Father strangles daughter, 14, after she is raped

[vex]

Father strangles daughter, 14, after she is raped

advertisement

Associated Press
Apr. 29, 2004 11:45 AM



ANKARA, Turkey - Ignoring the pleas of his 14-year-old daughter to spare her life, Mehmet Halitogullari pulled on a wire wrapped around her neck and strangled her - supposedly to restore the family's honor after she was kidnapped and raped.

Nuran Halitogullari, buried Thursday in a ceremony attended by women's rights advocates, is the latest victim in a long history of so-called "honor" killings, which Turkey's government is struggling to curb.

Each year, dozens of girls are killed in Turkey by their relatives for allegedly disgracing their families - some for merely being seen speaking to men. The practice is especially common in the more traditional southeast and among families who have migrated to big cities from the region.

Honor killings also occur in Pakistan and some countries of the Middle East and among immigrant families in EU countries like Britain and Sweden. The European Union, which Turkey aspires to join, is pressing the country to take steps to curb a practice it says is a violation of women's rights.

Parliament last year voted to raise the punishment for such crimes to as long as 24 years in prison. But a loophole in the laws allows relatives to escape with sentences as light as eight years if they can prove they were "provoked" into committing the crime.

European countries want Turkey to ensure that family members cannot benefit from the loophole.

"No reductions should be made and everyone should know that such crimes will be punished and that no one can escape," Sweden's ambassador to Turkey, Anne Dismorr, said in an interview with the weekly Nokta magazine. "In our view the main cause behind the honor killings is the fact that honor is regarded as grounds for reduced sentences."

Turkey has embarked on a major overhaul of its penal code and is expected to rectify the loophole, but the draft code is still weeks away from being endorsed. Some politicians on Thursday called on the government to immediately bring the issue to parliament.

Lawyer Senal Saruhan, a woman's rights advocate, fears the draft may not go far enough. She insists that family members who incite or encourage the killings should be punished alongside the perpetrators.

"Unless we bring severe punishments we will never stop these killings," she said.

Guldal Aksit, the minister in charge of women's issues, added that attitudes are what really need to be addressed to stop the deeply entrenched practice. "These are not problems that we can solve on paper by changing laws ... We need to educate society," she said.

Women's groups believe that a number of suicides among young women in the southeast are actually murders by relatives who believe they are saving the family honor. Often the youngest member of the family is forced to carry out the killings in the belief that a youth would get a less-stringent punishment.

On Wednesday, authorities charged two brothers with murder after they shot their 22-year-old sister in the head in her hospital bed, where she was recovering from an earlier attack by them. The woman had had a child out of wedlock.

Last year, a pregnant woman was reportedly stoned to death by her family after having an affair and buried in a pauper's grave after her family refused to hold a funeral.

In the latest case, newspapers said Halitogullari was abducted in Istanbul on her way back from a trip to the supermarket and raped over six days. She was rescued by police and returned to her family.

The murder came to light this week but it was not clear when it took place.

In a rare confession, Mehmet Hatipogullari told police he and other relatives took the girl to an aunt's home where he strangled her, ignoring her pleas and her cries.

"I decided to kill her because our honor was dirtied," the newspaper Sabah quoted the father as saying. "I didn't listen to her pleas, I wrapped the wire around her neck and pulled at it until she died."

He said he buried her body beneath a chicken coop, which upset his other children, and later reburied her in a forest.

The newspaper said Halitogullari also had planned to kill his daughter's rapist.


hxxp://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/0429TurkeyHonorKilling29-ON.html



So the daughter gets raped. Who else to blame but, the daughter! Terrible.

[JeeberD]

Wow, that's some fucked up shit...

[Lucky Jim]

Geez, is it me or is there an increased number of these "this is the most fucked of all the fucked up stories" posts lately?

[Noble_Platypus]

They should throw his ass in jail, let him get sodomized by every dude in the joint for the next 6 days, then he should be slowly strangled for fucking up his families honor

[vex]

Originally Posted by Lucky Jim

Geez, is it me or is there an increased number of these "this is the most fucked of all the fucked up stories" posts lately?

