Malaysia is a unique country in that its political, sociological and legal systems reflect quite clearly the
country’s multi-racial and multi-religious culture.
By virtue of Article 3 of the Malaysian Federal Constitution [hereafter ‘FC’]:
“Islam is the religion of the Federatio[in.e . Malaysia] but other religions may be practised
in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation”.
Further, Article 11 FC states that:
“(1) Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion, and subject to Clause (4)
[regarding propagation of religions other than Islam amongst Muslims], to propagate it.”
Family law relating to non-Muslims is governed separately from family law relating to Muslims. The
Civil High Courts (secular courts) have jurisdiction over family matters relating to non-Muslims in
Malaysia, whereas Syariah Courts (so named under Islamic Law) have jurisdiction over family matters
relating to Muslims.
By virtue of an amendment to the FC, that is Article 121(1A), which came into force on 10th June
1988, the Civil High Courts in Malaysia have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter that falls within
the jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts.
This dual system of laws works perfectly well when lines are clearly demarcated and families stay
within those lines; indeed, members of one family who practise the same religion would therefore be
governed by one set of laws and come under the jurisdiction of one court.
The lines, however, begin to blur when one party to a civil marriage decides to convert to Islam and
the other spouse does not, and has no wish to do so. The situation further turns into a legal and
constitutional quagmire when the spouse who converts to Islam decides unilaterally to convert the
children of the marriage without the knowledge of and/or without obtaining the prior consent of the
non-converting spouse. Which Court would then have jurisdiction over the marriage, the children of
the marriage, the divorce, and claims arising there from2?
The Marriage and the Divorce
The statute governing non-Muslim marriages and divorces in Malaysia is the Law Reform (Marriage
& Divorce) Act 1976 (hereafter “LRA 1976”). This Act specifically excludes its application to persons
professing the religion of Islam.
In a legislative move intended to address the dilemma created when one spouse converts to Islam
and the other does not, Section 51 of the LRA 1976 was enacted. This Section enables a nonconverting
spouse to petition for divorce in the Civil Courts against the converted spouse on the
ground of conversion to Islam. Upon such a divorce, the non-converting spouse may seek child rights,
financial support and property division orders against the converted spouse. In essence, the effect of
Section 51 is that it preserves the rights of the non-converting spouse to seek ancillary reliefs
consequent upon a divorce against a converted spouse notwithstanding the general inapplicability of
the LRA 1976 to Muslims.
Section 51 has, over the years since the LRA 1976 was implemented in 1982, been the subject of
much controversy. To begin with, the Section provides a remedy for the non-converted spouse.
However, the right of the converted spouse to similar relief has been overlooked. He or she upon
becoming a Muslim is precluded from seeking any relief in both the Civil Courts and the Syariah
Courts, since the Civil Courts cannot entertain a divorce application from the converted spouse on the
ground of conversion to Islam, and the Syariah Courts have no jurisdiction over the non-Muslim
spouse.
1 Advocate and Solicitor of the High Court of Malaya; Barrister (Gray’s Inn)
2 i.e. including spousal support, child support and division of the matrimonial assets
According to Islamic law, the marriage is terminated upon the expiration of three months of the
conversion if the other spouse does not convert to Islam. The converted spouse is thus free to marry
according to his or her personal law that is Islamic law. But the anomaly that then presents itself is
that the non-converting spouse remains, in the eyes of the Civil law, married to the converted spouse
until a divorce is sought and granted pursuant to a petition for divorce initiated by the non-converting
spouse under Section 51 of the LRA 1976.
Indeed, several Malaysian cases including one to the Supreme Court3 confirms that when the nonconverting
spouse does not petition for divorce, he or she remains a dependent of the converted
spouse, entitled to a share of his estate and his pension upon the death of the converted spouse.
Much criticism has been directed at what appears to be a patent omission by Parliament when
enacting Section 51. In failing to provide for the right of the converted spouse to seek a divorce and
consequent ancillary relief and financial provision orders in the event the non-converting spouse
refuses to do so, the converted spouse is currently left with no forum to seek a determination of any of
the ancillary or financial issues.
Perhaps, however, this ‘omission’ was not so much an oversight on Parliament’s part, but simply
because Parliament in its wisdom intended that the spouse who intends to convert should, prior to any
such conversion and/or remarriage, take all necessary and proper steps to sort out his rights and
obligations to his non-Muslim family under the civil law and in the civil courts, with the rationale that,
by failing to do so, he or she deserves to bear the full brunt of being without a forum.
Malaysian Courts have repeatedly moved to preserve the rights of the non-converting spouse to
financial and other relief against the converted spouse in matrimonial proceedings. Initially, in a case
brought before the High Court4, the view taken was that the spouse (here the wife) should have filed
for divorce on the ground of conversion under Section 51 for the court to be empowered to make
ancillary orders against the Respondent Muslim husband. As the wife had instead filed and obtained a
divorce under general divorce provisions in the LRA 1976 on the ground of irretrievable breakdown
and the husband’s desertion, the High Court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to make the ancillary relief
orders sought against the converted Muslim spouse.
The Supreme Court in a later case5 held that the aforesaid case6 was wrongly decided, stating that,
as the non-converting spouse’s application concerned matters affecting both parties, legal obligations
as non-Muslims and matters incidental to the granting of the divorce, the Civil High Court would have
jurisdiction to hear and determine the ancillary proceedings despite the fact that the Respondent
husband in the case before the Supreme Court had converted to Islam after the divorce but before the
hearing of the ancillary application.
The Supreme Court arrived at its decision based on a construction of the general purpose of the LRA
1976 taking into account what the Court perceived must have been the legislative intent behind
Section 51.
The Supreme Court observed that: -
“…It would seem to us that Parliament, in enacting sub-s.51(2) must have had in mind to give
protection to non-Muslim spouses and children of the marriage against a Muslim
convert…From the wording of S 51(2), the legislature clearly intended to provide ancillary
reliefs for non-Muslim spouses and the children of the marriage as a result of one party’s
conversion to Islam. In our opinion, by implication from s 51(2) above, the High Court, in the
present reference, has jurisdiction to hear and determine the ancillary issues. The
implications may arise from the language used, from the context or from the application of
some external rule. They are of equal force, whatever their derivation. (Bennion’s Statutory
Interpretation (2nd Ed, 1992) at p 362). It would result in grave injustice to non-Muslim
spouses and children whose only remedy would be in the civil courts if the High Court no
longer has jurisdiction, since the Syariah Courts do not have jurisdiction over non-Muslims. In
the context of the legislative intent of s 3 and the overall purpose of the Act [i.e. the LRA
3 Eeswari Visuvalingam v Government of Malaysia [1990] 1 MLJ 86
4 Letchumy v Ramadason [1984] 1 MLJ 143
5 Tan Sung Mooi v Too Miew Kim [1994] 3 MLJ 117 at pages 123-125
6 Supra, n.4
1976], the respondent’s legal obligations under a non-Muslim marriage cannot surely be
extinguished or avoided by his conversion to Islam.” 7
The Supreme Court decision as aforesaid was much needed and welcomed by the non-Muslim
community in that the rights of the non-converting spouse against a converted spouse arising from
obligations contracted under a non-Muslim marriage remained intact.
Recently, however, the controversy over jurisdiction, legal rights and obligations when a party crosses
over from one jurisdiction to another, resurfaced in a custody dispute between two parents who had
contracted a civil marriage, both of whom were Hindus at the time of their marriage. The dispute arose
when the Hindu father subsequently, without the knowledge of the wife, converted to the Islamic faith
and six (6) days later, also without the knowledge of or obtaining the consent of the mother, converted
their 2 sons, ages 3 and 2, to Islam.8
The mother, still unaware that the father had converted the 2 children, left the matrimonial home and
filed an application in the Civil High Court for custody, care and control of the 2 boys. She had this
custody application served on the father. Unknown to the mother, however, the father had already
filed an ex-parte application in the Syariah High Court for custody of his 2 sons.
On the date fixed for the hearing of the custody application in the Civil High Court, the father, without
informing the Civil High Court of his pending application before the Syariah Court, obtained a
postponement of the civil proceedings, ostensibly to enable him to appoint solicitors to take conduct of
the matter. In the meantime, also without informing the mother, the father moved the Syariah Court for
an ex-parte order for custody of the children.
On the adjourned date of the hearing, the Civil High Court, after hearing submissions on a preliminary
point, ruled that the Civil High Court, following the earlier Supreme Court case of Tan Sung Mooi9,
retained jurisdiction to hear the matter. An interim order was thus made leaving the children in the de
facto care and control of the mother with access to the father, pending final determination of all
issues.
Subsequent to and despite the existence of the Interim Order of the Civil High Court, the father
proceeded to the Syariah High Court and obtained a final order for custody of the 2 boys.
Two applications then came up for determination in the Civil High Court:
1) The Wife’s application for Declarations that the conversions cohf ildthreen twoe re null
and void as the conversions were made without the knowledge of and consent of the wife, the
natural mother and the other parent of the minors, contrary to:
(i) the wife’s constitutional right to determine the religion of the minors
under Article 12(4) of the Malaysian Constitution; and
(ii) equal rights given to a mother and a father under Section 5 of the Malaysian
Guardianship of Infants Act 1961 (hereafter “GIA");
2) Th e Wi f e ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r c u s t o d y , c a r e a n d caonndt r o l t h eo f t h e s e father be ordered to pay for their maintenance.
Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution gives a minor’s parent or guardian the right to determine
the religion of the minor below the age of 18 years, and Section 5 of the GIA gives a mother the
same rights and authority as the law allows to a father in the custody or upbringing of an infant and
the rights and authority of the mother and father shall be equal. ‘Infant’ is defined as a child below the
age of 18 years, if a Muslim, and 21 years, if a non-Muslim.
The High Court Judge dismissed the application for the declarations sought by the Wife. In his ruling
the Judge held the view that the consent of a single parent is enough to validate the conversion of the
minor.
7 supra, n .5, at page 124
8 This is the recent and controversial case involving Shamala Sathiyaseelan (the wife) and Dr Jeyaganesh
C.Mogarajah (the husband). A number of applications were made by both parties in this dispute. The decision
regarding the validity of the children’s conversion can be found at [2004] 2 CLJ 416.
9 Supra, n.5
In coming to his decision, the Judge declined to adopt the ratio decidendi enunciated by another High
Court Judge10 when considering the ambit of the term ‘parent’ within the context of Article 12(4) of
the FC. . The High Court in that case11 held that ‘parent’ in Article 12(4) of the Constitution must
necessarily mean both the father and mother living. The Judge said:
“ T o a l l o w j u s t t h e f a t h e r o r mo t h e r tmoe an c h o o s e t h e depriving the other of the constitutional right under Article 12(4).”
In the circumstances, the High Court in the present case ruled that the issue of the validity of the
conversions by the father was within the purview of the Syariah Court and that the Syariah Court was
the only qualified forum to determine the status of the 2 minors, notwithstanding the Wife had no right
of audience before that forum.
As regards the custody application, the Judge awarded legal custody jointly to both father and mother,
with care and control to the mother, subject however to the caveat that the mother would lose the right
to care and control if, in His Lordship’s words, “there are reasonable grounds to believe that she
would influence the children’s present religious (i.e. Muslim) beliefs, for example teaching them the
articles of her faith and making them eat pork” (which is contrary to the school of Islamic teachings
practised in Malaysia). The father was granted visitation rights and ordered to pay maintenance.
The Mother has appealed the earlier decision dismissing the declarations sought and the father has
appealed the later decision on custody.
The Mother and the 2 children have in fact disappeared from the jurisdiction.
Conclusion
The aforesaid case12 (widely termed ‘the Shamala case’ after the name of the Mother) has reopened
old wounds and raised new concerns. At stake are issues of equality guaranteed by the Federal
Constitution to a parent, that is reinforced in the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1961, as to the
choice of the religion of his or her child. Adding fuel to this controversy is the provision in some Islamic
State legislations that a child is automatically converted upon the conversion of the father.
The other major issue of concern is whether the lines of demarcation between the 2 jurisdictions, lying
where they are, works injustice to the parties.
In this, it appears appropriate to quote a principle which was applied in the Supreme Court Case of
Mohamed Habibullah bin Mahmood v Faridah Dato Talib (1992) 2 MLJ 79313 (which incidentally
was cited by the High Court Judge in the ‘Shamala Case’14) where it was said:
“…it is difficult to imagine how the administration of justice can be served if the parties are
allowed to abuse the process of the court by hopping from one jurisdiction to another over the same
subject matter…”
10 see Chang Ah Mee v Jabatan Hal Ehwal Agama Islam, Majlis Ugama Islam Sabah [2003] 5 MLJ 106
11 Ibid
12 Supra, n.8
13 citing Lord Diplock in the case of Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police (1982) AC 529 at p
536
14 Supra, n.8
Mr.Rebates
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Obscene shows may face harsh action
Nov 15, 2010
On screen bullying, obscene language, vulgarity and other objectionable content might lead to unprecedented “harsh” action against the makers of three programmes and the channels which air them. An Inter Ministerial Committee comprising representatives of the ministries of Information and Broadcasting, and various child rights and women’s rights organisations are believed to have met in the Capital on Monday to discuss wide-spread criticism of three programmes.
“There have been several complaints about objectionable content in Bigg Boss on Colors, the reports of a youth committing suicide after being insulted by show host Rakhi Sawant in Rakhi ka Insaaf on Imagine and about abusive content on Emotional Atyachaar on Bindaas. So the committee met and took certain decisions,” said a senior official who attended the meeting.
No one was available for comment on any of the three channels. The decisions likely to be made public in the next few days “may go beyond the usual show-cause notice, channel’s reply, warning or apology scroll cycle, this time round,” said another official.
The pressure on the I&B ministry to take harsh steps mounted later this evening, with the National Commission for Women also jumping into the fray. The NCW has objected to the tenor and language on Rakhi ka Insaaf.
Commission chairperson Girija Vyas said she had issued an advisory to the channel Imagine that is held by Turner General Entertainment Networks India Limited or TGEN that is a Time-Warner concern.
Broadcasting, and various child rights and women’s rights organisations are believed to have met in the Capital on Monday to discuss wide-spread criticism of three programmes. “There have been several complaints about objectionable content in Bigg Boss on Colors, the reports of a youth committing suicide after being insulted by show host Rakhi Sawant in Rakhi ka Insaaf on Imagine and about abusive content on Emotional Atyachaar on Bindaas. So the committee met and took certain decisions,” said a senior official who attended the meeting.
No one was available for comment on any of the three channels. The decisions likely to be made public in the next few days “may go beyond the usual show-cause notice, channel’s reply, warning or apology scroll cycle, this time round,” said another official.
The pressure on the I&B ministry to take harsh steps mounted later this evening, with the National Commission for Women also jumping into the fray. The NCW has objected to the tenor and language on Rakhi ka Insaaf.
Commission chairperson Girija Vyas said she had issued an advisory to the channel Imagine that is held by Turner General Entertainment Networks India Limited or TGEN that is a Time-Warner concern.
Naturally the Feminazi's have to stick there noses where anything has to do with Women's Immorality issues, all they teach and spread is immorality, so when one of there own is effected stand up for the cause.
On screen bullying, obscene language, vulgarity and other objectionable content might lead to unprecedented “harsh” action against the makers of three programmes and the channels which air them. An Inter Ministerial Committee comprising representatives of the ministries of Information and Broadcasting, and various child rights and women’s rights organisations are believed to have met in the Capital on Monday to discuss wide-spread criticism of three programmes.
No one was available for comment on any of the three channels. The decisions likely to be made public in the next few days “may go beyond the usual show-cause notice, channel’s reply, warning or apology scroll cycle, this time round,” said another official.
The pressure on the I&B ministry to take harsh steps mounted later this evening, with the National Commission for Women also jumping into the fray. The NCW has objected to the tenor and language on Rakhi ka Insaaf.
Commission chairperson Girija Vyas said she had issued an advisory to the channel Imagine that is held by Turner General Entertainment Networks India Limited or TGEN that is a Time-Warner concern.
No one was available for comment on any of the three channels. The decisions likely to be made public in the next few days “may go beyond the usual show-cause notice, channel’s reply, warning or apology scroll cycle, this time round,” said another official.
The pressure on the I&B ministry to take harsh steps mounted later this evening, with the National Commission for Women also jumping into the fray. The NCW has objected to the tenor and language on Rakhi ka Insaaf.
Commission chairperson Girija Vyas said she had issued an advisory to the channel Imagine that is held by Turner General Entertainment Networks India Limited or TGEN that is a Time-Warner concern.
AP HC ordering the US citizen child to be returned to USA
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY
and
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU
W.P.No.25479/2009
Dt. 24-9-2010
Bandi Jagadrakshaka Rao
..Petitioner ..Petitioner
V.
1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad,
represented by its Principal Secretary and others.
..Respondents
..Respondents
The Court made the following:
and
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU
W.P.No.25479/2009
Dt. 24-9-2010
Bandi Jagadrakshaka Rao
..Petitioner ..Petitioner
V.
1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad,
represented by its Principal Secretary and others.
..Respondents
..Respondents
The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY
and
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU
WP No.25479/2009
ORDER
(per the Honourable Justice A.GOPAL REDDY) The writ petitioner-Bandi Jagadrakshaka Rao, who is the husband of Arathi Bandi, 7th respondents, invoked the habeas corpus jurisdiction of this court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India for production of the minor child ie., Master Anand Saisuday Bandi before this court and to permit him to take the custody of the minor child in compliance of the orders passed in Case No.06-3-08145-9-KNT by the Superior Court of Washington, County of King (for brevity “the US Court”).
As rightly pointed out by the Supreme Court in SHILPA AGGARWAL V. AVIRAL MITTAL[1] this is one of those cases where a minor child below 5 years of age is the victim of the acrimony of the two adults who were responsible for his birth.
