Reply to: That's a bit unpleasant

[AtW]

I hear they've solved this problem in The Sopranos

[NotAllThere]

Just change it so if the law is applied the gett is not invalidated.

How are you going to get the Rabbis to do that? They believe that the Jewish law says that it will be invalidated. That's what they've ruled the Jewish law means.

They've no reason to change their view, and there's no way new British legislation is going to change their view.

Gets are not recognised under British law as creating a divorce. If a man gives his wife a get, he also has to go through the secular courts to get a divorce that's legally recognised - even if it's already religious lyrecognised.

[SueEllen]

Currently they can argue the gett is invalid because of coercion if the law is applied. Just change it so if the law is applied the gett is not invalidated. This is merely enforcing the creation and validity of the Gett where it was unreasonably withheld. Just like Israel as described above.

You are going round in circles.

English and Welsh law supercedes Jewish religious law but the rabbis don't care. They know they can maintain control of their followers by their interpretation that invoking a Gett using our laws is coercion so there is no religious divorce.

Unless a handful of their followers who won't grant a Gett are thrown in prison for a few years they won't change their stance. For that to happen there needs to be a handful of women who are willing to be ostracized from their community....

[vetran]

.Our laws already trump the Rabbi.
What exactly are you suggesting be changed?

Currently they can argue the gett is invalid because of coercion if the law is applied. Just change it so if the law is applied the gett is not invalidated. This is merely enforcing the creation and validity of the Gett where it was unreasonably withheld. Just like Israel as described above.

[NotAllThere]

we aren't too far off on our laws trumping the Rabbi or reluctant husbands

.Our laws already trump the Rabbi.

its just a small thing we have to change.

What exactly are you suggesting be changed?

[NotAllThere]

so in this case the law needs to explain that to them.

When people consider their traditions and customs to supersede the law, no amount of explanation is going to change that. The tradition/custom isn't breaking the law of the land. It's entirely voluntary, legally, whether you abide or not. If you don't you'll be ostracised, but there's no realistic way of legislating to prevent that.

Believe in what you like but treat people properly!

They believe they are.

[vetran]

Jew here.

Over in Israel, individuals who don't give out the 'get' are called 'Sarvani Get' ('Get' refusers), and they get sanctioned by many ways... including financial and criminal sanctions, with a few also ending-up in prison for long periods while their refusal is outstanding.

BTW, they aren't being prosecuted there under a dedicated law, they are ordered by the court to give out the 'Get', and once they refuse they are prosecuted under a general law around "violation of an order given to protect the life, body or well-being of another person" (taken from Wikipedia below).

https://translate.google.com/transla...25A1%25D7%25A8

Personally, I think the authorities should not create a dedicated law, they should enforce the existing laws (perhaps around abuse) to deter anyone from potentially doing it in the future. If the Rabbi accept it or not in the 1st or 2nd case isn't their problem, they need to prevent the 3rd.

ah so even Israel thinks its unacceptable so we aren't too far off on our laws trumping the Rabbi or reluctant husbands. its just a small thing we have to change.

[northernladuk]

so in this case the law needs to explain that to them.

Believe in what you like but treat people properly!

You mean a bit like Catholics refusing to serve gay people? We aren't pearly white in this area. Much of the problem is people not the religious laws as is could be argued in this this case. The men being an arse and not giving the lady what they want doesn't mean the whole system is a problem. We are only talking about Orthodox and Ultra Orthodox here as well which is a minority that aren't moving with the times. Every single religion known has the same problem to be fair.

That said, it appears that Orthodox and Ultra Orthodox is outstripping the others so will become the majority in the next few years according to reports. So if the clash of religious laws and UK laws is a problem it's only going to grow. We know that already with the growth of Sharia law and it's only going to get harder to fight off. Not going to be long before the believers in Sharia have enough people supporting and people in high places for it to start to be integrated in to UK law. Not a good place at all.

[ladymuck]

Jew here.

Over in Israel, individuals who don't give out the 'get' are called 'Sarvani Get' ('Get' refusers), and they get sanctioned by many ways... including financial and criminal sanctions, with a few also ending-up in prison for long periods while their refusal is outstanding.

