Critical policy analysis

This study is based on a critical policy analysis developed by Carol Bacchi, a professor of political science. The central idea behind her method is to challenge the traditional understanding of steering documents as a reaction to problems that need to be addressed. Instead, she argues that policy is not primarily a reaction but a way of constructing a problem. Bacchi writes:

The methodology involves starting with a policy or policy proposal, ensuring understanding of its context, and ‘working backwards’ to see how the ‘problem’ is represented – the meaning it is given or how it is discursively constituted – within the policy or proposal.

The representation or description of a problem carries with it certain explicit or implicit assumptions; critical analysis is therefore about identifying these assumptions and critically examining them. Why is this necessary? According to Bacchi, the representation of a problem has a number of consequences, including discursive ones, i.e. which voices are seen as legitimate or not, and these have material impacts on people’s living conditions. The representation of a social problem can either maintain or challenge existing hierarchical power relations.

The purpose of the analysis is to apply a power perspective to problem presentations. The power perspective includes an analysis of who has scope for action, interpretative priority, and ownership and control over resources. It is important to note that the WPR method does not as a starting point assume a deliberate or strategic framing of a particular problem. The method is based on the premise that, since all steering documents present proposals for change, they inherently contain implicit problem representations.

Taking into account the context and focus of this study, Bacchi’s questionnaire has been adapted and formulated into three questions:

How is the issue of honour-based violence and oppression presented in steering documents?
What assumptions underlie this presentation?
Which areas are left out of the presentation of the issue?

Based on these three questions, the paper examines how honour-based violence is understood at the policy level and which concepts are used to describe the same or similar phenomena. This section presents the various concepts that are used, the understandings they express and how they relate to each other.

Use of terms

The concept of ‘honour-based violence’ is established in all countries studied and in the autonomous regions. Since all countries have ratified the Istanbul Convention, it is important to refer to how honour-based violence is used in the Convention itself. The preamble refers to ‘forced marriage’, ‘honour-based crimes’ and ‘female genital mutilation’ as serious forms of violence. According to Article 12, the parties to the Convention shall “shall ensure that culture, custom, religion, tradition or so-called ‘honour’ shall not be considered as justification for any acts of violence”. Article 42 elaborates further by stating that justifying crimes by reference to so-called honour is unacceptable. According to the article, the parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that such justification is not considered legitimate in any criminal proceedings. To summarise the norms contained in the Istanbul Convention, the term ‘honour’, or ‘so-called honour’, is referred to as a motive or justification strategy for violence, together with culture, custom, religion and tradition. The use of ‘so-called honour’ can be interpreted as an expression of the fact that there is room for interpretation and discrepancy between different understandings of honour and how it is used in different contexts.

Honour-based violence as an umbrella term

An analysis of the Nordic context shows that honour-based violence (and oppression) is often used as an umbrella term that includes, among other things, forced marriage, female genital cutting and child marriage. At the international level, the terms ‘honour-based crimes’ or ‘crimes in the name of honour’ are used as examples of gender-based violence and harmful practices. Previously, the term ‘traditional harmful practices’ was sometimes used, but the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) advises against using this term, as it tends to imply that such practices originate in and are almost exclusively maintained within non-Western cultural traditions. It may also imply that harmful practices do not exist in Western societies. The term ‘harmful practices’ is preferred and refers to practices that are harmful to women and girls and are based on discrimination. In the UN committees for the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), harmful customs or practices are used as a collective term that includes female genital cutting, child marriage, forced marriage, polygamy and crimes committed in the name of so-called honour.

How can such use of honour-based violence as an umbrella term be understood? One possible explanation may be the flexibility of the term and the possibility of interpreting different forms of violence as based on honour. Another possible explanation may be the concept’s ‘political success’ and the considerable attention that the most severe form of violence, honour killings, has received in Sweden, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Since the use of the honour discourse has proven to have a strong social resonance, the same concept is used to describe other practices. Finland’s report to GREVIO shows, for example, that framing female genital cutting as a form of honour-based violence is considered to have contributed to preventive measures reaching more people and to securing resources for preventive work. This framing can be seen as pragmatic, shifting attention from what is considered a narrower focus on forced marriage and female genital cutting to the broader issue of honour-based violence and crime. This shift has been observed in several Nordic countries, where legislation on female genital cutting and forced marriage has been in focus for longer than honour-based violence.

