Europe – Women & Religion – Parliamentary Assembly: Council of Europe
Author: Womens UN Report Network
Date: October 30, 2006
Women and Religion
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of
Europe
Doc.
10670
16 September 2005
Report
Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men
Rapporteur: Mrs
Rosmarie Zapfl-Helbling, Switzerland, Group of the European People’s
Party
Summary
In the lives of many
European women, religion continues to play an important role. In fact, whether
they are believers or not, most women are affected in one way or another by the
attitude of different faiths towards women, directly or through their
traditional influence on society or the State. This influence is seldom benign:
women’s rights are often curtailed or violated in the name of religion.
All women living in
Council of Europe member states have a right to equality and dignity in all
areas of life. Freedom of religion must not be accepted as a pretext for
justifying violations of women’s rights, be they open, subtle, legal or illegal,
practiced with or without the nominal consent of the victims – women.
It is the duty of
the member states of the Council of Europe to protect women against violations
of their rights in the name of religion and to promote and fully implement
gender equality. States must not accept any religious or cultural relativism of
women’s human rights.
The Parliamentary
Assembly should thus call on the member states of the Council of Europe to take
the necessary measures to fully protect all women living in their country
against violations of their rights based on or attributed to religion and to
take a stand against violations of women’s human rights justified by religious
or cultural relativism everywhere.
I. Draft
resolution
1. In the lives of many
European women, religion continues to play an important role. In fact, whether
they are believers or not, most women are affected in one way or another by the
attitude of different faiths towards women, directly or through their
traditional influence on society or the State.
2. This influence is
seldom benign: women’s rights are often curtailed or violated in the name of
religion. While most religions teach equality of women and men before God, they
attribute different roles to women and men on earth. Religiously motivated
gender stereotypes have conferred upon men a sense of superiority which has led
to discriminatory treatment of women by men and even violence at their hands.
3. At one end of the
spectrum lie the extreme violations of women’s human rights such as so-called
“honour” crimes, forced marriages and female genital mutilation, which – though
still rare in Europe – are on the rise in some communities.
4. At the other end are
more subtle and less spectacular forms of intolerance and discrimination which
are much more widespread in Europe – and which can be just as effective in
achieving the subjection of women, such as the refusal to put into question a
patriarchal culture which holds up the role of wife, mother and housewife as the
ideal and the refusal to adopt positive measures in favour of women (for example
in parliamentary elections).
5. All women living in
Council of Europe member states have a right to equality and dignity in all
areas of life. Freedom of religion cannot be accepted as a pretext to justify
violations of women’s rights, be they open, subtle, legal or illegal, practiced
with or without the nominal consent of the victims – women.
6. It is the duty of the
member states of the Council of Europe to protect women against violations of
their rights in the name of religion and to promote and fully implement gender
equality. States must not accept any religious or cultural relativism of women’s
human rights. They must not agree to justify discrimination and inequality
affecting women on grounds such as physical or biological differentiation based
on or attributed to religion. They must fight against religiously motivated
stereotypes of female and male roles from an early age, including in
schools.
7. The Parliamentary
Assembly thus calls on the member states of the Council of Europe
to:
7.1. fully protect all women living
in their country against violations of their rights based on or attributed to
religion by:7.1.1. putting into place and enforcing specific
and effective policies to fight all violations of women’s right to life, to
bodily integrity, freedom of movement and free choice of partner, including
so-called “honour” crimes, forced marriage and female genital mutilation,
wherever and by whomever they are committed, however they are justified, and
regardless of the nominal consent of the victim; this means that freedom of
religion is limited by human rights;7.1.2. refusing to recognise foreign family codes
and personal status laws based on religious principles which violate women’s
rights and ceasing to apply them on their own soil, renegotiating bilateral
treaties if necessary;7.2. take a stand against
violations of women’s human rights justified by religious or cultural
relativism everywhere, including in international fora such as the United
Nations, the IPU and others;7.3. guarantee the separation
between the Church and the State which is necessary to ensure that women are
not subjected to religiously inspired policies and laws (e.g. in the area of
family, divorce, and abortion law);7.4. ensure that the freedom of
religion and the respect for culture and tradition are not accepted as a
pretext to justify violations of women’s rights, including when underage girls
are forced to submit to religious codes (including dress codes), their freedom
of movement is curtailed or their access to contraception is barred by their
family or community;7.5. where religious education is
permitted in schools, ensure that this teaching is in conformity with gender
equality principles;7.6. take a stand against all
religious doctrine which is anti-democratic or disrespectful of human rights,
especially women’s rights, and refuse to allow such doctrines to influence
political decision-making;7.7. actively promote respect of
women’s rights, equality and dignity in all areas of life when engaging in
dialogue with representatives of different religions and work on achieving
full gender equality in society.
