REVIEW
:
Documents
from the Council of Europe “Women and Religion in Europe” - Fall
2005
http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/AdoptedText/ta05/ERES1464.htm
|
Resolution 1464
(2005)1
Women
and religion in Europe
1. In the
lives of many European women, religion continues to play an important role.
Whether they are
believers or not, most women are affected in one way or another by the attitude
of different faiths towards women, directly or through their traditional
influence on society or the State.
2. This
influence is seldom benign: women’s rights are often curtailed or violated in
the name of religion. While most religions teach equality of women
and men before God, they attribute different roles to women and men on earth.
Religiously motivated gender stereotypes have conferred upon men a sense of
superiority which has led to discriminatory treatment of women by men and even
violence at their hands.
3. At one
end of the spectrum lie the extreme violations of women’s human rights such as
so-called “honour” crimes, forced marriages and female genital mutilation, which
– although still rare in Europe – are on the rise in some
communities.
4. At the
other end are more subtle and less spectacular forms of intolerance and
discrimination which are much more widespread in Europe – and which can be just
as effective in achieving the subjection of women, such as the refusal to put
into question a patriarchal culture which holds up the role of wife, mother and
housewife as the ideal, and the refusal to adopt positive measures in favour of
women (for example, in parliamentary elections).
5. All
women living in Council of Europe member states have a right to equality and
dignity in all areas of life. Freedom of religion cannot be accepted as a
pretext to justify violations of women’s rights, be they open or subtle, legal
or illegal, practised with or without the nominal consent of the victims –
women.
6. It is
the duty of the member states of the Council of Europe to protect women against
violations of their rights in the name of religion and to promote and fully
implement gender equality. States must not accept any religious or
cultural relativism of women’s human rights. They must not agree to justify
discrimination and inequality affecting women on grounds such as physical or
biological differentiation based on or attributed to religion. They must fight
against religiously motivated stereotypes of female and male roles from an early
age, including in schools.
7. The
Parliamentary Assembly thus calls on the member states of the Council of Europe
to:
7.1.
fully protect all women living in their country against all violations of their
rights based on or attributed to religion by:
7.1.1.
putting into place and enforcing specific and effective policies to fight all
violations of women’s right to life, to bodily integrity, freedom of movement
and free choice of partner, including so-called “honour” crimes, forced marriage
and female genital mutilation, wherever and by whomever they are committed,
however they are justified, and regardless of the nominal consent of the victim;
this means that freedom of religion is limited by human rights;
7.1.2.
refusing to recognise foreign family codes and personal status laws based on
religious principles which violate women’s rights, and ceasing to apply them on
their own soil, renegotiating bilateral treaties if necessary;
7.2. take
a stand against violations of women’s human rights justified by religious or
cultural relativism everywhere in the world, including in international fora
such as the United Nations or the Inter-Parliamentary Union;
7.3.
guarantee the separation between the Church and the State which is necessary to
ensure that women are not subjected to religiously inspired policies and laws
(for example, in the area of family, divorce, and abortion law);
7.4.
ensure that freedom of religion and respect for culture and tradition are not
accepted as pretexts to justify violations of women’s rights, including when
underage girls are forced to submit to religious codes (including dress codes),
their freedom of movement is curtailed or their access to contraception is
barred by their family or community;
7.5.
where religious education is permitted in schools, ensure that this teaching is
in conformity with gender equality principles;
7.6. take
a stand against any religious doctrine which is antidemocratic or disrespectful
of human rights, especially women’s rights, and refuse to allow such doctrines
to influence political decision making;
7.7.
actively promote respect of women’s rights, equality and dignity in all areas of
life when engaging in dialogue with representatives of different religions, and
work on achieving full gender equality in society.
1. Assembly debate on 4
October 2005 (26th Sitting) (see Doc. 10670, report of the
Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, rapporteur: Mrs
Zapfl-Helbling).
Text adopted by the Assembly on 4 October 2005 (26th Sitting).
................................................................................................................................................................................................
http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/doc05/EDOC10670.htm
Parliamentary
Assembly |
|
Women and
religion in Europe
Doc.
10670
16
September 2005
Report
Committee
on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men
Rapporteur: Mrs Rosmarie
Zapfl-Helbling, Switzerland, Group of the European People’s
Party
Summary
In the
lives of many European women, religion continues to play an important role. In
fact, whether they are believers or not, most women are affected in one way or
another by the attitude of different faiths towards women, directly or through
their traditional influence on society or the State. This influence is seldom
benign: women’s rights are often curtailed or violated in the name of religion.
All women
living in Council of Europe member states have a right to equality and dignity
in all areas of life. Freedom of religion must not be accepted as a pretext for
justifying violations of women’s rights, be they open, subtle, legal or illegal,
practiced with or without the nominal consent of the victims – women.
It is the
duty of the member states of the Council of Europe to protect women against
violations of their rights in the name of religion and to promote and fully
implement gender equality. States must not accept any religious or cultural
relativism of women’s human rights.
The
Parliamentary Assembly should thus call on the member states of the Council of
Europe to take the necessary measures to fully protect all women living in their
country against violations of their rights based on or attributed to religion
and to take a stand against violations of women’s human rights justified by
religious or cultural relativism everywhere.
I.
Draft resolution [Link to
the adopted text]
1.
In the lives of many European women, religion continues to play an important
role. In fact, whether they are believers or not, most women are affected in one
way or another by the attitude of different faiths towards women, directly or
through their traditional influence on society or the State.
2.
This influence is seldom benign: women’s rights are often curtailed or violated
in the name of religion. While most religions teach equality of women and men
before God, they attribute different roles to women and men on earth.
Religiously motivated gender stereotypes have conferred upon men a sense of
superiority which has led to discriminatory treatment of women by men and even
violence at their hands.
3.
At one end of the spectrum lie the extreme violations of women’s human rights
such as so-called “honour” crimes, forced marriages and female genital
mutilation, which – though still rare in Europe – are on the rise in some
communities.
4.
At the other end are more subtle and less spectacular forms of intolerance and
discrimination which are much more widespread in Europe – and which can be just
as effective in achieving the subjection of women, such as the refusal to put
into question a patriarchal culture which holds up the role of wife, mother and
housewife as the ideal and the refusal to adopt positive measures in favour of
women (for example in parliamentary elections).
5.