The facts, which are not in dispute, and which give rise to the present litigation, briefly stated as under:
The marriage between the petitioner and the 7th respondent took place on 9-11-2003. The 7th respondent, is a divorcee, and the second wife of the petitioner. At the time of marriage, the petitioner and 7th respondent were divorced and were working in USA, the petitioner was living in Seattle, WA and 7th respondent in Atlanta, GA. As both the parties thought that they were suitable for each other, they got married on 9-11-2003. After marriage, they lived together at Seattle, WA, USA and later 7th respondent got a job in Seattle, WA. During the wedlock, Master Anand Saisuday Bandi was born to them on 5-6-2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the minor child”), who is a citizen of USA by birth. After birth of minor child, it appears parties lived together happily for sometime. The petitioner filed a petition before the Superior Court of Washington, Country of King seeking dissolution of marriage and obtained an ex parte order restraining the 7th respondent from traveling out of the State of Washington on 30-6-2006. Whereas 7th respondent moved a motion before the Court for Domestic Violence. In the said case, she made a request to the court to direct the petitioner to move out of the house and be given two hours of supervised visitation with his son on the ground that he is a domestic violence batterer. The court directed the petitioner to move out of home till regular scheduled hearing and it further ordered that the 7th respondent should pay the petitioner $1500 so that he can pay his lodging/boarding as an interim measure and granted him unsupervised visitation rights with their son. The US Court appointed guardian-ad-litem to have parenting evaluation process. On parties agreeing to parenting plan, as recommended by the guardian-ad-litem appointed by the court was approved and made an order of the court by US Court on 20-3-2008. Under the said plan adjudicated and approved by the court, the child shall reside with the mother, except for the days and time, mentioned, when the child will reside with the father. Neither parent is prohibited from international or out of State travel with the child during his residential time. If the father relapses on alcohol, mother may seek an order limiting his residential time. Father will remain abstinent from alcohol. The petitioner father will successfully complete 10 week parenting class to begin immediately. Both parents will engage in co-parent counselling to improve communication etc., As 7th respondent left US on 17-7-2008 in violation of final parenting plan even after court declining to give clarification by rejecting the application moved by the 7th respondent on 16-7-2008. Meanwhile, the employer of 7th respondent terminated her services, and she could not go back to America. The petitioner filed a petition before the US Court to modify the custody decree/parenting plan/residential schedule and to designate him as custodian of the child, apart from restraining the 7th respondent from moving the child from the State of Washington from the date of entry of the parenting plan; permitting him to hold on the child’s passport and PIO card; restraining 7th respondent from obtaining Indian Passport for the child and other consequential reliefs, in which notices were ordered. The US Court, after following the procedure to serve notice on the 7th respondent by way of substituted service and also through counsel for the petitioner, by order dt. 9-12-2008 appointed the petitioner as custodian of the minor child, and he alone can take major decision with regard to education. According to the 7th respondent, the said order was obtained behind her back without any notice to her nor the order dt. 9-12-2008 was communicated to her. As the order of the US Court dt. 9-12-2008 has not been adhered to by the 7th respondent, the petitioner filed habeas corpus petition before the US Court for issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus and warrant in aid of Writ of Habeas Corpus to produce the child, wherein the Sheriff of King County, Washington was directed to locate and take the child into immediate custody and to deliver him as soon as reasonably to the Unified Family Court Judge of Superior Court of Washington. In spite of issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus, attempts made by the Sheriff of King County to locate and contact the 7th respondent and the child became futile, which led to King County Prosecutor’s office charging 7th respondent with first decree felony charges for custodial interference in March, 2009. On issuing warrant in Writ of Habeas Corpus, FBI had conducted their investigation, which led to District Attorney for Western Washington issuing a federal warrant for kidnapping against 7th respondent in August, 2009. Meanwhile, 7th respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioner and his parents with Women Police Station, Central Crime Station. On the basis of which, Cr.No.213/2008 under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act,1961. He filed Crl.P.No.6711/2009 under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the charge sheet; and also filed the present writ petition for the reliefs as aforementioned.
A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by the 7th respondent. In the counter-affidavit, the seventh respondent while admitting about the disputes between the parties and orders passed by the US Court etc., stated that the petitioner suppressed the fact of dissolving the marriage by a decree of the court and fact about the health of the child and the ailments with which he is suffering, despite the fact that he had knowledge about the same. When they were lived together, the child was hospitalized under emergency conditions, which unerringly point out that he is habituated to obtain orders from the court to suit his convenience by suppressing facts.
In the additional counter-affidavit filed by the 7th respondent, on petitioner filing rejoinder with the same set of fact, it is stated how the disputes started between them, which led to filing of the cases etc., which are not necessary to be detailed for the disposal of the present case since both the parties agreed that there is an order passed by the US Court; issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for production of the child and registration of the crime by the Women Police Station, Central Crime Station, Hyderabad.
Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that on the information received from Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Office of Children’s Issues, NW Washington, DC dt. 6-2-2009 that they could not locate the child, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this court by filing the present Writ of habeas corpus, in which interim order passed on 6-4-2010 directing the petitioner to have association of the child and interact with him in the presence of the family members of B.Somashekaran, Government Pleader has not been complied with by the seventh respondent and similarly interim order passed by this court dt. 29-4-2010 to hand over the minor child at 4 PM on every Monday, Wednesday and Friday as the place specified has not been complied with by the seventh respondent and there is no possibility of the parties uniting together to lead happy marital life. He further contended that the Court may be directed the seventh respondent to submit to the jurisdiction of the US Court and handover the child in obedience to the orders passed in the Writ of Habeas Corpus by the US Court.
Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, leaned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.7 would contend that the marriage of the parties has been dissolved by the court by order dt.25-8-2008 awarding property to the husband and wife and liabilities and the petitioner by moving an application on 26-9-2008 obtained orders for modifying the parenting plan custody of the child and all subsequent events had happened including filing writ of habeas corpus within three months followed by warrant of arrest. As per the parenting plan submitted by guardian-ad-litem, mother can have the custody and the petitioner-father will have only visitation rights. Warrant issued against the 7th respondent is to be withdrawn and she has to submit to the jurisdiction of the US Court within the time fixed by the court, so that she can obtain necessary orders for modifying the orders obtained by the petitioner and for recalling the warrant. He further contended that the seventh respondent has to bear $5000 for engaging a criminal lawyer at USA and due to termination of her employment she is not in a position either to travel to USA or engage an advocate to prosecute his case.
In SURINDER KAUR SANDHU V. HARBAX SINGH SANDHU[2], the Supreme Court held that when the parents of the child are Indian citizens and child born is a British citizen having taken birth in England and hold a British passport, English Court had jurisdiction to decide the question of his custody. The father cannot deprive the English Court of its jurisdiction to decide upon his custody by removing him to India, not in the normal movement of the matrimonial home but, by an act which was gravely detrimental to the peace of that home. The fact that the matrimonial home of the husband in England, establishes sufficient contacts or ties with that State in order to make it reasonable and just for the courts of the State to assume jurisdiction to enforce obligations which were incurred therein and accordingly allowed the appeal filed by the wife directing that the custody of the child shall be handed over to the mother.
In V. RAVI CHANDRAN (DR) (2) V. UNION OF INDIA[3] while dealing with the case of custody of child, the Apex Court held as under:
“While dealing with a case of custody of a child removed by a parent from one country to another in contravention of the orders of the court where the parties had set up their matrimonial home, the court in the country to which the child has been removed must first consider the question whether the court could conduct an elaborate enquiry on the question of custody or by dealing with the matter summarily order a parent to return custody of the child to the country from which the child was removed and all aspects relating to the child’s welfare be investigated in a court in his own country. Should the court take a view that an elaborate enquiry is necessary, obviously the court is bound to consider the welfare and happiness of the child as the paramount consideration and go into all relevant aspects of welfare of the child including stability and security, loving and understanding care and guidance and full development of the child’s character, personality and talents. While doing so, the order of a foreign court as to his custody may be given due weight; the weight and persuasive effect of a foreign judgment must depend on the circumstances of each case. (para 29)
However, in a case where the court decides to exercise its jurisdiction summarily to return the child to his own country, keeping in view the 
jurisdiction of the court in the native country which has the closest concern and the most intimate contact with the issues arising in the case, the court may leave the aspects relating to the welfare of the child to be investigated by the court in his own native country as that could be in the best interests of the child………..”(para 30)
jurisdiction of the court in the native country which has the closest concern and the most intimate contact with the issues arising in the case, the court may leave the aspects relating to the welfare of the child to be investigated by the court in his own native country as that could be in the best interests of the child………..”(para 30) In SHILPA AGGARWAL (1 supra), the Supreme Court while deciding the question “whether a 3½ year old girl child, who was born in England of Indian parents and is a British citizen by birth, can be kept in the custody of the mother who is now currently residing in India, despite an order passed on 26-11-2008, by the High Court of Justice, Family Division, UK, directing that the child be returned to the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales”, and after elaborately considering law on the said subject affirmed the view taken by the High Court holding that the High Court did not commit any error in relying on the doctrine of Comity of Courts since the question of what is in the interest of the minor still has to be considered by the U. K. Court and the interim order passed in the proceedings initiated by the Respondent No. 1 is only of an interim nature with a view to return the child to the jurisdiction of the said Court.
Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.7 has not disputed the fact of US court passing an order for the custody of the child and it has not permitted the 7th respondent to move the child from out of the Washington and in spite of the same, the child was brought by her and issuance of Writ of habeas corpus by US court for production of the child. But what he pleaded is that to grant some time for submitting the seventh respondent to the jurisdiction of the US Court so as to enable her to obtain necessary orders form the said court.
Having regard to the said submission and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we issue the following directions:
i) The petitioner shall obtain necessary travel tickets for the 7th respondent and the child for their visit to the place where U.S. Court is situated;
ii) On obtaining travel tickets, the petitioner shall intimate the same to the 7th respondent three weeks in advance of the date of departure to enable her to make necessary arrangements;
iii) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of $5000 (Five thousand American dollars) in the name of the 7th respondent for enabling her to engage an advocate in US and to submit to the jurisdiction of the US Court;
iv) The petitioner shall make necessary arrangements for the stay of the 7th respondent and the child for a period of fifteen (15) on their landing in USA.
v) On petitioner providing travel tickets, depositing the amount as ordered above, and intimating the date of departure, if 7th respondent fails to submit to the jurisdiction of the US Court along with the child, Master Anand Saisuday Bandi, in obedience to the orders passed in writ of Habeas Corpus by the US Court, she shall handover the custody of the child to the petitioner, who in turn shall produce the child before the US Court and custody of the child will abide by the decision of the US Court since the child is a citizen of USA.
With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
--------------------
A.GOPAL REDDY,J
---------------
K.C.BHANU,J
DT. 24-9-2010
Kmr
Stop Feminists' Job Killing Legislation (US)
Tell your Senators to vote NO on the so-called Paycheck Fairness Act!