II. Explanatory
memorandum by Mrs Zapfl-Helbling
A.
Introduction
1. In the lives of many
European women, religion continues to play an important role. In fact, whether
they are believers or not, most women are affected in one way or another by the
attitude of different faiths towards women, directly or through their
traditional influence on society or the State.
2. The three monotheistic
faiths (Jewish, Christian and Muslim) have the most followers in Council of
Europe member states, but the influence of the different churches on the State
and on society varies from country to country. Thus, for example, France is a
lay state by virtue of its Constitution; Germany organises religious teaching in
schools, and allows Christian, Jewish and Muslim Councils a large say in, for
example, matters of ethics; the Russian Orthodox Church holds an important
position in Russia; and a Muslim revival can be witnessed both in parts of
South-Eastern Europe and in immigrant communities across the whole of
Europe.
3. When it comes to the
attitude of these faiths to women, however, their influence is not always
benign. Equality of women and men is not a doctrine that is central to the faith
– on the contrary, centuries-old discrimination against women often continues to
reign. It is a well-known fact that, for example, the Roman Catholic and
Orthodox Churches do not allow women to be ordained as priests and condemn both
“unnatural” contraception methods and abortion; or that, in general, the Muslim
faith is interpreted as requiring the use of headscarves (or more) by
women.
4. All women living in
Council of Europe member states have a right to equality and dignity in all
areas of life. This includes the right of women to abide by religious teaching
if they so wish – but it also includes their right not to do so, even if this
means breaking with the predominant culture and tradition of the community in
question. The problem is the reaction of this community, which does not always
accept such religious non-conformity practised by women. Some members of the
community even go so far as to exclude such women, or resort to so-called
“honour crimes” to bring these “errant” women back into the fold (if they do not
kill them). You might recall in this context the Assembly’s recent Resolution
1327 (2003) on “so-called honour crimes”, which was based on a report prepared
by Mrs Cryer for our Committee.
5. Obviously, the
question of women and religion is an extremely sensitive one; nevertheless, in
view of the broad influence of religion on society in general and the situation
of women in particular, it must be tackled. Council of Europe member states
should be encouraged to take the appropriate measures to ensure that women have
complete freedom to abide or not by religious teaching, and that they suffer no
negative consequences whatever their choice.
6. I took over this file
from the former Rapporteur, Mrs Aguiar (Portugal, EPP/CD) a few months ago, as
she left the Assembly. She already drafted an outline report, which has also
inspired my memorandum, and she organised a hearing on the issue with
representatives of the main European faiths in September 2004 within the
Committee[1]. At our meeting in Paris on 3 June 2005, we held, in
addition, an exchange of views with representatives of the two faiths which were
not represented at that hearing, the Catholic Church and
Islam.
7. In this explanatory
memorandum, I intend to throw light on the possible conflict between freedom of
religion and women’s rights. I will then reproduce Mrs Aguiar’s outline of the
attitude of the five faiths which have the most followers in Europe, i.e. the
Christian faith (broken down into the Roman Catholic Church, Protestant Churches
and Orthodox Churches), Islam and Judaism, towards key policy areas which impact
on women’s lives: contraception, abortion and divorce. I will also consider the
role and weight of women within these faiths, such as whether women are allowed
(and encouraged) to hold clerical office, before drawing my conclusions and
proposing some recommendations.
B. The interface
between freedom of religion and women’s rights
8. As we all know,
certain fundamental human rights are sometimes in conflict which each other
(such as the freedom of the press and the right to privacy), and – although both
concepts are equally important and universal – it becomes necessary to decide
where the one ends and the other begins. This is also the case with the freedom
of religion and women’s human rights. I think there is no European state which
still has discriminatory laws on the statute books that clearly violate women’s
human rights, although there are, unfortunately, plenty of states in the
world which still do. But general discrimination against women is a reality also
in Europe – for example, our Committee has recently presented reports to the
Assembly on discrimination against women in such diverse areas as the workplace
and sport.