All women living in Council of Europe member states have a right to equality and
dignity in all areas of life. Freedom of religion cannot be accepted as a
pretext to justify violations of women’s rights, be they open, subtle, legal or
illegal, practiced with or without the nominal consent of the victims – women.
6.
It is the duty of the member states of the Council of Europe to protect women
against violations of their rights in the name of religion and to promote and
fully implement gender equality. States must not accept any religious or
cultural relativism of women’s human rights. They must not agree to justify
discrimination and inequality affecting women on grounds such as physical or
biological differentiation based on or attributed to religion. They must fight
against religiously motivated stereotypes of female and male roles from an early
age, including in schools.
7.
The Parliamentary Assembly thus calls on the member states of the Council of
Europe to:
7.1.
fully protect all women living in their country against violations of their
rights based on or attributed to religion by:
7.1.1.
putting into place and enforcing specific and effective policies to fight all
violations of women’s right to life, to bodily integrity, freedom of movement
and free choice of partner, including so-called “honour” crimes, forced marriage
and female genital mutilation, wherever and by whomever they are committed,
however they are justified, and regardless of the nominal consent of the victim;
this means that freedom of religion is limited by human
rights;
7.1.2.
refusing to recognise foreign family codes and personal status laws based on
religious principles which violate women’s rights and ceasing to apply them on
their own soil, renegotiating bilateral treaties if
necessary;
7.2.
take a stand against violations of women’s human rights justified by religious
or cultural relativism everywhere, including in international fora such as the
United Nations, the IPU and others;
7.3.
guarantee the separation between the church and the State which is necessary to
ensure that women are not subjected to religiously inspired policies and laws
(e.g. in the area of family, divorce, and abortion law);
7.4.
ensure that the freedom of religion and the respect for culture and tradition
are not accepted as a pretext to justify violations of women’s rights, including
when underage girls are forced to submit to religious codes (including dress
codes), their freedom of movement is curtailed or their access to contraception
is barred by their family or community;
7.5.
where religious education is permitted in schools, ensure that this teaching is
in conformity with gender equality principles;
7.6.
take a stand against all religious doctrine which is anti-democratic or
disrespectful of human rights, especially women’s rights, and refuse to allow
such doctrines to influence political decision-making;
7.7.
actively promote respect of women’s rights, equality and dignity in all areas of
life when engaging in dialogue with representatives of different religions and
work on achieving full gender equality in society.
II.
Explanatory memorandum by Mrs Zapfl-Helbling
A.
Introduction
1.
In the lives of many European women, religion continues to play an important
role. In fact, whether they are believers or not, most women are affected in one
way or another by the attitude of different faiths towards women, directly or
through their traditional influence on society or the State.
2.
The three monotheistic faiths (Jewish, Christian and Muslim) have the most
followers in Council of Europe member states, but the influence of the different
churches on the State and on society varies from country to country. Thus, for
example, France is a lay state by virtue of its Constitution; Germany organises
religious teaching in schools, and allows Christian, Jewish and Muslim Councils
a large say in, for example, matters of ethics; the Russian Orthodox Church
holds an important position in Russia; and a Muslim revival can be witnessed
both in parts of South-Eastern Europe and in immigrant communities across the
whole of Europe.
3.
When it comes to the attitude of these faiths to women, however, their influence
is not always benign. Equality of women and men is not a doctrine that is
central to the faith – on the contrary, centuries-old discrimination against
women often continues to reign. It is a well-known fact that, for example, the
Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches do not allow women to be ordained as
priests and condemn both “unnatural” contraception methods and abortion; or
that, in general, the Muslim faith is interpreted as requiring the use of
headscarves (or more) by women.
4.
All women living in Council of Europe member states have a right to equality and
dignity in all areas of life. This includes the right of women to abide by
religious teaching if they so wish – but it also includes their right not to do
so, even if this means breaking with the predominant culture and tradition of
the community in question. The problem is the reaction of this community, which
does not always accept such religious non-conformity practised by women. Some
members of the community even go so far as to exclude such women, or resort to
so-called “honour crimes” to bring these “errant” women back into the fold (if
they do not kill them). You might recall in this context the Assembly’s recent
Resolution 1327 (2003) on “so-called honour crimes”, which was based on a report
prepared by Mrs Cryer for our Committee.
5.
Obviously, the question of women and religion is an extremely sensitive one;
nevertheless, in view of the broad influence of religion on society in general
and the situation of women in particular, it must be tackled. Council of Europe
member states should be encouraged to take the appropriate measures to ensure
that women have complete freedom to abide or not by religious teaching, and that
they suffer no negative consequences whatever their
choice.
6.
I took over this file from the former Rapporteur, Mrs Aguiar (Portugal, EPP/CD)
a few months ago, as she left the Assembly. She already drafted an outline
report, which has also inspired my memorandum, and she organised a hearing on
the issue with representatives of the main European faiths in September 2004
within the Committee[1]. At our
meeting in Paris on 3 June 2005, we held, in addition, an exchange of views with
representatives of the two faiths which were not represented at that hearing,
the Catholic Church and Islam.
7.
In this explanatory memorandum, I intend to throw light on the possible conflict
between freedom of religion and women’s rights. I will then reproduce Mrs
Aguiar’s outline of the attitude of the five faiths which have the most
followers in Europe, i.e. the Christian faith (broken down into the Roman
Catholic Church, ProtestantChurches and OrthodoxChurches), Islam and Judaism,
towards key policy areas which impact on women’s lives: contraception, abortion
and divorce. I will also consider the role and weight of women within these
faiths, such as whether women are allowed (and encouraged) to hold clerical
office, before drawing my conclusions and proposing some recommendations.
B.
The interface between freedom of religion and women’s rights
8.
As we all know, certain fundamental human rights are sometimes in conflict which
each other (such as the freedom of the press and the right to privacy), and –
although both concepts are equally important and universal – it becomes
necessary to decide where the one ends and the other begins. This is also the
case with the freedom of religion and women’s human rights. I think there is no
European state which still has discriminatory laws on the statute books that
clearly violate women’s human rights, although there are, unfortunately,
plenty of states in the world which still do. But general discrimination against
women is a reality also in Europe – for example, our Committee has recently
presented reports to the Assembly on discrimination against women in such
diverse areas as the workplace and sport.
9.
