in reaching a legally binding settlement that the prosecutor or a legal figure such as a retired judge can play a role. However, the final draft of the law did not distinguish between reconciliation and mediation; mediation (which was assumed to include efforts of reconciliation) was assigned to the settlement office. It is noteworthy that Takla’s emphasis on the distinction between reconciliation and mediation, a distinction that was absent from the written text as well as the work practices of settlement specialists (more on the latter point in chapter 2), was not motivated by any gender-based concerns. Rather, it was about ensuring that the multidimensional structures and roles of the new courts system function. But what about the position of women’s rights advocates? What were their expectations and concerns regarding the law? And were these aspirations and fears reflected in the written text of the law?
As mentioned earlier, Zulficar’s goal was to draft a law that would institutionalize a specialized, unified, and efficient legal system for personal status disputes—a system which she believed would benefit female disputants. Zulficar’s espousal of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms was thus based on the understanding that this feature was part of what made this kind of court system accessible, quick, and affordable. Unlike some of the women’s rights activists and organizations in the civil society, Zulficar believed that this mediation-based legal system would be beneficial to women and would address some of the gender-based inequalities in the family domain. She did not share the concern that there could be potential gender-based pitfalls in the structures and functions of the new courts system themselves that would impact women negatively. However, a few of the important women’s rights activists and some organizations that worked on the reform of family laws had concerns and reservations about the new law.16 For example, the director of a well-known women’s rights organization was concerned that the mandatory pre-litigation mediation would result in women being forced by settlement specialists to reconcile with their husbands, especially since the substantive personal status laws and the social norms continue to affirm hierarchical gender relations and unequal rights.17 Similar concerns were voiced by another prominent women’s rights activist who has a long experience in advocacy work on the reform of personal status laws.18 This latter interlocutor also pointed out that since disputants normally exhaust all possibilities of mediation through the family, the work of the settlement office was redundant and alien to Egyptian culture, and thus would probably result in either prolonging the legal process or coercing female disputants into reconciliation or unfair and undesired settlements. Similar concerns about how mediation could work against women were also voiced by the director of another well-known women’s rights organization, as well as a prominent women’s rights activist and journalist.19 In addition, a common concern of these women’s rights activists was that the focus on the family, as highlighted by Takla and which was reiterated in the explanatory memorandum for PSL No. 10, would encourage settlement specialists to pressure women to reconcile with their husbands. This concern was validated by the prevalent perception often reflected in print media that the primary role of the settlement offices is to work toward the reconciliation of the disputants and the salvaging of marriages.20
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».
Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.
Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.
