http://blogs.taz.de/riotmama/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2018/01/william-bout-264826_Fallback.png

vonjacintanandi 14.09.2014

Riotmama

Jacinta Nandi ist eine superfeministische, alleinerziehende Engländerin, die über Deutschland und die Deutschen bloggt.

Mehr über diesen Blog

„Maybe he deserves to get off,“ says a friend, „maybe he deserves to get off for killing her, to make up for all the men who do get sent down for killing their wives when their wives actually deserved it.“

„I mean, in a way, she deserved to be shot,“ says another friend, „for going out with a disabled guy. What was a beautiful woman like her doing with a guy with no legs anyways? That’s a bit weird. It’s a bit unnatural.“

„To be honest, I think whether he shot her once or four times is neither here nor there, Jacinta,“ says another friend. „You’re just so upset about this because you’re not seeing as this specific case where a specific person was actually scared and then accidentally shot another person. You’re seeing it in this really hysterical light, like, all men want to murder all women at all times. But the fact is, his life has been ruined, too. His life has been totally ruined. And I just don’t think there’s any evidence for pre-mediated murder.“

„This case has got PC-types in a right tizz! Because he was disabled! They want to say he shouldn’t have shot his wife, but they’re scared to because they think it might be ableist!“

„I think you should just look at the facts, Jacinta, and stop getting so emotional.“

I’m going to write out some facts now:

1) On Feburary 14th, 2013, Oscar Pistorius shot his girlfriend to death.

2) He shot her four times through the bathroom door. She was locked in the bathroom.

3) The bullets that he used in his gun are known as „Black Talon“ bullets. They are designed  to flatten out and expand on contact and to cause maximum damage. They’re designed to mushroom into your skin on impact. They’re not just designed to kill, they’re designed to destroy your body.

4) Reeva Steenkamp was fully-clothed in the bathroom, fully-clothed, with her mobile phone. The bathroom door was locked. She was standing up.

5) He plans to write a book about the „shocking episode„, which could well become a lucrative, money-spinning bestseller!

6) He said he thought she was an intruder, and maybe he did.

7) He changed his story and lied in court.

8) She’d said she was scared of him sometimes, but that was irrelevant.

9) He cried when he saw her dead body. That wasn’t irrelevant. That proved he couldn’t have wanted to kill her. He cried afterwards, and he phoned the police.

10) He’s going to write a book. He’s going to write a fucking book about it. It’s going to be a bestseller, they say.

11) They’d not been together that long, her cousin said she’d wanted to end it.

12) He’s been found not-guilty of pre-meditated murder. And common-law murder. He’s been found guilty of culpable homicide. We don’t know how long the judge will send him down for. It probably won’t be long. He might not get sent down at all.

Those are the facts. Well, the main ones, anyway. He shot her four times –  the bullets were expanding ones, which mushroomed when they hit flesh – whoever had been standing behind that bathroom door would’ve ended up dead. Splattered. Their bones shattered, their body split open. The mythical intruder, who, let’s face it, might’ve been, even in the world where we believe Pistorius’s flimsy, pathetic, anaemic excuse, a child burglar – there are kids as young as 12 who go out robbing houses – would’ve had their body ripped to shreds, too. But it wasn’t a burglar, it was his girlfriend – they’d not been together long, just a few months, they were „dating“, not really together – his girlfriend who’d said she was scared of him, who he says got up in the middle of the night, dressed quietly, silently, so as not to wake him, took her phone and locked herself in the bathroom.  The evidence of the neighbours, that they’d heard them arguing, that they heard her screaming, has all been discounted, either as contradictory or circumstantial. So we have to believe Oscar’s version, you see.

He says he didn’t know it was his girlfriend, claims he thought it was an intruder who had locked himself in the bathroom, claims he didn’t notice Reeva wasn’t in bed. Okay. Fine. I still think he’s guilty of murder, because I think he should’ve known that the person – even the intruder person, who was just in his head – standing behind the bathroom door was a human being and that killing human beings is wrong. This isn’t political correctness gone mad, by the way. IT’S IN THE FUCKING BIBLE. The Bible is not a politically correct book. You shouldn’t kill human beings. It’s bad.

People are bending over themselves backwards to believe him. To defend him. His excuse, his pathetic, laughable, insulting excuse has to be believed. The implausible has to be made plausible. People bring other stuff into it, sometimes: his disability, his vulnerability. The main thing is, people are desperate to protect his right to kill his partner. This right has to be protected. He has to be let off the hook, legally, but also morally. And that is what I find interesting, and why I think that Reeva Steenkamp’s murder was a white honour killing.

