Rabbis said to use torture to secure divorces for women

[Malthus]

I'm not sure in what way my answer was incomplete.

I have no idea why you think the courts should not take into account someone being an asshole where the form that assholery takes happens to only be important to some sect of religious people.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The secular court is punishing the guy for doing something that is only important in the context of a religion. I do not see this passing the establishment clause here in the States. I also suspect if an American court had proposed a law like this someone like Jacob would be against it, as would other Canadians like CC and Malthus. But since this is Canadian law we are talking about I suspect they all support it emphatically and point to it as "enlightened multiculturalism", where the same thing if done here would be an example of our dangerous religious fundamentalism  .

... and I think you are full of shit . See my post above, concerning the exact same thing happening under US law.

Not so fast. The authority to grant a divorce is a valid sphere of State law, and that is all the New York Law on Domestic Relations sec. 253 appears to regulate. It simply says that religious marriages solemnized under the specified definitions, cannot be granted a civil divorce without the party requesting the divorce signing a document affirming they have removed any religious inhibition on the other party being remarried.

So if I was a man wanting to divorce my wife, and my religion required me as a man to give my wife some sort of "grant" to allow her to remarry, this law means that in the State of New York in order to get a civil divorce from my wife I would have to sign a document promising that I had actually given that grant.

It does not appear to work the opposite way, so if I'm a man whose religion requires my wife to give me permission to remarry and I wish to divorce my wife, the New York law does not require that. It only requires that the party who has filed for divorce signs the document. So in the situation of a wife wanting a divorce from her husband and wanting him to give her a get, I don't believe sec 253 of New York Law on Domestic Relations would apply.

Further, at the end of said law it goes on to say that the court shall not inquire into any religious matter, and that for its purposes it will not investigate the truthfulness of any person signing the court document saying they are giving the religious waiver. So, if I one wanted they are legally permitted to sign the court document required to get the divorce, but can then within their religious community still withhold the permission, because the court explicitly is barred from following up on it or investigating the veracity of the attestation given.

Doesn't seem even remotely similar to a law where a court strips someone of all their property punitively to try and compel them to do something.

[DGuller]

I'm not sure in what way my answer was incomplete.

I have no idea why you think the courts should not take into account someone being an asshole where the form that assholery takes happens to only be important to some sect of religious people.

Because he's being an asshole only in the religious context.  Separation of state and religion goes both ways.

[Scipio]

I'm confused. I assume that all of this is in the religious courts, not the legal ones. In other words, a woman can get a legal divorce, and then have to fight with Mr Asshole to get the religious one, in order to remarry, right?

So how does the whole "she gets all his stuff" fit into it?

No, not so. This is secular legislation.

The "get" is a purely religious barrier to remarriage. If a woman doesn't get the "get" from Mr. Asshole, she can get a legal divorce in an Ontario court all right, but her religious community will not view that divorce as "valid". If she has a "get" in hand, they will view her divorce as valid.

Assuming she is religious herself, or cares what her religious community thinks of her, having an invalid divorce can cause her great unhappiness - her subsequent remarriage would be considered "bigamous" and her kids by that marriage "bastards".

Under this legislation, she can go to the purely secular Ontario court on divorce and say "Know what, your Honour? Mr. Asshole refuses to give me a get, so I can't remarry in my faith even with this divorce you are so abily ruling on".

The Court then, in essence, turns around and tells Mr. Asshole "well, Mr. Asshole, you have a choice. We won't interfere with your exercise of religion - that's between you and your God - but we will do this: if you refuse to give your ex-wife a "get", we will rule in her favour on everything. You will be *so* fucked, you won't have two cents to rub together when we are done with you. So, are you gonna stand on principle or what?"

In Mississippi, the court will throw you in jail on civil contempt until you provide the get.  True story.

[Malthus]

The secular court is punishing the guy for doing something that is only important in the context of a religion. I do not see this passing the establishment clause here in the States. I also suspect if an American court had proposed a law like this someone like Jacob would be against it, as would other Canadians like CC and Malthus. But since this is Canadian law we are talking about I suspect they all support it emphatically and point to it as "enlightened multiculturalism", where the same thing if done here would be an example of our dangerous religious fundamentalism  .

... and I think you are full of shit . See my post above, concerning the exact same thing happening under US law.

Not so fast. The authority to grant a divorce is a valid sphere of State law, and that is all the New York Law on Domestic Relations sec. 253 appears to regulate. It simply says that religious marriages solemnized under the specified definitions, cannot be granted a civil divorce without the party requesting the divorce signing an affidavit affirming they have removed any religious inhibition on the other party being remarried.

So if I was a man wanting to divorce my wife, and my religion required me as a man to give my wife some sort of "grant" to allow her to remarry, this law means that in the State of New York in order to get a civil divorce from my wife I would have to sign a waiver promising that I had actually given that grant.

It does not appear to work the opposite way, so if I'm a man whose religions requires my wife to give me permission to remarry and I wish to divorce my wife, the New York law does not require that. It only requires that the party who has filed for divorce signs the waiver. So in the situation of a wife wanting a divorce from her husband and wanting him to give her a get, I don't believe sec 253 of New York Law on Domestic Relations would apply.

