth a read, but here is his conclusion.

His views on what 'we' can do are somewhat dispiriting:

[T]he grim truth is that Westerners can no more change this – can no more persuade village elders in Afghanistan of the benefits of gender equality and an end to "honour" killings – than we could have persuaded Henry VIII of the benefits of parliamentary democracy or Cromwell of the laws of war. The height of such pomposity came the other day from Navi Pillay, the UN's High Commissioner for Human Rights. "Violent 'honour' attacks," she pontificated, "are crimes that violate the right to life, liberty, bodily integrity, the prohibition against torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, the prohibition on slavery, the right to freedom from gender-based discrimination and sexual abuse or exploitation, the right to privacy, the obligation to denounce discriminatory laws and harmful practices against women." Phew. I can see how they'll be shaking in their shoes after that in Baluchistan and Helmand province. 

I agree to an extent, although I do think that 'outsiders' can play an important role in supporting (financially, politically, logistically) those brave 'insiders' who are trying to foment change.