Category: human rights

Bizarre family court ruling: go to mass

January 20, 2015 • 8:45 am

by Grania Spingies

This story floated to the top of the pile of court news last evening in the UK. The Telegraph reports that Judge James Orrell of Derby County in the Midlands has put a rather bizarre stipulation on a divorce settlement, a stipulation apparently not sought by either party to the case. The ex-wife is Catholic, and the stipulation has apparently not been applied to her:

A judge has ordered a father to take his children to Roman Catholic mass as part of a divorce settlement, even though he is not Catholic.

The man, who can only be identified as “Steve” because of reporting restrictions on the case, faces possible contempt of court and a jail sentence if he fails to go to church when he has custody of the children.

It is not clear why the judge decided to go this route, but it’s not the first time this family court judge has made headlines for strange decisions. Back in 2011, he chose to remove a child from its parents after only 15 minutes of hearing; that case was later overturned by an Appeal Court.

Although the father in the new case appealed the “mass” sentence on the grounds that his human rights were breached under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects freedom of thought, conscience and religion, his application was not successful. It seems that it is not only his rights that are being ignored here; as he says;

“My oldest son, who is now 10, has already expressed a clear lack of belief but legally I am required to take him to Roman Catholic mass at Christmas.”

As someone who had countless tedious and frustrating hours of my youth wasted by the never-ending cycle of repetitive prayers and rituals at my local Catholic church, the father and child have all my sympathy. This is a ridiculous, condescending and insulting decision. There is no reason why the religious party to a marriage should get the legal nod and sanction (although in this case she may not have even asked for it) while and the non-believer is relegated to the status of second-class citizen.

One can only speculate as to what judges think they are doing when they decide to force religion on people in a civil case or otherwise. Religion has never been the Great Ennobler of our species, and especially in a secular country it is a private choice. It is not something that any judge has any business forcing on someone—certainly not with the threat of jail-time to back it up. It is the kind of decision you would expect to see handed down by a court in a crazed theocracy.

 

h/t: Coel, Pyers

Irony of the month: Norway accused by Saudi Arabia of human rights violations

May 2, 2014 • 5:44 am

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Saudi Arabia has one of the world’s worst human rights records. Homosexuality is illegal; they still execute people by beheading them, as well as stoning them, amputating limbs, and lashing them; they practice sharia law in which a woman’s testimony in court is worth half as much as a man’s; women aren’t allowed to drive, and so on.

There’s more. Wikipedia notes this:

Serious criminal offences [in Saudi Arabia] include not only internationally recognized crimes such as murder, rape, theft and robbery, but also apostasy, adultery, witchcraft and sorcery. In addition to the regular police force, Saudi Arabia has a secret police, the Mabahith, and “religious” police, the Mutawa. The latter enforces Islamic social and moral norms. Western-based human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have criticized the activities of both the Mabahith and the Mutawa, as well as a number of other aspects of human rights in Saudi Arabia. These include the number of executions, the range of offences which are subject to the death penalty, the lack of safeguards for the accused in the criminal justice system, the treatment of homosexuals, the use of torture, the lack of religious freedom, and the highly disadvantaged position of women. The Albert Shanker Institute and Freedom House have also reported that “Saudi Arabia’s practices diverge from the concept of the rule of law.”

And this is a U.S. ally!

It’s deeply ironic, then, that Saudi Arabia has criticized Norway, of all countries, for that nation’s violations of human rights. As The Independent reports:

Saudi Arabia has criticised Norway’s human rights record, accusing the country of failing to protect its Muslim citizens and not doing enough to counter criticism of the prophet Mohammed.

The gulf state called for all criticism of religion and of prophet Mohammed to be made illegal  in Norway. It also expressed concern at “increasing cases of domestic violence, rape crimes and inequality in riches” and noted a continuation of hate crimes against Muslims in the country.

The Scandinavian nation came under scrutiny during the United Nations’ Universal Periodic Review, in which 14 States are scheduled to have their human rights records examined.

Russia meanwhile called for Norway to clamp down on expressions of religious intolerance and  and criticised the country’s child welfare system. They also recommended that Norway improve its correctional facilities for those applying for asylum status.

Norwegian Foreign Minister Børge Brende was in Geneva to hear the concerns from 91 other countries. He told Norway’s NTB newswire prior to the hearing: “It is a paradox that countries which do not support fundamental human rights have influence on the council, but that is the United Nations,” reported The Local.

Curious, isn’t it, that Saudi Arabia is most concerned with criticism of Islam as the most pressing “human rights”? In fact, the United Nations has been trying for a while, unsuccessfully, to get “freedom from criticism of religion” incorporated as one of the fundamental humans rights to be adopted by their member states. And of course that provision is backed largely by Muslim nations.

Talk about a beam in the eye! Which country’s political system would you rather live under: Norway’s or Saudi Arabia? Now I’m not deeply acquainted with Norway’s other “violations” of human rights (criticism of religion doesn’t count; tolerating hate crimes does), but I’d bet a large amount of money that at least half the population of Saudi Arabia—the half with two X chromosomes—would do better living in Norway.

Of course somewhere on the Internet there’s someone who will make the case that Norway’s trespasses are far more egregious (there is no argument so stupid that it doesn’t appear on the Web), but I hope they’re not on this site!

h/t: Grania