It is a fact that much of this discrimination is inspired by the dominant
culture of the respective country, which, in turn, is often influenced by (or
justified by) religious teachings or sentiments. Thus, discrimination against
women and violation of their rights is often trivialised and tolerated even in
our European societies. Of course, depending on the relation between the church
and the State, such attitudes are often not openly attributed to religion, but
to culture and tradition. Thus, as explains an excellent 2002 study by the then
United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Mr
Abdelfattah Amor, on freedom of religion or belief and the status of women as
regards religion and tradition[2]: ” The
problem stems from the fact that a number of practices detrimental to women’s
health or legal status, or to their status in general, are upheld by individuals
and communities, and also states, which engage in these practices or perceive
them as a component of freedom of religion and as a religious obligation to
which they and their ancestors have been subject since time immemorial; they see
these practices as having nothing to do with issues relating to the universal
protection of women’s rights”.[3]
10.
For decades, the United Nations has combated this “cultural relativism” argument
put forward by a number of states to justify violations of women’s rights. I
think it is clear to us all in Europe that such cultural relativism is
unacceptable, and that women’s rights are universal, just as human rights are
universal. But it is, unfortunately, sometimes difficult to separate cultural
traditions and religion as such – which means that some ostensibly religious
practices violate women’s universal rights (female genital mutilation, crimes of
honour, certain practices linked to marriage and its dissolution, lack of access
to education or certain professions, and the preference of boys, being just the
most obvious examples). And it is not only men who insist on continuing such
practices: paradoxically, in particular in times of conflict or crises of
identity, the victims themselves – women – play an important role in
perpetuating these practices.[4]
11.
In Europe, such practices are rare outside certain minority religions or
immigrant communities. However, this does not mean that European societies
necessarily fully respect women’s rights. As the former United Nations Special
Rapporteur pointed out in his study: “In every society there are informal
customs and traditions which can play a part – sometimes a greater one than
legislation – in controlling women’s lives”[5], “The
persistence of patriarchal culture and the importance still assigned to women’s
traditional role as mothers and wives responsible for childcare and to men’s
role as breadwinners legitimise and reinforce the prevailing stereotypes. Most
cultures, including those of some industrialised countries, are exposed to these
patriarchal behaviour patterns”[6].
12.
Thus, for example, Article 41 paragraph 2 of the Irish Constitution reads: “In
particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives
to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved. The
State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by
economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the
home.” Liechtenstein, Spain, Germany and Luxembourg have also recently been
criticised by the CEDAW Committee for their lack of de facto equality
between women and men – but I do not expect the situation to be much better in
other Council of Europe member states, including my own. As the Special
Rapporteur writes: “The most horrifying and obvious examples of
discrimination committed in the name of religion should not divert attention
from more subtle and less spectacular forms of intolerance and discrimination
which are just as effective in achieving the subjection of women, such as the
refusal to adopt positive measures in favour of women, for example in
parliamentary elections, and the refusal to initiate a public dialogue on sex
equality”.[7]
13.
I think that the interface between the freedom of religion and women’s rights
has now been made clear: freedom of religion must end when violations of women’s
rights begin, be they open, subtle, legal or illegal, practiced with or without
the nominal consent of the victims – women. It is the duty of the member states
of the Council of Europe to protect women against the violations of their
rights, and promote and fully implement gender equality. States must not accept
any cultural or religious relativism of human rights, they must not agree to
justify discrimination and inequality affecting women on grounds such as
physical or biological differentiation based on or attributed to religion. This
is especially important in those states which permit religious education in
schools: it is important for those states to ensure that all religious teaching
in schools fully respects gender equality principles.
C.
Violations of women’s rights in the name of religion
14.
Until today, women’s rights are violated in the name of religion all over the
world. The most extreme violations – those which touch such vital human rights
as the right to life, to bodily integrity, to freedom of movement and choice of
partner – are, thankfully, not common in Europe, but they, too, are on the rise,
in particular in some immigrant communities and communities which have fallen
under the spell of religious extremism. The worrying increase in cases of
so-called “honour crimes” (murders, attempted murders and the persecution of
girls and women refusing to abide by certain religious and/or cultural norms by
members of their family and community)[8] and of forced marriages[9], and the failure to eradicate the violent
practice of female genital mutilation[10] are all cases in
point.
15.
However, the main violations of women’s rights which can be attributed to
religion in Council of Europe member states are more subtle, and stem from the
fact that the dominant monotheistic faiths in Europe (with the exception,
perhaps, of the Lutherans) do not genuinely support gender equality. As Ms Sallé
from the Pontifical Council for the Laity at the Vatican explained during our
second Committee hearing, in the view of the Catholic Church men and women had
been given specific and non-interchangeable responsibilities by God. In other
words, while women and men may be equal before God, they are meant to fulfil
different roles on earth. Traditionally, thus, the Catholic Church has
emphasized the role of wife, mother and housewife for women, as has the Orthodox
Church. Over the centuries, such religiously motivated gender stereotypes have
conferred a sense of superiority upon men, and have thus led to discriminatory
treatment of women. They have even been used to justify violence against women
“to keep them in their place”.
16.
That women may want to shoulder other responsibilities instead of or as well as
such “caring” responsibilities, including decision-making responsibilities, was
vilified as recently as last year by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith of the Catholic Church, which wrote in its letter to the bishops of the
Catholic Church “on the collaboration of men and women in the church and in the
world” of 31 July 2004: “Faced with the abuse of power, the answer for women is
to seek power. This process leads to opposition between men and women, in which
the identity and role of one are emphasized to the disadvantage of the other,
leading to harmful confusion regarding the human person, which has its most
immediate and lethal effects in the structure of the family.”[11] The Catholic Church considers that
“woman, in her deepest and original being, exists “for the other””[12] – women are seen as living “the
dispositions of listening, welcoming, humility, faithfulness, praise and
waiting…with particular intensity and naturalness”[13].
17.
This religious stereotyping of women’s character and role is not compatible with
our modern understanding of gender equality and equal opportunities for women
and men, because it reinforces women and men’s traditional positions in society
and deprives them of the opportunity to take on responsibilities traditionally
reserved for the other sex: men are not encouraged to take on “caring”
responsibilities (such as looking after their children or elderly parents, or
taking on more household chores), while women are relegated to the “three Ks”
(in German: “Kinder, Küche, Kirche” – “children, kitchen, church”) and are not
encouraged to work outside the home or take on positions of responsibility in
the political or economic sphere. It should thus come as no surprise that
societies in which the Catholic and OrthodoxChurches exert a lot of influence
are amongst those in Europe in which the labour participation rates of women and
the number of women in parliament are amongst the lowest (Spain being a notable
exception)[14].