The widespread use of honour-based violence as an umbrella term carries certain risks. It can give a misleading picture of the causes behind different forms of violence and, as a result, lead to misguided solutions. There is a risk that the violence itself will become a side issue and that much attention will be given to other issues that explain honour as a motivation for crime. Flexibility risks being transformed into arbitrariness, thereby jeopardising the rule of law. Other possible risks relate to the distribution of responsibility and resources when several actors become involved in the work and only resources for combating honour-based violence are prioritised. This does not mean that resources are not needed, but a holistic approach is required to analyse the issue from a societal perspective, where several different social problems are involved.

Using the term ‘honour-based violence’ as an umbrella term risks reinforcing a strict division between honour-based violence and other forms of gender-based violence. Since the concept of honour underlies many different forms of gender-based violence around the world, honour-based violence cannot be understood or studied in isolation from other forms of violence against women or specific social contexts in which such violence occurs.

Honour-based violence and oppression

In the Nordic context, a number of different concepts can be identified. Since this study was initiated by Sweden, the concept of ‘honour-based violence and oppression’ has been used as one of the starting points. The term ‘oppression’ is not used in the other Nordic countries. Originally, the term refers to the use of harsh measures directed against a group or citizens, for example political oppression directed at groups with the aim of keeping them in a state of powerlessness (a synonym for tyranny). In a 2004 study, Patriarchal violence – an attack on human security – A broad survey of measures to combat patriarchal violence and oppression, particularly acts committed in the name of honour directed at women, homosexuals, bisexuals and transgender people, Gerd Johnsson-Latham defines oppression similarly: “Harsh measures imposed on (a certain group of) people for the purpose of keeping them in a state of powerlessness.”. Based on the analysis of steering documents, it is difficult to determine how and why the word ‘oppression’ has come to be used in relation to honour-based violence. One possible explanation is that the concept of ‘oppression’ is strongly associated with patriarchal violence (which, according to the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, is a collective term for global forms of violence that are rooted in and serve to defend patriarchal power structures). As Johnsson-Latham writes, the focus (both in debates and in initiatives) has shifted from violence against women to extreme forms of violence and oppression, such as female genital cutting, human trafficking for sexual purposes and crimes in the name of honour. While the term ‘oppression’ is no longer used in relation to men’s violence against women or violence in same-sex relationships, it has been retained and its use is now established in Sweden in relation to honour-based violence. In this way, the conceptual link between violence and patriarchal power structures has been retained specifically in relation to honour-based violence. The 2004 study shows that oppression is distinguished from physical violence. While physical violence is exemplified by beatings, kicking, sexual violence, manslaughter, murder and executions, oppression is expressed through threats, insults and abuse and stands for deprivation of liberty, forced and child marriages, violations of integrity, ridicule and demands for chastity. According to Johnsson-Latham, the line between violence and oppression tends to be blurred. Violence refers to overt violence, while oppression is a more covert form of violence that is difficult to verify.

In summary, the term ‘oppression’ can be used in different ways: in the context of keeping a group in a state of powerlessness or controlling an individual’s behaviour and choices. Contemporary usage of the term ‘oppression’ tends to refer to behaviours directed at an individual and forms of violence that are difficult to verify (hidden violence). Examples of such forms of violence can be understood with the help of a theory developed by the American sociologist Evan Stark with respect to coercive control. Stark identifies the mechanisms behind violence by highlighting various patterns of controlling behaviour aimed at exercising power and control. However, the original meaning of the term ‘oppression’ that links violence to patriarchal structures (‘patriarchal violence’) seems to be downplayed.

