Europe is screwed
A German judge has cited the Koran in denying a speedy divorce to a woman of Moroccan descent whose husband was beating her and threatening to kill her:
In January, the judge turned down the wife’s request for a speedy divorce, saying her husband’s behavior did not constitute unreasonable hardship because they are both Moroccan. “In this cultural background,” she wrote, “it is not unusual that the husband uses physical punishment against the wife.”
Ms. Becker-Rojczyk filed a request to remove the judge from the case, contending that she had not been neutral.
In a statement defending her ruling, Judge Datz-Winter noted that she had ordered the man to move out and put a restraining order on him. But she also cited the verse in the Koran that speaks of a husband’s prerogatives in disciplining his wife. And she suggested that the wife’s Western lifestyle would give her husband grounds to claim his honor had been compromised.
The woman, her lawyer said, does not wear a headscarf. She has been a German citizen for eight years.
TheAmber wrote:
To say that I am appalled by the ruling (esp. by a female judge) is an understatement. At the same time there is something that is making me wonder if there are nuances to her ruling that might have been missed in the reporting. “And she suggested that the wife’s Western lifestyle would give her husband grounds to claim his honor had been compromised.” In the wake of a string of honor killings keeping the case active in the courts (and the news) might actually keep the woman safer than a quick divorce. The woman’s attorney says that they are worried that as long as they are legally married the husband might think he has the right to kill his wife. I am more than willing to say I am totally wrong and I may well be so, but if the husband is a crazed enough religious zealot to think that he has the right to kill his wife, will such a presumption really end when the government no longer recognizes the marriage? Somehow I don’t think so. I HE claims that his abuse has religious support then their marriage and his claim on her as his wife cannot be simply dissolved by the courts. It must be religiously dissolved to end his claim on her. If the “dishonor’ of his wife’s western lifestyle is compounded by the dishonor of a quick western divorce that has no regard for their religious union I would think that a quick divorce would put her in more danger, not less.
Posted on 26-Mar-07 at 8:12 am | Permalink
John wrote:
You don’t have to be a “crazed religious zealot” to think you have the right to kill your wife; you just have to be slightly on the conserative side of mainstream Islam.
Posted on 26-Mar-07 at 10:05 am | Permalink
neill wrote:
On topic, I think it’s interesting to see Europe continue to flail with “solutions” to the immigration question:
Britain–buy off one guy per ghetto, and let him do whatever the hell he wants as long as they occasionally turn over a drug dealer; hope that they assimilate.
France–also leave them in the ghettos, and then ignore that there IS something between Man and the State after all; assume they’ll assimilate.
Germany–assume they *won’t* assimilate? Points for originality, anyway.
Posted on 26-Mar-07 at 12:12 pm | Permalink
Chris wrote:
German spouses are generally required to be separated for one year until they can file for divorce, so says my German friend. This may seem conservative, but keep in mind that Germany does not recognize church weddings as legal ceromonies. Couples must get married officially in a government building by a government official.
Posted on 26-Mar-07 at 12:15 pm | Permalink
pjk wrote:
if that’s the case, chris, the judge should have cited german law in her decision. not the koran. same with your point, amber. we don’t have to guess at the judges motivations or reasoning: she wrote it down, and what she wrote says that she was judging the case according the woman’s “culture,” not german law. as neill points out, this is more or less throwing in the towel.
Posted on 26-Mar-07 at 5:22 pm | Permalink
TheAmber wrote:
I realize that she ruled according to the woman’s culture not German law. I think perhaps I missunderstood your (and possibly the NY Times’) problem with her ruling. Both the Times article and your comments on it seemed to take issue with the culture that the judge based her ruling on, not that the judge ruled according to cultural mores and not according to German Law. So what you (Krupa) are saying is that you would have no issue with her ruling had she cited German law and not the woman’s culture as her reason for her ruling?
Posted on 27-Mar-07 at 8:36 am | Permalink
pjk wrote:
yes, that’s what I’m saying.
Posted on 27-Mar-07 at 9:25 am | Permalink
TheAmber wrote:
O.K. That makes sense then … that was not how I was reading it, perhaps because I read the Times article sort of in the middle of reading your post and that doesn’t seem to be what the Times article was getting at.
Posted on 27-Mar-07 at 1:20 pm | Permalink