9. It is a fact that much
of this discrimination is inspired by the dominant culture of the respective
country, which, in turn, is often influenced by (or justified by) religious
teachings or sentiments. Thus, discrimination against women and violation of
their rights is often trivialised and tolerated even in our European societies.
Of course, depending on the relation between the church and the State, such
attitudes are often not openly attributed to religion, but to culture and
tradition. Thus, as explains an excellent 2002 study by the then United Nations
Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Mr Abdelfattah Amor, on
freedom of religion or belief and the status of women as regards religion and
tradition[2]: ” The problem stems from the fact that a number of
practices detrimental to women’s health or legal status, or to their status in
general, are upheld by individuals and communities, and also states, which
engage in these practices or perceive them as a component of freedom of religion
and as a religious obligation to which they and their ancestors have been
subject since time immemorial; they see these practices as having nothing to do
with issues relating to the universal protection of women’s
rights”.[3]
10. For decades, the United
Nations has combated this “cultural relativism” argument put forward by a number
of states to justify violations of women’s rights. I think it is clear to us all
in Europe that such cultural relativism is unacceptable, and that women’s rights
are universal, just as human rights are universal. But it is, unfortunately,
sometimes difficult to separate cultural traditions and religion as such – which
means that some ostensibly religious practices violate women’s universal rights
(female genital mutilation, crimes of honour, certain practices linked to
marriage and its dissolution, lack of access to education or certain
professions, and the preference of boys, being just the most obvious examples).
And it is not only men who insist on continuing such practices: paradoxically,
in particular in times of conflict or crises of identity, the victims themselves
– women – play an important role in perpetuating these
practices.[4]
11. In Europe, such practices
are rare outside certain minority religions or immigrant communities. However,
this does not mean that European societies necessarily fully respect women’s
rights. As the former United Nations Special Rapporteur pointed out in his
study: “In every society there are informal customs and traditions which can
play a part – sometimes a greater one than legislation – in controlling women’s
lives”[5], “The persistence of patriarchal culture and the importance
still assigned to women’s traditional role as mothers and wives responsible for
childcare and to men’s role as breadwinners legitimise and reinforce the
prevailing stereotypes. Most cultures, including those of some industrialised
countries, are exposed to these patriarchal behaviour patterns”[6].
12. Thus, for example, Article
41 paragraph 2 of the Irish Constitution reads: “In particular, the State
recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support
without which the common good cannot be achieved. The State shall, therefore,
endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to
engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.” Liechtenstein,
Spain, Germany and Luxembourg have also recently been criticised by the CEDAW
Committee for their lack of de facto equality between women and men – but
I do not expect the situation to be much better in other Council of Europe
member states, including my own. As the Special Rapporteur writes: “The
most horrifying and obvious examples of discrimination committed in the name of
religion should not divert attention from more subtle and less spectacular forms
of intolerance and discrimination which are just as effective in achieving the
subjection of women, such as the refusal to adopt positive measures in favour of
women, for example in parliamentary elections, and the refusal to initiate a
public dialogue on sex equality”.[7]
13. I think that the interface
between the freedom of religion and women’s rights has now been made clear:
freedom of religion must end when violations of women’s rights begin, be they
open, subtle, legal or illegal, practiced with or without the nominal consent of
the victims – women. It is the duty of the member states of the Council of
Europe to protect women against the violations of their rights, and promote and
fully implement gender equality. States must not accept any cultural or
religious relativism of human rights, they must not agree to justify
discrimination and inequality affecting women on grounds such as physical or
biological differentiation based on or attributed to religion. This is
especially important in those states which permit religious education in
schools: it is important for those states to ensure that all religious teaching
in schools fully respects gender equality principles.
C. Violations of
women’s rights in the name of religion
14. Until today, women’s rights
are violated in the name of religion all over the world. The most extreme
violations – those which touch such vital human rights as the right to life, to
bodily integrity, to freedom of movement and choice of partner – are,
thankfully, not common in Europe, but they, too, are on the rise, in particular
in some immigrant communities and communities which have fallen under the spell
of religious extremism. The worrying increase in cases of so-called “honour
crimes” (murders, attempted murders and the persecution of girls and women
refusing to abide by certain religious and/or cultural norms by members of their
family and community)[8] and of forced
marriages[9], and the failure
to eradicate the violent practice of female genital mutilation[10] are all cases in
point.
15. However, the main
violations of women’s rights which can be attributed to religion in Council of
Europe member states are more subtle, and stem from the fact that the dominant
monotheistic faiths in Europe (with the exception, perhaps, of the Lutherans) do
not genuinely support gender equality. As Ms Sallé from the Pontifical Council
for the Laity at the Vatican explained during our second Committee hearing, in
the view of the Catholic Church men and women had been given specific and
non-interchangeable responsibilities by God. In other words, while women and men
may be equal before God, they are meant to fulfil different roles on earth.
Traditionally, thus, the Catholic Church has emphasized the role of wife, mother
and housewife for women, as has the Orthodox Church. Over the centuries, such
religiously motivated gender stereotypes have conferred a sense of superiority
upon men, and have thus led to discriminatory treatment of women. They have even
been used to justify violence against women “to keep them in their place”.
16. That women may want to
shoulder other responsibilities instead of or as well as such “caring”
responsibilities, including decision-making responsibilities, was vilified as
recently as last year by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of the
Catholic Church, which wrote in its letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church
“on the collaboration of men and women in the church and in the world” of 31
July 2004: “Faced with the abuse of power, the answer for women is to seek
power. This process leads to opposition between men and women, in which the
identity and role of one are emphasized to the disadvantage of the other,
leading to harmful confusion regarding the human person, which has its most
immediate and lethal effects in the structure of the family.”[11] The Catholic Church considers
that “woman, in her deepest and original being, exists “for the other””[12] – women are seen as living “the
dispositions of listening, welcoming, humility, faithfulness, praise and
waiting…with particular intensity and naturalness”[13].
17. This religious stereotyping
of women’s character and role is not compatible with our modern understanding of
gender equality and equal opportunities for women and men, because it reinforces
women and men’s traditional positions in society and deprives them of the
opportunity to take on responsibilities traditionally reserved for the other
sex: men are not encouraged to take on “caring” responsibilities (such as
looking after their children or elderly parents, or taking on more household
chores), while women are relegated to the “three Ks” (in German: “Kinder, Küche,
Kirche” – “children, kitchen, church”) and are not encouraged to work outside
the home or take on positions of responsibility in the political or economic
sphere. It should thus come as no surprise that societies in which the Catholic
and Orthodox Churches exert a lot of influence are amongst those in Europe in
which the labour participation rates of women and the number of women in
parliament are amongst the lowest (Spain being a notable exception)[14].
18. Islam is, in general, not
any better than the Catholic and Orthodox faiths at promoting gender equality.
On the contrary, traditional and extremist interpretations of the Islamic faith
both curtail women’s rights to an alarming degree, and are often used to justify
severe violations of women’s human rights. The Koran is, in fact, quite explicit
about women’s rights – but while women are seen as equal before God (just as in
the Catholic and Orthodox Church), the Koran also contains a set of instructions
and “laws” regarding women. These can be seen as progressive for the time they
were written, but no longer correspond to a modern understanding of gender
equality and women’s rights. Thus, for example, polygamy was limited to four
wives (beforehand, there was no limit); a woman’s testimony was considered as
having half the weight of the testimony of one man (beforehand, women’s
testimony was worthless), women were given half the inheritance rights of men
(beforehand, they had none), etc.
19. In Europe, these “laws” are
not directly applied to women (as they are in countries like Iran, Pakistan,
Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Sudan, and the Mahgreb to varying degrees).
However, a number of immigrant women indirectly still suffer from their
application, as some countries (e.g. France) have concluded treaties with some
of these countries (e.g. Morocco) recognising their personal status laws. It is
thus possible for Moroccan women resident in France, to be, for example,
unilaterally repudiated by their husbands, or to have the guardianship of their
children over the age of seven taken away from them. Needless to say, these are
very severe violations of these women’s rights, and France (and all other
countries) which have entered into such treaties would be well advised to
discontinue the ill-conceived respect of other countries’ personal status laws
which violate women’s rights, even if this means renegotiating entire friendship
treaties.
20. In fact, the most
widespread – and visible – problem in Europe concerns the Islamic dress code for
women, i.e. the headscarf (or, in some cases, even more covering garments, such
as the chador, the niqab and the burka). There is a vivid debate in many
countries on whether the headscarf is simply a symbol of piety which deserves
the same respect as other religions’ symbols of piety (be it the Sikh turban or
the Jewish kippa), or whether it is rather a symbol of the submission and the
subjection of women, of their “purity” or humility. The debate is made more
difficult by the fact that it is often impossible to determine whether the
wearing of a headscarf (or of even more covering garments) is imposed,
self-imposed or a matter of free choice, in particular where young girls are
concerned.