Honour-based violence and honour-based conflicts

Honour-based violence is a well-established concept in all the Nordic countries and is also used in English-speaking contexts. It refers to violence based on a (perceived) violation of someone’s honour. Descriptions of how such violence is applied indicate two different purposes: to prevent a breach of norms or as punishment in the case of an honour violation. In Denmark, the term ‘honour-based conflict’ is used. The use of the term ‘conflict’ instead of violence emphasises honour-based conflicts that arise between parents and children, representing a generational conflict. Reinterpretations of violence as conflict can take place in different ways and have different implications. There are also examples of such reinterpretations when it comes to men’s violence against women, both in research and practical work. One of the most important risks highlighted in connection with such a reinterpretation is the risk of obscuring the power imbalance between perpetrators and victims of violence and that violence is a way of maintaining this power imbalance. With respect to honour-based violence, the use of the term ‘conflict’ can be explained by the fact that violence in close relationships includes violence against both adults and children, and it is violence against children and young people that receives the most attention. Presenting the problem as a conflict between children/young people and their parents can, on the one hand, open up opportunities for support and help for both parties but, on the other, risk obscuring the power perspective.

The question of whether to use the term ‘conflict’ or ‘violence’ also raises a broader discussion about the boundaries between the private and public spheres, specifically with regard to the degree of control parents have the right to exercise in connection with child-rearing and the situations in which the state should intervene in child-rearing. There is no doubt that violence against children should be prohibited, as it is in all the Nordic countries and autonomous regions. However, when the understanding of violence becomes increasingly broad, to the extent that instances of violence are redefined as conflict, there is a risk that the boundaries between control, upbringing and violence become blurred.

The target group for various measures, protection and support has changed over time and now includes not only adults but also children and young people. Although honour-based violence has long been seen as a form of violence in close relationships, these relationships have primarily been perceived of as relationships between partners or between adult children and parents. Both in research and in political debate, there has been and continues to be discussion about whether honour-based violence should be seen as a distinct form of violence from men’s violence against women. However, the question of whether and how honour-based violence differs from other forms of violence against children has not received as much attention. Today, the issue is increasingly discussed as a form of violence against children, with proposed measures aimed at a younger target group.

Negative social control

A concept that is mainly used in Norway and Denmark is ‘negative social control’. To link back to the concept discussed initially, namely honour-based violence and oppression, negative social control can be likened to oppression – hidden violence. Unlike oppression (specified honour crime), the concept of negative social control seems at first glance to be linguistically disconnected from the motive for the violence – honour. Descriptions of negative social control are similar to descriptions of honour-based violence. Negative social control is also referred to as an expression of honour-based violence alongside other expressions such as physical and psychological violence and threats of violence. However, the difference between negative social control and psychological violence is not clarified. Since there is no explicit link to honour motives, the issue of negative social control in contexts outside of those associated with honour contexts becomes relevant. Such a discussion is interesting, not least because it helps us to interpret how honour contexts are defined and what other contexts are constructed in relation to them.

Other contexts mentioned in the steering documents include, for example, ‘closed’ religious communities (Norway) and religious communities within Laestadianism, the Pentecostal movement and the Evangelical Lutheran Church (Finland) . Finnish steering documents use new terms to describe instances of violence: ‘spiritual violence’ and ‘religious violence’, which are defined as psychological violence with a religious dimension. What characterises these other contexts is that the members of these communities are representative of the social majority. In Norway, this is explicitly described: ‘communities in which the majority of the congregation consists of ethnic Norwegians’. Paradoxically, such descriptions and ‘comparisons’ are intended to counteract the stigmatising notion that negative social control is only carried out within ethnic minority groups. However, the result is the opposite: this positioning reinforces a distinction between violence committed by representatives of ethnic minority groups and violence committed by representatives of the social majority. In other words, the focus is placed on the ethnic background of individuals.