18.
Islam is, in general, not any better than the Catholic and Orthodox faiths at
promoting gender equality. On the contrary, traditional and extremist
interpretations of the Islamic faith both curtail women’s rights to an alarming
degree, and are often used to justify severe violations of women’s human rights.
The Koran is, in fact, quite explicit about women’s rights – but while women are
seen as equal before God (just as in the Catholic and Orthodox Church), the
Koran also contains a set of instructions and “laws” regarding women. These can
be seen as progressive for the time they were written, but no longer correspond
to a modern understanding of gender equality and women’s rights. Thus, for
example, polygamy was limited to four wives (beforehand, there was no limit); a
woman’s testimony was considered as having half the weight of the testimony of
one man (beforehand, women’s testimony was worthless), women were given half the
inheritance rights of men (beforehand, they had none), etc.
19.
In Europe, these “laws” are not directly applied to women (as they are in
countries like Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Sudan, and the
Mahgreb to varying degrees). However, a number of immigrant women indirectly
still suffer from their application, as some countries (e.g. France) have
concluded treaties with some of these countries (e.g. Morocco) recognising their
personal status laws. It is thus possible for Moroccan women resident in France,
to be, for example, unilaterally repudiated by their husbands, or to have the
guardianship of their children over the age of seven taken away from them.
Needless to say, these are very severe violations of these women’s rights, and
France (and all other countries) which have entered into such treaties would be
well advised to discontinue the ill-conceived respect of other countries’
personal status laws which violate women’s rights, even if this means
renegotiating entire friendship treaties.
20.
In fact, the most widespread – and visible – problem in Europe concerns the
Islamic dress code for women, i.e. the headscarf (or, in some cases, even more
covering garments, such as the chador, the niqab and the burka). There is a
vivid debate in many countries on whether the headscarf is simply a symbol of
piety which deserves the same respect as other religions’ symbols of piety (be
it the Sikh turban or the Jewish kippa), or whether it is rather a symbol of the
submission and the subjection of women, of their “purity” or humility. The
debate is made more difficult by the fact that it is often impossible to
determine whether the wearing of a headscarf (or of even more covering garments)
is imposed, self-imposed or a matter of free choice, in particular where young
girls are concerned.
21.
Different European countries have found different ways of dealing with the
headscarf. Thus, France recently adopted a law which outlawed the wearing of all
ostentatious religious symbols in schools (including the headscarf), while
Turkey forbids the wearing of headscarves in state institutions (such as
universities or the civil service). At the other end of the spectrum, Great
Britain allows the wearing of all sorts of headscarves, veils, etc. everywhere,
including by pupils and teachers in schools.
22.
Personally, I do not find any of these solutions wholly satisfactory. Coming
from the point of view of gender equality and women’s rights, I do find it
slightly shocking that some girls attending school in Great Britain are forced
to wear very restrictive and covering clothing from the age of four or five by
their parents, and that this is accepted by the authorities. On the other hand,
I can understand that the authorities in some countries do not want to “make an
issue” of the headscarf, for fear of increasing its popularity even further;
after all, while Muslim girls may not don the headscarf in French schools, as
soon as they leave the school gates, they are subjected to so much pressure
(from both their parents and elder brothers, but also from their peers) that
most end up wearing a headscarf – for fear of otherwise not being respected,
being branded as “easy”, or worse.
23.
The reason why I find it so difficult to respect the headscarf as a religious
symbol like any other is that there is so much baggage that comes with it, a
sense of submission to the control by men of a girl or woman’s destiny and the
way she leads her life. Allowing young girls to wear headscarves in school can
quickly lead to other demands by certain Muslim communities, such as separate
swimming or sports lessons for girls in schools, or even the banning of
co-education altogether. Where do we draw the line?
D.
Attitudes towards contraception, abortion and divorce
24.
Mrs Aguiar had chosen the three policy areas of contraception, abortion and
divorce because they are key areas of policy for women, and impact directly on
many women’s lives. Artificial contraception (the pill, condoms, etc.) has not
only allowed women to make the choice of spacing their children (or not having
any at all), but barrier methods (such as the male and female condom) have, in
addition, protected many women from sexually transmitted diseases (STDs),
including HIV/AIDS. When such contraceptive methods are frowned upon by
religious authorities (and this translates into policy choices also by State
authorities), the incidence of unwanted pregnancies tends to rise, which –
ironically – in turn raises the abortion rate. The incidence of STDs and
HIV/AIDS among the female population (normally not a “high-risk”-group) also
rises in such cases, as is evidenced by the experience of Roman Catholic women
in Africa.
25.
Abortion is, of course, an extremely difficult subject – one on which views are
strongly held and heavily influenced by moral, ethical and religious teachings
and choices. Some 40 million abortions are carried out yearly worldwide, often
under unsafe conditions – costing 70.000 women their lives. I think we all can
agree that abortion should never be used as a method of family planning, but –
as the Assembly posited in Resolution 1347 (2003) on the impact of the “Mexico
City Policy” on the free choice of contraception is Europe – it should remain
safe and accessible where it is not against the law.
26.
Divorce is another sensitive area. A high percentage of marriages end in divorce
in Europe. According to the Council of Europe 2003 “Demographic Yearbook”, the
total divorce rate is rising in many countries, though it still varies
widely[15]. It is,
of course, true that many people today are choosing to live together without
getting married, or make do with a civil wedding. Many divorcees would, however,
like to remarry, which is not accepted by all religions. In Islam, divorce
rights are not evenly distributed: fundamentalist interpretations of Islam may
deny women the right to initiate a divorce, while not protecting them from
repudiation by their husbands.
The Roman
Catholic Church
27.
The Roman Catholic Church has a very restrictive position on contraception,
divorce and abortion. It interprets the sixth commandment (“You shall not commit
adultery”) widely, and thus reserves sexual intercourse to married partners (of
different sexes) with a view to parenthood. The only accepted method of the
regulation of procreation is “periodic continence”, that is “methods of birth
regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods”[16]. Pope
John Paul II makes a connection between contraception and abortion in his
Encyclical Evangelium Vitae: “Certainly, from the moral point of view
contraception and abortion are specifically different evils… but despite their
differences of nature and moral gravity, contraception and abortion are often
closely connected, as fruits of the same tree.”[17] Abortion
itself is considered a “moral evil”, and a breach of the fifth commandment (“You
shall not kill.”), as human life is to be respected and protected absolutely
from the moment of conception[18]. Divorce
is considered “a grave offense against the natural law. (…) Contracting a new
union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the
rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent
adultery.” [19] As concerns the position of women in the
Church itself, women cannot be ordained as priests.