21. Different European
countries have found different ways of dealing with the headscarf. Thus, France
recently adopted a law which outlawed the wearing of all ostentatious religious
symbols in schools (including the headscarf), while Turkey forbids the wearing
of headscarves in state institutions (such as universities or the civil
service). At the other end of the spectrum, Great Britain allows the wearing of
all sorts of headscarves, veils, etc. everywhere, including by pupils and
teachers in schools.
22. Personally, I do not find
any of these solutions wholly satisfactory. Coming from the point of view of
gender equality and women’s rights, I do find it slightly shocking that some
girls attending school in Great Britain are forced to wear very restrictive and
covering clothing from the age of four or five by their parents, and that this
is accepted by the authorities. On the other hand, I can understand that the
authorities in some countries do not want to “make an issue” of the headscarf,
for fear of increasing its popularity even further; after all, while Muslim
girls may not don the headscarf in French schools, as soon as they leave the
school gates, they are subjected to so much pressure (from both their parents
and elder brothers, but also from their peers) that most end up wearing a
headscarf – for fear of otherwise not being respected, being branded as “easy”,
or worse.
23. The reason why I find it so
difficult to respect the headscarf as a religious symbol like any other is that
there is so much baggage that comes with it, a sense of submission to the
control by men of a girl or woman’s destiny and the way she leads her life.
Allowing young girls to wear headscarves in school can quickly lead to other
demands by certain Muslim communities, such as separate swimming or sports
lessons for girls in schools, or even the banning of co-education altogether.
Where do we draw the line?
D. Attitudes towards
contraception, abortion and divorce
24. Mrs Aguiar had chosen the
three policy areas of contraception, abortion and divorce because they are key
areas of policy for women, and impact directly on many women’s lives. Artificial
contraception (the pill, condoms, etc.) has not only allowed women to make the
choice of spacing their children (or not having any at all), but barrier methods
(such as the male and female condom) have, in addition, protected many women
from sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including HIV/AIDS. When such
contraceptive methods are frowned upon by religious authorities (and this
translates into policy choices also by State authorities), the incidence of
unwanted pregnancies tends to rise, which – ironically – in turn raises the
abortion rate. The incidence of STDs and HIV/AIDS among the female population
(normally not a “high-risk”-group) also rises in such cases, as is evidenced by
the experience of Roman Catholic women in Africa.
25. Abortion is, of course, an
extremely difficult subject – one on which views are strongly held and heavily
influenced by moral, ethical and religious teachings and choices. Some 40
million abortions are carried out yearly worldwide, often under unsafe
conditions – costing 70.000 women their lives. I think we all can agree that
abortion should never be used as a method of family planning, but – as the
Assembly posited in Resolution 1347 (2003) on the impact of the “Mexico City
Policy” on the free choice of contraception is Europe – it should remain safe
and accessible where it is not against the law.
26. Divorce is another
sensitive area. A high percentage of marriages end in divorce in Europe.
According to the Council of Europe 2003 “Demographic Yearbook”, the total
divorce rate is rising in many countries, though it still varies
widely[15]. It is, of course, true that many people today are choosing
to live together without getting married, or make do with a civil wedding. Many
divorcees would, however, like to remarry, which is not accepted by all
religions. In Islam, divorce rights are not evenly distributed: fundamentalist
interpretations of Islam may deny women the right to initiate a divorce, while
not protecting them from repudiation by their husbands.
The Roman Catholic Church
27. The Roman Catholic Church
has a very restrictive position on contraception, divorce and abortion. It
interprets the sixth commandment (“You shall not commit adultery”) widely, and
thus reserves sexual intercourse to married partners (of different sexes) with a
view to parenthood. The only accepted method of the regulation of procreation is
“periodic continence”, that is “methods of birth regulation based on
self-observation and the use of infertile periods”[16]. Pope
John Paul II makes a connection between contraception and abortion in his
Encyclical Evangelium Vitae: “Certainly, from the moral point of view
contraception and abortion are specifically different evils… but despite their
differences of nature and moral gravity, contraception and abortion are often
closely connected, as fruits of the same tree.”[17]
Abortion itself is considered a “moral evil”, and a breach of the fifth
commandment (“You shall not kill.”), as human life is to be respected and
protected absolutely from the moment of conception[18].
