Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Top court backs wife in bitter religious divorce

KIRK MAKIN

JUSTICE REPORTER

Latest comment posted at 8:29 AM EDT 16/12/07

Jewish woman was made to wait 15 years for a divorce from her estranged husband ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Angry West Coast Canuck from Canada writes: The dissenting justices are correct: the courts should not intrude in religious matters. If people are stupid enough to belong to a particular religion, that's their problem.

    What I would like to see if that they find a means to ban "religion" altogether as a protected "right", since it's obvious that religions are all simply ways to get around all the other rights we are supposed to have.
    Hiding behind "religion", we find that every other right we have: right of equality, right of belief, even right to life is compromised by the people who hide behind their "right of religion". It's time to strip that shield from the system.
  2. Gardiner Westbound from Canada writes:

    Starting the countdown for a judge to rule the Catholic church must ordain women and homosexuals. 10, 9, 8, 7 ....

  3. R. M. from Regina, Canada writes: The courts are absolutely correct. Religious "laws", "customs", "agreements" cannot and should not take precedence over the law of the land. For example, would those who think otherwise argue FOR the rights of fundamental Mormons to engage in bigamy, forced and arranged marriages between adults and teens? etc????
  4. Bob ImamI from Canada writes: This is so surreal. It doesn't make any sense.

    The woman could just walk away... people do that every day. The fact is... she wanted some authority to inoculate her from her own religious obligations. If she didn't accept the tenets of her faith then so be it. She is free to adhere to jewism and free to leave it. The court need not be involved.

    The court has no say in religion anyway... no religion would ever listen to a secular court anyway.

    The court presumed authority over the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion. The Canadian court is a kangaroo court.

    The woman should have walked away if she did not accept jewish religious rules. This whole issue is bull.
  5. Bob ImamI from Canada writes: The Canadian Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. That means freedom from meddling in any way.

    That isn't what I say... it is what the Canadian Constitution says.
  6. Gord Lewis from no freedom of religion here, Canada writes: Gardiner Westbound and R. M. from Regina, you are correct. Churches should be very shy about litigating, and the courts should be extremely hesitant to offer judgments. The door may be pried open to almost any 'marriage' arrangement. In this case however, I think they did the right thing in freeing this woman from a type of prison.

    The State already has a monopoly on education curricula . . . Catholics have been so compromised in their devil's bargain to get fair and equal funding that their curriculum is barely differentiable from the public one. And that curriculum is designed to marginalize and disable religious belief.

    p.s., Angry West Coast Canuck: you are an unreconstituted bigot and an idiot. Keep your redneck opinions to yourself and stick to topics you actually know something about. In other words, never post here, you are just taking up space with your uninformed rants.
  7. Jim IIII from Canada writes: She accepted jewish religious rules above the rules of the land, ,,,,,,Sorry honey, suck it up....,, no sympathy from here.............
  8. Brent Raby from City State of Toronto, writes: Jim:

    How do you feel about female circumcision?

    Let me guess. Sorry honey, suck it up.... no sympathy from here.
  9. Brent Raby from City State of Toronto, writes: Bob:
    Read the decision.
    It's a balancing act.
    Rightly decided.
  10. John Doe from Canada writes: "Only a male can consent to a get". Ah, yes, yet another of those quaint Middle East religions in which men have the god given "right" to rule over women and generally treat them as their property. Here we are in the 21-st century and women can still be socially conditioned into following and supporting ancient patriarchal belief systems -- sad.
  11. Rob G from Calgary, Canada writes: I have a lot of trouble understanding many of the recent decisions of the SCC, from dumping the rules on hearsay on down, they just don't seem to care about principles. In this case it is very sad that this woman did not feel that she had the ability to move on and have more children, but she did have the actual, profound legal right to do so and that is the right that our courts should be concerned with. I frankly do not like the tack that they are taking.

    Gord Lewis, I'm not sure what your problem is with the angry canuck, but I can assure you that the person who looks unbalanced and unpleasant as a result of your "exchange" is you!
  12. Darth Bobo from Canada writes: Religion, religion, religion; why, why, why was it ever invented?
  13. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: He made a deal. A prenuptial deal. He reneged on the deal.

    After 15 years, he has to pay the price of his dishonesty.

