Discussion

- Find what changes in the family law are already established and what possibilities are just being considered.

- Find the given quotations in the text and answer the following questions.

1. “… couples have rights of inheritance, pension and continuous possession of owner-occupied home.”

How do you understand it?

2. “ … one of the first moves was to redefine the family as any ‘relationship involving children’, thus stretching the concept.”

What can ‘stretching the concept’ mean in legal terms? Why is it necessary to define the concept ‘family’ at all? How would you define it?

3) “But for many cohabiting couples such laws fall short, if they even exist.”

What do you think makes it particularly difficult to make up laws on nontraditional families that could carry full legal authority?

Read the following article very carefully. You must achieve complete understanding of the text, so use a dictionary by all means. While reading find the following words and word combinations in the text and learn their meaning. Use these words in the further discussion of the problem.

A settlement with smb, to be at stake, to set a precedent, to extend pension benefits to smb, bias, a legal obligation.

The Price of Partnership

As homosexuals in parts of Europe press for their right to marry, some heterosexuals are asserting their right not to. After British soldier Brad Tinnion was killed in action in Sierra Leone a year ago, his partner of nine years, Anna Homsi, tried to claim a war widow’s pension. Since the two had never married, the Ministry of Defense said no. Like its counterparts in other European countries, including France and Germany, Britain’s MoD has no provision for partners who have not established the legal link of marriage. (The couple’s daughter, Georgia, born three months after Tinnion died, receives benefits automatically.)

Last month, after the case stirred fierce public debate over the rights of unmarried partners, the MoD announced it would discuss a settlement with Homsi. She would not get the war widow’s pension, says an MoD spokesman, but rather an “ex gratia payment recognizing that in her case there are exceptional circumstances.” Homsi’s solicitor, Tom Reah, says that his client is still waiting to hear what the MoD might offer but notes there are larger issues at stake. “Anna Homsi is concerned about herself, obviously,” he says. “But she also wants to make sure that anyone in her position is looked after properly.”

At this point, there is no guarantee that will happen. But the MoD is reviewing the entire issue of unmarried parents. The military doesn’t want the Homsi case to set a precedent. Still, the official review is a sign, and not the only one, that Britain is re-evaluating how its rules fit a changing society. In July, Members of Parliament voted to extend pension benefits to unmarried partners of MPs. The policy has not been extended to other government employees yet, but Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris, who sponsored the argument, is pushing for more change. “The public sector needs to keep up with the lifestyles and financial independence of modern couples,” he says. “I’m campaigning to make these policies non-discriminatory.”

Not everyone agrees that the Homsi case is a valid example of bias. “Discrimination mainly applies to circumstances where people have no choice,” wrote Sunday Telegraph columnist Mary Kenny. “Brad and Anna did have a choice, and they chose not to marry.” If the policy is to change, where should the government draw the new blurry line to replace marriage? Says Reah: “If you can prove that you are a long-term established partner, you should be treated the same as a married person.” But how does one prove partnership? What constitutes long-term? “Marriage is a contract and a public commitment to share,” says James Jones, the Anglican Bishop of Liverpool, who has written extensively on the importance of marriage. “Partnership is a private arrangement which deliberately lacks that public commitment and those legal obligations.” That’s true today. But if Homsi and Harris have their way, partnership will soon come with recognized benefits – and take on public characteristics that make it look a lot like marriage.

(From ‘Time’)

Problem Solving.

Analyze the facts and arguments given in the article very carefully and prepare a short speech as if you were arguing the case in court. First act as if you were Tom Reah, Homsi’s solicitor, and then as if you were the MoD lawyer (let you name be Jeff Trendon). Remember that you must be prepared to perform both roles. It is your closing speech in which you must sum up the arguments in favour and against your case. While preparing the speech think over the following points.

1. Can you possibly win? If not, it might be better to press for a compromise. If so, what compromise can you reach?

2. Think what you cannot possibly allow to happen.

3. Think over the arguments given against your case and counter them. Arrange them in the way that would make your side of the story call for justice.

4. Think how you could present your speech in the form of questions and answers.

NB. If you find it necessary you can also use the material of other articles given in this Unit.

Vocabulary 2

20.Read the following article and guess the meaning of the words and word combinations given in bold type.

Now, the Hard Part

Afghan women have come up a long way since the days of the Taliban. But the rights they’ve won are more fragile than ever.

Pudgy and pale-skinned, Fahima, 22, sits forlornly in a damp concrete-walled cell in the Kabul Women’s Prison. She has been imprisoned for three months. She is entitled to a lawyer, but one hasn’t been appointed for her. That’s not surprising in a country where laws are ill defined and haphazardly enforced.

Seven years ago Fahima’s husband dissolved their marriage by saying “I divorce you” three times – then threw her out of their house in the Panjshir Valley. That is a legally binding form of divorce under Sharia, or Islamic law. Fahima, then 15, was left with little financial support and so moved in with her uncle. Two years ago he arranged a second marriage in Kandahar, a union that entitled him to a sizable dowry. Then came more trouble. Four months ago Fahima’s first husband showed up and demanded 200 million afghanis (about $4,350) from his former wife. If he didn’t get it, he warned, he would declare that he had never divorced her. She couldn’t come up with the money, and now could face 20 years in prison for adultery. “I’m innocent. I haven’t done anything wrong,” she says.

Fahima’s story wouldn’t have been surprising under the Taliban regime, when women were regularly beaten for dressing improperly and jailed for the slightest act of impropriety. But she was thrown in jail after the Taliban were driven out of Kabul. Afghan women have made substantial progress since then: they can work and girls can attend school. Yet behind these images of liberation, many Afghan women continue to suffer harsh treatment, especially in areas outside Kabul where conservative attitudes persist. This is worrying human-rights activists at a time when Afghanistan is beginning to debate new law. “Women’s rights are being neglected again, particularly in rural areas,” says Amena Afzali, head of women’s rights office at the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission. “There is a lot of cruelty toward women, and they are generally treated like slaves.”

Human-rights activists say two things are needed to boost the stature of women and then cement those gains. The first is a new constitution that is unambiguous about women’s rights. “There should be no room for personal interpretation,” says Afzali. Second, women must get educated so that they are aware of, and can protect, the rights they have. Fahima, for example, had no idea that she was entitled to a lawyer. Mary Nabardain, publisher of the feminist weekly Seerat, says that Western organizations can play a significant role in championing women’s rights, but heretofore have been focused on symbols like the burqa. “We are an Islamic country, and women are used to wearing the burqa,” says Nabardain. “If foreign organizations want to pull Afghan women from darkness to light, they should help with education programs.” Only that might keep women like Fahima out of jail.

(From ‘Newsweek’)