 |
| Wife Killing |
| |
| Posted on: 2007-Jun-29 Graphic |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
Once upon a time, in the history of India there was an upsurge in the killing of wives who did not bring in enough wealth or fortune in the form of dowry.
That unfortunate phenomena became known as the “dowry deaths”.
During that period, relations of the men usually conspired to eliminate any wife who, in their view, did not pay the dowry which was commensurate with the status of the husband. It took civil society groups, the government and law enforcement agencies to contain the incidence of dowry deaths.
In Ghana, those who insinuated against the passage of the Domestic Violence Law and reduced its import to mere sexual pleasures may be alarmed at the recent spate of wife killing in the country.
As the incidence soars to saturation point, as affirmed by scores of stories in the media lately, there is a certain compulsion for the whole society to stand up and fight this canker which, obviously, constitutes an act of discrimination against women.
As sensitive and emotional as the issue could be, there are certain viewpoints which, when openly expressed in advocacy, could render one liable to the mischievous charge of debauchery. One of them is the fact that adultery and fornication are no crimes.
It is untenable for men, on the slightest suspicion of infidelity or even on incontrovertible evidence of adultery against their wives, to subject those wives to corporal punishment, which may lead to murder.
Since Biblical times, society has lived with the notion that women are the only ones to be held liable for adultery or fornication. And this explains why even men married under the ordinance, when caught with other women, stick to the alibi that if their wives cannot contain the situation, they can seek divorce.
Furthermore, our customs and traditions allow men to marry more than one woman and when philandering men are caught, the usual excuse is that they are not tied down to one woman.
Yet, since customary law is part of the laws of the country and is not always unconscionable, we cannot just condemn those who marry under customary law so as to extend to them the freedom to marry more than one woman.
The question, then, is, if women who cannot stand the fact of marrying their husbands with other women are advised to opt out of the marriage, why should the men not leave their wives if they suspect them of infidelity?
The major sore point is vulnerability and the capacity to adequately cater for the needs of children, the inference being that women who end up being murdered are often compelled to stick to their husbands in their quest to promote the interest of their children. Therefore, when they are so cruelly murdered, the future of the children is sometimes completely ruined.
There may be some puritans who may condemn our position and viewpoints on the matter, in just the same way that they condemned those who called for the legalisation of prostitution in the country.
The puritans could even stretch their argument further to include the absurd one which says that then there would be no need to condemn lesbianism and homosexuality. The difference, however, is that whereas homosexuality and lesbianism are criminal acts, adultery and fornication are not.
Therefore, while we are not advocating the liberalisation of sexual immorality, we are convinced that it is not right or proper for men to brutalise their wives because of suspicion or even proven acts of infidelity.
We need to rise up and condemn these brutal wife killings in much the same way that we are talking about armed robbery, road accidents and mob justice.
Our women deserve better. They must be treated as partners, never subservient, no matter who provides for the upkeep of the household.
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
| |
|
| |
| |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Bookmark with: