Respect must be based in political will and state action

A couple of years ago, a small group of women activists arranged a closed workshop to discuss the initial findings of a study looking into the legal framework governing medical guardianship of children. At the time, the law allowed only the father, and in his absence a designated hierarchy of male relatives, to grant permission for any medical intervention for children. We were working to change the law so mothers could also be given that right.

Among those invited to attend were lawyers with the reputation of being cognizant of human rights legal frameworks and a Sharia (Islamic law) court lawyer, who was recommended as an expert on family law and Sharia court proceedings in Jordan. 

It is important to note that family affairs in Jordan are the remit of Sharia courts by constitutional decree. We were, therefore, expecting a challenge on religious grounds, since this issue of medical guardianship had become controversially embroiled in the whole debate of guardianship in Islam, which had been interpreted to restrict the role [which in this case was over medical provision to children but in fact informs the approach to all other family affairs] to what is referred to as an “asba” of male relatives.

So there we were, activists on one side of an U-shaped table, our “friendly” lawyers and legal experts as well as the key researcher on the tip of the U shape, and the Sharia court lawyer, among other commentators, on the third side. The researcher presented the research findings reviewing the legal and constitutional framework, but also dipped carefully into interpretations of religious text to justify the conclusion that the law could be changed to allow mothers to also make that call.

The smooth Sharia lawyer ignored the evidence presented by the research and proceeded to address us in a paternalistic, and in fact patronising and dismissive tone, on how he respects women and how mothers are accorded the highest level of respect in Islam. He wrapped it up by saying that if mothers wanted to give permission for medical care for their children, all they had to do was go to the Sharia court with an official request and he “personally” will help them.

He started appealing to the male lawyers in the room asking them whether they would be happy if their wives were given the legal right to take decisions on medical intervention and for their sons to end up having “a sex change operation” without their knowledge.

The male lawyers disintegrated under this quite frightening proposition and the challenge to their masculinity-inspired authority, and started cozying up to the, by now, sarcastic Sharia court lawyer with comments like “we know how some women are” and “of course I wouldn’t want my wife to take a decision on a medical intervention by herself”.

Feeling completely defeated by this new dynamic to the workshop, some of the women activists resorted to what I saw as a quite demeaning round of “negotiations” with the lawyer, appealing to him to grant them any concession on the issue. The tables had been turned against them. He had emerged as the decision maker in the room and the male lawyers had joined him to form what I saw as a male-dominant pack protecting their collective advantage over women. The women obviously were left reeling from this quite disturbing outcome to a working shop that they initiated.

I was reminded of this story this past week when women activists reported back their experience and impressions after they met with parliamentary committees entrusted with discussing landmark legislation that impacts the lives of men and women in Jordan on the most critical levels: family affairs and labour.

Although I wanted to safeguard the details that emerged from the meetings, I felt also compelled to draw attention to the feedback that women’s rights leaders gave back at the end of their meetings. All reports bring us to the conclusion that they were not received, by parliamentarians and their staff, with the same level of seriousness, responsibility and attention to detail as had been accorded them by these well-prepared, intelligent and very organised women activists and representatives.

As the meeting was taking place, participants representing Parliament, whether as parliamentarians or staff, apparently took phone calls, walked out of the room without excusing themselves, held side conversations, interrupted the representatives of women, raised their voices and in general maintained a demeanour not befitting the gravity the issues being discussed, the context of the meeting or showing any deference for the duties of the legislative authority that had been entrusted to them by voters.

In both cases, the men involved did not show respect. What they manifested instead was a lack of regard for the activists and leaders representing the interests of half of the population in Jordan, a generally careless attitude missing basic manners and expectations of professional meetings, a dismissive arrogance towards Jordanian women as citizens with rights, a complete lack of interest or attentiveness to the well-fare and the reality of women’s lives in Jordan and in fact presenting a distorted picture of a form of masculinity that has apparently thrived in a legal environment that treats Jordanian women citizens as submissive, dependent and unfit subordinates to men.

And what is really worrying is that these incidents are not at all unique or one-offs. Anyone who works in activism for women’s rights in Jordan, whether male or female, knows very well how difficult and challenging it is to bring decision makers, parliamentarians, politicians, men and even sometimes women to take the women demands seriously. This is not only to the detriment of the women themselves but also to their families, including children and other dependents they care for, especially elderly parents, ill, sometimes disabled relatives, husbands and fathers who require care, and in fact to the disadvantage of the country as a whole on the political, economic and social levels.

And we have all gone through the usual innuendos and exaggerations challenging our demands for equality and equity for Jordanian women whether it is in suggesting that gender equality is an agenda that only aims to legitimise homosexuality, that allowing women to work is an invite to “western-style sexual freedoms” and a ”rejection of our Arab/Muslim traditions” etc. The truth is, just as the Sharia court lawyer showcased when he linked the proposed medical intervention to the scale of a sex change operation, the detractors and opponents of women’s equality in the law have, and continue, used bullying tactics based in sex and religion to illustrate their point.

The chatter among women and their champions is that the bias against women is allowed to continue because there is no “political will” to stand up in support of the women of Jordan. Women in Jordan believe that they have had to tolerate continued marginalisation, disrespect and even outright abuse for too long in the name of maintaining vaguely justified policies, apparently aimed at maintaining security, stability and respect for “social and religious norms” but in fact only serve in safeguarding male privilege.

Jordanian women also believe that they have worked, for decades, to reestablish and prove themselves worthy of being treated as full citizens who are not only deserving of all the benefits but also responsible for all the duties and responsibilities.

Today, most feel that political “will” on its own will not be sufficient, and what we now need is urgent political “action”.

This must come from the executive authority, in collaboration with leaders of women’s rights organisations and experts, in a publicly declared and well laid out action plan to conduct a legislative review of all laws in the country in order to empower Jordanian women and reinstate their rights as full citizens.

The constitutional framework must be article 6, which treats all Jordanians as full citizens regardless of sex. This can be achieved either with a constitutional and legally binding interpretation that now confirms that the description “Jordanians” includes both men and women, or an amendment to the article to add “regardless of sex” to remove any ambiguity over its meaning.

It also requires amending constitutional articles 105 and 106 to allow family affairs to be determined not only against current subjective interpretations by individuals serving Sharia courts but also incorporating advances in science, international human rights conventions, multiple interpretations of Islamic text, including modern current-day interpretations that are based on studies of lived realities of women and the religious requirement to the achievement of political, economic and social justice.

In this 21st century, Jordanian women no longer want to tiptoe slowly towards achieving wider margins of citizenship, and they do not want to negotiate and advocate for token gestures here and there. What Jordanian women earned is to see the country’s political will “owners” come out on their side and show them the respect they deserve by committing the state, including its executive, legislative and judicial authorities, to safeguarding that respect.

[email protected]