Nov 15, 2010
http://www.capwiz.com/eagleforum/issues/alert/?alertid=19545501
Nov 15, 2010
http://www.capwiz.com/eagleforum/issues/alert/?alertid=19545501
On Election Day, Americans spoke out against the radical liberal agenda in Washington, D.C. Voters demanded a Congress that will strengthen the economy and create more jobs. But, the liberal left is still pandering to feminists and trial attorneys at the expense of American jobs by bringing the so-called “Paycheck Fairness Act” to a vote during the Lame Duck Session that begins Monday, November 15th.The “Paycheck Fairness Act” would stifle job creation, send existing American jobs overseas, and burden employers with expensive paperwork and frivolous lawsuits. Your calls are urgently needed to stop the feminists from causing unemployment rates to rise even higher! Originally introduced by Hillary Clinton during her time in the Senate, and reintroduced by Sen. Harry Reid, the Paycheck Fairness Act (S. 3772) (PFA) would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA) in the following ways:
In addition to these changes, the PFA would institute a system of “comparable worth” effectively allowing judges, juries and unelected bureaucrats to set employees’ wages, instead of employers. Thus, an employee’s compensation level would be based on some vague notion of his “worth,” instead of on concrete factors like education, experience, time in the labor force, and hours worked per week. The PFA would also cause employers to avoid hiring women in low-paying positions, since the employers may then become targets for burdensome lawsuits. This trend would result in even higher unemployment for low-skilled women, potentially increasing the number of families dependent on government assistance. President Obama has called the PFA a “common-sense bill.” The truth is, this bill makes no sense during good economic times, and would only add insult to injury now, when unemployment is near double-digits nationwide. Elaine Chao, Secretary of Labor under President George W. Bush, called the PFA a “job killing, trial attorney bonanza,” and said employers potentially would see female applicants as instigators of lawsuits, instead of contributors to productivity. Take Action The House of Representatives has already passed the Paycheck Fairness Act, and President Obama has said that he will sign the bill into law if the Senate passes it. The Senate vote is scheduled to take place on Wednesday, November 17, so call your Senator and tell him or her to vote NO on S. 3772 the so-called “Paycheck Fairness Act!” Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 Further Reading:
|
The Lost Boys
Nov 5, 2010
This week, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights announced that it will investigate whether colleges discriminate against women by admitting less qualified men. It will strike many as odd to think that American men would need such a leg up. From the men-only basketball games at the White House to the testosterone club on Wall Street, we seem surrounded by male dominance.
And yet, when looking to America's future—trying to spot the future entrepreneurs and inventors—there's reason to be troubled by the flagging academic performance among men. Nearly 58% of all those earning bachelor's degrees are women. Graduate programs are headed in the same direction, and the gender gaps at community colleges—where 62% of those earning two-year degrees are female—are even wider.
Economists at both the Department of Education and the College Board agree that, to ensure high future earnings, men and women have an equal need for college degrees, and yet only women are getting that message. The numbers are startling. This summer the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University published the results of a study tracking the students who graduated from Boston Public Schools in 2007. Their conclusion: For every 167 females in four-year colleges, there were 100 males.
In theory, the surge in the number of educated women should make up for male shortcomings when we're looking at the overall prospects for the economy. But men and women are not the same. At the same levels of education, women remain less inclined to roll the dice on risky business start-ups or to grind out careers in isolated tech labs. Revenue generated by women-owned businesses remains less than 5% of all revenue. And while the number of women taking on economically important majors is rising, women still earn only a fifth of the bachelor's degrees granted in physics, computer science and engineering.
Why males don't seem to "get" the importance of a college education is a mystery, especially considering the current collapse of jobs that traditionally don't require post-high-school study. (Even "cash for clunkers" isn't going to mark the return of car companies as a major employer of uneducated men.) And who could miss the message of the recession, where as many as 80% of the workers laid off have been male?
Too many boys arrive at their senior year of high school lacking both the skills and aspirations that would get them into, and through, college. At a typical state university, a gender gap of 10 percentage points in the freshman class grows by five points by graduation day, as more men than women drop out.
All this explains why colleges have been putting a thumb on the scale to favor men in admissions. There just aren't enough highly qualified men to go around. Determining that colleges practice discrimination doesn't take much detective work. Higher acceptance rates for men show that colleges dig deeper into their applicant pool to find them. The final proof: Freshman class profiles reveal that the women, with their far higher high-school grade point averages, are more academically qualified than the men. Interviews with admissions officers reveal that the girls' essays sparkle compared to the boys', and girls far outshine boys in extracurricular activities as well.
The Commission on Civil Rights cited an example written about in U.S. News & World Report in 2007: Virginia's University of Richmond was maintaining its rough gender parity in men and women only by accepting women at a rate 13 percentage points lower than the men.
It would be patriotic to report that this discrimination against women is carried out in the national economic interest of boosting graduates in key math and science fields. But, in truth, it's really a social consideration. Colleges simply want to avoid approaching the dreaded 60-40 female-male ratio. At that point, men start to take advantage of their scarcity and make social life miserable for the women by becoming "players" on the dating scene.
The case to abolish male gender preferences is problematic. Most of those male preferences are granted by private colleges, which consider themselves on solid legal ground. (Some public colleges and universities also grant those preferences at considerable legal risk, an indication of the depth of the fear about broaching that 60-40 threshold.)
In truth, these gender preferences are a sideshow. The real issue is the flagging academic interest among boys, a phenomenon that dates back only about two decades. It's a new issue to most Americans but hotly debated in countries such as England. So far, nobody has solved the boy mystery, but some countries are years ahead of the U.S. Australia has had some success with literacy-boosting programs for young boys. Until the code gets cracked, there's a national economic interest in keeping those preferences in place—just for a few more years.
This week, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights announced that it will investigate whether colleges discriminate against women by admitting less qualified men. It will strike many as odd to think that American men would need such a leg up. From the men-only basketball games at the White House to the testosterone club on Wall Street, we seem surrounded by male dominance.
And yet, when looking to America's future—trying to spot the future entrepreneurs and inventors—there's reason to be troubled by the flagging academic performance among men. Nearly 58% of all those earning bachelor's degrees are women. Graduate programs are headed in the same direction, and the gender gaps at community colleges—where 62% of those earning two-year degrees are female—are even wider.
Economists at both the Department of Education and the College Board agree that, to ensure high future earnings, men and women have an equal need for college degrees, and yet only women are getting that message. The numbers are startling. This summer the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University published the results of a study tracking the students who graduated from Boston Public Schools in 2007. Their conclusion: For every 167 females in four-year colleges, there were 100 males.
In theory, the surge in the number of educated women should make up for male shortcomings when we're looking at the overall prospects for the economy. But men and women are not the same. At the same levels of education, women remain less inclined to roll the dice on risky business start-ups or to grind out careers in isolated tech labs. Revenue generated by women-owned businesses remains less than 5% of all revenue. And while the number of women taking on economically important majors is rising, women still earn only a fifth of the bachelor's degrees granted in physics, computer science and engineering.
Why males don't seem to "get" the importance of a college education is a mystery, especially considering the current collapse of jobs that traditionally don't require post-high-school study. (Even "cash for clunkers" isn't going to mark the return of car companies as a major employer of uneducated men.) And who could miss the message of the recession, where as many as 80% of the workers laid off have been male?
Too many boys arrive at their senior year of high school lacking both the skills and aspirations that would get them into, and through, college. At a typical state university, a gender gap of 10 percentage points in the freshman class grows by five points by graduation day, as more men than women drop out.
All this explains why colleges have been putting a thumb on the scale to favor men in admissions. There just aren't enough highly qualified men to go around. Determining that colleges practice discrimination doesn't take much detective work. Higher acceptance rates for men show that colleges dig deeper into their applicant pool to find them. The final proof: Freshman class profiles reveal that the women, with their far higher high-school grade point averages, are more academically qualified than the men. Interviews with admissions officers reveal that the girls' essays sparkle compared to the boys', and girls far outshine boys in extracurricular activities as well.
The Commission on Civil Rights cited an example written about in U.S. News & World Report in 2007: Virginia's University of Richmond was maintaining its rough gender parity in men and women only by accepting women at a rate 13 percentage points lower than the men.
It would be patriotic to report that this discrimination against women is carried out in the national economic interest of boosting graduates in key math and science fields. But, in truth, it's really a social consideration. Colleges simply want to avoid approaching the dreaded 60-40 female-male ratio. At that point, men start to take advantage of their scarcity and make social life miserable for the women by becoming "players" on the dating scene.
The case to abolish male gender preferences is problematic. Most of those male preferences are granted by private colleges, which consider themselves on solid legal ground. (Some public colleges and universities also grant those preferences at considerable legal risk, an indication of the depth of the fear about broaching that 60-40 threshold.)
In truth, these gender preferences are a sideshow. The real issue is the flagging academic interest among boys, a phenomenon that dates back only about two decades. It's a new issue to most Americans but hotly debated in countries such as England. So far, nobody has solved the boy mystery, but some countries are years ahead of the U.S. Australia has had some success with literacy-boosting programs for young boys. Until the code gets cracked, there's a national economic interest in keeping those preferences in place—just for a few more years.
Obama Panders to the Feminists
Feb 2010
Obama's "spread the wealth around" doesn't mean only higher taxes on taxpayers and more handouts to non-taxpayers; more especially, it means transfers of financial goodies to the President's political allies.
The American people were rightfully outraged when it became known that Senators Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson were rewarded for voting for Obamacare with hundreds of millions of dollars of benefits given uniquely to their states, Louisiana and Nebraska. Now we find that President Obama is paying off the feminists big-time for their support of his election.
When Obama presented his multi-trillion dollar budget, he declared with great fanfare that he was calling for a freeze in discretionary spending. Feminists immediately had a tantrum to complain that the freeze exempted funding for the military, intelligence, and homeland security.
