 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 9 - 15 September 1999 Issue No. 446 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 9 - 15 September 1999 Issue No. 446
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Focus Culture Features Books Special Profile Travel Living Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters When home is no sanctuary
By Mariz TadrosA court in Cairo granted a housewife a divorce based on her exposure to domestic violence at the beginning of last week. Her husband beat her and threw her out of the house for disobeying him and visiting her family. Although the husband apologised and pleaded for reconciliation, the court chose to act on her request, though it remains unusual for a Personal Statutes Court to grant a woman a divorce on the basis of her exposure to spousal violence, especially if the husband vows in court not to beat her again.
"This is not the first ruling of the kind [though] this case is rare and exceptional", explains Azza Shalaby, a member of Salma, a network of activists and NGOs dedicated to fighting violence against women in society.
Activists, human rights advocates and feminists did not, however, have time to celebrate the woman's victory for by the end of the week the same court had ruled against granting another woman a divorce. Witnesses, it transpired, had heard her screaming and seen her run out of the house pleading with people to come to her aid, but no one had actually seen her being beaten by her husband. The court decided that the marks on her body did not necessarily testify to her husband's abuse, and it was not good enough for the witnesses to have heard her screaming.
Wife-beating is one of the most common forms of violence exercised against women, and is cited as grounds for divorce in a great many cases. Legally, a woman's exposure to violence justifies the granting of a divorce though lawyers and human rights activists say that in reality women who are exposed to violence and are seeking a way out more often than not face a dead end.
illustration: George Bahgory
"It is important to understand that where women's requests for divorce are based on incidences of domestic violence, it all depends on the judge who is ruling and whether he finds the witnesses convincing," asserted Azza Shalaby. And since wife-beating usually occurs in the privacy of the home, it is very seldom that eyewitnesses are present.
Moreover, husbands often appear in court accompanied by willing character witnesses, ready to testify to their love for their family and confirm the back-breaking efforts made to provide for dependents. It is not rare, Shalaby suggests, for men to hire witnesses for this purpose. And should the judge find them convincing, it is more than likely that the ruling will be in favour of the husband, particularly if he pleads for a reconciliation.
One recent study indicated that some members of the judiciary continue to believe that violence against women is largely the fault of wives making unreasonable demand. The belief that women are emotional and men rational remains a prevalent dichotomy, with the consequence, suggests Shalaby, that men are given the right to prevent women from going astray.
"There is an inherent contradiction in the prevailing value system and how it ostensibly deals with domestic violence," she claims. "On the one hand, men are supposed to be the rational beings who do not come under the sway of their emotions, they are the leaders who think with their minds. On the other hand, when a man acts violently against his wife, it is because he was provoked or he momentarily lost his temper."
A woman's request for divorce on the basis of domestic violence is becoming increasingly sneered at: "Whereas in the 60s there was a progressive trend towards recognising women's plight, dominant discourses today tend to rely on a misinterpretation of religious texts to support men's rights to chastise and discipline their wives."
Fathi Naguib, counsellor to the minister of justice, concedes that women who are exposed to domestic violence do not have it easy in court. Although inflicting injury or harm on a wife is a legally acceptable reason for divorce, it is weighed against concern for the preservation of the family. The judge is supposed to choose the lesser of two evils.
The problem, according to Naguib, lies in the fact that the law implemented dates from the early 1920s, and stipulates that in cases of women seeking divorce on the basis of harm, the judge should rule according to the Hanafi school of Islamic jurisprudence which states that witnesses must have seen the crime being committed for their accounts to be taken into consideration. "It is not the judge's fault," argues Naguib, "for he has to abide by the law." In cases of domestic violence, Naguib thinks it incumbent upon women to file complaints with the police rather than suffer continuing assaults. Should the marriage end up in a petition for divorce, complaints recorded against the husband at police stations make it easier for the judge to rule in favour of the wife.
While admitting that many domestic cases are decided on the judge's prerogative, Naguib remains hopeful that the draft new procedural Personal Status Law, if passed, will make it easier for women who are abused by their husbands to get a divorce. "In the draft Procedural Law, a judge does not have to rule according to the Hanafi school. Giving supremacy to the Hanafi school over others in the Personal Status Law is something we inherited from the Ottoman imperialist era, and it is time to get rid of it. Once the draft Procedural Law is passed, the judge will not be obliged to consider only the accounts of witnesses who have seen the crime as credible."
But Azza Soliman, from the Egyptian Centre for Women's Legal Aid, believes that the changes suggested in the draft Procedural Law will do little to ease the plight of abused women seeking a divorce and that judges will continue to enjoy the freedom to rule against women they believe unworthy of a divorce. "Judges are a product of our society and its values and if they believe that women who claim assault are just making up stories or deliberating injuring themselves to have an excuse for a divorce, they will treat them accordingly."
The idea that if women complain to the police things will be put right, she suggests, is an illusion. "We have had cases where women went to file suits against their husbands only to be told to go back home, stop making trouble and get on with taking care of the children."
Soliman's centre has already lost three cases because the women involved found it difficult to speak openly to the judges about their ordeal. "And as for the witnesses, unfortunately many people now simply prefer not to intervene, especially if it means spending the whole day in court", she sighs.
Most victims of domestic violence patiently endure their suffering for a long time before doing something about it, confirms Soliman, "but what people fail to understand is the psychological trauma associated with exposure to this kind of abuse.
"One woman who gets beaten up might open the window and scream for Umm Mohamed, her neighbour, to come and intervene. Another might close the windows and get beaten up in silence because she finds it so shameful and humiliating that she doesn't want anyone to find out", explains Soliman.
She does not believe, though, that divorce is always the best, let alone possible, option. For many of the women who visit the centre, situated in the low income area of Bulaq Al-Dakrour, divorce is a luxury they can ill afford and often Soliman is forced to suggest they endure in silence rather than seek divorce. "If the husband, for instance, comes home once a week, and beats his wife then, we might talk about whether it is possible for her to endure the situation rather than seeking a divorce [which might involve] losing the single room in which she is living and ending up on the street with her children and no income"
In light of the stigma against divorced women and women's economic dependence on husbands, when cases of domestic violence do get to court it often indicates that the applicants have reached the limit of their endurance.
Soliman believes that increasing awareness about the gravity of domestic violence, and of the psychological barriers hindering women from taking action, is as important for the judiciary and the police as for the victims. She also believes that there need to be changes in the substantive rather than procedural law so that women do not have to prove that they are worthy of a divorce -- and that the extent of harm sufficiently justifies their application. Until then, most women who seek a divorce on the basis of their subjection to violence at home will be accused in court of fabricating stories, deliberating hurting themselves to stir the judge's sympathy, of being selfish and not considering the welfare of their children or even heartless in the face of their husbands' apologies and pleas for reconciliation. And the woman who won the case for a divorce mentioned earlier will remain a rare victory in the midst of thousands of lost cases.