    Whether religion was part of the original deal or not is irrelevant; a deal is a deal.
  14. Mister Twister from Canada writes: There is no God and I am his prophet
  15. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Darth Bobo from Canada writes: "Religion; why was it ever
    invented?"

    Well, a likely hypothesis is that in very ancient human times a tribe or extended family withint which the only way to become a leader was to be the biggest and meanest SOB in the tribe might or might not have the best decision-making.

    In contrast, a tribe within which there was a shaman, priest, (whatever), who rose to that position by intelligence and learning, and who contributed to the decision-making of the tribe, would likely prosper more often.

    For example, when shall the tribe go to the river mouth to harvest the salmon? When the shaman says that the stars tell him it's the right time? Or when the big hairy brute of a chief guesses it's the right time?

    It means that religion can be explained by evolution, while evolution cannot be explained by religion.
  16. S Phillips from Canada writes: Why women allow themselves to being conned into any religion is beyond me. At least she was not strangled or shot which I guess is at a good thing. Such fools
  17. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: S Phillips from Canada writes: "Why women allow themselves to being conned into any religion is beyond me."

    Some religions are matriarchal, wherein women get to lord it over the men.
  18. Timothy Wearing from Vancouver, writes: First, I just want to say that the article itself was not very well written. At the beginning, it states that the woman is 48, then goes on to say that she was married in 1969. It doesn't take a math genius to figure out something is wrong. Only later on does the article state that she was 46 in 1995, so obviously she is not currently 48 (not on this planet, anyway).

    As for the ruling, it sounds to me like the husband did not adhere to the contract the two had laid out before they got married. Plain and simple. Religion doesn't even have to come into it.
  19. R Wolovet from New York, United States writes: Actually, the problem here is that the woman is an orthodox Jew. No other orthodox Jewish man would marry the woman if she did not have a get (another term for a religious divorce). So this woman was prevented from marrying someone who would be religiously acceptable to her in violation of a pre-nup. So it was no simple for her to just walk away. What is outrageous is that the Orthodox Jews do not take away the religious rights of the Orthodox man who does not honor the contract he undertook. I have no idea if there is such a provision since it is such a male dominated religion, but if there isn't, they should make one.
  20. Bert Russell Paradox, BC from Canada writes:
    Abella was labelled as activist by many when she was chosen by the Libs. And she writes it up?? With 6 sheep in line behind her? Just another male dominated Court excuse me Religion - we haven't come that far (within our journey of space and time).

    GlyMor: ???????

    Gord Lewis: since you so judgmental I take it you are religious!
  21. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: The dissenters are right. This decision was a mistake. Nothing prevented this woman from remarrying, legally. He refused to abide by an agreement they made, but this agreement had NO effect upon her rights under the law. . . . Since this jerk decided not to abide by their agreement re: procedure under religious rules (sorry -- I don't call them "laws" because they aren't . . . they're akin to the rules of the Elks Club or the rules of The Mystic Knights of the Sea, i.e., obligations of membership that are, under the law of our country, entirely voluntary), she had a clear choice: (1) go ahead with another marriage, since nothing in the law prevented her from doing so (it would not be bigamy as a matter of law if a divorce under our law were obtained), or (2) get another religion. . . . What we will see now is the phenomenon of various religions and their rules being the subjects of lawsuits; our courts will be used to settle all sorts of religious disputes (i.e., disputes within voluntary clubs); oh, my goodness, what a mistake this decision was. . . . and let's not forget that the religions that will contend in court now are NOT just the old, familiar ones . . . what about the religions that haven't been invented yet -- don't THEIR followers have some rights to litigate, too ? . . . Yeah, we'd all better go to the big box store or our choice and buy some bulk quantities of popcorn.
  22. Bert Russell Paradox, BC from Canada writes:
    Mr Justice: I have to admit it.....they opened Pandora box.
  23. janfromthe bruce from Canada writes: The dissenters were mistaken, and considering that majority here ruled, one could assume that the rest of the MALE supreme court judges decided that contract law should prevail.

