For over a decade now (Time flies when you’re having fun!) I have been researching the politics behind the categorisation and definition of crimes. Why are some harmful behaviours criminalised and others are not? Why is one newly criminalised conduct shoved in the box labelled ‘other bad stuff’ (The box right at the bottom of a wonky pile of boxes. The one where the lid never closes properly.) when another is clearly defined and gets to sit on top of the box?
Crimes do not just fall from the sky. They are socially constructed. People (often of the pale, male, and stale variety) decide which harmful behaviours are criminalised. And they make those decisions based on their personal values and/or societal norms as they see them. They (hopefully) follow law-making processes that also are social constructs made by people … You get the idea. A few people walk down a well-trodden path to decide that something is a crime when they think it is bad, could cause chaos, or violates social norms, and individuals and society need to be protected from it.
The process becomes more inclusive when others are consulted about what should (not) be a crime. Others could be people with lived experience and/or those walking with them. However, others do not have to be listened to. Others do not get to make the decision.
When people decide that some harmful behaviour should be criminalised, they might shove it in the box with the ‘other bad stuff’ if it would be too risky to let it sit on top of the box.
Why am I saying all this? Because the UK Government recently rejected calls by MPs for a statutory definition of “honour”-based abuse (HBA).
Currently, there is no specific offence of HBA in UK law. Instead, HBA is a box that holds crimes like forced marriage when they are committed to protect perceived cultural and religious beliefs and/or honour. The Government puts the HBA box in the box labelled ‘domestic abuse’ (DA). Similar to HBA, there is no specific criminal offence of DA in the UK. However, many types of DA are generic crimes such as harassment that are put in the DA box when they consist of abusive behaviour between two people aged 16 or over who are or have been intimate partners or family members. Enter: The Russian doll of bad stuff.
The big difference between the HBA box and the DA box is that the label on the DA box is fixed in law, specifically Part 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. So everyone knows which crimes belong in the DA box. A better understanding of DA leads to a more accurate and consistent record. Everyone knows what’s in the box. A better record of DA is necessary to develop effective strategies to combat it. Everyone knows where the box goes.
In comparison, the label on the HBA box does not stick properly. It is missing legal superglue. The missing glue leads to poor recording (who knows what goes into that box…) that leads to an incomplete picture (who knows what is in the box…) that leads to an ineffective response to HBA (who knows where the box goes…).
Apparently though, that is good enough for the UK Government. In their response to the inquiry on HBA launched by the Women and Equalities Committee, the Government claimed: “It is not clear that making the [HBA] definition statutory [aka sticking it on with some legal superglue] would improve understanding of or the response to these crimes”.
Interestingly, the UK Parliament created a statutory definition of DA for exactly those reasons, “to ensure that all domestic abuse is properly understood, considered unacceptable and actively challenged”. And forced marriage was criminalised to “send out a clear message that this practice is totally unacceptable and will not be tolerated.”
So why is a statutory definition necessary to tackle DA and forced marriage, but not HBA?
There is an argument to be made that criminalising any conduct is the wrong way to address it, but I will leave that aside for now.
Maybe the Government thinks HBA is not that big a problem. Well, in 2021-22, 2,887 HBA-related offences were recorded by the police in England and Wales. This was an increase of 6 % compared with the previous year. To put this in perspective, of the 2,887 HBA offences, 141 were forced marriage offences. Please accept this polite reminder that forced marriage has a statutory definition, HBA does not.
Maybe the Government did not see the need to change that because it thinks HBA is not that bad. Karma Nirvana explains: “Honour Based Abuse … often begins early in the family home. It can lead to a deeply embedded form of coercive control, built on expectations about acceptable and unacceptable behaviours. Control is often established without overt violence against the victim. For example, family members may threaten to kill themselves or ostracise the victim.” Savera UK adds that HBA can also include “physical attacks or ‘honour’ killings.” Coercive control and acts causing danger to life or bodily harm are crimes with statutory definitions, but not HBA.
Maybe HBA is not a specific offence because the Government thinks HBA does not violate (British) social norms. Fundamental British values include individual liberty. Coercive and controlling behaviour, whether or not it is motivated by a desire to protect perceived cultural and religious beliefs and/or honour, violates individual liberty. Mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs is another fundamental British value. Importantly, Karma Nirvana emphasises that “cultural tradition does not mean Honour Based Abuse is acceptable.” Nor is it acceptable to excuse or justify abuse by reference to faiths, beliefs, culture, or tradition.
So to me it looks like HBA is a big problem, it is bad, it does violates social norms. This should be reason enough for the Government to “continue to keep this under review.”
Written by Hannah Baumeister
Drawing on Forced Marriage 