Protestant
churches
28.
Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, protestant churches are not centrally
organised, and different protestant churches will take different positions on
matters of the faith. Thus, for example, evangelical denominations originating
in America may hold similar views to the Roman Catholic Church on contraception,
abortion and divorce. These views are, however, not dominant in Europe. Taking
the birthplace of Martin Luther as an example, the Evangelical Church in
Germany, which is an institutional form for Protestant churches that includes a
community of 24 Lutheran churches, considers that there is no duty to marry or
to have children (although this does not, of course, exclude the desirability of
both!)[20], and
thus excludes neither contraception, abortion, nor divorce. Divorcees are
allowed to remarry, and women can be ordained as priests.
Orthodox
Churches
29.
There are 15 Autocephalous (self-governing) and 4 Autonomous (self-ruling)
OrthodoxChurches around the World, most of them in Europe. The control of the
conception of a child by any means is condemned by the Orthodox Church “if it
means the lack of fulfilment in the family, the hatred of children, the fear of
responsibility, the desire for sexual pleasure as purely fleshly, lustful
satisfaction, etc”[21]. As to
abortion, the Orthodox Church condemns it as an act of murder in every
case[22].
Regarding divorce, the Orthodox Church teaches the uniqueness of marriage, if it
will be perfect, and is opposed to divorce absolutely. If, however, a marriage
breaks down and collapses, the Orthodox Church does in fact allow a second
marriage, without excommunication, that is, exclusion from Holy Communion, “if
there is repentance and a good chance that the new alliance can be Christian.”
Women cannot be ordained as priests.
Islam
30.
As with the Protestant churches, the position of Muslim clergy and spiritual
leaders will differ in accordance with their interpretation of Islam. It is well
known that fundamentalist interpretations of the Muslim faith tend to be quite
overtly discriminatory against women, not only concerning the policy questions
discussed in this memorandum, and that they are gaining followers in Europe.
However, according to more modern interpretations, contraception is not
forbidden[23].
Abortion is outlawed unless the mother’s health or well-being is at risk (and
then, it is only permitted during the first 120 days)[24]. Divorce
is possible, but may not necessarily be initiated by the woman (save in very
specific circumstances). Islam has been used to justify grave violations of
female dignity, such as polygamy and repudiation. Women cannot usually become
prayer leaders or members of the clergy.
Judaism
31.
As with the Muslim faith, there is no central religious authority. Thus, the
attitude to contraception varies. Abortion – in restricted circumstances - is
allowed until the 40th day, as the fetus is not regarded as an
autonomous person[25]. Divorce
is authorised, but conditional on the husband’s approval. Should the husband
refuse to agree to a religious divorce (“guet”), the wife cannot remarry under
the Jewish faith, and would commit adultery if she had another partner[26]. In
principle, women cannot become rabbis, but certain groups (which are in the
minority in Europe) do allow them to do so.
E.
The blurring of the boundaries between State and religion: religion’s impact on
non-believers
32.
It is very difficult to portray the attitudes of different religions in Europe
to gender equality and key issues impacting on women’s lives in just a few
pages. In the second part of this explanatory memorandum, I have concentrated on
the policy of the different faiths towards their believers. However, there are
some instances in which a country’s dominant faith has considerably affected
State policy, thus imposing religious choices on women, whether or not they are
believers themselves. As examples, the divorce policy in Malta springs to mind,
as do the abortion laws in Ireland and Poland. Women may also find it more
difficult to gain access to birth control in deeply religious countries than in
others. Such repercussions on non-believers are difficult to grasp sometimes,
but are probably the more dangerous aspects of the conflictual relationship
between women and religion.
33.
In addition, it should not be forgotten that even many believers choose to
ignore their religion’s teaching on certain subjects, even though they are
devout. Thus, for example, a high proportion of Roman Catholics in Europe do not
believe that artificial contraception is a sin – especially when practised
within marriage. Similarly, very few Muslims in Europe would support a man’s
“right” to unilaterally repudiate his wife, or to take up to four wives – and
some would argue that a woman not covering her hair is not committing a sin,
either. Thus, even in such predominantly Roman Catholic countries such as Malta
and Ireland, a too religious State policy on divorce and/or abortion may impose
religious choices they do not agree with not only on non-believers, but also on
believers which happen to disagree with this particular
policy.
34.
The failed referendum in Italy to ease the country’s restrictive
assisted-fertility law in June 2005 is a case in point. The controversial 2004
legislation on “medically assisted reproduction” gave the embryo the same status
as a person. As a consequence, embryos created in vitro are not allowed to be
screened for genetic disorders, or to be destroyed in a lab, and cloning and
embryo stem-cell research has been banned. On the donation of sperm and eggs to
infertile couples, the Italian law is amongst the most restrictive in Europe. In
a nation-wide referendum, Italians were asked to decide whether or not to relax
the law’s most restrictive provisions. The Catholic Church waded into the
debate, campaigning not for a “no” vote, but instead urging people not to vote
at all (for the referendum to be valid, the turn-out had to be at least 50%).
Following the new pope’s intervention, only 26% of eligible voters turned out to
vote – in a country whose mainly Catholic inhabitants voted en masse to
approve laws on abortion and divorce passed in the 1970s, and who are among the
most habitual users of contraception in Europe.
35.
While I think that the Catholic Church, like all other religions, has the right
to create its own doctrine on such issues as the status of the embryo for the
faithful, and to make its views public, I agree with the International Herald
Tribune’s editorial of 14 June 2005 that “using the power of the pulpit to urge
people to stay away from the ballot box is not a religious act, but an
antidemocratic one. It is unacceptable interference”. As the editorial
concludes: “Democracy guarantees the right of every religion to preach its
values and beliefs. It does not grant churches the right to dangerously tamper
with democracy to impose their rules on everyone else.” What the Catholic Church
did had a profound effect on those infertile couples who seek fertility
treatment but are not accorded it in accordance with the 2004 law – and many of
these couples are bound to be non-believers, or Catholics disagreeing with this
particular Catholic doctrine.