    That is what the dispute was about. The couple did a prenep, and he reneged.
  24. c rob from Canada writes: What is wrong with opening the proverbial "pandora's box" when it comes to certain "religious" activities? How is it a bad thing that the rights ascribed to us as citizens by the state take precedence over religious freedom? Some of these actions supposedly mandated by religion or the "good books" are cultural legacies, not spiritual ones, making religion itself somewhat of a footnote. Polygamy, the right of a father to kill his daughter, are argued as part of one's religion by some people. If we do not hold that state mandated freedom overrides these ideas and practices, then we make a mockery of our charter of rights and freedoms. When religion is used as a weapon (of which this case is just one example), then I would suggest that the Supreme Court was right to make the decision it did.
  25. Tim Burns from Canada writes: Mr. Justice from Canada, Excellent comment. The case raises a more important question, how are we choosing supreme court justices? There have been a number of highly questionable decisions like this.
  26. Always have an opinion? May Be!! from Toronto, Canada writes: I don't think there is a God.

    Religion is a hoax.

    If it was invented to bring peace and calm to the human mind, it has miserably failed.

    This deeply religious woman believes in a religion that treats her sex as a second class citizen as all religions do-monolithic or otherwise- where has it gotten her? I am sure she hasn't had a calm moment since 1980 when this religion related nightmare began for her.

    It amazes me how completely sane and intelligent people can be so irrational and gullible when it comes to 'faith'. They accept misery and depravation in this life for something unknown and unknowable
    afterwards.
  27. Mei-Xing Xu from Canada writes: I am rather surprised no one has blamed Islam or Muslims for this Jewish woman being made to wait 15 years for a divorce from her estranged husband. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2224553,00.html
  28. Always have an opinion? May Be!! from Toronto, Canada writes: Mei-Xing:
    It appears if any one is obsessed with Islam and Muslims, You are!!!
  29. Darcy LeDrew from St. Albert, Canada writes: It's sad that this has turned into the usual, a few rotten apples means religion is bad. This is totally hypocrisy. No court should interfere in religious matter except for the religious leaders themselves in conferences and the like. She, as a Jewish Woman, was not forced to be single or have no children she made the choice based on her Faith. Simply speaking, secular Courts have no authority here. The Jewish community, the Rabbi's, should have simply denounced him and berated him til he conceded to his agreement. What's next? Catholics ordered to ordain women because it's not equal? Keep the secular State out of religious affairs unless something violent or against secular laws occurs. Every major religion, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are in essence simply idealistic, pure thought of what humanity should achieve. The fact that some are mere vain shadows of what their religion seeks to adhere to, is not the institutions' fault. I do not blame democracy when almost every major politician in Canadian history has been a crook, ignored Canadians, etc. Politics and religion are idealist realms of human thought. Both sides of the spectrum try to achieve perfection as religion strives to. Clearly, most people here are ignoring the fact most "secular" values are simply watered down Abrahamic religious beliefs: equality, treat others as you'd be treated, violence is never the solution, etc. etc. Religion is the boogey man now because of fundamental religion, particularly in the Middle East. Religion, fake or not, is much like law. It is required to maintain order in the mob. It's another net of security to bind the social fabric together and to berate those who do not follow the flow. You fail to realize the many excellent values of Muslims, Christians and Jews (let alone others). Religion is perfect as is political thought, the humans who practice these things are sadly not.
  30. Anuradha Bose from ottawa, writes: An excellent decision-well done Mme Abella.
  31. John Hidden from Puntarenas Costa Rica via Satellite link, United States writes: This is simply a case of contractual law.

    Kudos to the CSS, don't let yourself be bullied by religious nonsense.

    GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: "S Phillips from Canada writes: "Why women allow themselves to being conned into any religion is beyond me."

    Some religions are matriarchal, wherein women get to lord it over the men"

    As an Atheist I find that Matriarchal or Patriarchal religions don't make either of them right... in Canada, genders are equal.
  32. J Law from Canada writes: Darth Bobo from Canada writes: Religion, religion, religion; why, why, why was it ever invented?

    The reason, Darth, is that a man stood alone under a clear star filled sky and he felt so alone. He reasoned that there must have been somebody who made all this and then, to make himself feel not so alone, he reasoned a greater being must be looking down upon him and helping him. He didn't feel so alone. I find no problem so far.