Divorce is considered “a grave offense against the natural law. (…) Contracting
a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the
rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent
adultery.” [19] As concerns the
position of women in the Church itself, women cannot be ordained as
priests.
Protestant churches
28. Unlike the Roman Catholic
Church, protestant churches are not centrally organised, and different
protestant churches will take different positions on matters of the faith. Thus,
for example, evangelical denominations originating in America may hold similar
views to the Roman Catholic Church on contraception, abortion and divorce. These
views are, however, not dominant in Europe. Taking the birthplace of Martin
Luther as an example, the Evangelical Church in Germany, which is an
institutional form for Protestant churches that includes a community of 24
Lutheran churches, considers that there is no duty to marry or to have children
(although this does not, of course, exclude the desirability of
both!)[20], and thus excludes neither contraception, abortion, nor
divorce. Divorcees are allowed to remarry, and women can be ordained as
priests.
Orthodox Churches
29. There are 15 Autocephalous
(self-governing) and 4 Autonomous (self-ruling) Orthodox Churches around the
World, most of them in Europe. The control of the conception of a child by any
means is condemned by the Orthodox Church “if it means the lack of fulfilment in
the family, the hatred of children, the fear of responsibility, the desire for
sexual pleasure as purely fleshly, lustful satisfaction, etc”[21]. As to abortion, the Orthodox Church condemns it as an act of murder in
every case[22]. Regarding divorce, the Orthodox Church
teaches the uniqueness of marriage, if it will be perfect, and is opposed to
divorce absolutely. If, however, a marriage breaks down and collapses, the
Orthodox Church does in fact allow a second marriage, without excommunication,
that is, exclusion from Holy Communion, “if there is repentance and a good
chance that the new alliance can be Christian.” Women cannot be ordained as
priests.
Islam
30. As with the Protestant
churches, the position of Muslim clergy and spiritual leaders will differ in
accordance with their interpretation of Islam. It is well known that
fundamentalist interpretations of the Muslim faith tend to be quite overtly
discriminatory against women, not only concerning the policy questions discussed
in this memorandum, and that they are gaining followers in Europe. However,
according to more modern interpretations, contraception is not
forbidden[23]. Abortion is outlawed unless the mother’s health or
well-being is at risk (and then, it is only permitted during the first 120
days)[24]. Divorce is possible, but may not necessarily be initiated
by the woman (save in very specific circumstances). Islam has been used to
justify grave violations of female dignity, such as polygamy and repudiation.
Women cannot usually become prayer leaders or members of the
clergy.
Judaism
31. As with the Muslim faith,
there is no central religious authority. Thus, the attitude to contraception
varies. Abortion – in restricted circumstances – is allowed until the
40th day, as the fetus is not regarded as an autonomous
person[25]. Divorce is authorised, but conditional on the husband’s
approval. Should the husband refuse to agree to a religious divorce (“guet”),
the wife cannot remarry under the Jewish faith, and would commit adultery if she
had another partner[26]. In principle, women cannot become rabbis,
but certain groups (which are in the minority in Europe) do allow them to do
so.
E. The blurring of
the boundaries between State and religion: religion’s impact on
non-believers
32. It is very difficult to
portray the attitudes of different religions in Europe to gender equality and
key issues impacting on women’s lives in just a few pages. In the second part of
this explanatory memorandum, I have concentrated on the policy of the different
faiths towards their believers. However, there are some instances in which a
country’s dominant faith has considerably affected State policy, thus imposing
religious choices on women, whether or not they are believers themselves. As
examples, the divorce policy in Malta springs to mind, as do the abortion laws
in Ireland and Poland. Women may also find it more difficult to gain access to
birth control in deeply religious countries than in others. Such repercussions
on non-believers are difficult to grasp sometimes, but are probably the more
dangerous aspects of the conflictual relationship between women and
religion.
33. In addition, it should not
be forgotten that even many believers choose to ignore their religion’s teaching
on certain subjects, even though they are devout. Thus, for example, a high
proportion of Roman Catholics in Europe do not believe that artificial
contraception is a sin – especially when practised within marriage. Similarly,
very few Muslims in Europe would support a man’s “right” to unilaterally
repudiate his wife, or to take up to four wives – and some would argue that a
woman not covering her hair is not committing a sin, either. Thus, even in such
predominantly Roman Catholic countries such as Malta and Ireland, a too
religious State policy on divorce and/or abortion may impose religious choices
they do not agree with not only on non-believers, but also on believers which
happen to disagree with this particular policy.
