Don't lie about virginity in France

I wonder if the French judicial system made an April Fool's joke in its April 1 decision to grant a Muslim man an annulment based on the fact that his bride had lied to him about her virginity.

...In its judgment, the tribunal said the 2006 marriage had been ended based on "an error in the essential qualities" of the bride, "who had presented herself as single and chaste."
...
Article 180 of the Civil Code states that when a couple enters into a marriage, if the "essential qualities" of a spouse are misrepresented, then "the other spouse can seek the nullity of the marriage." Past examples of marriages that were annulled include a husband found to be impotent and a wife who was a prostitute, according to attorney Xavier Labbee.

Some are upset with the decision because they believe that it is a reversal of women's rights, and that allowing a man to annul a marriage based on his bride's lack of chastity is akin trying to cancel a commercial transaction based on the exposure of hidden defects in the product.
A lawyer for the groom said that the actual lack of virginity was not the issue, it was the lie that was at issue.

Muslim women (in Western countries) are often caught between two worlds, one where they are sexually emancipated and another where they are expected to uphold traditional values. I appreciate the market for fake certificates of virginity, hymen repair surgery, and vials of blood spilt on the wedding night sheets, as a means of appeasing those expectations.

However, I think I have to go with the French court on this decision. The bride's virginity was an essential quality that she lied to the groom about. Marriage IS a contract. If you misrepresent yourself in a contract, the contract is void.

I do kind of have to wonder how the groom figured out that the bride was lying. Was it merely because he didn't have to breach a hymen or that there was no blood afterwards? Was it because she seemed to enjoy herself a little bit? And, what makes HIM such an expert on what to expect in bed from a virgin, unless (of course) he'd bedded a virgin or two himself before the wedding. You just have to love a double standard, right?

In any case, instead of lying maybe the bride should have gotten the surgery before the wedding. It certainly would have saved everyone, including the French judicial system, a great deal of grief.

Words matter

My church book group recently finished reading a fabulous book, Three Cups of Tea by Greg Mortenson and David Oliver Relin. Paraphrasing the summary from Amazon:

After a failed ascent of K2, Greg Mortenson needed to recover in the small Pakistani village of Korphe. In exchange, he offered to build the impoverished town's first school. The project grew into the Central Asia Institute, which has constructed more than 50 schools across rural Pakistan and Afghanistan. Throughout the course of Mortenson's efforts the reader is introduced to village elders, con artists, philanthropists, mujahideen, Taliban officials, ambitious school girls and upright Muslims. The authors argue that the best way to fight Islamic extremism in the region is though collaborative efforts to alleviate poverty and improve access to education, especially for girls.

During our discussion someone noted the difference in the subtitle between the hardcover and the paperback. The hardcover says One Man's Mission to Fight Terrorism and Build Nations...One School at a Time. Whereas the paperback says One Man's Mission to Promote Peace . . . One School at a Time. The revision for the paperback was at Mortenson's insistence. He does not see himself as fighting terrorists. He sees his mission as promoting peace. He understands that words matter. He works very hard not to alienate anyone in the countries where he works. When faced with extremist hurdles to his work, he worked with Muslim supporters and Islamic courts to diffuse the issues. He also refused even indirect funding from the American government, so as not to make his motives suspect to the people he is trying to help. His story gives real insight into the everyday lives of the people of Central Asia, and shows that Americans are not blindly hated by everyone there.

Maybe our government is finally learning that words really matter as well. The Department of Homeland Security just issued a report urging caution with the use of terrorist language. While the article seems like common sense to most of us, it is extremely encouraging to see common sense start to come into some aspect of our international affairs. Here is the beginning of the CNN article:

Government officials should depict terrorists "as the dangerous cult leaders they are" and avoid words that aggrandize them, like "jihadists," "Islamic terrorists," "Islamists" and "holy warriors," the Department of Homeland Security says in a paper released Friday.

"Words matter," the agency says in the paper, which also suggests avoiding the term "moderate Muslims," a characterization that annoys many Muslims because it implies that they are tepid in the practice of their faith.

"Mainstream," "ordinary" and "traditional" better reflect the broader Muslim American community, it says.

Dan Sutherland, head of the agency's Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and author of the paper, said the paper is a recognition that words can help the government achieve its strategic goals.

Sutherland said he is starting to see results, with government officials using the term "mainstream Muslims" in meetings.

Sutherland's nine-page paper says the government should be careful not to demonize all Muslims or the Islamic faith or depict the United States as being at war with Islam.