 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 3 - 9 February 2000 Issue No. 467 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 3 - 9 February 2000 Issue No. 467
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Features Special Profile Travel Living Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Who won the tug-of-war?
By Mariz Tadros
After an exhausting tug-of-war between government and a substantial number of members of the People's Assembly, dragged out over several weeks, the draft procedural Personal Status Law is finally out. It has been signed by the president, and the Ministries of Justice and Social Affairs have commenced work on the executive regulations, which should come out in a month's time.
The law, which aims to facilitate litigation and procedures pertaining to marriage and divorce disputes, was modified before it passed. At the last session, on Wednesday 26 January, after many sessions of heated debate and bitter confrontations, the government backed down a little by conceding that women do have to get their husbands' permission if they wish to travel. The People's Assembly applauded. The draft version had suggested that a woman can travel if she obtain court permission, even if her husband has not granted permission for her to do so.
The clause giving the court the right to prevent a man from traveling if he is not meeting his financial obligations to his family or if he has not been paying alimony was also dropped.
As for Khul', the procedure whereby a woman may obtain a divorce if she forgoes all her financial rights, was only slightly modified, although MPs had put forward 80 different amendments to the article in question. As it stands now, Khul' may be granted to a woman, but only after a judge attempts and fails to reconcile the couple -- and with the intervention of a mediator from each side of the family. The divorce, which will be irrevocable, will be granted in three months.
Not present in parliament to vote on the new law were members of the Wafd Party, whose leader, Yassin Serageddin, one of the law's fiercest opponents, had walked out on an earlier session, never to return.
Intervention by Amal Osman, former minister of Social Affairs during one of last week's heated sessions of the People's Assembly <
(photo: Abdel-Wahab El-Seheiti)
"I withdrew because the head of the Assembly was not conducting the sessions properly, not allowing me to speak when I wanted to, and basically running the sessions in an undemocratic manner," Serageddin told Al-Ahram Weekly. He insisted that the law was passed too hastily, and that it would have been better to postpone it to mid-February, when parliament resumes its sessions. "Less important laws are discussed in many extended sessions. I don't see the urgency of passing this one when it has not been discussed as thoroughly as it should."
Serageddin insisted that even after the amendments, the law as it stands is problematic and is likely to be challenged in its implementation. He welcomed the government's ultimate agreement to prevent a woman from traveling without her husband's consent, but rejected the article on Khul'. He insisted that giving women the right to divorce themselves without the consent of the husband is in violation of the Shari'a. He contested the legitimacy of the position in favour of the law taken by the Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar, arguing that he did not have the full consensus of Al-Azhar's Ulama (scholars).
Yehia Halboush, an Islamic scholar who vehemently opposes the new law, welcomed the decision to reverse the proposed article on women's right to travel without their husband's permission. The decision, he suggested, showed the lack of credibility of some official institutions, which had earlier emphasised that the draft law was in complete conformity with the Shari'a. Still, he rejected the new law, arguing that "the government's proposed deal, which tries to please everyone, is unacceptable and won't work so long as Khul' is permitted. Giving women the right to divorce themselves is an explosive bomb in Egyptian homes."
In a statement to be released soon, Halboush, together with other scholars, will propose that the Khul' clause be removed altogether or revised so as to make the divorce revocable, giving the man the right to appeal against it.
He believes that there has been internal and external pressure to bring about this law, "which only works in favour of a few women who have failed in their marital life. A woman with upright morals would never resort to Khul'." Halboush warned that some scholars will launch a lawsuit appealing against the law, basing their claim on its alleged unconstitutionality by arguing that it violates the Shari'a.
Mona Zulfiqar, a prominent lawyer who has played a part in preparing the legislation, believes that the new law gives everyone reason to celebrate. She hails it as "first-rate social legislation", and argues that none of the points in women's favour were eliminated during the debates. Furthermore, she believes that some of the proposed articles are revolutionary, such as "the establishment of a family court, the first of its kind in the Arab world, in which a judge can play an active role in reconciliation, where quick investigation of a man's income is possible, and where social workers are accessible".
Another positive outcome of the law, suggests Zulfiqar, is the family insurance scheme that provides protective measures before and after divorce and for elderly men and women. "Also important is that the law corrects and bridges the gap between the true Shari'a and some of the texts in the previous law, such as divorce in absentia, and absence of the right to Khul'."
Khul' is one example, she pointed out, where the modification was in women's favour, since the judge must grant a divorce in a maximum period of three months.
"As for the travel article, as it stands now, it does not mention women or men specifically, but it does say that those who wish to travel and are prevented from doing so can go to the judge and appeal. In short, I believe that all Egyptians have reason to be proud of the new law. It shows great social and religious reform. It is in the interest of the Egyptian family and in the interest of granting justice to women," she concluded.
Azza Soliman, director of CEWLA (the Centre for Egyptian Women's Legal Assistance) said it is very probable that a lawsuit will be filed in the near future contesting the constitutionality of preventing a woman from traveling without her husband's permission. "Realistically speaking, we always had our doubts that it would pass in the People's Assembly. The level of discussions that prevailed showed how reactionary and backward discussions on these issues have become," she remarked.
She conceded, however, that practical gains have been made, which will make a difference in women's lives. As a lawyer whose centre works with low-income women, Soliman suggests that, if some of the articles are properly implemented -- for instance, if qualified judges are enabled to rule on Personal Status issues in a special Family Court -- much of the humiliation women suffer in the present system may be alleviated. "As for Khul', I doubt very much that any of the women I work with will seek it. Even when life is unbearable, divorce is rarely an option. Most often, they would have nothing to ransom themselves with anyway," she explains.
Magda Adli, a women's rights activist, was disappointed and frustrated that the government made concessions to conservative voices. "This is always the case: when the government is attacked, women's rights are the first to be sacrificed and sent down the drain." Adli pointed out that 29 women's organisations were promised a hearing in the People's Assembly, but were not given the opportunity to present their grievances in that forum.
Responding to criticism that the women's movement did not respond to its opponents as powerfully as it could have, she suggests that for decades women have criticised the Personal Status Law consistently and made it clear what kind of changes they expect and need, "but at the end, no matter how much you talk about it, nothing seems to materialise".
Adli admits, however, that some of the changes in the new Law will have positive implications, but argues that, "if we take into consideration the fact that it has taken them nine years to come up with this, then the changes are truly meagre. At this rate, it will take another 90 years to reform the Substantive Law".