I've got plently more...

[Sun Tzu]

Magdalene sisters anybody?

[Bonegavel]

And they don't consider killing a family member shame because...

[Noble_Platypus]

Because they are fucked up, thats why.

[tategter]

Thought this crap went out with the middle ages. Oh wait...we're talking about a culture stuck in the stone age. Never mind....

[sachmo71]

I don't think this is so much a violation of women's rights as it is a violation of human rights.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

I don't think this is so much a violation of women's rights as it is a violation of human rights.

Sach - women are human.

[The Afoci]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Sach - women are human.

You must not date often.

[Noop]

Wow that was pretty fucked up....

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by The Afoci

You must not date often.

What is this date you speak of?

Married = 7 years. Dating = no.

[The Afoci]

Originally Posted by Samdari

What is this date you speak of?

Married = 7 years. Dating = no.

My dad says marriage proves that women aren't human. Humans have remorse.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by tategter

Thought this crap went out with the middle ages. Oh wait...we're talking about a culture stuck in the stone age. Never mind....

And this is proof that stone age beliefs are not limited to them...


On topic, its horrific- honor killings are a ridiculous relic of the past that need to be abolished, more because of the moral bankruptcy associated with it then anything else.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by tategter

Thought this crap went out with the middle ages. Oh wait...we're talking about a culture stuck in the stone age. Never mind....

And we wonder why people in that part of the world hate us. It's like some guy in Ankara saying "Wow, that America is really fucked up" after reading another story about urban gang violence. Yes, it's a bad thing that happens here but it's not as if everyone goes out and does it. Turkey isn't in the stone ages by any stretch of the imagination and there are a lot of other countries that make them look futuristic by comparison.

SI

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

And we wonder why people in that part of the world hate us. It's like some guy in Ankara saying "Wow, that America is really fucked up" after reading another story about urban gang violence. Yes, it's a bad thing that happens here but it's not as if everyone goes out and does it. Turkey isn't in the stone ages by any stretch of the imagination and there are a lot of other countries that make them look futuristic by comparison.

FYI, it's not an isolated incident. In some regions of particular coutries under Sharia it is common practice, if not state policy.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by The Afoci

My dad says marriage proves that women aren't human. Humans have remorse.

While I find this funny, its a joke I may keep from the missus.

[The Afoci]

Originally Posted by Samdari

While I find this funny, its a joke I may keep from the missus.

Not a bad idea.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

FYI, it's not an isolated incident. In some regions of particular coutries under Sharia it is common practice, if not state policy.

Which is a nice thing for the kids out there to remember when they start to venture down the path of moral and cultural relativism.

(I say "kids" because I don't think I've ever met a full-grown adult who believed in moral relativism, at least outside of a university campus.)

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

(I say "kids" because I don't think I've ever met a full-grown adult who believed in moral relativism, at least outside of a university campus.)

Trust me, there are plenty of them out there. Witness the level of outrage over Abu Ghraib versus the "outrage" over the treatment everyday of prisoners in every Muslim country, ethnic cleansing in the Sudan, etc.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

(I say "kids" because I don't think I've ever met a full-grown adult who believed in moral relativism, at least outside of a university campus.)

I don't get this. Are you suggesting that people are not mature simply because they don't beleive what you do? (I know plenty of adults who do)

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by sabotai

I don't get this. Are you suggesting that people are not mature simply because they don't beleive what you do? (I know plenty of adults who do)

No, I'm making a comment based on my own life experiences. I have met several people who follow this line of thinking, and with the exception of a university professor or two they have exclusively been youths. Your mileage may vary. Draw whatever conclusions you will.

[SFL Cat]

Don't want to sidetrack the thread (well, okay, I do), but as I have stated in other threads, if there are no absolutes, and morality is relative...even though you might find such an act horrendous, you can't justifiably argue that it is ethically wrong in any strict sense...just different from your own personal morals.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

if there are no absolutes, and morality is relative...even though you might find such an act horrendous, you can't justifiably argue that it is ethically wrong in any strict sense...just different from your own personal morals.

