Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T18:51:37.870Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Entangled

Family, religion and human rights

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2013

Cindy Holder
Affiliation:
University of Victoria, British Columbia
David Reidy
Affiliation:
University of Tennessee
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The family sits at the besieged juncture of the private and the public, intimate relations and communal affiliations, contract and status, state and faith-based jurisdictions, raising hard questions for human rights scholars and activists. This chapter focuses on contemporary dilemmas that place minority religious women at the center of charged debates about diversity and equality. It explains the critical role these debates play in broader citizenship and membership, human rights and private ordering challenges that have emerged recently in neoliberal states, before turning to explore possible ideas for overcoming, or at least mitigating, the current impasse.

Informed by jurisprudence from the world of comparative constitutionalism, the geopolitical focus of my discussion will be on secularized societies in Europe and North America that have adopted a relatively sharp distinction between secular, state-centered legal institutions and other types of institutions (religious, voluntary associations, communal dispute resolution processes, subnational or transnational institutions). Harold Berman famously argued that “it was out of the explosive separation of the ecclesiastical and the secular polities that there emerged the modern Western legal science” (Berman 1977, 898). This transformation has been accompanied by the creation of a “special class of legal professionals (lawyers), themselves trained in a body of legal doctrine which had been systematized into a particular legal science or jurisprudence” (Ahdar and Aroney 2010, 7). This professionalization and secularization of Western legal science both resulted from and enabled the rise of the familiar constitutional structure of “separation of church and state,” although there are significant variations even within this model, in terms of conceptual origins, comparative manifestations, institutional structures, and so on (Esposito and DeLong-Bas 2001; Hirschl 2010).

