Back in the mid-1990s, a reporter asked Oprah Winfrey why she rarely interviewed victims of domestic abuse any longer. She replied that when her show started, many were reluctant to discuss such topics publicly. That silence ensured too many people would not seek help. But years later, public intolerance of abuse was widespread and she thought such interviews were largely unnecessary.

Oprah's comments came to mind again after a recent conversation with Aruna Papp. Unlike Oprah, Papp is not a household name. But most readers might recall an issue she helped pitch into Canada's public consciousness last summer: "honour" killings.

That subject was not new. That a father, son or other male relative murdered a daughter, sister or wife for "dishonour" had already made headlines in Canada over the past decade. But Papp's study, Culturally-Driven Violence Against Women, garnered significant media, policy and political attention because it put such violence in its proper context.

Papp's work was notable for its bold assertion that these killings were culturespecific, i.e., that while domestic violence occurs everywhere, such murders resulted from specific cultural norms (including some anti-women religious assumptions) prevalent in southeast Asian communities. To combat such violence on an educational and social work level at least, it thus needed to be addressed in that framework.

A social worker who has laboured extensively in Toronto's newer ethnic communities, Papp knows of what she speaks. Growing up in India, her father was abusive; so too was her first husband (15 years her senior, a union that resulted from an arranged marriage when she was just 17).

In her first marriage, Papp long feared for her life even after her divorce, as her ex-husband, her parents and even her grandmother "could kill me and she would get away with it," said Papp in our recent exchange. It wasn't until she had been in Canada for many years (she arrived in 1972) that Papp began to carve out an independent life.

Papp has her critics. Some come from the enclaves where such murders take place and where too many are silent, perhaps out of fear, or in some cases, out of a cultural bias that should be challenged. But just as often, the most predictable critics are young, urban, universityeducated white women who think culture can never be blamed for anything.

Such reticence is found among those who elevate open-mindedness above observation and thus make tolerance the mortal enemy of moral clarity. Such myopic, morally relativistic tolerance-first types can see faults in their own culture, but they are blind to the warts that exist in other cultures.

The same critics also have a weird guilt complex about pointing out the obvious: One's belief system will affect one's actions. So to get to the root of a problem -"honour" killings in this case -one must first acknowledge religious and cultural assumptions that can be deadly.

Had undesirable aspects of western culture and its traditional religion been off limits over the past half millennium, the freeing of slaves, women's suffrage and independence, and a thousand other desirable outcomes would have been stifled. In the West, certain cultural presuppositions based upon Christian scriptures were properly challenged. That included selected biblical admonitions that treated women as chattel and approved of slavery.

As applied to other cultures and religions today, a critique of certain beliefs -an over-emphasis on honour or tribalism -should not be read as damning the entire culture, religion or those who participate in the same. When Papp's study was released (which I commissioned at the think-tank that then employed me), one fellow e-mailed me and was insulted because he thought his community was broadbrushed. Wrong. That's the point about individuality: Others may define you by culture, gender or orientation; you may define yourself according to an entirely different set of characteristics (maybe nationalism, political beliefs, your attitude to nature or religion).

The present difference between the domestic abuse in the communities identified by Papp and in mainstream Canadian society is in the motivation and in the subsequent response of such communities. When Mel Gibson was angry and accused of violence by his ex-girlfriend last year, no one excused his behaviour on the grounds that his girlfriend offended the family or community honour. That's not yet the case in all communities where murders for reasons of "honour" have taken place, though I suspect many women in such communities silently cheer on Papp's frank analysis.

Papp's observational honesty and toughness will bring positive change on this file for years, and not just in Canada. Her work on culturally-driven violence (which includes a book later this year) parallels the early efforts of Oprah: to shine a light on attitudes that must first be exposed if they are ever to be disinfected.

Mark Milke's coluMn appears every sunday.