Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Essential qualities"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "Essential qualities"

    PARIS - The bride said she was a virgin. When her new husband discovered that was a lie, he went to court to annul the marriage - and a French judge agreed.

    The ruling ending the Muslim couple's union has stunned France and raised concerns the country's much-cherished secular values are losing ground to religious traditions from its fast-growing immigrant communities.

    The decision also exposed the silent shame borne by some Muslim women who transgress long-held religious dictates demanding proof of virginity on the wedding night.

    In its ruling, the court concluded the woman had misrepresented herself as a virgin and that, in this particular marriage, virginity was a prerequisite.

    But in treating the case as a breach of contract, the ruling was decried by critics who said it undermined decades of progress in women's rights. Marriage, they said, was reduced to the status of a commercial transaction in which women could be discarded by husbands claiming to have discovered hidden defects in them.

    The court decision "is a real fatwa against the emancipation and liberty of women. We are returning to the past," said Urban Affairs Minister Fadela Amara, the daughter of immigrants from Muslim North Africa, using the Arabic term for a religious decree.

    The outcry has been unrelenting since word of the April 1 decision in the closed-door trial in Lille was made public last week by the daily newspaper Liberation. In its judgment, the tribunal said the 2006 marriage had been ended based on "an error in the essential qualities" of the bride, "who had presented herself as single and chaste."

    Justice Minister Rachida Dati, whose parents also were born in North Africa, initially shrugged off the ruling - but the public clamour reached such a pitch that she asked the prosecutor's office this week to lodge an appeal.

    What began as a private matter "concerns all the citizens of our country and notably women," a statement from her ministry said.

    The appeal was filed Tuesday and three judges could hear the case sometime this month, said Eric Vaillant of the appeals court in Douai, near Lille.

    The hitch is that both the young woman and the man at the centre of the drama are opposed to an appeal, according to their lawyers. The names of the woman, a student in her 20s, and the man, an engineer in his 30s, have not been disclosed.

    The young woman's lawyer, Charles-Edouard Mauger, said she was distraught by the dragging out of the humiliating case. In an interview on Europe 1 radio, he quoted her as saying: "I don't know who's trying to think in my place. I didn't ask for anything. ... I wasn't the one who asked for the media attention, for people to talk about it, and for this to last so long."

    The issue is particularly distressing for France because the government has fought to maintain strong secular traditions as demographics change. An estimated five million Muslims live in the country of 64 million, the largest Muslim population in western Europe.

    France passed a law in 2004 banning Muslim headscarves and other ostentatious religious signs from classrooms, a move that caused an uproar in the Muslim world.

    Now, critics contend another law on the books is being used to effectively condone the custom requiring a woman to enter marriage as a virgin, and prove it with bloodstained sheets on her wedding night.

    Article 180 of the Civil Code states that when a couple enters into a marriage, if the "essential qualities" of a spouse are misrepresented, then "the other spouse can seek the nullity of the marriage." Past examples of marriages that were annulled include a husband found to be impotent and a wife who was a prostitute, according to lawyer Xavier Labbee.

    Ironically, Article 180 also guards against forced marriages.

    Labbee, the lawyer for the bridegroom in question, says it was not the young woman's virginity that was at issue.

    "The question is not one of virginity. The question is one of lying," he told The Associated Press.

    "In the ruling, there is no word 'Muslim,' there is no word 'religion,' there is no word 'custom.' And if one speaks of virginity it is with the term 'a lie."

    Labbee said both the man and the woman "understand that annulling the marriage is preferable to divorce because it wipes the slate clean (of) what you want to forget, but divorce wipes away nothing."

    Indeed, the court ruling states that the woman "acquiesced" to the demand for an annulment "based on a lie concerning her virginity."

    "One can deduce that this quality (virginity) was seen by her as an essential quality that was decisive" in the man's decision to marry, the ruling said.

    Prime Minister Francois Fillon said an appeal must be lodged "so this ruling does not set a judicial precedent."

    In a rare show of agreement, politicians on the left and right said the court's action does not reflect French values.