36.
I might add that practically all dominant religious doctrine in Europe (with the
exception, once again, of the Lutherans) is formulated by men. In other words,
half of Europe’s population (the female half) has scant or no opportunity to
influence religious doctrine. The more religious influence we thus allow to seep
back into our societies and our political decision-making processes, the less
representative and the less respectful of women’s rights the resulting policies
and practices will tend to be.
F.
Conclusions and recommendations
37.
In the lives of many European women, religion continues to play an important
role. In fact, whether they are believers or not, most women are affected in one
way or another by the attitude of different faiths towards women, directly or
through their traditional influence on society or the State. This influence is
seldom benign: women’s rights are often curtailed or violated in the name of
religion.
38.
All women living in Council of Europe member states have a right to equality and
dignity in all areas of life. Freedom of religion must not be accepted as a
pretext for justifying violations of women’s rights, be they open, subtle, legal
or illegal, practiced with or without the nominal consent of the victims –
women.
39.
It is the duty of the member states of the Council of Europe to protect women
against violations of their rights in the name of religion, and to promote and
fully implement gender equality. States must not accept any religious or
cultural relativism of women’s human rights. They must not agree to justify
discrimination and inequality affecting women on grounds such as physical or
biological differentiation based on or attributed to religion.
40.
The Parliamentary Assembly should thus call on the member states of the Council
of Europe to:
i.
fully protect all women living in their country against violations of their
rights based on or attributed to religion by:
a.
putting into place and enforcing specific and effective policies to fight all
violations of women’s right to life, to bodily integrity, freedom of movement
and free choice of partner, including so-called “honour” crimes, forced marriage
and female genital mutilation, wherever and by whomever they are committed,
however they are justified, and regardless of the nominal consent of the
victim;
b.
refusing to recognise foreign family codes and personal status laws which
violate women’s rights, and ceasing to apply them on their own soil,
renegotiating bilateral treaties if necessary;
ii.
take a stand against violations of women’s human rights justified by religious
or cultural relativism everywhere, including in international fora such as the
United Nations, the IPU, etc.
iii.
guarantee such separation between the church and the State as is necessary to
ensure that women are not subjected to religiously inspired policies and laws
(e.g. in the area of family, divorce, and abortion law);
iv.
ensure that the freedom of religion and the respect for culture and tradition
are not accepted as a pretext to justify violations of women’s rights, including
when underage girls are forced to submit to religious codes (including dress
codes), their freedom of movement is curtailed or their access to contraception
is barred by their family or community;
v.
where religious education is permitted in schools, ensure that this teaching is
in conformity with gender equality principles;
vi.
take a stand against all religious doctrine which is anti-democratic or
disrespectful of human rights, especially women’s rights, and refuse to allow
such doctrines to influence political decision-making;
vii.
actively promote respect of women’s rights, equality and dignity in all areas of
life when engaging in dialogue with representatives of different religions, and
work on achieving full gender equality in society.
Reporting
committee:
Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men
Reference
to Committee: Doc
9856, reference N° 2855 of 8 September 2003 (extension of the deadline until 7
October 2005)
Draft
resolution adopted
by the Committee on 13 September 2005 with 22 votes in favour and one
against.
Members
of the Committee: Mrs Minodora Cliveti (Chairperson), Mrs Rosmarie
Zapfl-Helbling (1st Vice-Chairperson), Mrs Anna Curdova
(2nd Vice-Chairperson), Mrs Svetlana Smirnova (3rd
Vice-Chairperson), Ms Birgitta Ahlqvist, Mrs Edita Angyalova, Mrs
Željka Antunovic, Mr John Austin, Mr Oleksiy Baburin, Mr Denis Badré (alternate:
Mr Jean-Guy Branger), Mrs Gülsün Bilgehan, Mrs Marida Bolognesi
(alternate: Mr Fausto Giovanelli), Mrs Grazyna Ciemniak (alternate: Mr
Piotr Gadzinowski), Mrs Ingrida Circene, Mr Brendan Daly,
Mrs Krystyna Doktorowicz, Mrs Lydie Err, Mrs Catherine Fautrier, Mrs
Maria Emelina Fernández Soriano, Ms Sonia Fertuzinhos, Mr Guiseppe
Gaburro, Mrs Alena Gajdušková, Mr Pierre Goldberg, Mrs Claude
Greff, Mrs Arlette Grosskost, Ms Gultakin Hadjiyeva, Mrs Carina Hägg, Mr
Poul-Henrik Hedeboe, Mr Ilie Ilascu, Mrs Halide Incekara, Mrs
Eleonora Katseli, Baroness Knight of Collingtree, Mrs Synnove Konglevoll
(alternate: Ms Jorunn Ringstad), Mrs Monika Kryemadhi, Mrs Minna
Lintonen, Mrs Danguté Mikutiene, Mrs Fausta Morganti, Mrs Christine
Muttonen, Mrs Hermine Naghdalyan, Mr Hilmo Neimarlija, Mrs Vera
Oskina, Mr Ibrahim Özal, Mrs Patrizia Paoletti Tangheroni
(alternate: Mr Gianpietro Scherini), Ms Elsa Papadimitriou, Ms Riorita
Patereu, Mrs Fatma Pehlivan, Mrs Antigoni Pericleous-Papadopoulos, Mr Leo
Platvoet, Mrs Majda Potrata, Mr Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, Ms
Valentina Radulovic-Šcepanovic, Mr Andrea Rigoni, Ms Maria de Belém Roseira, Mrs
Claudia Roth, Mrs Marlene Rupprecht, Mr Össur Skarphédinsson (alternate: Ms
Margrét Frimannsdóttir), Mrs Rodica-Mihaela Stanoiu, Mrs Darinka
Stantcheva, Mrs Rita Streb-Hesse, Mr Michal Stuligrosz, Ms Agnes
Vadai, Mr Vagif Vakilov, Mrs Ruth-Gaby Vermot-Mangold, Mrs Williams, Mrs
Willot, Mrs Gisela Wurm, Mr Andrej Zernovski.
N.B. The
names of the members who took part in the meeting are printed in
bold.
Secretaries
of the Committee: Ms
Kleinsorge, Ms Affholder, Ms Devaux
[1] The
minutes of this hearing have been declassified and are available from the
Secretariat of the Committee (AS/Ega (2004) PV 9 addendum
I).