Now we learn that all feminist programs and organizations will also be exempted from the freeze. Instead, they will get what White House spokesman Kate Bedingfield admits are "significant funding increases."
A White House document entitled Opportunity and Progress for Women and Girls describes 15 federal programs that will receive increased funding to appease the feminists. Chief among them is the Violence Against Women project, which is targeted for a 22% increase, an extra $117 million more than current funding, which is already close to $1 billion a year. That earmark is a Joe Biden project known as feminist pork because the money goes right into the hands of radical feminist centers where they teach their anti-male, anti-marriage ideology, counsel women to get a divorce, and urge criminal prosecution against a man no matter how slight or unverified the alleged offense.
The Women and Girls document reveals that Obama's budget would appropriate $50 million to give grants to incentivize the states to adopt paid family leave. That longtime feminist goal would be very costly to small business and result in a loss of jobs.
To please the feminists, other spending that will be exempted from Obama's freeze includes an additional $400 million for the discretionary nutrition program for low-income women, and an increase of $10 million for family planning.
Of course, Obama's budget will increase funding for daycare, one of the most favorite feminist objectives. Head Start, which already receives $9 billion a year, is scheduled for additional funding of nearly $1 billion, despite the fact that recent studies show that Head Start provides little or no beneficial results toward the stated goal of helping disadvantaged children catch up with other children.
Obama's budget also provides an additional $1.6 billion for the Child Care and Development Fund as part of the reauthorization of government spending for daycare. The feminists believe that child care should be taken over by government in order to overcome society's expectation that mothers should care for their own babies.
Obama's budget increases funding for a new program to recruit undergraduate students from underrepresented groups in science and technology careers. The budget also increases funding for a special program to give women (instead of men) more jobs in academic science and engineering careers.
Obama's State of the Union speech continued his pandering to the feminists. He said: "We are going to crack down on violations of equal-pay laws so that women get equal pay for an equal day's work." Equal pay for equal work has been U.S. law since 1963, so there's nothing new about the law or its enforcement. Isn't his Equal Employment Opportunity (EEOC) agency already cracking down against violations, and if not, why not?
Obama's statement was just a throw-away line to feed the feminist myth that women are victims of employment discrimination. It was also designed to try to validate the false feminist slogan that women are paid only 77 cents for work that earns a dollar for men. That's not true because equal pay ought to be paid for equal work, and most women don't work as many hours or in as dangerous or unpleasant jobs as men. Women prefer inside work in air-conditioned offices.
Obama hasn't yet gone as far as Norway, which passed a law requiring that women must comprise 40% of all companies' corporate boards. U.S. feminists probably would like that rule; they pretend to see no hypocrisy in touting gender neutrality while demanding affirmative action for females.
Rush Limbaugh got it right when he commented on Obama's State of the Union speech as "from the 1970s . . . totally clich‚d." Half of American women are in the workforce today, while male unemployment is setting new records.
Feminist Candidates Are 'Unappealing'
Smarting from their surprise loss in the race to fill the U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts, the Democrats are throwing their candidate, Martha Coakley, under the bus. They blame her for running a poor campaign that made losers out of Barack Obama, the Democrats, their costly health care bill, and even Ted Kennedy in his grave.
Many reasons, of course, contributed to Scott Brown's remarkable victory. However, the chief reason Coakley's campaign didn't connect with the voters is that she is a feminist, causing even a liberal female TV commentator to admit she is "unappealing."
The feminists for years have had a stranglehold over the Democratic Party, enforcing their rule that every Democratic presidential candidate must pledge his fidelity to abortion with taxpayer funding. But abortion is only the first commandment of feminist ideology, and Martha Coakley revealed much, much more, so we can use her defeat as a teaching moment.
"Martha's a really great candidate for everything that NOW stands for," gushed Christina Knowles, director of the Massachusetts chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW). Coakley was, indeed, a really great advocate for NOW's feminist ideology, but that did not attract the voters.
It was not so great when Coakley was disdainful about Scott Brown campaigning in the cold outside Fenway Park, the fabled home of the beloved Boston Red Sox. It was not so great when Coakley dismissed one of the biggest Red Sox stars as a "Yankee fan."
Those comments fit the profile of feminists who have contempt for men's sports and therefore have eliminated hundreds of men's teams from college athletic programs under a misinterpretation of Title IX. Howard University even canceled both wrestling and baseball on the same day, giving double pleasure to the hateful feminists.
Boston University is the largest school in Boston, but it no longer has an NCAA baseball team. Nationwide, feminist opposition to anything masculine has forced the elimination of more than 450 wrestling teams.
Coakley insulted people with religious values by declaring that those who oppose abortion probably shouldn't work in emergency rooms because an occasional patient might demand an immediate abortion. Feminists refuse to allow respect for a right of conscience because that might get in the way of their ideology that abortion is women's premier right.
Feminists pretend they want all laws and behavior to be gender-neutral, with identical treatment of male and female (and other genders, whatever they are). But when it comes to domestic violence and child abuse, feminist ideology decrees that men are naturally batterers and women never lie so they don't have to present evidence in order to convict a man.
As prosecutor, Coakley followed this pattern when she insisted on treating a falsely accused man worse than a falsely accused woman. As copiously detailed by Dorothy Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal, Coakley persecuted the Amirault family for child abuse even after it became widely recognized that they had been imprisoned on false charges.
Although virtually everyone aware of the Amirault case recognized it to be as preposterous as the false allegation of rape against the Duke lacrosse players, Coakley insisted on continued incarceration of the Amirault brother in contrast with the release of his sister. Coakley insisted that when women are involved in child abuse cases, the real culprit is typically "a primary male offender."
Eventually the falsely accused man, Gerald Amirault, was released by the extraordinary intervention of the Massachusetts parole board, considered the toughest in the nation. That followed an exhaustive investigation, but Coakley continued to pretend that he was somehow guilty.
Democratic Party leadership has shown that it cannot or will not stand up to the incoherent, man-hating attitude of feminists like Coakley. For example, after the feminists had a tantrum and demanded that the majority of jobs created by Obama's Stimulus be given to women (instead of to shovel-ready jobs), even though most of those who lost jobs in this recession are men, President Obama dutifully acquiesced.
It's no wonder that non-college-educated men voted overwhelmingly for Brown against Coakley by a massive 27-point margin. The Democrats are lucky enough to elect some feminists, but feminists are just too unappealing when running against a masculine man such as Scott Brown.
Brown's driving a 2005 GMC pickup truck (which Obama sneered at) symbolized the elitism of Coakley, who drives a foreign car. While Coakley was sipping wine with drug and insurance company PAC representatives, Brown was shaking hands with the voters.
Male voters overwhelmingly pulled the lever for Scott Brown. Men are fed up with the feminist mindset and delivered a clear message in the Massachusetts election: give us a candidate who stands up to the feminists, and we will cross over from Democrat and Independent to elect a Republican.
Feminist Vendetta Against Men's Sports
We were shocked to read a November report from the U.S. Army that 75% of America's 17- to 24-year-olds are not eligible for military service, largely because they are poorly educated, involved in crime, or are physically unfit. According to this report titled Ready, Willing and Unable to Serve, 27% of young Americans can't join the military because they are too fat, out of shape, can't do push-ups or pull-ups, and can't run.
The Obama Administration claims that the solution for this dilemma is to spend lots of money on Pre-K schooling, but that doesn't pass the laugh test. A better remedy would be to terminate "Title-Nining," the malicious anti-masculine weapon used by feminists to eliminate men's sports in college and high school.
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 is a federal law passed to prohibit discrimination "on the basis of sex" in schools and colleges. Its sponsors solemnly promised it would never result in quotas, so it seemed like a good law to assure women every educational opportunity.
The radical feminists saw Title IX as an opening to pursue their anti-male agenda. Jimmy Carter's Department of Education created a three-point test for compliance with Title IX, one of which was that intercollegiate sports for males and females should be "proportionate" to college enrollment. That means, if half of the students taking academic classes are female, then half of the students playing on athletic teams must be female. The word "proportionate" is not in the law; the Education Department gave the word a newly created definition to force colleges to adopt quotas, which Title IX's sponsors explicitly said would never happen.
This rule was and still is unfair and ridiculous because it's a fact of human nature that female college students do not seek to play on athletic teams in anywhere near the percentage that male students do. For example, "re-entry" women (older women who return to college after their children are grown) surely aren't going back to college to play soccer.
In the Clinton Administration, the feminists pursuing their anti-male agenda in the Education Department's Civil Rights Office, essentially made "proportionate" the only test that matters for Title IX compliance by colleges that must cut their sports budgets. They used the power of the bureaucracy and activist judges to threaten college athletic departments. Colleges have every reason to fear lawsuits from failure to kowtow to feminist dictates. Losing a lawsuit means the college must pay the feminist lawyers' attorneys' fees and suffer adverse publicity.
Now that nearly 60% of students taking academic classes are female, 60% of students playing on athletic teams (and receiving athletic scholarships) must be female, and men's teams by the hundreds have been abolished, especially sports at which men excel, many of them trophy-winning teams.
Title IX quotas forced the elimination of 467 college wrestling teams, a particular target of feminist anti-masculine ideology. This shows that Title IX is not about equalizing male-female funding, since wrestling is one of the least expensive sports. Other victims of Title Nining include men's track and field and swimming. Title IX caused the elimination of all but 19 men's college gymnastics teams, and even forced Howard University to cancel its baseball team.
This injustice hit us hard at the Olympics in Beijing. The Chinese (who are not restricted by feminist nonsense) won seven out of eight gold medals in men's gymnastics, while our team failed to win a single gold medal in eight events.