Other concepts

The studied documents also use the terms ‘spiritual violence’ and ‘religious violence’. These two terms are used synonymously and refer to violence that occurs in religious communities. Finland’s action plan for the prevention of violence against children presents perspectives based on the experiences of three different religious communities: Laestadianism, the Pentecostal movement and the Evangelical Lutheran Church. The action plan presents the Evangelical Lutheran Church’s definition of religious violence as ‘psychological violence with a religious dimension’. This violence takes the form of intimidation, conversion attempts, blame, isolation and control with the intention of breaking down another person’s worldview, lifestyle or opinion. Religious language is used as part of the exercise of power. The description of religious violence within religious communities is particularly focused on sexual violence against children justified by religious language. The description of religious violence is reminiscent of the description of honour-based violence in that it is described as a hidden phenomenon that is difficult to detect and define. The closed nature of certain religious communities enables violence. Another aspect that is highlighted concerns the importance of a community based on the group’s authority – the promise of salvation and threats posed by the surrounding society. The relationship between individuals and religious communities is described in terms of conformity and unspoken expectations that individuals follow the teachings of the community. Leaders within religious communities have precedence in the interpretation of religious writings, traditions and practices. The definition and descriptions of religious or spiritual violence address the issue of the role of religion on two levels. Firstly, references to faith and the consequences of not following advocated norms are described as a way of justifying violence, highlighting specific ways of manipulating and controlling individuals. Secondly, the presence of a religious community is described as a decisive factor in defining violence as religious. The role of religion is virtually absent from the steering documents studied. The absence of this dimension in the problem description will be discussed later, under the section Concluding reflections.

Another concept that has been proposed in research is ‘collective violence’. Satu Lidman and Tuuli Hong suggest that, in terms of the decisive dimension of violence, emphasis should be shifted from honour to the collective. They write: “while HRV includes elements of collectivity, collective violence does not take place solely in honour contexts”. Lidman and Hong understand the collective dimension as both contextual and causal. According to the authors, it is important to note that violence is collective. The reason for this is that Western legal systems are primarily based on the individual, which makes it difficult to deal with crimes committed by multiple perpetrators. Similar issues have previously been raised by Swedish researchers Jenny Westerstrand and Åsa Eldén. The authors critically analysed the legal handling of Sara’s murder in 1996, arguing that a coherent perspective on women’s experiences is needed. Their analysis has shown that the view of violence is fragmented.

This section has discussed concepts and their use. The seemingly different concepts raise several questions about which groups are considered vulnerable to violence and whether it is desirable to define forms of violence according to specific concepts. The use of concepts is also linked to how the problem of honour-based violence is presented and what assumptions underlie the presentation, as outlined in the section Problem description: policy areas and solutions.

Language use and differentiation

The steering documents studied use several terms in reference to ‘honour’, such as ‘honour norms’, ‘honour thinking’ and ‘honour contexts’. The concept of ‘honour’ is defined and explained implicitly with reference to these three concepts. What role does ‘honour’ play in these contexts? For the sake of simplicity, the descriptions of honour norms can be divided into two groups. The first group concerns norms relating to those who are exposed, at risk of being exposed or considered to be exposed to violence. These honour norms are described as ‘strongly patriarchal’, with authority linked to gender and age. As a result, honour norms require control of women’s sexuality and of desired and undesired behaviour. They also include ‘heteronormative notions’, which explains why even men can be subjected to violence if they do not follow these norms. Such a representation of honour norms is normalised and rarely questioned. At the same time, it should be questioned why it is not enough to describe and label these norms as patriarchal and conservative.

The second group concerns norms relating to those who are perpetrators of violence or are considered to perpetrate violence. Here, the importance of the collective and, above all, the family is emphasised. According to honour norms, the interests of the family take precedence over the interests of the individual (‘family control over the individual’). This understanding is also normalised in steering documents and public debate. However, no definitions are established for the family, collective or relatives, nor are any clarifications made regarding which forms of control are acceptable and which are not.

As previously presented and discussed, honour contexts refer to groups outside of the social majority. A generous interpretation would be that honour contexts are not equated with immigrant groups but refer to contexts or groups among ethnic minorities. At the same time, the concept and its use means that violence among ethnic minorities is distinguished from violence among the majority population. Such an interpretation could possibly be avoided if honour contexts were defined and nuanced. If different countries and their key authorities consider honour-based violence to be a distinctive phenomenon, this needs to be described and evidenced rather than assumed.

