Patriarchy and Familicide in the Case of Amanj and Lana 20/10/2019
“He killed her, he killed her, he killed her!” It might take an era for this sentence to stop ringing in my ear. For me, these three words express the bitter truth that many do not want to believe. The truth that in the patriarchal system and in the name of love, a man who seems gentle and humane can murder his wife and child because she no longer wants to live with him. The death of journalists ‘Amanj Babani’ and ‘Lana Mhamad’ and their three-year-old child was widely discussed and I do not intend to repeat what has been said. I only want to answer some questions and respond to some doubts so that reality does not get distorted and we do not evade responsibility.
Some people doubt that a man, who seems harmless and is life-loving, would be capable of killing his wife, his child, and then himself. This perception shows a lack of awareness of human nature and history that includes many similar examples. In reality, killing family members by an offender (who is more often male rather than female) is a specific type of crime that has been named familicide. According to conducted research, most of the men who kill their families and then themselves are those who have previously used violence against their spouses. This is why domestic violence is considered one of the most obvious indicators of these crimes. Other indications include: ease of access to weapons, jealousy, seeing wife and children as his property, making threats to kill the victims, and being faced with separation or the threat of separation. Therefore, jealous and violent men who have access to weapons, see their wives and children as their personal property, and are confronted with divorce are more likely to kill their families. All of these factors were present in Lana and Amanj’s case. Those closest to the couple say that even though Amanj appeared to be a romantic, loving, and respectful husband, in reality he had a long history of jealousy and violence towards his spouse. Recently, when Lana wanted to get divorced, many people were aware of Amanj’s threats, “If you leave me I will kill you, the child, and myself!”
There are other people who don’t trust the authorities, the police investigation, and the courts in Kurdistan, which is why they question the verdict of this investigation. It is not surprising that the public do not trust current police reports. This is because, in the past when crimes against journalists have been investigated, the process has been doubtful and it has ended in creating “strange scenarios”. However, this does not mean that this particular investigation is another “scenario”. We live in a culture of crime and doubt, a place where various social and political agendas can manipulate the truth. In fact, this is an ideal case for those who believe in conspiracy theories and want to utilise this to target the corrupt authorities that have blood on their hands. However, we should not forget that sometimes the truth is just what is actually in front of us and there are no hidden secrets behind it.
Those who sympathize with Amanj also say that if he had committed this crime, it is because he suffered from mental health problems.The same people wish they were aware of it sooner so that they could assist him. This is not the first time that mental ill health has been used as an excuse to reduce the extent of a crime. Many people defend men who physically abuse or even kill their wives by saying that they have been “good and harmless men”. I am continuously amazed by our society’s views and definitions of “good” and “bad” men. I am shocked when I see that a man’s mistreatment of a woman, his oppression of her, his violence, his control of her body and life, do not become reasons to see him as disagreeable. This is because most people believe these things are “personal and private” issues and therefore do not concern them.
The main reason why patriarchy continues is the silence and neutrality of most men, including writers, artists, politicians, businesspersons, administrators, and even those who consider themselves to be advocates of truth and justice.In her noteworthy book about Masculinity, Raewyn Connelltalks about this phenomenon, referring to such men as “complicit”. Men who are complicit in patriarchy do not necessarily beat women themselves but they are bystanders and they do not confront perpetrators of violence against women. They do not personally oppress women, but they do not distance themselves from men who oppress women. They do not make sexist jokes, but when another man makes such a joke, they laugh. In short, these men, who are the majority of men in the world, do not act in a patriarchal manner, but they do not stand up to patriarchy either. This is because they all benefit from women’s subjugation.
This case is yet another example of violence as a product of patriarchy. In patriarchy women and children are perceived as men’s property (legally, this is still the case in this country). In this system, men believe that they have the right to use violence against women and to take away women’s right to life. Men believe that they have the right to divorce women but they do not allow women to divorce them. This is why when women attempt to get divorced, they are murdered. The patriarchal message and principle behind these crimes are: “either you are for me or for the grave!”
The problem is that whenever a case is perceived to be an example of political violence and when a journalist is harmed in the name of “freedom of speech”, the entire society rises up and speaks out against it. Yet, when on a daily basis women are getting killed by men, no one is moved. At such times, most male intellectuals and advocates of justice hold back and expect us, women, to take action, as if killing and using violence against women has nothing to do with justice, democracy, and men who are the majority in the centersof political, cultural and religious power. To them the case of journalists is political, whereas women’s victimization is seen as a social issue which imposes no threat to public security. We as feminists have been trying for decades to redefine politics and to elaborate that any case that involves misuse of power is a political case and not a social one. The women of the world have been struggling for centuries so that the concepts of public security, justice, violation, violence, and peace, are not solely defined in relation to men. They have been fighting to redefine these concepts so that they include women’s experiences, who most of the time, due to circumstances of war, are more than half of the society.
In conclusion, I would like to stress that we will no longer accept the excuse that it is not the right time to fight patriarchy because the Kurdish nation is currently under threat. One of the biggest threats to the Kurdish nation is the patriarchal system that has let half of this nation’s strength, ability, and talent go to waste. These talents are not being utilised and they are being destroyed by Kurdish men themselves.
- Dr. Choman Hardi