The murder of Nicolette Ghirxi has sparked a fresh controversy about domestic violence in Malta, encompassing the prevalence of the problem, the social context in which it thrives, the misogynistic attitudes of men (though, sometimes, also of women), the support services that the State provides, as well as the penalties for perpetrators.

The issues had already been raised in the wake of the murder of Bernice Cilia last year when, faced with a nationwide uproar, the Government had presented a femicide law after unsuccessfully pleading that such a law was unnecessary.  The Government then foolishly trumpeted it as the ultimate solution. 

The Opposition has been typically cynical when, having also insisted on a femicide law as a magic wand, now claims that the Government has not done enough.  As has become its mantra every time a serious issue occurs, it called for the resignation of the Home Affairs Minister.   No such resignations were offered by Nationalist ministers when 11 women were killed between 2008-2012.

The crime is deeply rooted in, and a manifestation of, power imbalances in societies which promote or tolerate an unequal status for men and women.  It is broadly defined as the killing of a woman or girl because of her gender, and can take different forms, such as the murder of women as a result of intimate partner violence; the torture and misogynist slaying of women; and the killing of women and girls in the name of “honour”.

Femicide is nothing new.  In fact, the term itself was publicly introduced as early as 1976 by Dr Diana Russell while testifying before the International Tribunal on Crimes Against Women, when she attributed the crime to ‘hatred, contempt, pleasure or a sense of ownership of women’ by men. However, not all scholars accept the definition.  Although many stress gender-related motivation (i.e. misogyny) as key to the categorisation of the killing of a woman as femicide, others refer to broader patriarchal and violent structures.

The Mexican anthropologist Marcela Lagarde even differentiates feminicide from femicide to emphasise that women are systematically killed because they are women and because of state neglect. Other writers are keen to include a wider range of contexts in which femicide occurs, for example in genocide or during wartime more generally. These debates highlight the lack of agreement on the concept and of related measurements for the prevalence of the crime, contributing to a degree of impunity and invisibility of the crime itself.

In terms of societal factors, patriarchal and sexist views legitimise violence to ensure the dominance and superiority of men. Other cultural factors include gender stereotypes and prejudice, normative expectations of femininity and masculinity, the socialization of gender, an understanding of the family sphere as private and under male authority, and a general acceptance of violence as part of the public sphere (e.g. street sexual harassment of women) and as an acceptable means to solve conflict and assert oneself.

Religious and historical traditions have also sanctioned the physical punishment of women under the notion of entitlement and ownership of women. The concept of ownership, in turn, legitimises control over women’s sexuality, which, according to many legal codes, has been deemed essential to ensure patrilineal inheritance.

Sexuality is also tied to the concept of so-called family honour in many societies, though not in Malta. Traditional norms in these societies allow the killing of women suspected of defiling the honour of the family by indulging in forbidden sex or marrying and divorcing without the consent of the family. Norms around sexuality also help to account for hate crimes against LGBT+ people on the grounds that they are considered a “threat” to societal norms. The same norms around sexuality account for the rape of women.

It was not until 2011 that the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention) raised public awareness of a need for data collection on femicide in European countries. Although the Convention has no specific definition of femicide, it requires states to collect disaggregated statistical data on all forms of violence against women.  It also defines aggravating circumstances or contexts that might lead to femicide in intimate partner violence.  Malta signed the Istanbul Convention in May 2012 and ratified it in July 2014.

Data Collection is one of the purposes for which the European Observatory on Femicide (EOF) was launched in 2018.  Based at the University of Malta, the Observatory supports Europe-wide country research groups that act as focal points for the collection, joint analysis and dissemination of data. It is incredible that, throughout the current controversy, nobody   ̶   be it the Government, the Opposition and NGOs   ̶   referred to the Observatory or bothered to contact it for any light it can throw on the issues. 

