|
Opposition
to Iran’s “Family Protection Bill”
By: Elahe Amani
Discriminatory family
law in Iran
is on the brink of taking a few steps back! The “Family Protection Bill”
passed swiftly and quietly during the first round of discussions of the
legal and judicial commission of the Iranian parliament in July 2008,
almost one year after it was drafted. Opposition to this bill has
solidified one of the largest coalitions formed to protest a bill in
recent years. An inclusive and strikingly diverse group of women
activists, feminists, human rights defenders, as well as secular and
religious groups (including some conservative women’s groups) are
opposing this bill and demanding that the government take action to
prevent it from passing through parliament for a final vote.
The bill is a gross
violation of the human rights of Iranian women, reinforcing current
discriminatory laws, and creating an encouraging environment for
polygamy. The women’s movement has demanded that the bill be scrapped,
as it reinforces existing unequal divorce laws and makes it more
complicated and challenging for women to file for divorce. While the
women’s movement has been working consistently for equality in divorce
laws, the bill represents a huge setback to this fight. It removes the
requirement to register “temporary marriages,” rather than banning such
marriages completely, and suggests taxation for dowries ( Mehr ), which
have traditionally provided a fragile financial safety net for women. In
doing so, the bill denies the rights of Iranian women to equal access to
resources, discouraging their participation in the workforce to ensure
their economic security. Finally, the bill does not remove the barriers
Iranian women face in marrying foreign nationals. Rather, it brings more
complexity into the lives of Iranian women considering marriage to
foreigners, going so far as to stipulate punishments for the “crime” of
marrying a foreign national.
There are many
speculations about the reasons the bill has been passed at this time.
Some argue that it is the Iranian regime’s response to an increasingly
powerful women’s movement in Iran and their battle to change
discriminatory laws, including polygamy. Others claim that the threat
of a US military strike against Iran creates an environment of
uncertainty, which, combined with an economic crisis and political and
social repression, provides a fertile climate for the patriarchs in
power in Iran to bring the anti-family bill into public discourse.
The bill was drafted and
discussed by the previous Iranian parliament. The discriminatory
content of the bill enraged many human rights activist and women’s NGOs
in Iran.
Article 23 is one of the
most contested articles of the bill. It states: “Marriage
to a subsequent permanent wife shall depend on court authorization upon
ascertainment of the man’s financial capability and undertaking
to uphold justice among his wives.” Article 23
scraps the need for the
consent of the first wife if her husband wants to take another spouse, a
condition that was previously a legal necessity. The bill requires a
man to provide a judicial permit for a new marriage, confirming that
he has the financial capability to provide for the new wife,
that justice will be upheld amongst his wives, and that
all wives will be treated equally. However, no further specification
appears in the bill as to what constitutes “justice” or unequal
treatment. Thus the husband’s subjective appraisal of his ability to be
fair constitutes the only criterion. “Justice” is a transcendental and
abstract concept, and upholding it could mean different things to
different people.
In addition, no clear,
specific and measurable criteria are provided to define a person’s
financial capability in order to support two, three or four wives. Many
critics argue that the language of this bill also reduces and minimizes
a host of women’s needs to the satisfaction of undefined and ambiguous
“financial needs,” ignoring the emotional and well-being of women. In
doing so, it objectifies women.
In response to the
controversy generated by Article 23, a member of the judicial commission
stated: "This article is in accordance with the religious laws, and the
controversy is a creation of the media. This article is religiously
acceptable and will be approved by parliament, so no one will dare to
challenge this vote." However, another statement citing decrees from
top Iranian clerics such as the Grand Ayatollah Yusuf Sanei, indicates
that second marriages are only legal when first wives agree to them.
Based on
current Iranian family law, men can take four wives and divorce any of
them without stating a reason. However the law limits women’s access to
divorce. The reasons women may cite for seeking divorce are not clearly
defined by law - it is up to the court and judges to decide whether such
women have grounds. It is often very difficult for a woman to prove that
she has reason to divorce. Prenuptial agreements granting women the
right to divorce are a recent phenomenon. While Iranian women
activists and their male allies are striving to change such
discriminatory laws, many women protect their rights in prenuptials or
temporary legal documents.