The use of the term ‘honour’ in conjunction with specific norms, contexts and mindsets has a clearly differentiating function. These norms and mindsets are attributed to ethnic minorities and immigrant groups. To understand how widespread these norms are and whether they are upheld within the groups to which they are attributed, a sociological study is required. The critical question here is why these norms and contexts must be distinguished from other conservative and patriarchal norms that, in terms of content, represent the same ideas and values regarding the subordination of women and intolerance towards homosexuality.

Discourses within problem presentations

According to Bacchi, critical policy analysis includes an analysis of various linguistic elements, such as discourses and dichotomies. The material on honour-based violence and oppression is characterised by several dichotomous relationships that are constructed for the purpose of distinguishing honour-based violence from other forms of violence (primarily from violence against women in general). In the following section, these dichotomies will be presented and commented on.

Honour context and religious communities

Honour contexts and closed religious communities represent two different contexts in which violence and control occur. These contexts are characterised by conservative norms, strong authorities and the importance of the community or collective. These contexts demand individuals’ loyalty to a group and their adaptation to the prevailing norms. Despite clear similarities, the two contexts are seen as distinct. Closed religious communities with members from the majority population are presented in contrast to honour contexts, which are mainly associated with ethnic minorities. As already highlighted, such a construction contributes to the perception that honour-based violence only occurs among migrants and migrant families. In addition to stigmatising effects, there is a risk that links are not made between knowledge about honour-based violence and violence in closed religious communities. Research on honour-based violence shows, for example, that exclusion is an important factor in the emergence of so-called ‘honour norms’. In their study of the prevalence of honour-based violence and oppression in Stockholm, Malmö and Gothenburg, Baianstovu et al. show that violence increases in introverted or closed groups where interaction with other groups is low. The results of this research project could also be transferred to contexts that are not described as honour contexts. A perspective that treats honour-based violence and oppression as a special area increases the risk that important analyses and insights are not applied in other contexts. Similarly, knowledge about spiritual or religious violence linked to violence in closed religious communities would be relevant for understanding the mechanisms behind negative social control and the relationships between individuals and families, as well as the ambivalence that characterises these relationships.

Individuals and community

The relationship between the individual and the community (family, clan or collective) is another dichotomy that arises in the documents and in understandings of honour-based violence. This representation is based in part on the description of Nordic cultures and societies as individualistic and ‘others’ as collectivist. However, these descriptions are accompanied by the assumption that individualist societies are the norm, with reference to human rights and the autonomy and integrity of individuals. Honour norms are presented as norms where individuals must show loyalty to the community to which they belong and submit to the collective.

In this way, this presentation contributes to recreating a stereotypical image of ‘other’ cultures as collectivist and thus more prone to violence and control within the family.

Gender equality and patriarchy

The contrast between gender equality and patriarchy permeates several contexts, where the Nordic countries are presented as gender equal and other societies as non-gender equal, i.e. characterised by patriarchal structures. This is expressed through a distinctiveness perspective that sees culture as the root cause of violence. Violence is described as a cultural phenomenon. Honour norms are described as patriarchal, and the term ‘patriarchal violence’ is also used in relation to honour-based violence and oppression. Previous research has highlighted ‘the violence of the other man’, i.e. the portrayal of men with migrant backgrounds as more violent. This portrayal reinforces not only stereotypical images of men with migrant backgrounds but also those of women with migrant backgrounds. An important insight that Shahrzad Mojab and Amir Hassanpour highlight in their article concerns precisely this misleading and reductionist portrayal of women, in this case Kurdish women. They write:

To deny or ignore the existence of a culture of struggle for gender equality in Kurdistan or in other non-Western societies is a political decision emanating from patriarchal politics, in the sense that to do so denies the universality of the oppression of women and the struggle against it. It is racist in so far as it denies to non-Western, non-White women the means to understand the conditions surrounding their subordination and ignores their determination to resist.