Type
Chapter
Information
Human Rights
The Hard Questions
, pp. 115 - 135
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agnes, Flavia. 2001. Law and Gender Inequality: The Politics of Women’s Rights in India. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahdar, Rex and Aroney, Nicholas. 2010. “The Topography of Shari’a in the Western Political Landscape.” In Rex Ahdar and Nicholas Aroney, eds., Shari’a in the West. Oxford University Press, pp. 1–31.Google Scholar
Balkin, Jack M. and Siegel, Reva B. 2003. “The American Civil Rights Tradition: Anticlassification or Antisubordination.” Issues in Legal Scholarship 2, Article 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bano, Samia. 2008. “In Pursuit of Religious and Legal Diversity: A Response to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the ‘Sharia Debate’ in Britain.” Ecclesiastical Law Journal 10, 283–309.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla. 2002. The Claims of Culture, Equality and Diversity in the Global Era. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Berman, Harold J., 1977. “The Origins of Western Legal Science.” Harvard Law Review 90, 894–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowen, John R. 2010. “How Could English Courts Recognize Sharia?University of St. Thomas Law Journal 7, 411–435.Google Scholar
Bruker v. Marcovitz. 2007. Supreme Court of Canada. [2007] 3 S.C.R. 607, 2007 SCC 54 (Can.).
Carroll, Lucy. 1997. “Muslim Women and ‘Islamic Divorce’ in England.” Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs 17, 97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, Rebecca J., 1990. “Reservations to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.” Virginia Journal of International Law 30, 643–716.Google Scholar
Cott, Nancy F. 1995. “Giving Character to our Whole Civil Polity: Marriage and the Public Order in the Late Nineteenth Century.” In Linda K. Kerber, Alice Kessler-Harris and Kathryn Kish Sklar, eds., U.S. History as Women’s History: New Feminist Essays. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, pp. 107–122.Google Scholar
Cott, Nancy F.. 2000. Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Deveaux, Monique. 2006. Gender and Justice in Multicultural Liberal States. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einhorn, Talia. 2000. “Jewish Divorce in the International Arena.”Private Law in the International Arena, 135–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esposito, John L. and DeLong-Bas, Natana J. 2001. Women in Muslim Family Law, 2nd edn. Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
Fiss, Owen. 1976. “Groups and the Equal Protection Clause.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 5, 107–177.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy and Honneth, Axel. 2003. Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1995. “Multiculturalism and the Liberal State.” Stanford Law Review 47, 849–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helfand, Michael A. 2011. “Religious Arbitration and the New Multiculturalism: Negotiating Conflicting Legal Orders.” NYU Law Review 86, 1231–1305.Google Scholar
Hirschl, Ran. 2010. Constitutional Theocracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hirschl, Ran and Shachar, Ayelet. 2009. “The New Wall of Separation: Permitting Diversity, Restricting Competition.” Cardozo Law Review 30, 2535–2560.Google Scholar
Howard, Erica. 2011. Law and the Wearing of Religious Symbols: European Bans on the Wearing of Religious Symbols in Education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Htun, Mala and Weldon, Laurel. 2011. “State Power, Religion, and Women’s Rights: A Comparative Analysis of Family Law.” Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 18, 145–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kymlicka, Will. 1995. Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kymlicka, Will and Norman, Wayne. 2000. “Citizenship in Culturally Diverse Societies: Issues, Contexts, Concepts.” In Will Kymlicka and Wayne Norman, eds., Citizenship in Diverse Societies. Oxford University Press, pp. 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laborde, Cécile. 2008. Critical Republicanism: The Hijab Controversy and Political Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, Gerald James. 2001. Religion and Personal Law in Secular India: A Call to Judgment. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Lautsi and Others v. Italy. 2011. Case of Lautsi and Others v. Italy, European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber. App. No. 30814/06, March 18.
Mnookin, Robert H. and Kornhauser, Lewis. 1979. “Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: The Case of Divorce.” Yale Law Journal 88, 950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moghadam, Valentine M., ed. 1994. Identity Politics and Women: Cultural Reassertions and Feminism in International Perspectives. Boulder: Westview Press.
Multani v. Marguerite Bourgeoys (Comm’n scolaire). 2006. Supreme Court of Canada. [2006] 1 S.C.R. 256 (Can).
Ndulo, Muna. 2011. “African Customary Law, Customs, and Women’s Rights.” Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 18, 87–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riddle, Jennifer. 2002. “Making CEDAW Universal: A Critique of CEDAW’s Reservation Regime under Article 28 and the Effectiveness of the Reporting Process.” George Washington International Law Review 34, 605–638.Google Scholar
Shachar, Ayelet. 2001. Multicultural Jurisdictions: Cultural Differences and Women’s Rights. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shachar, Ayelet 2008. “Privatizing Diversity: A Cautionary Tale from Religious Arbitration in Family Law.” Theoretical Inquiries in Law 9, 573–607.Google Scholar
Shachar, Ayelet 2010. “State, Religion and the Family: The New Dilemmas of Multicultural Accommodation.” In Rex Ahdar and Nicholas Aroney, eds., Shari’a in the West. Oxford University Press, pp. 115–133.Google Scholar
Song, Sarah. 2007. Justice, Gender, and the Politics of Multiculturalism. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
State of New York. 2012. Divorce (Religious Marriages) Act 2012.
Stone, Suzanne Last. 2008. “Religion and State: Models of Separation from within Jewish Law.”International Journal of Constitutional Law 6:3–4, 631–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Charles. 1994. Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition, edited by Gutmann, Amy. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Westreich, Avishalom. 2012. “The ‘Gatekeepers’ of Jewish Marriage Law: Marriage Annulment as a Test Case.”Journal of Law and Religion 27, 329–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Rowan, Archbishop of Canterbury. 2008. “Archbishop’s Lecture at the Royal Court of Justice, Civil and Religious Law in England: A Religious Perspective.” February 7. Available at: .
Williams, Susan H. 2011. “Democracy, Gender Equality, and Customary Law: Constitutionalizing Internal Cultural Disruption.” Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 18, 65–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Yuval-Davis, Nira and Anthias, Floya. 1989. Woman–Nation–State. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Entangled
  • Edited by Cindy Holder, University of Victoria, British Columbia, David Reidy, University of Tennessee
  • Book: Human Rights
  • Online publication: 05 May 2013
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511758553.009
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Entangled
  • Edited by Cindy Holder, University of Victoria, British Columbia, David Reidy, University of Tennessee
  • Book: Human Rights
  • Online publication: 05 May 2013
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511758553.009
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Entangled
  • Edited by Cindy Holder, University of Victoria, British Columbia, David Reidy, University of Tennessee
  • Book: Human Rights
  • Online publication: 05 May 2013
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511758553.009
Available formats
×