By Richard Norman
Now for something completely different. (Or is it?) From the International edition of Der Spiegel:
The case seems simply too strange to be true. A 26-year-old mother of two wanted to free herself from what had become a miserable and abusive marriage. The police had even been called to their apartment to separate the two — both of Moroccan origin — after her husband got violent in May 2006. The husband was forced to move out, but the terror continued: Even after they separated, the spurned husband threatened to kill his wife.
A quick divorce seemed to be the only solution — the 26-year-old was unwilling to wait the year between separation and divorce mandated by German law. She hoped that as soon as they were no longer married, her husband would leave her alone. Her lawyer, Barbara Becker-Rojczyk agreed and she filed for immediate divorce with a Frankfurt court last October. They both felt that the domestic violence and death threats easily fulfilled the "hardship" criteria necessary for such an accelerated split.
In January, though, a letter arrived from the judge adjudicating the case. The judge rejected the application for a speedy divorce by referring to a passage in the Koran that some have controversially interpreted to mean that a husband can beat his wife. It’s a supposed right which is the subject of intense debate among Muslim scholars and clerics alike."The exercise of the right to castigate does not fulfill the hardship criteria as defined by Paragraph 1565 (of German federal law)," the daily Frankfurter Rundschau quoted the judge’s letter as saying. It must be taken into account, the judge argued, that both man and wife have Moroccan backgrounds.
"The right to castigate means for me: the husband can beat his wife," Becker-Rojczyk said, interpreting the judge’s verdict.
To read about some of the reaction in Germany to the case check out the original article. After several days of seal hunt debate this question reminded me of the strange dissonance that lies at the heart of much contemporary liberal thinking. (I’m speaking very generally here.) On the one hand, Canadian seal hunters must be compelled to respect the rights (or "personalities") of the animals they kill in keeping with some universal definition enshrined on protesters’ placards; on the other, religious minorities should be allowed to follow the commandments of their sacred texts even if they contradict jurisdictional law. I wonder what would happen to the hardwiring inside the brain of an (admittedly stereotypical) contemporary liberal European or North American if there was found to be a verse in the Koran allowing for seal hunting? Ka-boom!
Ha, well I’m surprised to see they were so politically correct back in 1958. Isn’t that awful–that having a supernatural belief (aka all religious belief) is enough to exempt you from the usual laws of the land?
To clarify my position in response to your two point.
I believe that the seal hunt is not unnecessarily cruel, and that much agribusiness animal-killing is somewhat cruel particularly in the confinement of the animals in torturous conditions for long periods before their death. (So the reverse of #2.) And I wonder why people protest the seal hunt when the animal factories just outside their suburbs are the cruel ones…
Here you go Richard – check out the Wikipedia entry for Slaughterhouse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughterhouse
I quote the section under Law:
“In the United States, there is the Humane Slaughter Act of 1958, a law requiring that animals be stunned before killing. There is some debate over the enforcement of this act. This act, like those in many countries, exempts slaughter in accordance to religious law, such as kosher shechita and dhabi?a halal. Most strict interpretations of kashrut require that the animal be fully sensible when its carotid artery is cut.”
So there you go. The Koran does say be cruel to animals – having your throat slit while still sensible (instead of after being knocked unconscious by, say, a clubbing) is required by Kosher and Halal practices.
Again, I don’t see what the fuss about the seals is about. After reading the section on how Slaughterhouses typically operate, I am left with two thoughts:
(1)Can we please have some consistency in the treatment of wild and farm animals?
(2)If we accept current slaughterhouse practices as being ethical and the seal hunt as not ethical, the implication is that it IS an economic argument, since it would be damned expensive to truck those seals back to a mechaniszed slaughterhouse.