    "In a democratic and secular country, we cannot consider virginity as an essential quality of marriage," said an expert on French secularism, Jacqueline Costa-Lascoux.

    The decision underscored the painful predicament faced today by many Muslim women in France and elsewhere in the West who become sexually emancipated but remain bound by strict codes of honour inherited and enforced by their families - and prospective husbands.

    It is not unusual for young Muslim women to procure fake virginity certificates, use tricks like vials of spilled blood on the wedding night or even undergo hymen repair to satisfy family expectations, and evade the shame that would follow if their secret got out.

    An informal survey by The Associated Press in 2006 found numerous private clinics in the Paris region where such surgery is performed, as well as doctors who supply fake virginity certificates before a marriage.

    "Today, the judicial system of a modern country cannot hold to these savage traditions, completely inhuman for the young woman," said the rector of the Paris Mosque, Dalil Boubakeur.

    He likened the court decision to "equating marriage with a commercial transaction."

    Like some others, Boubakeur, a moderate, voiced fears that Muslim fundamentalists would seek to profit from the Lille ruling "as they have done with the veil. ... Fundamentalists use (head scarves) like their flag."

    "We ask Muslims to live in their era," he said.




    "I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow
    "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it." - Mark Twain

  • #2
    I don't have a problem with that (if it is as represented in the article, of course). If she claimed to be a virgin (directly), and was not, then an annulment is perfectly appropriate, just like any contract would be voided based on misrepresented facts prior to the contract.

    I think it's silly to expect virginity, but it's quite reasonable to expect truthfulness, and if virginity is important to him, then let him reduce his pool of potential mates and free up the rest for the rest of us
    <Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
    I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.

    Comment


    • #3
      Wasn't there a whole thread that was here recently where most everyone but me was saying that marriage was a contract between people (And so should be allowed in incestial relationships or between many people/etc).

      I disagree with this ruling, just like I disagree with the notion that marriage is just a contract. There are specific reasons why I am in favor of allowing marriage for homosexuals (so that they can enjoy the stability/etc of relationships that heterosexuals enjoy). It isn't becuase I say "it is discrimination, there is no reason not to".

      JM
      Jon Miller-
      I AM.CANADIAN
      GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

      Comment


      • #4
        Who brought up homosexuals

        Also, why do you disagree with the ruling?
        <Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
        I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by snoopy369
          I don't have a problem with that (if it is as represented in the article, of course).
          So I should have made this a poll?

          I expected at least one poster to hold that view but you weren't the one.
          "I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow
          "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it." - Mark Twain

          Comment


          • #6
            Marriage isn't just a contract.

            I was refering to the arguments that many people use in favor of homosexual marriage which also are used in cases like this (or for much worse things).

            If it was important to him that she was a virgin, it should have been checked before their marriage.

            JM
            Jon Miller-
            I AM.CANADIAN
            GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by snoopy369
              I don't have a problem with that (if it is as represented in the article, of course). If she claimed to be a virgin (directly), and was not, then an annulment is perfectly appropriate, just like any contract would be voided based on misrepresented facts prior to the contract.
              Very American of you.

              I have a problem with this ruling. This is a throwback to a more primitve way of thinking, it also shows the ever increasing influence of ME immigrants in our society.

              Eurabia here we come.
              Modern man calls walking more quickly in the same direction down the same road “change.”
              The world, in the last three hundred years, has not changed except in that sense.
              The simple suggestion of a true change scandalizes and terrifies modern man. -Nicolás Gómez Dávila

              Comment


              • #8
                I don't see virginity as an "essential quality". Quite frankly I can misogynists, religious nutters and guys with confidence issues being the big supporters of such a contract condition.