Further, at the end of said law it goes on to say that the court shall not inquire into any religious matter, and that for its purposes it will not investigate the truthfulness of any person signing the court document saying they are giving the religious waiver. So, if I one wanted they are legally permitted to sign the court document required to get the divorce, but can then within their religious community still withhold the permission, because the court explicitly is barred from following up on it or investigating the veracity of the attestation given.

Doesn't seem even remotely similar to a law where a court strips someone of all their property punitively to try and compel them to do something.

Did you not bother to read the commentary on the case law in various other states ... and how Constitutional arguments against orders of the sort contemplated in the Ontario law have been tried and failed? 

For the reading-impaired, I repeat it:

There is, however, case law in the statutory annotations of many states; this means that in any state, a court may or may not order a husband to give a get, depending on the circumstances of the case.  Get cases are sometimes argued under the "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  For example, in one New Jersey divorce case, the court decided that forcing the husband to give a get fulfilled the secular purpose of completing the divorce; since no religious ritual was required in order to obtain the get, and since the get in no way impacted his ability to practice his religion, his First Amendment rights were not infringed by this requirement.

Emphasis. Added.

[Admiral Yi]

Huh? I don't follow.

People fail to do stuff they are "obligated" to do all the time.

Apparently there are no consequences for failing to fulfill this obligation within the ultra-Orthodox faith.  Thus, an inconsistency.  The state should not be in the business of punishing religious transgressions.

You suggested in an earlier post that Canadian courts use their power in matters unrelated to the get to influence the Jewish dude.  Is that accurate?  To me that sounds like the court blackmailing the guy into granting a get.

[Malthus]

I'm not sure in what way my answer was incomplete.

I have no idea why you think the courts should not take into account someone being an asshole where the form that assholery takes happens to only be important to some sect of religious people.

Because he's being an asshole only in the religious context.  Separation of state and religion goes both ways.

As I have demonstrated, the US courts seem to agree that "seperation of state and religion" has nothing to do with it.

[Admiral Yi]

As I have demonstrated, the US courts seem to agree that "seperation of state and religion" has nothing to do with it.

As Biscuit has demonstrated, a crucial difference is that the US courts have not put themselves in the position of forcing a man to provide a get against his will.

[Malthus]

Huh? I don't follow.

People fail to do stuff they are "obligated" to do all the time.

Apparently there are no consequences for failing to fulfill this obligation within the ultra-Orthodox faith.  Thus, an inconsistency.  The state should not be in the business of punishing religious transgressions.

You are wrong. There are "consequences" both religious and non-religious. The guy could have orders made against him by the Jewish religious court, the Bet Din. The guy could be ostracized. The guy could, as in the article in the OP, be beaten to a pulp.

However, if the guy doesn't give a shit, he can take the ostracism, the religious court rulings and the beatings.

You suggested in an earlier post that Canadian courts use their power in matters unrelated to the get to influence the Jewish dude.  Is that accurate?  To me that sounds like the court blackmailing the guy into granting a get.

How is a divorce a matter "unrelated"? Seems quite related. 

It's like saying a wedding in a Church is "unrelated" to divorce laws, beacuse it takes place in a Church. Obviously, matters of marriage and divorce involve issues of religion all the time, because marriage is, in many if not most cases, a religious ceremony given secular, legal meaning.

[garbon]

You are wrong. There are "consequences" both religious and non-religious. The guy could have orders made against him by the Jewish religious court, the Bet Din. The guy could be ostracized. The guy could, as in the article in the OP, be beaten to a pulp.

However, if the guy doesn't give a shit, he can take the ostracism, the religious court rulings and the beatings.

Seems to me the only place the state should be involved here is punishing those who administer beatings. Rest of that has nothing to do with the state.

[Admiral Yi]

It wasn't clear from your earlier post what matter the court was using to blackmail the dude, which is why I asked for clarification.

So we're talking about child custody, division of assets, that sort of thing?  Not sure that makes it any better.  "We'll give your ex-wife the house unless you fulfill this religious obligaion."

[Malthus]

As I have demonstrated, the US courts seem to agree that "seperation of state and religion" has nothing to do with it.

As Biscuit has demonstrated, a crucial difference is that the US courts have not put themselves in the position of forcing a man to provide a get against his will.

Huh? Are you just not reading stuff here?

I repeat:

There is, however, case law in the statutory annotations of many states; this means that in any state, a court may or may not order a husband to give a get, depending on the circumstances of the case.  Get cases are sometimes argued under the "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  For example, in one New Jersey divorce case, the court decided that forcing the husband to give a get fulfilled the secular purpose of completing the divorce; since no religious ritual was required in order to obtain the get, and since the get in no way impacted his ability to practice his religion, his First Amendment rights were not infringed by this requirement.

How is "... the court decided that forcing the husband to give a get ..." in New Jersey any different from the Ontario situation?

Or if you don't believe that site, what about believing Scipio?

In Mississippi, the court will throw you in jail on civil contempt until you provide the get.  True story.

That's two states ...

[DGuller]

Malthus, take it easy, we're not debating circumcision here.

[Sheilbh]

I agree with the Canadians.

[Admiral Yi]

Last point conceded Malthus. 

Don't agree with it in the US either.