Divorce and family rights has been in the news this week with the move to compulsory mediation, however, it was strikingly the pre-nuptial agreement issue that brought the issue of gender discrimination to the fore in my mind.
This week the Supreme Court upheld that the prenuptial agreement between heiress Katrin Radmacher and her ex-husband Nicolas Granatino stood.
While Radmacher was being hailed as a feminist (see end of article) icon because it will benefit women, there was interesting commentary on Wednesday's Today Programme (07.51) from Andrew Newbury, who said that courts were less sympathetic towards men in a diovorce situation.
And you have to remember the John Cleese case which was clearly anti-male to get a gist of what he was saying. Baroness Deech set out the unfairness against men.
The issue that is concerning is the fact that whether the Supreme Court would have come to the same decision if it was a woman trying to tear up a pre-nuptial arrangement in the same situation.
In the Independent article it is highlighted that Lord Phillips of the Supreme Court said that pre-nuptials could be torn up, while Baroness Hale suggested that this law 'change' would be unfair against the poorly partner - 'invariably, but not always, a "she'". This is a get out clause being put forward by Philips.
I have grave doubts they would have come to the same conclusion therefore if the genders in this case had been reversed.
In addition, and this blog like so many others will be now on high alert for any hint of sexism in the application of pre-nuptial agreements. If a woman in the same situation as Granatino is treated more favourably than he was, then it will prove sexism is rife in the British Court system.
Posted by Skimmington
When I first heard of the judgement I was appalled. However, now I`m like... lets wait and see what happens when the next woman with a prenup divorces her millionaire husband...
Posted by: Stuart Mawson | Thursday, 22 December 2011 at 21:00