They argue that Kurdish culture is characterised by both misogyny and patriarchy but also by women’s struggle for equality. When certain cultures are portrayed as homogeneous and patriarchal, while others are portrayed as gender equal, it reinforces the patriarchal myth as well as an ethnocentric, orientalist and racist myth. As Linnea Bruno has shown, a selective culturalisation of violence in close relationships is present, which contrasts with Sweden’s self-image as a gender-equal and modern country. Bruno also shows that selective culturalisation and its myths are harmful both to people from other countries and to women and children belonging to the majority population who are exposed to violence, as it reinforces a false self-image.

This construction is achieved through comparisons with the most extreme examples from other societies, which are applied in a generalised way. This explains the importance of individual stories and testimonies that receive significant political and media attention. Despite the tragic nature of these stories, they are misused to create a stereotypical image of women and men with foreign backgrounds. Such constructions are also based on the desirable image of gender equality as a reality that has been achieved, as Vuori writes, “gender equality as an achieved reality”.

Modern and traditional

Another dichotomy that arises in the presentation of honour-based violence, which is closely linked to views on gender equality and patriarchy in the Nordic countries versus other societies, concerns perceptions of modernity and traditional societies.

In this regard, it is worth delving deeper into the question of how men’s violence against women has historically been understood and analysed in a context such as Greenland. Bo Wagner Sørensen presents an analysis of how men’s violence against women has been explained with reference to the social change that took place in Greenland in the 1950s – a transition from a traditional lifestyle to a modern, Western one. The narrative of the dichotomy between tradition and modernity and the stress it has caused for Greenlanders and the indigenous Inuit people is used to explain social problems such as alcohol abuse, suicide statistics and violence. Men’s violence against women is also explained by the stress caused by destabilisation of identity and a loss of power and sense of self-worth. Men’s violence against women is presented as a reaction to this.

Sørensen is highly critical of such a presentation of the problem and argues that it is based on a problematic essentialisation that arises in the dichotomy between tradition and modernity, psychologisation and externalisation of violence. Sørensen argues that instead of presenting Greenland as a special case, an analysis of men’s violence against women should be grounded in general theories of gender-based violence (as developed by Dobash & Dobash and Eva Lundgren). These theories provide analytical tools for understanding the mechanisms of violence and problematising the assumptions made in the analysis of the Greenlandic context specifically and of the Arctic region in general. Sørensen’s analysis can also provide some important insights into how honour-based violence and oppression tend to be presented and discussed, based on a contrast between tradition and modernity, where perceptions of traditional collectivist societies are contrasted with modern egalitarian societies in the Nordic countries.

Issues that are not addressed

Critical policy analysis also involves an analysis of problems and issues that are left out of steering documents or dealt with to a lesser extent. Such an analysis requires knowledge of the issues that have been identified and highlighted in, for example, previous research. One of the key problems analysed in previous research concerns the risk of discrimination against already vulnerable minorities. This risk can be present both at the discursive level through the construction of ‘us’ and ‘them’ and at the practical level in encounters with victims of violence, as well as being an obstacle to victims of violence seeking help. Several action plans (e.g. in Norway and Finland) discuss the risk of discrimination. The risk is also addressed in GREVIO’s reviews of all the Nordic countries.

How should efforts to combat honour-based violence and oppression be organised to not also expose minorities to discrimination? Due to the central nature of the problem, there are good reasons to apply this perspective to all measures (including criminalisation) and problem descriptions and to consider what constructive measures should be introduced to minimise the risk. The fact that such considerations are lacking indicates that the risk of discrimination is not being taken seriously.

Another problem that is addressed to a lesser extent is exclusion and segregation. On the one hand, various steering documents reflect a preconception that honour norms are reinforced in segregated areas and that it is primarily there that the risk of honour-based violence increases. Previous research also suggests that exclusion and segregation are contributing factors. However, the studied steering documents do not contain any measures relating to these issues. This can be interpreted as indicating a lack of a holistic societal perspective and deeper understanding of the problems underlying vulnerability to violence (such as reinforced dependency and exclusion) and the possibility of seeking help and support. Fundamentally, work against segregation and socio-economic vulnerability is about prevention. As shown in the study, national steering documents are mainly dominated by reactionary measures linked to criminalisation, risk and security measures.