I disagree with this. For the most part, it is probably true, but I think there can be a line drawn where it absolutely is the wrong thing to do. Something like killing an innocent person would fall here. If you want to argue that there are cultures where even that is acceptable, go ahead, you're probably right, but we're better than they are. No question in my mind. And that is where I differ from these academics and other moral relativists.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I disagree with this. For the most part, it is probably true, but I think there can be a line drawn where it absolutely is the wrong thing to do. Something like killing an innocent person would fall here. If you want to argue that there are cultures where even that is acceptable, go ahead, you're probably right, but we're better than they are. No question in my mind. And that is where I differ from these academics and other moral relativists.

Thats just your Western/Judeo/Christian philosophical slant speaking.

While I agree with you (no moral relatavist am I), I'm sure the reasons I hold are probably quite different from yours.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Thats just your Western/Judeo/Christian philosophical slant speaking.

While I agree with you (no moral relatavist am I), I'm sure the reasons I hold are probably quite different from yours.

I bet if I searched hard enough, I could find someone who actually believes the color blue is red but that doesn't mean he is correct.

SI

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I bet if I searched hard enough, I could find someone who actually believes the color blue is red but that doesn't mean he is correct.

SI

Doesn't mean he's wrong either.

[Noble_Platypus]

Actually, it does

[vex]

Originally Posted by Noble_Platypus

Actually, it does

Why?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Doesn't mean he's wrong either.

Funny, I knew this would be the response.

And, yes it does mean he's wrong. That is the literal definition of the word. Just like if someone was walking south and claimed to be walking north, they would be incorrect as well unless they had their own orientation system worked out where our north is equal to his south, etc. But this is not the case.

So, is the person believing the Bills won 4 Super Bowls in the 90s also not incorrect? By the definition of the game, they lost no matter how much a person deludes themself.

SI

[BishopMVP]

What about color blind people? HA!

[Noble_Platypus]

Originally Posted by vexroid

Why?

What sterlingice said

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Funny, I knew this would be the response.

And, yes it does mean he's wrong. That is the literal definition of the word. Just like if someone was walking south and claimed to be walking north, they would be incorrect as well unless they had their own orientation system worked out where our north is equal to his south, etc. But this is not the case.

So, is the person believing the Bills won 4 Super Bowls in the 90s also not incorrect? By the definition of the game, they lost no matter how much a person deludes themself.

SI

There are no literal definitions of words. That is the nature of language. When I use the term "queer," it didn't mean the same thing in the late 1800's as it does today. Meanings of words change, whole languages appear and disappear over time. There is no word or symbol that has been ever been used to describe a perception of reality that has or ever will remain constant.

If a person uses a different orientation system than north, south, east or west, and it allows him to arrive where he wants to go...then that system is just as valid regardless of how he references directions.

As for the Bills, some would say they DID win the Super Bowl in 91. Hard to argue that they were outplayed the Giants in that game -- I hear Norwood is still living pretty comfortably on the money he got for missing that kick (course, they pretty much got their butts kicked in 92, 93, 94 )

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

There are no literal definitions of words. That is the nature of language. When I use the term "queer," it didn't mean the same thing in the late 1800's as it does today. Meanings of words change, whole languages appear and disappear over time. There is no word or symbol that has been ever been used to describe a perception of reality that has or ever will remain constant.

If a person uses a different orientation system than north, south, east or west, and it allows him to arrive where he wants to go...then that system is just as valid regardless of how he references directions.

As for the Bills, some would say they DID win the Super Bowl in 91. Hard to argue that they were outplayed the Giants in that game -- I hear Norwood is still living pretty comfortably on the money he got for missing that kick (course, they pretty much got their butts kicked in 92, 93, 94 )

"Ah, so you're a loon" -Lord Bravery (in the cartoon Freakazoid)

SI

[SFL Cat]

I simply refuse to debate someone who pulls quotes from Freakazoid.

Show me some class and culture. Pull quotes from classic Looney Tunes....then we'll talk.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Funny, I knew this would be the response.

