Free Murder in the Name of Honor by Rana Husseini Page B

sixty-three MPs present when the session began. The chamber crackled with tension as many MPs leapt up to oppose virulently any change, describing the cancellation of Article 340 as ‘legislating obscenity’. Deputy Mahmoud Kharabsheh (Balqa), who was the
rapporteur
of the House Legal Affairs Committee, was the first deputy to speak. He told the assembly he had the support of twenty-seven of Jordan’s most senior MPs who were against cancelling Article 340. ‘This draft is one of the most dangerous legislations being reviewed by the House,’ he said, ‘because it is related to our women and society, especially in light of the threat of globalization.’
    Kharabsheh said that activists should focus instead on changing other articles in the law that have granted women lenient punishments, such as Article 341, which reduces the punishment for a woman who kills her child born out of wedlock to avoid being disgraced.
    Over a dozen deputies of the Parliament spoke, as well as key figures, including the Prime Minister, Abdur-Ra’uf S. Rawabdeh. The overwhelming message was that this was a western-driven campaign of misinformation aimed at destroying the morals of our society.
    One deputy described the draft bill as a document to legalize adultery and destroy Islamic ethics and lashed out at us, saying we didn’t represent Jordanian society or its Islamic values.
    This was the most heated session ever seen in our parliament. Despite some moderate voices, only one deputy, Nash’at Hamarneh, a leftist from Madaba, was courageous enough tospeak directly in favour of the draft, and kept speaking even as opposing members tried to shout him down.
    â€˜This article has become a sword over the necks of our women … we have never once heard of a man being killed in the name of honour,’ he said, struggling to be heard. ‘We must cancel any legislation that stands in the way of liberating our women.’
    By the end of the session, when it was time to vote, I peeked over the balcony to watch the voting. I thought they would count hands and cite names of deputies. I hoped I’d at least be able to question the deputies who claimed during their campaigns that they were in favour of women’s rights as to why they were voting against this change.
    But then one deputy shouted, ‘Why are we wasting more time? Seems to me the majority of the Lower House is against it. Let us vote.’
    The voting was carried out as quick as a flash, so fast that I almost missed it. The Speaker of the Lower House asked who was against the amendment. The majority of the deputies waved their hands. That was it. The bill was rejected without even the dignity of a count of hands.
    I returned to the newspaper to write the story; the news was already out because the voting session was aired live on TV. I watched my in-box swell as people supporting the cause wrote to express their anger over the deputies’ vote.
    I opened an email. ‘Please don’t give up,’ a woman had written, ‘you highlighted an issue that we really didn’t see. The number of killings is obviously going to increase, but you gave it a try, and we’ll still support you and fight to banish the murder of the innocent souls.’
    The following day, the JWU’s vice president Nadia Shamroukh expressed her disappointment to the press and said that she had not expected such an impassioned reaction to an amendment.
    Our committee sent an open letter to the Jordanian Parliamentvoicing our own disappointment and refusal to accept the Lower House’s decision.
    Notorious columnist and former minister of health Zeid Hamzeh agreed. He wrote in
Al Rai
newspaper in December 1999: ‘Instead of standing all together against Article 340, why didn’t they find another legal way to prevent the killing of tens of women in cold blood?’
    The public indulged in fierce debates following the Lower House decision to