Lawyer Sida Yıldız criticized the Directorate of Religious Affairs for its statements denying women equal inheritance rights, noting that the real reason divorce cases take so long is men’s attempts to hide assets, and emphasizing that the Ministry of Justice has duties to fulfill without resorting to “mediation.”
The Directorate of Religious Affairs’ General Directorate of Religious Services included controversial remarks about women’s inheritance rights in the Friday sermon it issued last week. The sermon declared that “altering the inheritance framework set by Almighty God without mutual consent is contrary to divine justice,” adding that “depriving daughters of their inheritance, or daughters refusing to accept the share ordained by God, constitutes a violation of rights.”
Statements by Minister of Justice Yılmaz Tunç also paralleled the Directorate’s rhetoric targeting women. While the Directorate attacked women’s right to inheritance under the Civil Code, Tunç announced his aim to introduce “family mediation” in divorces, claiming it would shorten proceedings.
Lawyer Sida Yıldız, a member of the Association of Lawyers for Freedom (ÖHD) Women’s Commission, responded to ANF’s questions on the issue.
The Directorate of Religious Affairs caused controversy in its recent Friday sermon over “inheritance rights.” How do you evaluate such a debate on women’s inheritance rights, especially when the law is already clear?
A few months ago, the Women’s Rights Center of the Istanbul Bar Association made a statement on this issue. To give an example specifically regarding lawsuits for the dissolution of joint ownership, we have increasingly encountered a situation in legal disputes involving inheritance rights. Before such a case can be filed, the law requires applying to the institution of mediation. It says that you must first go to mediation, and only if no agreement is reached can the case be filed. After this requirement was introduced, we lawyers frequently observed how women were pressured in these mediation sessions, often with their brothers or other male relatives present as co-heirs. This issue had also caught the attention of the Istanbul Bar Association, which issued a statement on it.
Women in society are so pressured that when they claim their inheritance rights, it is treated as if they are asking for something they should not, and they are shamed for it. As a result, we encounter the reality of many women being deprived of their rightful shares. Under emotional and manipulative pressure, women are even pushed to the point of saying, ‘It does not matter if my brother gets a larger share. If my sisters do not accept, then I will not accept either.’ Unfortunately, we witness such situations. In practice, women with limited access to legal support are forced to either accept a smaller share of the inheritance or accept only a minimal portion of it.
As can be seen from the recent sermons of the Directorate of Religious Affairs, statements aimed at managing public perception have increasingly been made to support a male-dominated mindset and to enslave women. This is not new, of course, but it must be known that women never won their rights easily. They gained them through struggle, they sacrificed their lives for them, and they continue to risk their lives for these achievements. And we will never give them up. As you pointed out, when laws exist, when the legal system exists, when acquired rights exist, and when the Civil Code exists, we will never allow this.
While these debates are ongoing, Minister of Justice Yılmaz Tunç also announced that some legal regulations concerning women will be introduced in the upcoming legislative year, specifically on alimony rights and the implementation of a mediation mechanism in divorces. Do you think there is a parallel between such legislative changes and the rhetoric produced by the Directorate of Religious Affairs against women’s rights?
Of course, all of them are interconnected. One of the legal changes linked to the sermons of the Directorate of Religious Affairs, and which is expected to have a particularly negative impact on women, is family mediation. I believe there is a connection between these legislative initiatives and the statements being made. Unfortunately, this is not the first time the Directorate of Religious Affairs has done such things. It has also attempted to interfere with women’s inheritance rights and even with their clothing. With these recent examples, we women can clearly see that, under the guise of declaring a so-called ‘family year,’ there are attempts to intervene in women’s acquired rights. We also associate these moves with Turkey’s withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention with a single decision. They are all interlinked, and the courage to take such steps stems precisely from this. But it must be known: we will never compromise on our rights.
We, as women, will not remain silent while our rights to equal citizenship and our most fundamental human rights within the context of gender equality, rights that we did not win easily, for which we paid heavy costs, as I just mentioned, and for which we put our lives on the line are put at risk. I want to emphasize this point very clearly.
You mentioned the consequences of mediation in inheritance disputes for women. What will mediation in divorce bring?