Within the body of
Islamic family law, polygamy has been appropriately considered a major
factor in perpetuating gender inequality, and a violation of women’s
human rights. The very fact that a woman may have to share her husband
and home with co-wives says much about the gender inequality built into
the law. A woman lives with the constant possibility that her husband
will take another wife. If she fails to behave in accordance with her
husband's wishes, she runs the risk of having to live in a polygamous
household. This possibility reinforces patriarchal power relations
within the household and creates and environment of fear for women, who
feel forced to comply with their husband desires, decisions and
preferences.
Article 22 of the Bill
states: “Registration
of temporary marriage shall be subject to Rules of Procedure to be
approved by the minister of justice.” The Bill
removes any requirement for registering temporary marriages with the
Registrar’s Office. The practice of temporary marriage has existed
amongst Shiites, while many Sunni majority societies have banned it.
Historically, the practice has been limited to shrine cities like Meshed
and Qum, and mostly to pilgrims who traveled. The “sigheh’ or
“temporary marriage” contract should have an expiration date, varying
from a few hours after the marriage up to 99 years. Many secular
Iranians view legalized “temporary marriage” as a reflection of the
hypocrisy of clerics, who have exploited “temporary marriage” over the
years but are adamantly opposed to premarital or extramarital sex.
Despite its religious
imprimatur, temporary marriage has never been very popular in Iran.
Many Iranians regard sigheh as little more than legalized prostitution.
The practice of “temporary marriage” has been debated in recent years
and advocates point out that children of such unions are legitimate and
entitled to a share of the father's inheritance. The current bill will
leave women who engage in such marriages and children being born from
these unions without any legal protection or rights.
Temporary marriages have
been encouraged in the last decade as a response to the complex social
issues and restricted Islamic norms in terms of socialization of young
men and women. However, in finding a “religiously-acceptable solution”
to deep-rooted social issues, the legalization of “temporary marriages,”
and it’s social consequences, has not been evaluated in the context of
sexuality, public health, sexually transmitted diseases, women’s human
rights, birth control, violence against women, and the welfare of
children born within these marriages.
Article 25 of the bill
states: “At the
time of registration of marriage, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and
Finance is required to collect tax on unreasonable and
higher-than-conventional marriage portions, in view of the
condition of the couple and the national economic issues, progressively
in ratio to the increase in the amount of the marriage portion.
“The amount of conventional marriage portion and the amount of tax shall
be determined with a view to the general economic conditions of the
country by Rules of Procedure to be proposed by the Ministry of Economic
Affairs and Finance and to be approved by the Council of Ministers.”
This article
introduces a new concept to the legal system by effectively taxing
women's dowries (Mehr). In traditional marriages, women
are required to stipulate a consummation price (Mehr), which they are
entitled to receive at marriage and before sleeping with the groom.
Historically, this is paid to women upon divorce. According to the data
from the Registrar’s Office, last year in Tehran, only 3% of the women
who had asked for their dowries received them. 87% of divorced women did
not receive their dowries, while14% had to give up their dowries in
order to convince their husband to divorce them. (There is a proverb in
Persian which translates as “I give up my dowry to gain free my life –
Mehram halal, janam azad.”)
While
dowries do not fully protect many unions, imposing taxation on dowries
is a form of interference in the marriage contract, which is a contract
between two private parties. Taxation is intended to be a response to
increasing dowry amounts - an outcome of the inequalities that women
are facing. While more than 60% of students in higher education are
women, according to the Center
for Women's Studies at the University of
Tehran,
men’s
participation in the workforce is 5.1% times higher than that of women.
Imposing taxes on dowries is ineffective in removing barriers to
marriage among younger generations. The economic crisis, unavailability
of affordable housing in major cities, high unemployment rates, and
inflation, along with barriers to women’s participation in the
workforce, are the real challenges that younger people are facing in
getting married.