In the Olympics, we compete against other countries that field their best athletes without regard to political correctness. Title IX disadvantages our country by denying opportunities to male athletes and pushing less talented women into sports just to get free college tuition, not because they are keen on sports.
Reducing opportunities for college sports is a powerful disincentive to men and is a major cause of the dramatic drop in male attendance. Why bother attending college if men can't play the sport they love?
Since the feminists had their confrontation with Harvard President Larry Summers in 2005, they have also been Title Nining to force colleges to hire less math-qualified female professors instead of more qualified men. Funny thing, we don't hear proposals to force universities to subsidize male professors to teach women's studies.
Congress has amended Title IX numerous times to carve out exceptions to this gender-neutral law (exceptions for single-sex schools, colleges, seminaries, contact sports, fraternities, sororities, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, American Legion Girls State and Boys State, and Mother-Daughter and Father-Son school events). It's time for another amendment to get rid of "proportionate" silliness in order to solve the problems of the much disliked 40-60 male-female ratio in colleges and also to graduate more students who are physically qualified for our volunteer military.
In order to get around the argument that this would result in illegal "sex discrimination" against women, the government could use two of the original three compliance criteria established by the pro-feminist Carter Administration: (a) responding to "the interest and abilities of the 'underrepresented' sex," and (b) demonstrating that "the 'underrepresented sex' have been fully and effectively accommodated." On college campuses today, men are clearly the "underrepresented" sex and are not being "fully and effectively accommodated."
Where Are the Men?
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights announced in November that it will investigate whether colleges illegally discriminate against women by admitting less qualified men. This is only the latest in a decades-long campaign by the feminist lobby to sell the false propaganda that girls are cheated all through the education system, K through 12.
Colleges used to have a male-female ratio of about 60-40 and, suddenly, we've discovered that it's close to 40-60. Colleges don't like this change; men don't like it; women don't like it; but the feminists are bragging about it and plan to use their clout in the government bureaucracy and in the Democratic Party to maintain it.
One of the causes for this dramatic shift is that colleges perceive applications by women to be better than those by men. Another cause seems to be that men don't seem to be as eager to get a college education as women. We see the results in the granting of degrees. Women receive 58% of bachelor's degrees in four-year colleges, 62% in community colleges, and graduate degrees are headed in the same direction.
Those who worry about the continuation of American exceptionalism are concerned because, if they have the courage to face reality, they know that women and men follow different career paths both in and after college. Many more men than women drop out before graduation, and women receive only about a fifth of bachelor's degrees in engineering, physics, or computer science.
After college, men and women make different choices, too. Women don't take the risks necessary for business start-ups or for business ownership, or choose the social isolation of technical laboratories, in anywhere near the proportion of men.
But why is it that women knock at the college admissions office with higher high-school grade-point averages, better essays, and even a bigger variety of extracurricular activities than men?
The Wall Street Journal calls this the "boy mystery" that "nobody has solved." We should respond with the famous line attributed to Sherlock Holmes, it's "elementary, my dear Watson." We can even claim a double entendre for the word elementary. The reason is obvious, and the causes originated in elementary school.
The ultra-feminist American Association of University Women (AAUW) issued a report in 1992 called How Schools Shortchange Girls. It claimed "findings" that teachers focused their attention on boys, neglected girls, and discouraged girls from taking important math and science courses.
The AAUW report was a lie that started real discrimination against boys and young men plus government spending to address a non-existent problem. The AAUW report was fully debunked by researcher Christina Hoff Sommers, who proved that feminist claims that girls are shortchanged in school are "riddled with errors" and not "published in peer-reviewed professional journals."
Elementary schools are not only ruled by females; they are dominated by feminists who make school unpleasant for boys from the get-go. Fewer than 10% of elementary school teachers are men, giving boys the distinct impression that school is not for them.
Elementary school teachers used to understand that boys will be boys, but teachers now look upon boys as just unruly girls. Feminists manifest hostility to males and to masculine traits such as competitiveness and aggressiveness, and instead reward typical female behaviors such as non-assertiveness and group cooperation.
Schools cannot make gender go away by pretending that boys do not have an innate masculinity, or by trying to suppress it with ridiculous zero-tolerance punishments, banning sports such as dodge ball and tag, and allowing only playground games without winners.
Five- and six-year-old boys are not as able or willing as little girls to sit quietly at a desk and do neat work with pencil and paper. Even worse is the appalling fact that first-grade kids are not taught how to read phonetically, and the assigned stories are mostly about topics of interest to girls not boys.
It's no wonder that boys are more likely to have academic or behavior problems, repeat a grade, get suspended, be enrolled in special education programs, or become involved in drugs, alcohol or crime. Little boys make the calculation that school (and college) is not an environment where they want to remain.
The solution to the college 40-60 male-female problem is certainly not to let the feminist bureaucrats force colleges to admit an even higher percentage of women. One solution is for colleges to be told (by regulation or statute) that it is not illegal sex discrimination to maintain a 50-50 male-female ratio.
I've been explaining feminism, and refuting its fallacies, for many years. I've been hoping that some brave man would speak up against the stupidity of trying to move us all into a gender-neutral society. Finally, a man has done this; Dennis Prager tells how important it is for society to get boys to grow up to be good men. Males who don't grow up are likely to do a lot of mischief, and women and society suffer.
Dennis Prager criticizes the feminist movement for trying to obsolete the ideals of masculinity and femininity. Traditional differences still exist almost only in sports and the military, and the feminists are trying to get rid of men's sports and to make the military gender-neutral.
One of the worst aspects of this feminist attack on masculinity is that marriage is increasingly regarded as optional. The male ideal is no longer a married man, protecting and supporting his wife and their children.
Dennis Prager concludes that, when boys do not become men, women assume the man's role. The feminists say that's what they want, but all surveys show that women are not as happy as they were 40 years ago under the old rules of masculine and feminine identity.
Obama's "spread the wealth around" doesn't mean only higher taxes on taxpayers and more handouts to non-taxpayers; more especially, it means transfers of financial goodies to the President's political allies.
The American people were rightfully outraged when it became known that Senators Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson were rewarded for voting for Obamacare with hundreds of millions of dollars of benefits given uniquely to their states, Louisiana and Nebraska. Now we find that President Obama is paying off the feminists big-time for their support of his election.
When Obama presented his multi-trillion dollar budget, he declared with great fanfare that he was calling for a freeze in discretionary spending. Feminists immediately had a tantrum to complain that the freeze exempted funding for the military, intelligence, and homeland security.
Now we learn that all feminist programs and organizations will also be exempted from the freeze. Instead, they will get what White House spokesman Kate Bedingfield admits are "significant funding increases."
A White House document entitled Opportunity and Progress for Women and Girls describes 15 federal programs that will receive increased funding to appease the feminists. Chief among them is the Violence Against Women project, which is targeted for a 22% increase, an extra $117 million more than current funding, which is already close to $1 billion a year. That earmark is a Joe Biden project known as feminist pork because the money goes right into the hands of radical feminist centers where they teach their anti-male, anti-marriage ideology, counsel women to get a divorce, and urge criminal prosecution against a man no matter how slight or unverified the alleged offense.
The Women and Girls document reveals that Obama's budget would appropriate $50 million to give grants to incentivize the states to adopt paid family leave. That longtime feminist goal would be very costly to small business and result in a loss of jobs.
To please the feminists, other spending that will be exempted from Obama's freeze includes an additional $400 million for the discretionary nutrition program for low-income women, and an increase of $10 million for family planning.
Of course, Obama's budget will increase funding for daycare, one of the most favorite feminist objectives. Head Start, which already receives $9 billion a year, is scheduled for additional funding of nearly $1 billion, despite the fact that recent studies show that Head Start provides little or no beneficial results toward the stated goal of helping disadvantaged children catch up with other children.
Obama's budget also provides an additional $1.6 billion for the Child Care and Development Fund as part of the reauthorization of government spending for daycare. The feminists believe that child care should be taken over by government in order to overcome society's expectation that mothers should care for their own babies.
Obama's budget increases funding for a new program to recruit undergraduate students from underrepresented groups in science and technology careers. The budget also increases funding for a special program to give women (instead of men) more jobs in academic science and engineering careers.
Obama's State of the Union speech continued his pandering to the feminists. He said: "We are going to crack down on violations of equal-pay laws so that women get equal pay for an equal day's work." Equal pay for equal work has been U.S. law since 1963, so there's nothing new about the law or its enforcement. Isn't his Equal Employment Opportunity (EEOC) agency already cracking down against violations, and if not, why not?
Obama's statement was just a throw-away line to feed the feminist myth that women are victims of employment discrimination. It was also designed to try to validate the false feminist slogan that women are paid only 77 cents for work that earns a dollar for men. That's not true because equal pay ought to be paid for equal work, and most women don't work as many hours or in as dangerous or unpleasant jobs as men. Women prefer inside work in air-conditioned offices.
Obama hasn't yet gone as far as Norway, which passed a law requiring that women must comprise 40% of all companies' corporate boards. U.S. feminists probably would like that rule; they pretend to see no hypocrisy in touting gender neutrality while demanding affirmative action for females.
Rush Limbaugh got it right when he commented on Obama's State of the Union speech as "from the 1970s . . . totally clich‚d." Half of American women are in the workforce today, while male unemployment is setting new records.
Feminist Candidates Are 'Unappealing'
Smarting from their surprise loss in the race to fill the U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts, the Democrats are throwing their candidate, Martha Coakley, under the bus. They blame her for running a poor campaign that made losers out of Barack Obama, the Democrats, their costly health care bill, and even Ted Kennedy in his grave.
Many reasons, of course, contributed to Scott Brown's remarkable victory. However, the chief reason Coakley's campaign didn't connect with the voters is that she is a feminist, causing even a liberal female TV commentator to admit she is "unappealing."
The feminists for years have had a stranglehold over the Democratic Party, enforcing their rule that every Democratic presidential candidate must pledge his fidelity to abortion with taxpayer funding. But abortion is only the first commandment of feminist ideology, and Martha Coakley revealed much, much more, so we can use her defeat as a teaching moment.
"Martha's a really great candidate for everything that NOW stands for," gushed Christina Knowles, director of the Massachusetts chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW). Coakley was, indeed, a really great advocate for NOW's feminist ideology, but that did not attract the voters.
It was not so great when Coakley was disdainful about Scott Brown campaigning in the cold outside Fenway Park, the fabled home of the beloved Boston Red Sox. It was not so great when Coakley dismissed one of the biggest Red Sox stars as a "Yankee fan."
Those comments fit the profile of feminists who have contempt for men's sports and therefore have eliminated hundreds of men's teams from college athletic programs under a misinterpretation of Title IX. Howard University even canceled both wrestling and baseball on the same day, giving double pleasure to the hateful feminists.
Boston University is the largest school in Boston, but it no longer has an NCAA baseball team. Nationwide, feminist opposition to anything masculine has forced the elimination of more than 450 wrestling teams.
Coakley insulted people with religious values by declaring that those who oppose abortion probably shouldn't work in emergency rooms because an occasional patient might demand an immediate abortion. Feminists refuse to allow respect for a right of conscience because that might get in the way of their ideology that abortion is women's premier right.
Feminists pretend they want all laws and behavior to be gender-neutral, with identical treatment of male and female (and other genders, whatever they are). But when it comes to domestic violence and child abuse, feminist ideology decrees that men are naturally batterers and women never lie so they don't have to present evidence in order to convict a man.
As prosecutor, Coakley followed this pattern when she insisted on treating a falsely accused man worse than a falsely accused woman. As copiously detailed by Dorothy Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal, Coakley persecuted the Amirault family for child abuse even after it became widely recognized that they had been imprisoned on false charges.
Although virtually everyone aware of the Amirault case recognized it to be as preposterous as the false allegation of rape against the Duke lacrosse players, Coakley insisted on continued incarceration of the Amirault brother in contrast with the release of his sister. Coakley insisted that when women are involved in child abuse cases, the real culprit is typically "a primary male offender."
Eventually the falsely accused man, Gerald Amirault, was released by the extraordinary intervention of the Massachusetts parole board, considered the toughest in the nation. That followed an exhaustive investigation, but Coakley continued to pretend that he was somehow guilty.
Democratic Party leadership has shown that it cannot or will not stand up to the incoherent, man-hating attitude of feminists like Coakley. For example, after the feminists had a tantrum and demanded that the majority of jobs created by Obama's Stimulus be given to women (instead of to shovel-ready jobs), even though most of those who lost jobs in this recession are men, President Obama dutifully acquiesced.
It's no wonder that non-college-educated men voted overwhelmingly for Brown against Coakley by a massive 27-point margin. The Democrats are lucky enough to elect some feminists, but feminists are just too unappealing when running against a masculine man such as Scott Brown.
Brown's driving a 2005 GMC pickup truck (which Obama sneered at) symbolized the elitism of Coakley, who drives a foreign car. While Coakley was sipping wine with drug and insurance company PAC representatives, Brown was shaking hands with the voters.
Male voters overwhelmingly pulled the lever for Scott Brown. Men are fed up with the feminist mindset and delivered a clear message in the Massachusetts election: give us a candidate who stands up to the feminists, and we will cross over from Democrat and Independent to elect a Republican.
Feminist Vendetta Against Men's Sports
We were shocked to read a November report from the U.S. Army that 75% of America's 17- to 24-year-olds are not eligible for military service, largely because they are poorly educated, involved in crime, or are physically unfit. According to this report titled Ready, Willing and Unable to Serve, 27% of young Americans can't join the military because they are too fat, out of shape, can't do push-ups or pull-ups, and can't run.
The Obama Administration claims that the solution for this dilemma is to spend lots of money on Pre-K schooling, but that doesn't pass the laugh test. A better remedy would be to terminate "Title-Nining," the malicious anti-masculine weapon used by feminists to eliminate men's sports in college and high school.
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 is a federal law passed to prohibit discrimination "on the basis of sex" in schools and colleges. Its sponsors solemnly promised it would never result in quotas, so it seemed like a good law to assure women every educational opportunity.
The radical feminists saw Title IX as an opening to pursue their anti-male agenda. Jimmy Carter's Department of Education created a three-point test for compliance with Title IX, one of which was that intercollegiate sports for males and females should be "proportionate" to college enrollment. That means, if half of the students taking academic classes are female, then half of the students playing on athletic teams must be female. The word "proportionate" is not in the law; the Education Department gave the word a newly created definition to force colleges to adopt quotas, which Title IX's sponsors explicitly said would never happen.
This rule was and still is unfair and ridiculous because it's a fact of human nature that female college students do not seek to play on athletic teams in anywhere near the percentage that male students do. For example, "re-entry" women (older women who return to college after their children are grown) surely aren't going back to college to play soccer.
In the Clinton Administration, the feminists pursuing their anti-male agenda in the Education Department's Civil Rights Office, essentially made "proportionate" the only test that matters for Title IX compliance by colleges that must cut their sports budgets. They used the power of the bureaucracy and activist judges to threaten college athletic departments. Colleges have every reason to fear lawsuits from failure to kowtow to feminist dictates. Losing a lawsuit means the college must pay the feminist lawyers' attorneys' fees and suffer adverse publicity.
Now that nearly 60% of students taking academic classes are female, 60% of students playing on athletic teams (and receiving athletic scholarships) must be female, and men's teams by the hundreds have been abolished, especially sports at which men excel, many of them trophy-winning teams.
Title IX quotas forced the elimination of 467 college wrestling teams, a particular target of feminist anti-masculine ideology. This shows that Title IX is not about equalizing male-female funding, since wrestling is one of the least expensive sports. Other victims of Title Nining include men's track and field and swimming. Title IX caused the elimination of all but 19 men's college gymnastics teams, and even forced Howard University to cancel its baseball team.
This injustice hit us hard at the Olympics in Beijing. The Chinese (who are not restricted by feminist nonsense) won seven out of eight gold medals in men's gymnastics, while our team failed to win a single gold medal in eight events.
In the Olympics, we compete against other countries that field their best athletes without regard to political correctness. Title IX disadvantages our country by denying opportunities to male athletes and pushing less talented women into sports just to get free college tuition, not because they are keen on sports.
Reducing opportunities for college sports is a powerful disincentive to men and is a major cause of the dramatic drop in male attendance. Why bother attending college if men can't play the sport they love?
Since the feminists had their confrontation with Harvard President Larry Summers in 2005, they have also been Title Nining to force colleges to hire less math-qualified female professors instead of more qualified men. Funny thing, we don't hear proposals to force universities to subsidize male professors to teach women's studies.
Congress has amended Title IX numerous times to carve out exceptions to this gender-neutral law (exceptions for single-sex schools, colleges, seminaries, contact sports, fraternities, sororities, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, American Legion Girls State and Boys State, and Mother-Daughter and Father-Son school events). It's time for another amendment to get rid of "proportionate" silliness in order to solve the problems of the much disliked 40-60 male-female ratio in colleges and also to graduate more students who are physically qualified for our volunteer military.
In order to get around the argument that this would result in illegal "sex discrimination" against women, the government could use two of the original three compliance criteria established by the pro-feminist Carter Administration: (a) responding to "the interest and abilities of the 'underrepresented' sex," and (b) demonstrating that "the 'underrepresented sex' have been fully and effectively accommodated." On college campuses today, men are clearly the "underrepresented" sex and are not being "fully and effectively accommodated."
Where Are the Men?
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights announced in November that it will investigate whether colleges illegally discriminate against women by admitting less qualified men. This is only the latest in a decades-long campaign by the feminist lobby to sell the false propaganda that girls are cheated all through the education system, K through 12.
Colleges used to have a male-female ratio of about 60-40 and, suddenly, we've discovered that it's close to 40-60. Colleges don't like this change; men don't like it; women don't like it; but the feminists are bragging about it and plan to use their clout in the government bureaucracy and in the Democratic Party to maintain it.
One of the causes for this dramatic shift is that colleges perceive applications by women to be better than those by men. Another cause seems to be that men don't seem to be as eager to get a college education as women. We see the results in the granting of degrees. Women receive 58% of bachelor's degrees in four-year colleges, 62% in community colleges, and graduate degrees are headed in the same direction.
Those who worry about the continuation of American exceptionalism are concerned because, if they have the courage to face reality, they know that women and men follow different career paths both in and after college. Many more men than women drop out before graduation, and women receive only about a fifth of bachelor's degrees in engineering, physics, or computer science.
After college, men and women make different choices, too. Women don't take the risks necessary for business start-ups or for business ownership, or choose the social isolation of technical laboratories, in anywhere near the proportion of men.
But why is it that women knock at the college admissions office with higher high-school grade-point averages, better essays, and even a bigger variety of extracurricular activities than men?
The Wall Street Journal calls this the "boy mystery" that "nobody has solved." We should respond with the famous line attributed to Sherlock Holmes, it's "elementary, my dear Watson." We can even claim a double entendre for the word elementary. The reason is obvious, and the causes originated in elementary school.
The ultra-feminist American Association of University Women (AAUW) issued a report in 1992 called How Schools Shortchange Girls. It claimed "findings" that teachers focused their attention on boys, neglected girls, and discouraged girls from taking important math and science courses.
The AAUW report was a lie that started real discrimination against boys and young men plus government spending to address a non-existent problem. The AAUW report was fully debunked by researcher Christina Hoff Sommers, who proved that feminist claims that girls are shortchanged in school are "riddled with errors" and not "published in peer-reviewed professional journals."
Elementary schools are not only ruled by females; they are dominated by feminists who make school unpleasant for boys from the get-go. Fewer than 10% of elementary school teachers are men, giving boys the distinct impression that school is not for them.
Elementary school teachers used to understand that boys will be boys, but teachers now look upon boys as just unruly girls. Feminists manifest hostility to males and to masculine traits such as competitiveness and aggressiveness, and instead reward typical female behaviors such as non-assertiveness and group cooperation.
Schools cannot make gender go away by pretending that boys do not have an innate masculinity, or by trying to suppress it with ridiculous zero-tolerance punishments, banning sports such as dodge ball and tag, and allowing only playground games without winners.
Five- and six-year-old boys are not as able or willing as little girls to sit quietly at a desk and do neat work with pencil and paper. Even worse is the appalling fact that first-grade kids are not taught how to read phonetically, and the assigned stories are mostly about topics of interest to girls not boys.
It's no wonder that boys are more likely to have academic or behavior problems, repeat a grade, get suspended, be enrolled in special education programs, or become involved in drugs, alcohol or crime. Little boys make the calculation that school (and college) is not an environment where they want to remain.
The solution to the college 40-60 male-female problem is certainly not to let the feminist bureaucrats force colleges to admit an even higher percentage of women. One solution is for colleges to be told (by regulation or statute) that it is not illegal sex discrimination to maintain a 50-50 male-female ratio.
I've been explaining feminism, and refuting its fallacies, for many years. I've been hoping that some brave man would speak up against the stupidity of trying to move us all into a gender-neutral society. Finally, a man has done this; Dennis Prager tells how important it is for society to get boys to grow up to be good men. Males who don't grow up are likely to do a lot of mischief, and women and society suffer.
Dennis Prager criticizes the feminist movement for trying to obsolete the ideals of masculinity and femininity. Traditional differences still exist almost only in sports and the military, and the feminists are trying to get rid of men's sports and to make the military gender-neutral.
One of the worst aspects of this feminist attack on masculinity is that marriage is increasingly regarded as optional. The male ideal is no longer a married man, protecting and supporting his wife and their children.
Dennis Prager concludes that, when boys do not become men, women assume the man's role. The feminists say that's what they want, but all surveys show that women are not as happy as they were 40 years ago under the old rules of masculine and feminine identity.
Billions of Our Sisters
Nov 8, 2010
Here is shy the feminazi's are not too happy with Nov 2, 2010 midterm elections, for starters the Socialist Democrats lost a lot of seats to the Family oriented Repulicans, bad news for Family destroying Fascist Feminazi witches, enough said. Read the entire article below. Why would the Feminazi's be interested in Foreign Policy? Well for starters they want to spread the world over laws Domestic Violence act, and enact the proposed I-VAWA, so they can corrupt the world with there disgusting views and deranged idea's that has decayed Western society for ages.
The Day the US learns to stop budding in to other nations affairs the better off the world will be, history has not taught anything to Americans unfortunately, one of the main reasons for the present economic crisis amongst many other factors I must all. Example had the USA not gone to war in Iraq that would have saved Billions in not Trillions of Tax dollars better spent to create jobs and economic activity. The US needs to get her own house in order, end of story.
The Day the US learns to stop budding in to other nations affairs the better off the world will be, history has not taught anything to Americans unfortunately, one of the main reasons for the present economic crisis amongst many other factors I must all. Example had the USA not gone to war in Iraq that would have saved Billions in not Trillions of Tax dollars better spent to create jobs and economic activity. The US needs to get her own house in order, end of story.
Last week the United States was rocked by a mid-term election and a party-control switch in the House of Representatives. As my colleague Romina Boccia pointed out, largely absent from the campaign platforms was mention of foreign policy.
True, the U.S. has its own set of hurdles, but we are still an important player in the world and (although some would hesitate to admit it) a good example to other countries of a place where public policy honors personal freedoms.
I've had the opportunity to attend a conference in Istanbul, Turkey, this weekend on behalf of IWF, and Friday at dinner, a young Turkish woman admitted to me that many of her compatriots see Turkey as a small United States. Or, at least the country aspires to be like the United States.
At the opening ceremony of the conference, the speaker noted that Turkish women in Istanbul are "not seen." In this respect, Turkey is not similar to the U.S. (where women are achieving great success educationally and economically), but Turkey is similar to several other countries, particularly in the Middle East and other parts of the developing world - places where women are simply "not seen."
In a way this weekend, I feel that I have stepped back in time. I never had the opportunity to watch the Women's Movement of the 1960's take place in the U.S., but women (even wearing headscarves) in Turkey are now rallying to break stereotypes, encourage girls' education, provide economic opportunities for women, and raise public awareness of the value of women. My hope is that Turkey will become a leader to some of its near neighbors who lag behind on women's rights.
In my family in the United States, my grandfather often brags about his "six women." His line of descendants includes his two daughters and three granddaughters (plus grandma - that's his six). I took for granted as I grew up that some men in other parts of the world would not feel so proud to have only female descendants, and I would not have been so cherished and valued by my family. In some parts of the world, women are still treated like property, or at least as inferior beings, often married off at young ages, abused, and not even protected by law.
I am in full support of women's progress in Turkey. Nonetheless, I was wary of the first session in this conference. It was entitled "Women's Poverty and Social Justice." The cause for my caution was the overuse (and abuse) of the words "social justice" by so many American campaigns - some under the feminist banner - to make government bigger and restrict the very market that could provide women with opportunities. But today I was surprised to hear a reasonable, politically moderate panel explain the great rewards that economic growth and development have for women.
Of course I didn't agree with everything that was said (for example, one panelist said that social justice means that there's an even distribution of income, and I believe that it is more just that people who work harder or perform more valued work receive higher pay). But I was truly honored to be a witness to a frank conversation about how access to education and economic opportunities are good for women, and furthermore how this affects families and communities because of the great contribution women make as mothers and caretakers.
One of the panelists emphasized the role of women in the family, and encouraged women's groups to work with religious groups (not against them) to empower women. This same speaker closed with words that still send a chill down my spine. At the end of his remarks he put down his papers and said in English in a strong accent, "Don't take a moment off to think, ‘oh well, we are okay over here.' There are billions of your sisters still suffering in the rest of the world."
The desire to be free is set in the hearts of all people, not just Americans. Our Founding Fathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is not the place of government to give us our rights, as men or women, but good governing means protecting the safety of the governed to enjoy these natural rights. As Americans, we should recognize that all men and all women are endowed with the same rights that we enjoy, and we should be outspoken supporters of international movements that seek to recognize the human dignity and natural rights of all people.
True, the U.S. has its own set of hurdles, but we are still an important player in the world and (although some would hesitate to admit it) a good example to other countries of a place where public policy honors personal freedoms.
I've had the opportunity to attend a conference in Istanbul, Turkey, this weekend on behalf of IWF, and Friday at dinner, a young Turkish woman admitted to me that many of her compatriots see Turkey as a small United States. Or, at least the country aspires to be like the United States.
At the opening ceremony of the conference, the speaker noted that Turkish women in Istanbul are "not seen." In this respect, Turkey is not similar to the U.S. (where women are achieving great success educationally and economically), but Turkey is similar to several other countries, particularly in the Middle East and other parts of the developing world - places where women are simply "not seen."
In a way this weekend, I feel that I have stepped back in time. I never had the opportunity to watch the Women's Movement of the 1960's take place in the U.S., but women (even wearing headscarves) in Turkey are now rallying to break stereotypes, encourage girls' education, provide economic opportunities for women, and raise public awareness of the value of women. My hope is that Turkey will become a leader to some of its near neighbors who lag behind on women's rights.
In my family in the United States, my grandfather often brags about his "six women." His line of descendants includes his two daughters and three granddaughters (plus grandma - that's his six). I took for granted as I grew up that some men in other parts of the world would not feel so proud to have only female descendants, and I would not have been so cherished and valued by my family. In some parts of the world, women are still treated like property, or at least as inferior beings, often married off at young ages, abused, and not even protected by law.
I am in full support of women's progress in Turkey. Nonetheless, I was wary of the first session in this conference. It was entitled "Women's Poverty and Social Justice." The cause for my caution was the overuse (and abuse) of the words "social justice" by so many American campaigns - some under the feminist banner - to make government bigger and restrict the very market that could provide women with opportunities. But today I was surprised to hear a reasonable, politically moderate panel explain the great rewards that economic growth and development have for women.
Of course I didn't agree with everything that was said (for example, one panelist said that social justice means that there's an even distribution of income, and I believe that it is more just that people who work harder or perform more valued work receive higher pay). But I was truly honored to be a witness to a frank conversation about how access to education and economic opportunities are good for women, and furthermore how this affects families and communities because of the great contribution women make as mothers and caretakers.
One of the panelists emphasized the role of women in the family, and encouraged women's groups to work with religious groups (not against them) to empower women. This same speaker closed with words that still send a chill down my spine. At the end of his remarks he put down his papers and said in English in a strong accent, "Don't take a moment off to think, ‘oh well, we are okay over here.' There are billions of your sisters still suffering in the rest of the world."
The desire to be free is set in the hearts of all people, not just Americans. Our Founding Fathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is not the place of government to give us our rights, as men or women, but good governing means protecting the safety of the governed to enjoy these natural rights. As Americans, we should recognize that all men and all women are endowed with the same rights that we enjoy, and we should be outspoken supporters of international movements that seek to recognize the human dignity and natural rights of all people.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)