This move is about trying to ‘convince’ women who want to divorce. Literally that is how it can be described. As is known, Minister of Justice Yılmaz Tunç announced that he would present family mediation as a proposal to Parliament in the new legislative term. It is true that divorce proceedings have multiplied in recent years and that they can take years to conclude. I say this as a lawyer who mostly works in family law. But in reality, this is also the result of male reasoning. We see this clearly in practice. The main reason divorce cases drag on is men’s attempts to conceal assets. We have often witnessed men trying to avoid sharing the property acquired during the marriage. There are even men who refuse to pay even a very small amount of alimony, either for their child or for their spouse during the divorce process. It is precisely this male mentality, this refusal to pay women’s alimony and compensation, that prolongs these cases. This situation also carries the risk of undermining one of the most important rights women have won: the right to alimony and compensation. With this regulation, they are essentially targeting the rights of women who never had a career, who were married off at a very young age, and who were subjected to violence. Although family mediation is presented as a conciliatory and seemingly innocent path, in reality it contains very serious risks, and we women foresee this, we are worried about it.
The Minister of Justice claims that family mediation will end the long divorce proceedings that drag on and prevent the parties from rebuilding their lives, and that compensation, alimony, and property division cases will be handled separately. He presents the length of divorce cases as the justification for bringing in family mediation. But in fact, in the legal system, there is no situation that makes family mediation necessary. In other words, family mediation essentially means imposing pressure, making women feel obliged to reconcile, and trying to convince them.
All lawyers also know that there is a major handicap in mediation. Mediation does have a legal basis and is, of course, a lawful path that can at times produce sound results. However, in mediation sessions there is generally no binding requirement to adhere to any legal rule.
What do you mean by that?
What I mean is this: mediation sessions do not have such safeguards. These are meetings conducted on the principle of confidentiality between the parties, and the mediator does not intervene in any way. Everything is left to the will of the parties. If family mediation comes into force, the same situation will apply. In mediation sessions, it is considered sufficient for the parties to simply present their will, whether positive or negative. At least during divorce proceedings, or in cases of violence, women still have the chance to express themselves before a judge or prosecutor. Of course, there are many shortcomings in practice. That is a separate matter, but with the introduction of family mediation, women will face the risk of losing many of these rights.
For example, even in the case of a consensual divorce, where there is a divorce protocol and a joint petition for divorce, or even when both parties are represented by lawyers, both sides are still required to appear in person before the court during the hearing. This cannot be done through a video system; they must be physically present. In that moment, the judge not only takes their verbal confirmation that they truly agree on the terms but also has the opportunity to check whether the woman has been subjected to any threat, blackmail, or coercion that might impair her will.
Why is the judiciary not being strengthened before reaching this stage?
This is exactly what we are asking as well. Why do we not see more competent prosecutors, judges, and staff in the courts? This is what should be questioned. Instead of proposing a regulation on such a razor’s-edge issue, one that carries the risk of undermining women’s acquired rights, the Ministry of Justice should focus on strengthening the judiciary, ensuring the competence of the courts, and providing sufficient personnel. We view this step as one that could jeopardize not only women’s right to equal citizenship but also gender equality as a whole. Yes, it may make divorce proceedings easier, perhaps as the Minister himself says. But as I mentioned earlier, it will seriously expose women to the risk of being deprived of their economic rights, facilitating divorce in a way that effectively relieves men. Consider this: women are already more materially and emotionally worn down than men during divorce proceedings, and on top of that such a burden would be imposed on them.
I also listened to the Minister’s remarks claiming that family mediation aligns with the European legal system. But if we compare the concrete reality of women living in Europe with women living in our country, there is a vast difference. In our country, family law already contains provisions that sideline women’s rights. For example, after a divorce, spouses cannot access the inheritance rights of their former partners. This itself reflects a system that often places women at a disadvantage.
In what sense do you mean women cannot access inheritance?
For example, let us imagine a man who, during the divorce process, has no assets in his name. Suppose this man then stops paying the alimony awarded to his former wife by the court. Later on, let us say he gains a share of the inheritance. In our country, a woman cannot enforce her alimony rights through this inheritance share. This is a very serious shortcoming and is absolutely contrary to the principles of rights and equity. It makes no sense at all. In the European countries that the Minister cites as examples, there is no such rule. Women there can access their alimony rights through every possible means.
As I have said before, this so-called mediation system will in fact cause women to lose rights. It will silence women to a certain extent. It will serve the logic of male domination. It cannot go beyond that; wherever we touch it, it falls apart in our hands. Moreover, we already know how lacking safety mediation sessions are, even in other kinds of cases. There are cases where women, even people, have been killed during mediation sessions. And especially in a country where at least three women are murdered every day, mediation sessions will place women face-to-face with the very men who are potential perpetrators. How will women be protected in this system? How will their safety be guaranteed? In a context where women are not protected, how can family mediation possibly function in a healthy way? So we keep coming back to the same point: in light of all these problems, the laws that protect women must be implemented effectively, and above all, the Istanbul Convention must be reinstated, it is absolutely essential.”