BTW, they aren't being prosecuted there under a dedicated law, they are ordered by the court to give out the 'Get', and once they refuse they are prosecuted under a general law around "violation of an order given to protect the life, body or well-being of another person" (taken from Wikipedia below).

https://translate.google.com/transla...25A1%25D7%25A8

Personally, I think the authorities should not create a dedicated law, they should enforce the existing laws (perhaps around abuse) to deter anyone from potentially doing it in the future. If the Rabbi accept it or not in the 1st or 2nd case isn't their problem, they need to prevent the 3rd.

That's really interesting (thank you)

It seems that this feels contrary to the issuing of a get under duress that was being quoted initially. I assume that was a specific interpretation that may not be widely accepted?

[Gulliver89]

Jew here.

Over in Israel, individuals who don't give out the 'get' are called 'Sarvani Get' ('Get' refusers), and they get sanctioned by many ways... including financial and criminal sanctions, with a few also ending-up in prison for long periods while their refusal is outstanding.

BTW, they aren't being prosecuted there under a dedicated law, they are ordered by the court to give out the 'Get', and once they refuse they are prosecuted under a general law around "violation of an order given to protect the life, body or well-being of another person" (taken from Wikipedia below).

https://translate.google.com/transla...25A1%25D7%25A8

Personally, I think the authorities should not create a dedicated law, they should enforce the existing laws (perhaps around abuse) to deter anyone from potentially doing it in the future. If the Rabbi accept it or not in the 1st or 2nd case isn't their problem, they need to prevent the 3rd.

[vetran]

You need to compare this number with how many people speed - EVERY DAY: 390.3 mln car journeys per year*, of which at least half would break speed limit, even by a little that's still legally speeding, so 2 mln prosecutions is feck all and penalty is light precisely for that reason - too many people do it.


* - https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/average-car-journey-uk

It is the most prosecuted driving offence, it is automated and profitable. The M4 has a 50mph average speed and everyone does 50 because they know average speed cameras are very effective.

Most other traffic offense prosecutions cost money.

I used to speed a lot doing over 50,000 miles a year 25 years ago. I would banned in a week if I drove like that now. Mostly speeding is not an issue on most motorways (80mph tends to be the to speed) Speeding is a big issue on country roads

[AtW]

Speeding is probably one of the most well policed crimes 2 Million prosecuted a year.

You need to compare this number with how many people speed - EVERY DAY: 390.3 mln car journeys per year*, of which at least half would break speed limit, even by a little that's still legally speeding, so 2 mln prosecutions is feck all and penalty is light precisely for that reason - too many people do it.


* - https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/average-car-journey-uk

[vetran]

Speeding (which is a criminal offence) is barely enforced in this country, why? Because any law that criminalises sufficiently large quantity of residents becomes unenforceable (ie - voluntary or rare with mild token punishments like £60 fine and points), as otherwise there is a risk that it will lead to collapse of people obeying other (more important) laws.

Plus it costs too much

Speeding is probably one of the most well policed crimes 2 Million prosecuted a year. The majority of regular drivers have been caught at least once. Increases in the number of speeding cameras happen annually. It is one f the cheapest crimes to prosecute. It was a cash cow 30 years ago when one of my exes processed them manually.

The majority of park users haven't been done for littering (you are likely to have it done at least once.
2 million divers are without insurance but only 300,000 prosecuted. Goodness knows why, just connect APNR to insurance data base and send a letter with a 7 day producer.

https://www.insurancefactory.co.uk/n...e-UK-each-year

Very few people have been done in reality for driving with a mobile phone or without seatbelts both of which are horribly common. Similarly few drink drivers are caught or kept off the road.

as usual you are wrong about the money!

https://www.driving.co.uk/news/polic...%20distributed.

The watchdog said that this had led police at the highest levels to suspect that the focus of safety partnerships was to increase revenue, with officers pointing out specific roads on which cameras had been installed despite not having a history of collisions or “identified vulnerabilities”.

[vetran]

But that isn't the case. The woman can get a legal divorce. What we're talking is a 'religious' divorce ... in this case she wants to stay in this religious community so she is choosing not to get a legal divorce and unfortunately in complicit in the whole cultural bulltulip.

The religion isn't above UK law, but people do allow these customs to control them.

The point is that if the law rules on this the religion wants to ignore it because Gett cannot be 'coerced'. This like a religion saying women can't protect themselves.

[AtW]

The religion isn't above UK law, but people do allow these customs to control them.

In theory it's parallel, but in areas where it intersects UK law should override any religious malarkey.

That's not the case which is a problem - you can't seriously expect some young person to risk being excommunicated from tightly knit societies. Dumb vetran is correct on this particular issue.