34. The failed referendum in
Italy to ease the country’s restrictive assisted-fertility law in June 2005 is a
case in point. The controversial 2004 legislation on “medically assisted
reproduction” gave the embryo the same status as a person. As a consequence,
embryos created in vitro are not allowed to be screened for genetic disorders,
or to be destroyed in a lab, and cloning and embryo stem-cell research has been
banned. On the donation of sperm and eggs to infertile couples, the Italian law
is amongst the most restrictive in Europe. In a nation-wide referendum, Italians
were asked to decide whether or not to relax the law’s most restrictive
provisions. The Catholic Church waded into the debate, campaigning not for a
“no” vote, but instead urging people not to vote at all (for the referendum to
be valid, the turn-out had to be at least 50%). Following the new pope’s
intervention, only 26% of eligible voters turned out to vote – in a country
whose mainly Catholic inhabitants voted en masse to approve laws on
abortion and divorce passed in the 1970s, and who are among the most habitual
users of contraception in Europe.
35. While I think that the
Catholic Church, like all other religions, has the right to create its own
doctrine on such issues as the status of the embryo for the faithful, and to
make its views public, I agree with the International Herald Tribune’s editorial
of 14 June 2005 that “using the power of the pulpit to urge people to stay away
from the ballot box is not a religious act, but an antidemocratic one. It is
unacceptable interference”. As the editorial concludes: “Democracy guarantees
the right of every religion to preach its values and beliefs. It does not grant
churches the right to dangerously tamper with democracy to impose their rules on
everyone else.” What the Catholic Church did had a profound effect on those
infertile couples who seek fertility treatment but are not accorded it in
accordance with the 2004 law – and many of these couples are bound to be
non-believers, or Catholics disagreeing with this particular Catholic
doctrine.
36. I might add that
practically all dominant religious doctrine in Europe (with the exception, once
again, of the Lutherans) is formulated by men. In other words, half of Europe’s
population (the female half) has scant or no opportunity to influence religious
doctrine. The more religious influence we thus allow to seep back into our
societies and our political decision-making processes, the less representative
and the less respectful of women’s rights the resulting policies and practices
will tend to be.
F. Conclusions and
recommendations
37. In the lives of many
European women, religion continues to play an important role. In fact, whether
they are believers or not, most women are affected in one way or another by the
attitude of different faiths towards women, directly or through their
traditional influence on society or the State. This influence is seldom benign:
women’s rights are often curtailed or violated in the name of religion.
38. All women living in Council
of Europe member states have a right to equality and dignity in all areas of
life. Freedom of religion must not be accepted as a pretext for justifying
violations of women’s rights, be they open, subtle, legal or illegal, practiced
with or without the nominal consent of the victims – women.
39. It is the duty of the
member states of the Council of Europe to protect women against violations of
their rights in the name of religion, and to promote and fully implement gender
equality. States must not accept any religious or cultural relativism of women’s
human rights. They must not agree to justify discrimination and inequality
affecting women on grounds such as physical or biological differentiation based
on or attributed to religion.
40. The Parliamentary Assembly
should thus call on the member states of the Council of Europe
to:
i. fully protect
all women living in their country against violations of their rights based on
or attributed to religion by:a. putting into place
and enforcing specific and effective policies to fight all violations of
women’s right to life, to bodily integrity, freedom of movement and free
choice of partner, including so-called “honour” crimes, forced marriage and
female genital mutilation, wherever and by whomever they are committed,
however they are justified, and regardless of the nominal consent of the
victim;b. refusing to
recognise foreign family codes and personal status laws which violate
women’s rights, and ceasing to apply them on their own soil, renegotiating
bilateral treaties if necessary;ii. take a stand
against violations of women’s human rights justified by religious or cultural
relativism everywhere, including in international fora such as the United
Nations, the IPU, etc.iii. guarantee such
separation between the church and the State as is necessary to ensure that
women are not subjected to religiously inspired policies and laws (e.g. in the
area of family, divorce, and abortion law);iv. ensure that the
freedom of religion and the respect for culture and tradition are not accepted
as a pretext to justify violations of women’s rights, including when underage
girls are forced to submit to religious codes (including dress codes), their
freedom of movement is curtailed or their access to contraception is barred by
their family or community;v. where
religious education is permitted in schools, ensure that this teaching is in
conformity with gender equality principles;vi. take a stand
against all religious doctrine which is anti-democratic or disrespectful of
human rights, especially women’s rights, and refuse to allow such doctrines to
influence political decision-making;vii. actively promote respect
of women’s rights, equality and dignity in all areas of life when engaging in
dialogue with representatives of different religions, and work on achieving
full gender equality in society.