[2] United
Nations, Economic and Social Council, 58th session of the Commission
on Human Rights, Document No. E/CN.4/2002/73/Add.2 of 5 April
2002.
[3] Ibid, p.
5.
[4] Ibid, p.
10.
[5] Ibid, p.
11.
[6] Ibid, p.
27.
[7] Ibid, p.
48
[8] See
Assembly Resolution 1327 (2003) on so-called “honour crimes” and Doc.
9720.
[9] See
Assembly Document 10590, my report on forced marriages and child marriages, due
to be debated during the October 2005 part-session of the Assembly.
[10] See
Assembly Resolution 1247 (2001) on female genital mutilation and Doc.
9076.
[11] Letter
available from the website of the Vatican (www.vatican.va) in seven languages,
paragraphI. 2. The letter was signed by the then Cardinal Ratzinger, now the new
Pope.
[12] Ibid,
paragraph 6.
[13] Ibid,
paragraph 16.
[14] Examples
of such countries with a low participation rate of women in the labour market:
Bulgaria (56.34%), Croatia (52.61%), Romania (61.82%), Moldova (61.83%), Russia
(59.1%), Ukraine (62.75%). Figures for the year 2000 as published by UNIFEM in
2004. Examples of such countries with a low number of women in parliament:
Cyprus (16.1%), France (12.2%), Greece (14%), Ireland (13.3%), Italy (11.5%),
Malta (9.2%), Poland (20.2%), Portugal (21.3%), Romania (11.2%), Russia (9.8%),
Serbia and Montenegro (7.9%), Ukraine (5.3%). Figures according to IPU data of
30 June 2005.
[15] The
highest rates were recorded in Sweden (0.55), Belgium (0.54), Luxembourg (0.51),
Finland (0.50) and Belarus (0.5 in 2001) and the lowest (between 0.09 and 0.17)
in southern Europe (including the Balkans), Poland (0.18) and the Caucasus
region (in Armenia the rate was 0.06, and Azerbaijan 0.11). The greatest changes
have been in Portugal, where the total divorce rate was 0.17 in 1995, but had
risen to 0.39 in 2002, comparable with the Netherlands.
[16] The
Catechism, Third Part, Section Two, Chapter Two, Article 6, note 2370 (on-line
version www.vatican.va). Note 2368 adds:
“For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is
their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but
is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood.
Moreover, they should conform their behaviour to the objective criteria of
morality. (…).”
[17] Cited
in: Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo : The Family and Life in Europe,
Pontifical Council for the Family, (on-line version www.vatican.va).
[18] The
Catechism, Third Part, Section Two, Chapter Two, Article 5, note 2270 (on-line
version http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM
).
[19] The
Catechism, Third Part, Section Two Chapter Two, Article 6, note 2384. It is,
however, possible to annul marriages under certain
conditions.
[20] Gottes
Gabe und persönliche Verantwortung: Zur ethischen Orientierung für das
Zusammenleben in Ehe und Familie ,1997, Kapitel III. Familie
und Kinder (on-line version www.ekd.de).
[21] Fr.
Thomas Hopko: Meeting the Orthodox, Questions and Answers on the Orthodox Faith,
Question 19 (on-line version www.oca.org). The
same source qualifies, however, that married people practicing birth control are
not necessarily deprived of Holy Communion, if in conscience before God and with
the blessing of their spiritual father, they are convinced that their motives
are not entirely unworthy.
[22] Ibid.
The same source explains that, in “regard to all of the very difficult cases,
such as a young girl being raped or a mother who is certain to die, the
consensus of Orthodox opinion would be that a decision for abortion might
possibly be made, but that it can in no way be easily justified as morally
righteous, and that persons making such a decision must repent of it and count
on the mercy of God”.
[23] Nawal H.
Ammar : On Being A Muslim Woman : Laws and Practices, 1995 (on-line
version www.
consultation. org/ consultation/ammar.htm). The same source states that
Islamic scholars make a distinction between “fertility control” (Tahdid Al Nasl)
as a life time halting of reproduction – which is not allowed - and “fertility
organisation” (Tanzim Al Nasl) as temporary planning of fertility – which is
allowed in certain circumstances. The condom and the diaphragm are encouraged,
sometimes oral contraceptives, as well.
[24]
Ibid.
[25] Ruling
of the Rabbinical Assembly’s Committee of Jewish Law and Standards, cited
on-line at http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Religion%20and%20abortion.
However, abortion on demand is not permitted.
[26]
http://www.viejuive.com/synagogue/messages/guet.htm.
12/10/2005:
Council of Europe address by Ms Jahangir, United Nations Special Rapporteur on
Freedom of Religion or Belief. (WUNRN)
Thank you for inviting me to
Strasbourg and for giving me the opportunity to address the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe. I know the importance that the Council of
Europe attaches to the intercultural and inter-religious dialogue, and that one
of its aims is to protect human rights and the rule of law in the 46 member
states.
The invitation comes at a crucial moment as you are discussing a
draft resolution on women and religion in Europe and because a few days ago I
was present in Strasbourg in the context of a visit to France in my capacity as
United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief.
In
1986, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights appointed a special
rapporteur to examine incidents in all parts of the world that were inconsistent
with the provisions of the 1981 United Nations declaration on the elimination of
all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief and to
recommend remedial measures for such situations. Furthermore, since 1996, the
commission has persistently stressed in its resolutions the need for the special
rapporteur to apply a gender perspective, inter alia, through the identification
of gender-specific abuses in the reporting process, including in information
collection and recommendations.
Some countries have been reluctant to
see the nexus between the discrimination of women and the mandate of the special
rapporteur on the question of religious intolerance. It is now accepted that a
special rapporteur will raise cases or highlight situations that relate to the
status of women. Under that aspect of my mandate, I regularly send urgent
appeals and letters setting out allegations jointly with other United Nations
special rapporteurs, such as the special rapporteur on the violence against
women, its causes and consequences.
At the outset, and to define the
scope of my mandate, I re-emphasise that the freedom of religion or belief is a
fundamental human right of a non-derogable character which can be limited only
under restricted conditions. Nevertheless, this right, like other human rights,
cannot be used to justify the violation of other fundamental human rights. That
clause is, inter alia, provided by Article 5.1 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights and may, in certain cases, address situations of
abuses committed in the name of religion. So far, I have tried to keep that
approach as a central part of my mandate, and I will continue to do so.
