Carl Philip Salzman’s Culture and Conflict in the Middle East (which I reviewed here) puts (dis)honour killings in their social context very effectively. The grim thing about his analysis is that he shows how functional they are in their social context: which makes them not a whit less vile but does show the entrenched power of the interlocking ideas and practices behind them.

The Muslim males in the court were showing what Salzman calls “affiliation solidarity” — always support those closer against those more distant. The notion of a neutral state which is an arbiter, with overriding formal obligations is not part of their culture or historical experience. Islam then gives this attitude a religious gloss (believers versus infidels). Indeed, part of Muhammad’s genius was precisely creating an overriding religious identity that trumped family, clan and tribal identity but worked fundamentally on the same pattern. Which also leads to a very different conception of God (as I discuss here and here) and connects directly to the concept of jihad (as I discuss here).

Central to the answer must be Western institutions standing up for the hard-won traditions of one set of rules for everyone. Too bad too much of our media does not see that. Making a fetish of multiculturalism is an excuse for moral cowardice that betrays women.

This was done by the Muslim families of the Muslim men who, in Australia some years ago, were convicted of having committed a string of horrific gang rapes against non-Muslim teenage girls. The men showed absolute contempt and total lack of remorse; they obviously felt perfectly content with what they had done, and were deeply insulted at the very idea that anyone should think their deeds evil and requiring to be punished. They gang-raped, humiliated, *hurt* some worthless kafir girls…so what? that’s what kafir girls are *for*, and the younger the better.

Their families supported them, lied for them, protested their ‘innocence’, and – in the courtroom itself – cursed at and insulted the victims (some had been as young as 14 at the time of the rapes) by calling them whores.

So arrogant were these despicable Muslim males, that they chose to conduct their own defence – which enabled them to cross-examine their victims, which they did in such a way as to inflict maximum mental cruelty – and they repeatedly, in court, insulted female law officers.

They dragged out the trials unendingly by exploiting every imaginable legal trick they could find (I think they *must* have had help from some other Muslim knowledgeable in Infidel law).

It was a display of pure evil, of amoral supremacism, fuelled by the fact that they obviously felt totally entitled to do whatever they wanted no matter how awful.

Nevertheless: because a few of their victims showed extraordinary courage, showing up for retrials, etc, and never buckling, those evil b*st*rds all got put away for maximum time. Frankly, had I been the judge, I’d have been strongly tempted to take the perps up north and feed them to the saltwater crocodiles.