Courts favour multiculturalism over women's rights

Columnist Johann Hari for The Independent looks at some bizarre rulings by German courts recently allowing persons of particular race or religion their own laws in Germany... unless they are female.

Apparently Der Speigel has a longer list of these verdicts but this article (How multiculturalism is betraying women) mentions a few.

Some quotes:

How awful!! I'm horrified.

interesting. thanks for posting this Marshbot

The first case was discussed here: Physical abuse in a Muslim marriage

will someone please tell johann hari of the independent that the so-called crux case he leads with is an old story, that the judge in question was roundly criticised from all sides, and was immediately replaced in the case?

does hari mention this? no.

why do journalists writing from other countries think they can get away with lies like this?

perhaps because it feeds on pre-conceived notions, so nobody bothers to check

The judge was roundly criticized and replaced in the case, but not fired altogether? Still a scandal then, IMHO.

Terrible that a woman might believe she is moving to a country with a better record of civil rights for women, only to find that she will be judged based on her old country's religion and customs.

I find this kind of story exceedingly ironic in a country where the natives often complain about immigrants not integrating.

Fired for making one mistake? Let's give her a break already. She was yanked off the case and suffered a lot of indignities. Isn't that enough?

Why should the actions of one judge be used to illustrate the mindset of an entire country?

because Judges are (in every Western country) suppose to uphold the law with respect for people and their cultures. She (the judge) in this case did not do that, she went against German Law, and made racial comments. She should have been fired for that.

I swear some of you people have the memory of a goldfish and even fewer analytical skills.


That is a correct (if unpopular) interpretation of Germany's laws which concern allowing a divorce to take place without the one-year waiting period.

woof.

The cantankerous canine is right and it is the judge's job to interpret impartially the law in this case, even if she doesn't agree...

Agreed...she is (as a judge) supposed to make decisions based on the law and not her own opinion.

If the woman was only required to be seperated from the man (which I'm guessing she would have wanted!) for a year before divorce, then I think the uproar was misplaced and I feel bad for the judge in question who was only trying to do her job. Judges often make decisions that cause disagreement, but the fact that they make them anyway is what makes them a good judge. No?!

What bothers me is that the author of this article is not wearing a tie.
I do not give a sideways glance at any man who doesnt wear a tie...some sort of beatnik I suppose.
Whatever he is writing about couldnt possibly have any merit becasue he is not wearing a tie.

So going from BD's post, I have the following two questions:

1. Could a non-Muslim woman expect to be granted an exception to the one-year waiting period if her husband beat her? If so, then it is obviously not fair to treat Muslim women differently than non-Muslim women. Unless Germany wants to start running a special Sharia court system option for Muslims.

2. Would it be acceptable under Muslim law for the husband to continue beating his estranged wife with impunity, since she is still his wife until the waiting period is over? It seems unwise for the judge to have potentially left the woman in harm's way, if so.

It seems to me these are the kind of cases that exceptions to the rule were made for, and the very reason German law will grant people a hearing if they believe they should be exempt from the waiting period.

Also, silty1, I'd say you're being unnecessarily defensive here. I wouldn't say the mindset of the entire population of Germany is being blamed for one judge's interpretation of German law and the Koran. A lot of countries are struggling with similar issues, especially when it comes to immigrants.

cinzia,

that remark was based on your saying, "only to find that she will be judged based on her old country's religion and customs." Yes, she was judged - not by the entire country but by *one* person, someone who is no longer in a position to judge her. It was a mistake. The judge learned her lesson. Still waiting for the Independant to run a column letting its readers know that.

I think you're going to be waiting a long time, silty1. Although many of the examples given in the Independent column were German, the main issue was the fate of women caught in the jaws of "multiculturalist" notions in Europe at large. Even an example from Canada was included, which is why I'm saying it's unnecessary to be so defensive of the German population at large. If BD is correct, then, yup, that's the law in Germany and all the judge did was follow what she thought the law intended.

Obviously, Germany needs to have a look at their laws, but all countries need to heighten their awareness of what "religious" and "cultural" practices they do and should tolerate and which they don't and won't when they conflict with human rights issues. I think that was the intention of the column, and it still stands, no matter what kind of public outcry may have erupted in Germany after the government, as represented by the judge, handed down its insensitive decision in the matter of this woman's divorce.

I don't see how you can defend someone's position when that position is supported by examples which are a distortion of the truth. He has an intolerant axe to grind about multiculturalism and chose as his lead example a case about which if he had told the full story would have undermined his position. I find most arguments against multiculturalism - a way of life I grew up with in Canada and which I see as a model for the rest of the world - are an anti-immigrant fig leaf.

I personally think that religion has no place in the legal system in anyway. There should no exception i mean if i cant beat my wife then he should not beable to beat his

Yet another reason not to let legal graduates here in copntinental Europe (not Germany alone) enter the judiciary after being admitted to the Bar. They should be required to become "real" lawyers for at least ten years - preferably 20 - in order to get a good idea of what it's like "out there".

That's terrible. It reminds me of this: Strange Fruit: Why Both Sides Are Wrong in the Race Debate In this book review, the reviewer argues that cases of this kind suggest "an underlying racism masquerading as cultural sensitivy":