„But his life’s been ruined, too!“ My friend wails at me. Interesting, huh? First up: his life hasn’t been ruined. Reeva Steenkamp’s life has been ruined, totally, and her parents‘ lives have been ruined, but Pistorius’s life hasn’t been ruined at all, he’s going to be running again by the next Olympics and he’s got an exciting book deal, don’t forget! But it’s interesting that people think it worth mentioning that his life has been „ruined.“ This is one of the things that proves to me that we are talking about an honour killing here. Legally, Pistorius has been found not-guilty of murder, legally, he has got away with it scott-free, despite having been found guilty of culpable homicide, or manslaughter – bear in mind, we don’t know what the judge will send him down for – I suspect he won’t do any time inside at all, but what do I know. As far as murder’s concerned, however, legally speaking,  Pistorius has got off totally scott-free. He couldn’t have got away with it more, unless he had, like, not been arrested at all. People who then mention this nebulous „ruining of his life“, why do they mention that? How is it relevant? Do you think there should be absolutely no consequences for a man murdering or killing their partner? Well, yeah. Actually, this is what I think. I think people bring up this concept of his life having been ruined because they think there should be absolutely no consequences for men who murder their wives or girlfriends. Have youse ever noticed that it is only with crimes that men commit against women – specifically rape and murder – that this „his life has been ruined too!“ shit gets pulled. Why do you think this is?

I’ll tell you why. This is because, deep-down, we think men should be allowed to rape and murder their partners. Deep-down, people wish it was legal, and totally socially accepted.  And don’t start acting like I am being really controversial here, it’s only been a crime to rape your wife since the 90s. We were all of us born in an age where that WAS the reality, of course part of us still thinks that way, of course our souls, our internal justice systems, have to catch up with the law. Don’t act like I am saying something really paranoid here. What I am saying isn’t controversial at all.

„I wouldn’t like to have you on the jury if I was up for murder, Jacinta,“ says a friend. That’s interesting too, isn’t it? That the person you identify with is Pistorius, on the stand, not Steenkamp, locked in the bathroom, screaming for her life. This is because he is the human being, the one who is human, and she just the girlfriend. Not just any girlfriend, but a model girlfriend. Her beauty, I think, is what makes people think she was so disposable – she was a trophy, an object. She was also beautiful in a very plastic way, I love the way she looked, but a lot of people find those kind of looks flashy and trashy and sexy and empty. She was his property, she was his. This makes people fell like he had the right to kill her.

It’s interesting too, that we only pretend to believe the intruder lie BECAUSE she was his girlfriend. If he had accidentally killed a male friend, we wouldn’t fall for it. Would we? If a friend had stayed the night and gone into the bathroom and locked the door and there had been arguing that night. Well, let’s put it this way IT WOULD BE A VERY SHORT EPISODE OF COLUMBO. But we pretend to believe it,  have to pretend to ourselves we believe it, pretend to ourselves that it is plausible. Nobody ever says to a guest who is staying in their house: „Hey, by the way, if you need to wee in the middle of the night, I might shoot you, so you better just piss the bed, okay.“ It’s not Brauch, saying something like that. Not even in South Africa. If it was Brauch, nobody would ever stay the night at someone-else’s house. We twist reality to fit what we need to happen: and what we need to happen is that men are allowed to kill women.

Or imagine, for a moment, that she had shot him, and said afterwards that it was self-defence because he was raping her. This is far more plausible, statistically apart from anything else, by the way, than him not noticing Steenkamp’s having got out the bed, put her clothes on, locking herself in the bathroom with her mobile story. Imagine if she had said that. There would be none of this hand-wringing, none of this sympathy, none of it. She would be done for murder. She would be done. She would be in prison right now.

We think men are allowed to kill women, their women. And let’s face it, they are. Oscar Pistorius is allowed. Not just allowed, but entitled. He’s done it, and he’s got away with it, but he’s the one we should feel sorry for, because his life has been ruined! He’s got away with it, and we’re relieved – and a tiny bit sorry for him.

The most important fact of the whole case is: we think men are allowed to kill their wives and girlfriends. The same liberals who wept buckets over Michael Brown plead innocent until proven guilty here. This is because we see women as the property of men. Reeva Steenkamp was Oscar’s property, she wanted to leave him, so he had to kill her. We all suspect this is what happened, and we find it okay. If we didn’t think that was the case, if we really thought he had thought she was an intruder, we would be more upset. If we really thought for one second that he had thought she was an intruder, if people really believed that, they would be more likely to call it murder. But it’s precisely because we know she „deserved to die“ that we pretend to believe all the ludicrous intruder bollocks. Reeva’s murder was an honour killing. We make up excuses as to why it was okay – flimsy, pathetic excuses – because we, too, think he did an honourable thing in killing her. We want to protect him, because we all think he did what he had to do.

He killed her, he got away with it, and we find it okay, because we find men killing women okay. No, not okay. Honourable. Oscar Pistorius is an honourable man, and he did an honourable thing.

Just don’t cry your crocodile tears next time some Turkish kid stabs their sister to death. Face facts. Don’t be so emotional. You only think Ehrenmord is a crime is when it’s Muslims doing it.

Anzeige

Wenn dir der Artikel gefallen hat, dann teile ihn über Facebook oder Twitter. Falls du was zu sagen hast, freuen wir uns über Kommentare

https://blogs.taz.de/riotmama/2014/09/14/an-ehrenmord-by-any-other-name-would-smell-as-sweet/

aktuell auf taz.de

kommentare

Schreibe einen Kommentar zu Jacinta Antworten abbrechen

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert.