Honour?

You've got completely the wrong end of the stick. The boyfriend issue, in both cases I spoke of, was the one where they were most strict.
Dont think so, what I have been referring to is the bit where you said

She was Bengali. She'd had boyfriends before, but they had to be chaperoned if they went anywhere

This wouldnt happen with the families knowledge/blessing

Similar with the other example where you said 'One that I spoke to said any fella she went out with would need to firstly be Muslim, but also originally from the exact same area of India her family came from. Even then they'd still need to be approved by her dad'

Its not about approval or background/ethnicity etc, its like I said boyfriend = no no.

In fact your initial response is what is most likely to be true ehn you said 'I've worked with Asian girls who've said they wouldn't dare get with a bloke from toutside their community for fear of their dad beating the **** out of them' The only wrong thing being where you say outside the community. As I said its not about race etc

The difference is that when white women are the victim of violence, it doesn't tend to be because they have shamed the family.

depends how and what you se as shamed really. As in the example I gave earlier. some scenarios where white people are the perpetrators its domestic violence, same scenario for other groups is 'honour'.

I'm sure they do everywhere.

and that is the point

I didn't say "Sikhs and Hindus are more westernised". I said Sikhs and Hindus I've known personally have been more westernised.

what you actually said is 'I've always found that Hindus and Sikhs are more westernised' yet this goes against the stats in terms of actual honour killings. Even the woman in the lead story on the news who had a sister burnt to death was actually a sikh. So the people you personally know dont reflect the 'trend' and if they dont then what makes you think the others do?