Ahmad Humeid drew my attention to the "Know your rights, protect yourself" campaign currently underway in Jordan. A number of Jordanian dailies published parts of the Jordanian constitution today to acquaint Jordanians with their rights. It is all nice and dandy, except for the problem I have with Article No. 6, which says:
Article 6 – (i) Jordanians shall be equal before the law. There shall be no discrimination between them as regards to their rights and duties on grounds of race, language or religion
I find it quite interesting that gender is not addressed in this Article. I guess it is simply because Jordanians are, in fact, not equal before the law when it comes to gender. As a woman, I can never pass Jordanian citizenship on to my children, hence my future offspring, who will have a non-Jordanian father, will always come to Jordan as tourists. They will need a visa every time they visit the kingdon. But children of a Jordanian male married to a non-Jordanian automatically become citizens. Are all Jordanians equal before the law? I think not!
Another point: the inheritance issue. As a woman, I will always get half the share of inheritance that my male siblings receive. One again, Jordanians are not equal before the law. Since I do not see any changes brewing in either of these two issues, I would suggest amending Article No. 6 as follows: "Jordanians shall be equal before the law except in matters of gender."
With regards to religion, I’m not really sure about that either. Although non-Muslim minorities enjoy very good status in the kingdom, I don’t think I’ll live to see the day when there will be a Christian Jordanian prime minister. Frankly, I do not know how I will explain to my children that they can never be Jordanians let alone become prime minister. Oh, well!
Hello,
Natasha, as far as I know, the issue of allowing women married to foreigners to pass citizenship to their children is something Queen Rania was actively pursuing and trying to amend — I do not believe that her efforts were really successful, however. This is partly due to the fact that such an amendment will have, in many people’s view, a significant effect on the restructuring of Jordanian society as a whole and will undoubtedly influence its national make-up.
Dana
i agree on what you said eye to eye… but as you can tell form my post,,, i have only one comment,, re-phrase it.. to be politically correct,,, lol
“Frankly, I do not know how I will explain to my children that they can never be Jordanians let alone become prime minister.”
Why don’t you just explain to them that they can grow up to become President of the United States instead??? And that’s regardless of whether they are male/female.
Might not be Jordan, but it’s a pretty decent nation to rule…
Later
Tater
Political Correctness
As reading natashas post about whether we are equal before the law or not, I recalled an interview I heard on the BCC Arab
Political Correctness
As reading natashas post about whether we are equal before the law or not, I recalled an interview I heard on the BCC Arab
Jeff
I doubt not for a second that most humans will take advantage of any system of governance as long as they could, I guess the realist always got the better of the optimist in me.
However when it comes to constitutions its precisely the argument you raise which in my view favours the general rather than the explicit. So that they are not altered by the change of the political tide.
I would has it as a guess that the reason Religion, race and language where included in the original text is that they were issues of that moment (well in addition to influences from French law!). so now we want to add gender….then what next…
I believe a law should be simple (Lawyers might come after me). And if you were to use an article of the constitution to defend an injustice. Then pointing out that you are Jordanian should be equally as good as pointing out you are a Jordanian woman
I appreciate there are lots of arguments for both, and then you get into a debate regarding common law vs case law and then you really need “bakraj qahwaa”
But to me a constitution should be about the spirit which should govern society. And if more details are necessary in other parts of the legal system then so be it!
PS. Loved the pictures on your site, Qatar seems to have more to offer than I’ve managed to see so far, I shall try harder on my next visit.. (next week 🙂 if all goes well)
Natasha, the origin that a no Christian can become a Prime Minister in Jordan is is simply one statment in the constitution” the religion of the State is Isalm” Now, With due respect to Islam, Christianity or Judaism as great religions that advance our lives ,I believe that they should not identify the identity of any state. The reason for that is becuase this will cause injustice to other members who do not embrace that specific religion.
I agree with you, that we will never see the day where a Christian become a Prime Minister. Marwan Al Masher is a good example about that. He is very loyal, national, smart and competent but he is Christian!
Actually, not mentioning these things within the confines of a constitution is dangerous. Nidal, you suggest that it would be more inclusive to remove any references to the law’s inclusiveness (there are more listed in the article Natasha links to as well). In theory, that makes sense, relying on the goodness of man. But the whole point of the document — and likely that of the Jordanian papers reprinting it — is to show what is codified into law.
Not having it written into law leaves the door wide open for abuse. Someone could say these things are “self-evident,” etc … that’s fine. But not everyone agrees on all things “self-evident.” And sometimes those attitudes change when the political winds blow. It’s important that these things be written into the law, thereby legally requiring citizenry and the government to honor such ideals. It’s important that the people can point to it and say “this is my right as a citizen of this nation.” It’s nice to imagine people or the government would honor such ideals of their own volition. But in truth, they just might not.
Natasha,
I fear you are trying to take issues some of which undoubtedly exist, and blame them on an article in the constitution.
It could be argued that references to Religion, race or language should be removed rather than add gender. That will be more inclusive.
As regarding Women passing nationality I agree it would make sense, and it is something worth fighting to change but I don’t think its the constitution which stops you.
As for inheritance I am fairly sure that Islamic shar3a inheritance can be opted out of under the current system? Any lawyers around to confirm this please?
With regard to a Christian prime minister, why not. not long ago no one thought we would have women ministers. the reason it will be difficult currently is more to do with way politics is structured currently where there is little political activity with wide appealing ideology but rather a system which relies on tribalism and faith.
It will however always be a long shot, but that is not the constitution but rather the people, democracy and all that!
how devastating it is for a parent not be able to tell her children they, one day, will become the prime minister of jordan.
sorry for the the lame comment. i see the point of the post and there is truth in it.