                It's a measure clearly aimed at women ("blood on the sheets"). I'm rather confident the male party to the contract had no such condition attached.
                "I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow
                "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it." - Mark Twain

                Comment


                • #9
                  I still don't see how it has anything to do with gay marriage, but

                  I see marriage as fundamentally a contract - which has greater meaning to some, certainly - but in the eyes of the irreligious state it cannot be anything other than a contract. Thus any decision/action from the state's point of view must interpret it similarly to a contract; and elements of contract law should apply. The fact that it was 'virginity' and not 'being free of STDs' or any other element that is - as stated in the title - an 'essential quality' of marriage to one party, is irrelevant. As long as he made it clear that it was important to him ahead of time - as he apparently did - she was guilty of misleading him and the contract is void.

                  JM, you're aware that marriage was only quite recently considered something the state had any interest in at all, right? It was I believe in the late 1800s or early 1900s that the various states started to actually recognize marriages in an official manner rather than simply considering them a private (religious) matter. The reason was, of course, because of the increasing legal ramifications - ramifications that arose from the elements of marriage that are identical to a contract, namely property dispersal, child custody, etc. Hence, to the state, marriage is a contractual affair.
                  <Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
                  I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    But in treating the case as a breach of contract, the ruling was decried by critics who said it undermined decades of progress in women's rights. Marriage, they said, was reduced to the status of a commercial transaction in which women could be discarded by husbands claiming to have discovered hidden defects in them.
                    So which European country do you move to if you really want to ring your spouse over for everything they are worth in divorce court?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Wezil
                      I don't see virginity as an "essential quality". Quite frankly I can misogynists, religious nutters and guys with confidence issues being the big supporters of such a contract condition.

                      It's a measure clearly aimed at women ("blood on the sheets"). I'm rather confident the male party to the contract had no such condition attached.
                      Who defines essential qualities? You? Me?

                      I'd think the contractual partners would define such. If she had chosen to give such a requirement to the marriage, and then found a partner he had slept with prior, she'd be justified just as well. It is hardly his fault that men do not have physical markers of virginity.

                      The example in the quoted article of a man being impotent is a perfect example of the inverse, after all.

                      If you want to address the culture that considers this important, by all means do so; but the state's purpose is not to determine cultural values.
                      <Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
                      I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by snoopy369


                        Who defines essential qualities? You? Me?
                        No, the court.

                        I'd think the contractual partners would define such. If she had chosen to give such a requirement to the marriage, and then found a partner he had slept with prior, she'd be justified just as well. It is hardly his fault that men do not have physical markers of virginity.

                        The example in the quoted article of a man being impotent is a perfect example of the inverse, after all.

                        If you want to address the culture that considers this important, by all means do so; but the state's purpose is not to determine cultural values.
                        Weren't you the one talking about why the state has an interest in marriage contracts?
                        "I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow
                        "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it." - Mark Twain

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The argument you can put whatever you want into a contract so long as both parties agree just won't go anywhere. You can include anything you want but getting a court to enforce it is the issue.

                          For instance - In the province of Ontario "No Pets" clauses in rental leases will not be enforced. You can read and sign such a lease (as I did) then move in with your pets. There isn't a court in the province that will enforce the clause as it is expressly disallowed in the jurisdiction.
                          "I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow
                          "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it." - Mark Twain

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Wezil
                            The argument you can put whatever you want into a contract so long as both parties agree just won't go anywhere. You can include anything you want but getting a court to enforce it is the issue.

                            For instance - In the province of Ontario "No Pets" clauses in rental leases will not be enforced. You can read and sign such a lease (as I did) then move in with your pets. There isn't a court in the province that will enforce the clause as it is expressly disallowed in the jurisdiction.
                            Well that's dumb, but explains why people had pets at the last place I lived where there was "no pets".
                            Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will, as it did Obi Wan's apprentice.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by snoopy369
                              I don't have a problem with that (if it is as represented in the article, of course). If she claimed to be a virgin (directly), and was not, then an annulment is perfectly appropriate, just like any contract would be voided based on misrepresented facts prior to the contract.

                              I think it's silly to expect virginity, but it's quite reasonable to expect truthfulness, and if virginity is important to him, then let him reduce his pool of potential mates and free up the rest for the rest of us
                              QFT. I agree 100%. She lied about being a virgin, which was important to this person in a wife. It's fine to get an annulment based on the lie.
                              “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                              - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X