In an effort to find direction and clarity I began writing letters to Shafilea. I was reminded that Shafilea’s murder had evoked a desire to respond to her death and to bring her story to light. It became obvious that writing in any form other than in the first person would create a sense of distance. In the first person narrative she would have a voice that survives its ‘own performance’(Atwood, p.158). Cixous reminded me to be truthful to my writing, ‘I will talk about truth again, without which (without the word truth, without the mystery truth) there would be no writing. It is what writing wants’.I was preoccupied with more questions: what if the truth is inconvenient to certain groups within society? In the wake of Shafilea’s murder trial the media grasped onto idea of her murder as an ‘honour killing’. This term is often assigned by the media to crimes committed (mostly) against women of the Asian diaspora by (mostly) male members of their own family. If one must use labels, then the correct term is Honour Based Violence(HBV). In ‘Honour’ Killing & Violence Theory, Policy & Practice Aisha K. Gill explains that there is no one set ‘honour’ system, there are many variations depending upon ‘location, their regional culture and their families socio-economic status’. Drawing from my own experience as a woman from the South Asian diaspora, I am aware that HBV is rarely discussed and considered an unpalatable topic. When the media ‘others’ these crimes the instinct of communities is one of closing up. Why then would I tackle an issue which may attract a hostile response to the work and how could I avoid ‘othering’ of crimes committed by those from my own greater community Regarding potential hostile responses to my work, I found encouragement in Saadat Manto, who despite threats of imprisonment continued to write what he believed was necessary. More recently, there is strength in the words of Arundhati Roy: ‘the point of the writer is to be unpopular.