Yesterday Human Rights Watch published the article UAE: Spousal Abuse Never a Right on their site criticizing a decision by the UAE Federal Supreme Court that upholds the “right” of a husband to “chastise” his wife and children with beatings and other forms of disciplinary measures such as punishments and coercion as long as no permanent marks result from the exercise of this right. As pointed out by HRW, this clearly violates the right of women and children in that country to liberty, security, and equality in the family – and potentially their right to life.

According to the court, “Although the husband has the right to discipline his wife in accordance with article 53 of the penal code, he must abide by conditions setting limits to this right, and if the husband abuses this right to discipline, he shall not be exempt from punishment.”

To anyone who has at least a minimal understanding of what “rights” actually are, this decision may result, at least, questionable. However, given that the decision revolved around an article in the criminal code, I can’t help but wonder about the phrasing of this code and the questions that may derive from it. Aside from the obvious question of how one could, under any circumstances, condone domestic violence there are the more subtle (and, to some extent, even absurd) questions of what exactly constitutes abusing a right to abuse. How do you draw the line between acceptable abuse and unacceptable abuse? And how do you even begin to justify the mere existence of acceptable forms of abuse?

Related Posts:

1. Opression Can Take Many Forms
2. France Moves to Penalize Mental Abuse in Marriage
3. Translation and Abortion Legislation in Argentina