I have read the excellent report by Mrs Zapfl-Helbling, the Rapporteur
of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men. It contains valuable
information on women and religion. It also refers to the study on freedom of
religion or belief and the status of women as regards religion and tradition
conducted by my predecessor and published in April 2002. The study mentions the
legal standards that are most relevant to gender equality in the context of
religious freedom, such as those contained in the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the
various instruments against slavery and the Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination Against Women. It also lists the different types of
discrimination against women, such as practices that are harmful to the health
of women, discrimination against women within the family, attacks on the right
to life, honour killings, and attacks on their dignity, such as restrictions on
the education of women or their exclusion from certain functions.
In the
framework of my mandate, and on the basis of the activities that I have carried
out since my appointment in July 2004, I have noted with regret that women
continue to be largely excluded from the decision-making process within most
religious communities - a process that is usually a monopoly for men. In that
context, in order to exercise their full human rights, women usually have to
negotiate with religious beliefs and traditional values, often within their own
communities. Similarly, at a time when much emphasis is put on inter-religious
dialogue, the absence of women's voices from that dialogue is striking. The work
that must be carried out to redress the situation remains important and will
require energy at all levels.
An illustration of that reality can be
found in the reservations undertaken by countries when ratifying UN instruments,
in particular the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
Against Women, and in referring to the incompatibility of some of its provisions
with the religiously inspired legislation of their countries. My predecessor's
study dedicated several pages to that problem and identified the most pressing
aspects, which are equality in marriage and, in the case of divorce, parental
authority, the right of custody, choice of family name, heritage and
transmission of nationality.
The situation remains ambiguous. Whereas
some of the reservations are so general that they might not be valid because
they can contradict the spirit and aim of the convention, the fact that there
are so many reservations based on varying interpretations of the same religion
shows an urgent need for less ambiguous rules and principles. The issue is
extremely delicate, but that should by no means deter us from confronting it. On
the contrary, I believe that the longer we postpone tackling it, the greater the
risk of embedding gender inequalities in the field of human rights.
Nevertheless, the measure that ought to be taken must be carefully considered as
it deals with complex and sensitive situations and because one cannot draw a
surgical line between the treatment of rights, such as the right to freedom of
religion or belief and women's rights, which are so intrinsically intertwined.
My visit this year to Nigeria, Sri Lanka and France disclosed different
situations with regard to freedom of religion or belief. However, it was
possible to identify two patterns that reflect today's reality. First, the link
between state and religion, or religions, is often the origin of the greatest
difficulties relating to freedom of religion or belief. The neutrality or
independence of the state vis-à-vis religion - or its capacity or willingness to
guarantee and protect de jure and de facto freedom of religion of all
individuals within its jurisdiction - is often the key to developing an
appropriate framework for the protection of all human rights, including women's
rights. It ensures that individuals can express themselves fully and dissent,
even within their own religion; or, indeed, that they can choose not to have any
religion at all.
Secondly, an atmosphere of religious intolerance
generally undermines freedom of religion but also other human rights, including
the rights of women. In this context, well-intentioned measures to protect the
rights of women may, in certain circumstances, stigmatise the very women whom
they are seeking to protect. Then, if such stigmatisation takes the form of
humiliation, it often leads to the radicalisation of the affected persons and of
those associated with them. In both cases, the central question is one of
balance. Such balance implies that no right should be protected at the expense
of others, and that the measures adopted to protect women's rights, the right to
freedom of religion or belief and all other human rights, should take into
account all individuals in society.
While Europe undoubtedly remains
committed to protecting all fundamental rights, including freedom of religion or
of belief, it is now faced with a challenge that will be successfully overcome
only if it strikes the right balance between fundamental rights. The right
balance should be present in both the domestic and foreign policies of the
states concerned. Such balance will positively impact on the rights of women as
individuals, regardless of their religious beliefs or their communities, and it
will further promote a climate of religious tolerance.
I thank you for your
attention.
Interview
of Ms Jahangir, UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or
Belief
The more intolerance in a society, the more pressure there is on women.
Asma Jahangir, a lawyer from Pakistan, is the UN special rapporteur on
freedom of religion and belief. She addressed the Parliamentary Assembly session
on 4 October 2005 as part of a debate on women and religion.
Question
: Ms Jahangir, you have been following this issue for a year now, what have been
your impressions?
Asma Jahangir: Freedom of religion is a very
interesting and pertinent subject all over the world, and it is very important
that women's voices should be heard. It is also very symbolic to have a woman as
rapporteur on this subject.
So far I have visited three different
countries - Sri Lanka, Nigeria and France. In Sri Lanka there have been problems
with Christian evangelists converting Buddhists - so called "unethical
conversions". In France, there is the issue of wearing conspicuous symbols of
religion and Nigeria is interesting because of the use of the Charia law in the
North of the country, and an atmosphere of general intolerance.
What I
have found is that the more intolerance in a society, the more pressure there is
on women. Neutral and secular states fare better than states that set themselves
up as arbiters of religion.
Question: This is a very emotional
subject - how do you approach your work?
Asma Jahangir: It is very
important to approach these subjects rationally. It is very easy to be alarmist,
when a few awful incidents can trigger difficult situations. The most important
thing is to be firm where rights are being violated. For instance, honor
killings are very obviously a crime, and must be dealt with as such. If my child
refuses to carry a prayer book to school, it is not a crime to use persuasion,
but it would be a crime to beat the child. If an adult woman consents to female
circumcision, that is a choice; but if it is a girl, or if the woman does not
consent and the procedure is carried out anyway, that is completely illegal.
Question: How can you regulate this area? How can you bring about
change?
Asma Jahangir: Laws can help, but there is only so much a
government can do. You have to tackle the community pressure too, otherwise
there is no acceptance of change in the community. For example, in terms of
female circumcision, you have to bring in laws to make sure that children are
not harmed, then speak to community leaders to find other ways of celebrating
that rite which would not harm women. Of course, dialogue itself is not easy:
often the people who speak for their community are the men. Good work can be
done in towns and cities where the whole community is brought into the dialogue.
Council
of Europe/ Parliamentary Assembly
Women and religion in Europe
Resolution
1464 (2005)[1] Provisional edition
Assembly
debate on 4 October 2005 (26th Sitting) (see Doc. 10670, report of the Committee
on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, rapporteur: Mrs Zapfl-Helbling).
Text
adopted by the Assembly on 4 October 2005 (26th Sitting).