Reporting
committee: Committee on Equal Opportunities for
Women and Men
Reference
to Committee: Doc 9856, reference N° 2855 of 8
September 2003 (extension of the deadline until 7 October
2005)
Draft
resolution adopted by the Committee on 13 September
2005 with 22 votes in favour and one against.
Members of the
Committee: Mrs Minodora Cliveti (Chairperson), Mrs Rosmarie
Zapfl-Helbling (1st Vice-Chairperson), Mrs Anna Curdova
(2nd Vice-Chairperson), Mrs Svetlana Smirnova (3rd
Vice-Chairperson), Ms Birgitta Ahlqvist, Mrs Edita Angyalova, Mrs
Željka Antunovic, Mr John Austin, Mr Oleksiy Baburin, Mr Denis Badré (alternate:
Mr Jean-Guy Branger), Mrs Gülsün Bilgehan, Mrs Marida Bolognesi
(alternate: Mr Fausto Giovanelli), Mrs Grazyna Ciemniak (alternate: Mr
Piotr Gadzinowski), Mrs Ingrida Circene, Mr Brendan Daly,
Mrs Krystyna Doktorowicz, Mrs Lydie Err, Mrs Catherine Fautrier, Mrs
Maria Emelina Fernández Soriano, Ms Sonia Fertuzinhos, Mr Guiseppe
Gaburro, Mrs Alena Gajdušková, Mr Pierre Goldberg, Mrs Claude
Greff, Mrs Arlette Grosskost, Ms Gultakin Hadjiyeva, Mrs Carina Hägg, Mr
Poul-Henrik Hedeboe, Mr Ilie Ilascu, Mrs Halide Incekara, Mrs
Eleonora Katseli, Baroness Knight of Collingtree, Mrs Synnove Konglevoll
(alternate: Ms Jorunn Ringstad), Mrs Monika Kryemadhi, Mrs Minna
Lintonen, Mrs Danguté Mikutiene, Mrs Fausta Morganti, Mrs Christine
Muttonen, Mrs Hermine Naghdalyan, Mr Hilmo Neimarlija, Mrs Vera
Oskina, Mr Ibrahim Özal, Mrs Patrizia Paoletti Tangheroni
(alternate: Mr Gianpietro Scherini), Ms Elsa Papadimitriou, Ms Riorita
Patereu, Mrs Fatma Pehlivan, Mrs Antigoni Pericleous-Papadopoulos, Mr Leo
Platvoet, Mrs Majda Potrata, Mr Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, Ms
Valentina Radulovic-Šcepanovic, Mr Andrea Rigoni, Ms Maria de Belém Roseira, Mrs
Claudia Roth, Mrs Marlene Rupprecht, Mr Össur Skarphédinsson (alternate: Ms
Margrét Frimannsdóttir), Mrs Rodica-Mihaela Stanoiu, Mrs Darinka
Stantcheva, Mrs Rita Streb-Hesse, Mr Michal Stuligrosz, Ms Agnes
Vadai, Mr Vagif Vakilov, Mrs Ruth-Gaby Vermot-Mangold, Mrs Williams, Mrs
Willot, Mrs Gisela Wurm, Mr Andrej Zernovski.
N.B. The names
of the members who took part in the meeting are printed in
bold.
Secretaries
of the Committee: Ms Kleinsorge, Ms Affholder, Ms
Devaux
[1] The minutes of this hearing have been declassified and are
available from the Secretariat of the Committee (AS/Ega (2004) PV 9 addendum
I).
[2] United Nations, Economic and Social Council,
58th session of the Commission on Human Rights, Document No.
E/CN.4/2002/73/Add.2 of 5 April 2002.
[3] Ibid, p. 5.
[4] Ibid, p. 10.
Categories: Releases