According to the Observatory, based on data published by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, out of the 81,000 women and girls who were killed in 2020, around 47,000 (58 per cent) died at the hands of an intimate partner or a family member   ̶   this equals a woman or girl being killed every 11 minutes in their home. In the same year, 788 women across 17 EU Member States were killed by their intimate partners; Malta’s figure was one.

In relative terms, looking at the number of victims per 100,000 female population, Africa is the region with the highest femicide rate   ̶   2.7 per 100,000, and Europe with the lowest rate   ̶   0.7 per 100,000.  Malta’s rate in 2020 was 0.19.  The number of gender-related killings in 2020 in Western Europe increased by 11 per cent, while in Northern America they rose eight per cent, in Central America by three per cent, while there was a slight decrease of five per cent in Eastern Europe.   

I was struck by an EOF study which established that there is no explicit legal definition for femicide or the killing of women on the basis of their gender in the legislation of five countries, namely Malta, Cyprus, Germany, Portugal and Spain. Most forms of violence against women  – including femicide cases – tend to be regulated by other legal provisions, and differently in each country. In Malta, the law does not consider the crime of killing women as aggravated due to Gender Based Violence.  However, it recognises aggravating circumstances in certain cases where the offence is related to gender e.g., cases resulting in grievous bodily harm.

Portugal diverges from the other four countries in that, if the killing is motivated by hate based on sex, gender identity or sexual orientation, it can be classified as qualified homicide, which is the most serious type of homicide. Spain is the only country where femicide, although not explicitly defined in national law, is recognised as a form of GBV. The country also diverges from the others in that it has laws with a legal definition of femicide, but only at regional levels. Finally, Portugal and Spain are among the countries with clear legal definitions that classify a homicide by a former or current spouse or partner as an aggravating circumstance that leads to higher sanctions. Why do femicides arise?

The under-representation of women and LGBT+ people in power and politics means that they have fewer opportunities to shape the discussion and to affect changes in policy, or to adopt measures to combat gender-based violence and support equality. The topic of gender-based violence is in some cases deemed not to be important, with domestic violence also being given insufficient resources and attention. Women’s and LGBT+ movements have raised questions and increased public awareness around traditional gender norms, highlighting aspects of inequality. For some, this threat to the status quo has been used as a justification for violence.

Now that two committees of the House of Representatives are going to delve into the matter, it might be appropriate for them to consider the legislation in other countries and examine whether some of the provisions in other EU member states and in the Istanbul Convention could be incorporated in our legislation. Perhaps this would be an occasion for the 12 women in our Parliament to make their voices heard, since most of them seem to be in a comatose state.

Mind you, my personal view is that femicide laws are not a greater deterrent than the normal murder laws.  Most femicides, much like other murders, are either committed on the spur of the moment or, if planned, are not the result of a rational weighing by the murderer of the pros and cons of the crime.

Even if a femicide is punished by a higher jail sentence, it is most unlikely that somebody who is determined to be rid of his girlfriend, partner or wife will even be swung not to commit the crime because the punishment is a few years more than normal.  It is the least of the considerations that sway him one way or the other.

A femicide law, therefore, is a sop to public opinion, to women’s organisations, and to politicians who want to avoid being accused of doing nothing about the issue.  Personally, it’s not that I believe we shouldn’t have had the law, simply that it does not change anything directly on the ground.  The domestic violence law already provided the framework for effective action to address the issues involved.

What is needed on the ground is education of both boys and girls in our schools.  Educational initiatives play a pivotal role in domestic violence prevention. Programmes about respectful relationships should be integrated into schools, teaching students about healthy relationships, consent, and conflict resolution from an early age.

As far as the Police and domestic violence support systems are concerned, the criticism by the Opposition and certain organisations is exaggerated.  As the statistics show, many more women are reporting abuse and finding support from the Police structure and Aġenzija Sapport.  Yet, there remains room for improvement in both, particularly by a more pro-active approach by the Police which should, if necessary, be bolstered by more powers to restrain potential offenders.