It
should be noted that polygamy and temporary marriages have hardly become
part of the fabric of Iranian society. Although the number of
polygamous marriages has increased after Iran adapted to Sharia law
after 1979, it remains relatively rare in Iran compared with some Arab
countries, and is frowned upon by many.
Article
46 states: “Any
foreign national who marries an Iranian woman without obtaining the
permit mentioned under Article 1060 of the Civil Code, shall be
sentenced from ninety-one days to one year’s imprisonment. In that case,
the woman, if she has got married of her free will, and the girl’s
father, if the marriage has taken place with his permission, will be
sentenced as accomplices of the offence.” This means that foreign
nationals who marry Iranian women without first obtaining permits will
face prison sentences ranging from ninety-one days to on year. Even a
woman who marries of her own free will, and all the parties involved,
could face harsh sentences. Although marriage is a desirable
institution, current family law shows no respect for the rights of those
marrying foreign nationals, which means a lack of equality in
citizenship. The impact of this bill on Iranian women living abroad is
significant. Based on existing family law, Iranian women married to
foreign men will not be able to obtain citizenship for their children,
even if these children are born and raised in Iran.
This bill
not only fails to resolve the discriminatory nature of the existing
family law, but takes it a few steps back. Considering the large number
of Iranians living abroad (estimated at more than 4 million), the bill
potentially discriminates against vast numbers of women.
In
addition to the above, Articles 15, 19, 40 & 44 will have some impact on
the lives of Iranian women living abroad.
Shirin Ebadi,
the Nobel laureate, has harshly criticized the bill. She is not alone
when she claims that it would bring “moral corruption” to society.
Iranian women activists and human rights defenders are warning that the
bill will increase violence against women, as well as violence
perpetuated by women, since it is expected to intensify levels of
discrimination against women in Iran.
In a
recent meeting organized by the Defenders of Human Rights Center to
oppose the bill, Ebadi stated that "this law will bring decadence and
moral corruption to society.” She took a step further and described the
bill as a “tyranny,” not only against women, but also against men. She
also stated that "if you have become rich overnight, no matter how,
you can legalize your desires."
The assault of the Iranian regime on the rights and dignity of Iranian
people has intensified in recent years. The bill is not an isolated
measure, but rather aligned and consistent with other repressive
measures to curtail freedom and democracy in Iran. Different social
policies, such as limiting the number of women entering higher
education, cracking down on women who do not observe strict Islamic
dress code, arrests and detention of women activist and human rights
defenders, repeated censorship of women’s/feminist websites, demanding
outrageous bails for women activists, harassing the men who support the
plight of Iranian women to change discriminatory laws, and other
measures by the government, are aimed at silencing the brave and
inspiring women’s movement in Iran.
One
would be appalled at the lack of transparency when comparing the status
of women in Iran with the statement made by a delegation of the Islamic
Republic of Iran to the fifty-second session of the UN Commission on the
Status of Women on March 3, 2008. In a three-page statement, the
delegation said: “In Islamic Iran, women can be active members of
society without neglecting the family. In Iran, women in general are
regarded as the center of the family, and hence, the center of society,
since society is but the connected parts of family units coming
together, and women are its principal trainers.” How one can justify
such undignified treatment of and discrimination against women, who are
exalted as “the center of society?”
Using
the rhetoric of “justice,” “equality,” “rights and democracy,” and the
“center of society” is hardly meaningful if such discourse is not
supported by action. Western imperialists are using this language to
invade and destroy the infrastructures of other nations, under the
banner of “democracy and human rights.” Religious extremist
transnationally, regardless of whether or not they are in positions of
power in Iran, Afghanistan or the FLDS camps in United State, cannot
talk of “upholding justice,” “security,” and the “well-being of
women and girls” while violating the human rights of women and girls in
polygamist, patriarchal power structures.
Iranian women seeking
democracy at home and in society are envisioning a world beyond
“patriarchal bargaining,” and will strive to make structural changes to
outdated patriarchal family laws. They will do so by relying only
on the women’s movement and the support of broader social movements,
not by collaborating with forces that use the rhetoric of “human rights”
to further their political agenda.
|