    But it was when a man started to twist the story and other's thinking to make it appear that he himself was that being or that he had direct contact with that being and that others should give him money and respect is when that simple wanting to not be alone turned into something not so savory.
  33. Kevin Desmoulin from Canada writes: Why even brother to get marry now days, I mean it is easy to do and hard to get out of. Who needs special permission from any one to be together. The Church? or religious authorities have to give their consent that is ludicrous. You do not have to be married to love another or be together or have children.
    In this day and age I think traditional marriage is way over rated, God or who is your higher authority is the only consent you need and that is shown by the love between the two parties involved.
    Look at what happened here.

    years of wasted time bc of religious overtones attached to this institution
  34. John Silverman from Canada writes: "Bob ImamI from Canada writes: The Canadian Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. That means freedom from meddling in any way."

    LOL ARE YOU SERIOUS??? That is not what it means at all. It means you are free to belong to any religion you like, and to not be judged on it. THAT IS IT.

    It doesn't mean you are "free from meddling in anyway". If that were so, I could setup a religion where murder was ok and then kill people and no one could do anything. Jeez Bob, please make more informed posts in the future.
  35. shoshana berman from Canada writes: I hope this woman is 58 not 48, because she would have been 11 when she was married in 1969, also a violation of Canadian law.

    That said religious freedom is only protected under the charter as long as it does not deny another their rights and freedoms. This man is welcome to consider himself still married. He is not allowed to dictate his wife's freedoms and deny her a divorce so she can remarry in the Jewish faith.

    A similar court case was just heard by the US Sumpreme Court for a Kennedy who wanted and annulment. Interestingly, the counter arguement won and the ex wife who didn't want to allow it was vindicated. Unfortunately in the Catholic church an annulment means the marriage never happened and that the children are illegitimate, much more complex in its retroactivity than the Jewish get which only deals with future marriage and children. Someone who didn't want to allow an anullment would be a much tougher case for the Supreme court to hear and it will probably happen.
  36. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: John Silverman: You're right, Bob I. is wrong. . . . What the courts may become embroiled in later on is: a dispute where a court may be asked to determine the "validity" of a particular tenet of religious belief, not merely (as here) the EFFECT of such a tenet (although, granted, assessing this effect was indirect here, in the context of a dispute put under the heading of "contract interpretation and enforcement"). . . . Except for circumstances (as you describe) where penal ("a religion where murder is ok") laws or laws parallel to those are implicated, courts should not get involved in religious beefs. Again: Religions are akin to clubs, like the Elks or The Mystic Knights of the Sea; if their members wish to have "interesting" rites or beliefs or funny hats or wish to re-invent history to prove the validity of their rites or beliefs (y'know, how religions do), those are their prerogatives, and that is what freedom of religion includes; it certainly doesn't mean "freedom from all meddling".
  37. M M from Winnipeg, United States writes: Hmmm... If I understand it - the decision is not to order a "get" or not. It is to assign damages from failure to give one. If someone enters into a contract expecting the other to "play by the rules" and is frustrated by the other's refusal, then damages may be called for. He refused to give her a "get" which their regular social and religious practices expected as a normal matter of course. He refused a logical and normal "payment" wihch she expected, hurting her deeply. He must pay for the damages resulting. You can't have it both ways. If religion is a deep and important part of someone's life, you can't just say "you had an option Sir. You could have said No" about fundamental choices that mean they must abandon their life's beliefs. Would the pain and suffering be any less if she sued because he forced her to reneg on her beliefs to marry? It is a real damage. I grew up in the Catholic system (although I don't think I've ever believed) and am well aware how deeply religion roots itself into some people's thoughts and lives. Forcing someone to choose between their religion and their happiness, through sheer vindictiveness, is a real damage. The judgement was not nearly enough. But of course, nothing brings out nastiness like a good divorce. it's even better than an inheritance fight.
  38. Bob ImamI from Canada writes: Silverman and Justice... You are both wrong.

    The constitution was written to prevent people like you from interfering with religious adherent who fundamentally believe in things that differ from your religious beliefs.

    The court answers to the constitution. It does not write it.

    Your argument of "murder' is childish sophistry.

    The court may not intervene in religious practices, such as education, blood transfusion, sex of religious leaders, affirmative action, conscription, drinking of alcohol below the drinking age, acceptance of secular norms, ie homosexual intercourse, abortion services, etc..

