PROTECTING MINORITY RIGHTS – A Practical Guide to Developing Comprehensive Anti-Discrimination Legislation respect of article 16 of the Convention, which prohibits discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage and family relations. However, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has consistently held that such reservations are illegitimate, as they are incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty, in contravention of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.1043 Several cases in Canada have explored the role of equality and non-discrimination law in understanding communal rules. In a case that reached the Supreme Court of Canada, an Orthodox Jewish woman petitioned the legal system because her Orthodox Jewish husband had over a significant period of time declined to provide her with a “get”, a certification of divorce issued in the Orthodox Jewish community. The non-provision of the “get” left the woman effectively in a state of social limbo, with significant impacts on her ability to build a social life with dignity following her separation from her husband. Under Orthodox Jewish law, only the husband can provide a “get”. In a final, binding judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that the facts as presented violated Canadian equality law.1044 3. Harmful practices Harmful traditional practices, including female genital mutilation, are illegal under international human rights law. As noted above, articles 2 (f) and 5 (a) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women specify that States have a responsibility to end cultural practices leading to inequality between men and women. Exceptions are not allowed for religion or belief or any other communities, both for reasons of the ban on cruel or degrading treatment as set out under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, as well as due to the ban on discrimination against women, as set out, inter alia, under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.1045 The Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa similarly proscribes such acts. In its general comment No. 28 (2000), the Human Rights Committee held that “States parties should ensure that traditional, historical, religious or cultural attitudes are not used to justify violations of women’s right to equality before the law and to equal enjoyment of all Covenant rights”1046 and called on States to report on how they were addressing cultural or religious practices within minority communities that affected the rights of women: “The rights which persons belonging to minorities enjoy under article 27 of the Covenant in respect of their language, culture and religion do not authorize any State, group or person to violate the right to the equal enjoyment by women of any Covenant rights, including the right to equal protection of the law.”1047 In recent times, some States have seen movements aiming to ban male circumcision. While the human rights law issues in this matter are not yet clear, it is evident that the scope of questions is somewhat different to those involved as concerns female genital mutilation. In reporting on the visit to Denmark, where a discussion was taking place about possibly banning male circumcision, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief stopped short of explicitly opposing such a ban, but instead focused on the manner in which public discussion had heightened negative discourse – particularly on the Internet – against Jews and Muslims and alarm in those communities triggered by the proposals.1048 152 1043 A/53/38/Rev.1, paras. 1–25. 1044 Ayelet Shachar, “Privatizing diversity: a cautionary tale from religious arbitration in family law”, Theoretical Inquiries in Law, vol. 9, No. 2 (2008). 1045 In its most recent general comment on violence against women, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women summarized that: “Gender-based violence against women may amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in certain circumstances, including in cases of rape, domestic violence or harmful practices.” The Committee refers in this regard to relevant reports of special procedure mandate holders, as well as the concluding observations of human rights treaty bodies, such as the Committee against Torture and the Human Rights Committee. See Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, general recommendation No. 35 (2017), para. 16, and the citations included therein. See also A/HRC/31/57; and A/HRC/7/3, para. 36. 1046 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 28 (2000), para. 5. 1047 Ibid., para. 32. 1048 A/HRC/34/50/Add.1, paras. 24–26. Denmark has not, as at the time of writing, adopted such a ban.