The story of an Iranian asylum seeker fleeing her abusive husband hit the news a short while ago. This unfortunate lady had made it to Europe, but is currently on the brink of being deported back to Iran, as fleeing domestic abuse does not qualify for asylum. If this happens it will almost certainly be a death sentence, as it can be claimed that during her flight she has been disobedient to her husband, withheld affection and committed adultery, which is punishable by death in Iran. Stoning, to be specific. Constitutionalized marital rape, in other words. The oppression of women is such that WHO has listed Iran the top 3rd ranking country for death by suicide by WHO. Needless to say, her flight has also separated her from her children, almost certainly forever.
Isn’t this a dreadful situation? What kind of a country would do that to its citizens? …But wait, what’s this? In the news at the same time are the new guidelines for the definitions for domestic violence in Australia, as handed out by the Attorney-General. These stipulate that domestic violence can include not only physical abuse but ‘angry verbal outbursts, staring, silence, ignoring and withdrawal of affection’. Also on the list are ‘threatening to divorce or abandon the victim if the victim fails to comply with demands or threatening to have an affair.’ Victims of domestic violence have hailed this as a step in the right direction, which will help combat ‘a complex pattern of violent or abusive behaviours’.
But it’s different from that awful Iranian law, right? Although technically if a woman refuses to sleep with her husband that’s now classified as domestic violence in Australia. Of course it’s different. Besides, the Attorney General clarified that the guide would ‘assist judicial officers with their decision-making’ while the chairperson of the taskforce for the Law Council of Australia domestic and family violence said it ‘does not rewrite the law nor change definitions’ of abuse. ‘It is a guide only.’ …So, that’s quite different from Article 21 of Iran’s Constitution which gives clergymen the right to interpret any law pertaining to women by stating that ‘The government must ensure the rights of women in all respects, in conformity with Islamic criteria.’ Quite, quite different. Even though they’re both punitive measures enforceable by law at the discretionary whim of the judiciary.
On that note, I think I’ll go out and celebrate my newfound freedom from domestic violence.