Furthermore, in line with the preconceptions about segregation and exclusion that characterise the picture of the causes behind honour norms, it is important to mention issues relating to religion and culture. Perceptions of the identities of vulnerable people and perpetrators are linked to certain geographical areas (the Middle East, North Africa and South-East Asia) and to Islam. The concept of religious or spiritual violence is used in relation to closed (Christian) religious communities, as discussed earlier. Nihan Altınbaş writes in her article that patriarchal gender relations are an ideological discourse within many religious traditions; it is misleading to portray Islam as inherently more patriarchal than Christianity or Judaism. In other words, she argues that honour-based violence and oppression are not exclusive to Islam.

According to Article 12 of the Istanbul Convention, “parties shall ensure that culture, custom, religion, tradition or so-called ‘honour’ shall not be considered as justification for any acts of violence”. In other words, countries are encouraged to prohibit references to religion as a way of justifying violence against women and girls. There are few studies on the links between religion and honour-based violence. Most studies that mention religion argue that efforts to combat honour-based violence may be misguided and contribute to Islamophobia. They argue that both media coverage and political discourse present Islam as a backward and conservative religion that runs counter to Western values.

Final reflections

By way of conclusion, the risks and implications arising in connection with different representations of the problem of honour-based violence and oppression are summarised here. In the steering documents studied, honour-based violence is presented as a specific form of violence, distinct from other forms of men’s violence against women and violence in close relationships. This leads to the causes of violence being associated with ethnic groups other than the social majority and to phenomena such as culture and religion being presented as the root causes of violence. Such understandings of violence and its causes, which overemphasise the importance of culture, risk obscuring other causes behind violence, especially patriarchal structures. It can also be misleading and risks leading to overinterpretations of all occurrences of violence as honour-based. Nihan Altınbaş describes this tendency to attribute all murders committed among Muslims as ‘honour-based violence’. Violence is culturalised and othered, i.e. attributed to groups other than the majority population, and risks contributing to further stigmatisation and discrimination against already vulnerable groups. Risks of discrimination, such as against Muslim minorities, need to be viewed in the context of the overarching structures that exist in the Nordic countries and the widespread Islamophobia that characterises these societies.

Stereotypical images and ideas about ethnic minorities can also be reinforced by media reports of violence. This applies to both the language used and the disproportionate attention given to certain cases compared to other cases of men’s violence against women and violence in close relationships. The most extreme cases always receive the most attention, and this also applies to violence that is not defined as honour related. This also has other implications for reporting that concerns already vulnerable groups. Some steering documents (e.g. Norway’s and Finland’s action plans) show awareness of and refer to the risk of discrimination, but there are no proposals for measures to counteract this risk.

The introduction presented GREVIO’s reviews of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. The criticisms of the expert committee can be divided into two parts. The first concerns the use of culture as an explanatory model for honour-based violence and oppression. The second concerns gender-neutral approaches to issues of violence. There is a connection between how honour-based violence is understood and treated and the tendency for gender neutrality: the high degree of focus on honour-based violence can be interpreted as an expression of gender neutrality because the gendered nature of the violence is neglected. Gender neutrality marginalises women’s safety issues and transforms a global social problem into an issue that affects individuals. Violence is individualised and once again becomes a private matter.

Efforts to combat honour-based violence and oppression can be further complicated when honour is used as an umbrella term. As the study shows, several different terms are used, including ‘honour contexts’, ‘honour norms’ and ‘honour cultures’. These terms are not defined in the steering documents, which means that they risk being used arbitrarily. The same applies to various terms used to describe violence (honour-based violence, negative social control). They are based on predetermined assumptions about the identities of people who are vulnerable to violence and perpetrators. In some countries, this is stipulated explicitly, such as in Norway and Denmark, where it is clearly stated that ethnic minorities are included in these groups, while in other countries it is implied. This ambiguity opens up the risk of arbitrary and subjective assessments, where individual perceptions and stereotypes influence how violence is understood. This is contrary to the rule of law and can lead to human rights violations. There is therefore a great need to take these risks into account and take concrete measures to minimise them.