    I can cite dozens of religious tenents that cannot be interfered with by the courts.

    You both must remember, that religious people constitute the vast majority of the Canadian public. They are very unhappy with judges prying into their lives.

    Hyperbolic sophistry with example of "murder" are silly. Grow up.
  39. enoch metatron from Canada writes: In Canada, "Top court backs wife" is as newsworthy and unexpected as "Cold weather in January!"
  40. Nassar Ben Houdja from Canada writes: Canadian law is the law for all Canadians living in Canada. No exceptions.
  41. K R from Canada writes: Bob ImamI: Dear sir you are in fact wrong about the constitution. It supersedes religious doctrine in every way. In fact, in the case of blood transfusions, the court has placed the health and well being of a child over the religious leanings of the parents, as it should. As said before in this forum, the constitution guarantees that the right to practise a religious believe will not result in censure by the public at large. Furthermore this case is not about the court making a ruling on the practices of the Jewish faith but on whether or not a person who did not honour his word caused damages to his former wife.

    As I disagree with the perpetual slippery slope arguments that are constantly used to justify doing nothing in the face of observable injustice. With that in mind I must say to the person who feels that the Canadian Court is in any way a ‘Kangaroo’ court must be naive to the extreme. The court, whether one agrees with them or not, has always made discussions based on the facts as presented and the law as written. Do not forget it was an act of parliament that made the court the over riding voice in Canada not the court. So please stop blaming the court for doing exactly what it is expected to do.

    Good Day.
  42. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: Bobby Imami: . . . "Hyperbolic sophistry with example of "murder" are silly." . . . You pretend to deal with legitimate criticism by ignoring it; what a surprise. You are using words that you don't understand. You are ducking the point, and with good reason.

    Courts are wise to stay away from enforcing "religious club rules" (since that's all that "religious laws" are, after all . . . they have no legitimate claim to have been "instituted by God" . . . at least no claim that can pass a test in the real world that demands facts for such claims). That's why this court decision was a mistake.

    Perhaps your evasion of JS's point and my own simply illustrates the blinders that religions put on their members (again, there is no basis for distinguishing between religions on this point . . . they are all manifestations of the same neurosis).

    Meanwhile, you are free to pretend that YOUR religious club is the "true" one, if you are so inclined. NO PROBLEM; have fun, dude.
  43. David Gibson from Hamilton, Canada writes: {{{What I would like to see if that they find a means to ban "religion" altogether as a protected "right", since it's obvious that religions are all simply ways to get around all the other rights we are supposed to have. Hiding behind "religion", we find that every other right we have: right of equality, right of belief, even right to life is compromised by the people who hide behind their "right of religion". It's time to strip that shield from the system.}}} Agreed. People invent religions, then want other people to make allowances. [At least Marshall Applewhite didn't ask for court approval...] Particularly disgusting is the allowing of food animals to have their throats slit whilst alive and conscious, because religions demand it, based on 2,000 year old concerns about eating creatures which had died from natural or unknown causes, and might cause sickness or death if eaten. Delusional barbarians.
  44. Bert Russell Paradox, BC from Canada writes:
    I agree with David Gibson, in that Religion is divisive and is routinely used as leverage to divide us. Canada's Charter is for equal rights to all of us - if you start to fine tune those rights by Religion, gender, First Nation Rights, Culture, then, intolerance, hate, race, discrimation pop up and are fed.
    Wouldn't it be a wonderful world if it were that simple.
  45. JM Work from Canada writes: Many anti-semites in this thread.
  46. Emperor Joshua Norton from Toronto, Canada writes: Correct me if I am wrong, but those arguing that the courts don't have the right to interfere in legal agreements set up by religious authorities (priests, rabbis, imams) - are you not arguing for faith-based tribunals (the whole sharia-law-is-coming-to-Ontario-thing that McGuinty rejected)?
  47. Bert Russell Paradox, BC from Canada writes:
    JMWork: which one?? Most posts I see talk religion. Of course BIMIMI likes to call names, but Bob only appears a touch insecure.
  48. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: JM Work: You give no examples for your charge. But thanks for "commenting," anyway. Gee . . . I hope you aren't arguing that failing to remain silent or failing to say something you deem to be complimentary is somehow "anti-semitic" . . . are you ?

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top