And, yes it does mean he's wrong. That is the literal definition of the word. Just like if someone was walking south and claimed to be walking north, they would be incorrect as well unless they had their own orientation system worked out where our north is equal to his south, etc. But this is not the case.

So, is the person believing the Bills won 4 Super Bowls in the 90s also not incorrect? By the definition of the game, they lost no matter how much a person deludes themself.

SI

\

I want to talk about the color issue as this nicely illustrates the problem here.
First, though, I'm going to change it from blue to green to be more in line with reality.

You say the ball is green, the colorblind person says the ball is red.

A person who is colorblind sees no difference between red and green. So, as far as they can possibly know or use information red = green and they cannot be wrong because in their perception this is the case.

You see things from a different perspective, one that can recognize this distinction so you see them as wrong.

You speak of the true definition but you're wrong there. Nothing is any color. The color is in the light which reflects off of or emitted by an object. Reality is you're both wrong.

In the moral sphere we haven't reached the stage where we can objectively determine reality. All we have to go by is filtered through our own perspectives. Therefore, as the above example illustrates, what's true for one person may well not be true for the next person yet both may well be speaking the truth as they know it and they both may well be wrong.

That is all.

[IMetTrentGreen]

everyone knows that different from us = wrong

who is doing this any different from killing a roach? none, except for guilt and laws. he should go to jail becuase he broke the law, but lets not play high horse unless somebody shows up wearing bills superbowl champion shirts

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Axxon

I want to talk about the color issue as this nicely illustrates the problem here.
First, though, I'm going to change it from blue to green to be more in line with reality.

You say the ball is green, the colorblind person says the ball is red.

A person who is colorblind sees no difference between red and green. So, as far as they can possibly know or use information red = green and they cannot be wrong because in their perception this is the case.

You see things from a different perspective, one that can recognize this distinction so you see them as wrong.

You speak of the true definition but you're wrong there. Nothing is any color. The color is in the light which reflects off of or emitted by an object. Reality is you're both wrong.

There's a reason I used blue and not green because I figured someone would try to equate this to color blindness which is the lawyerly way of not addressing the issue.

But, let's go to what you say as the definition of color. You say "nothing is any color" which is incorrect. At a scientific level, physicists have given names to certain wavelengths of light reflecting off objects. So, if light of 450nm wavelength reflects off an object, it's called "blue". If you call it "red" using that naming convention, you are incorrect because "red" light is 700nm. I'm not even talking about border cases where the lines are blurred, these are polar opposites. There is no room for confusion.

SI

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by IMetTrentGreen

who is doing this any different from killing a roach?

Hopefully this guy is, I mean who takes the time to strangle roaches? Stepping on them is a lot faster.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

There's a reason I used blue and not green because I figured someone would try to equate this to color blindness which is the lawyerly way of not addressing the issue.

But, let's go to what you say as the definition of color. You say "nothing is any color" which is incorrect. At a scientific level, physicists have given names to certain wavelengths of light reflecting off objects. So, if light of 450nm wavelength reflects off an object, it's called "blue". If you call it "red" using that naming convention, you are incorrect because "red" light is 700nm. I'm not even talking about border cases where the lines are blurred, these are polar opposites. There is no room for confusion.

SI

My subject was a ball. I've already mentioned that the light is colored but the ball isn't. Talk about lawyerly way of not addressing the issue.

In any case, that's also a false interpretation of what I did. I did use colorblindness to address the issue as my entire post is dedicated to relativity in terms of the unknown which is what morality is, thus showing how one could come to an understanding of moral relativity and if you don't like my example and was trying to avoid allowing someone to use an example you don't like, it's pretty ironic you'd then accuse me of being lawyerly.

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by Samdari

While I find this funny, its a joke I may keep from the missus.

Reminds me of my favorite exchange from As Good As It Gets.

"How do you write women so well?"

"I think of a man, and then I take away reason and accountability."

[SportsDino]

A moral relativist is an idiot who hasn't finished thinking things through...

This is an appalling act supporting a practice only the most violent and stupid individuals of humanity would believe in.