`Please read discussion comments about the expert article on the get conflict below.   :For the religious process,  see Get (divorce document)    A 'get or ghet is a Jewish bill of divorce which is supervised by a Beth Din which is a rabbinical court in the city or jurisdiction where one lives. This page deals with the Conflict of Laws or civil law implications vs Judaic Law (religious law) when a women does not get her ghet and is kept in ``agunah`` which means chained.http://www.icar.org.il For a discussion of the purely religious implications, see religious divorce.  ==Discussion== Jewish communities have maintained a strong desire for religious, cultural and economic autonomy. Jewish Law is administered and enforced Judaic Lawin Israel and in the Diaspora through Bet Dins (Houses of Judges) Judaic Law holds that the man must initiate the request for the Jewish Divorce (``get``)and the woman must agree to receive the (``get``).  ==The relationship between state and religion==  Jewish law or religious law is not justiciable in societies with the civil law doctrine of separation of Church and State which can sometimes cause conflict for women who remain in ``agunah``. One of the most common divorce difficulties is that a spouse can be held in a limping marriage when the other spouse refuses co-operation in the religious form of divorce (see Agunah). A civil divorce can be obtained through local courts which entitles the parties to remarry civilly, but the capacity to remarry is also religious question. Where one party has the power to grant or withhold a religious divorce, this power can be used as a bargaining tool to pressure the other party to agree more or less favourable terms for residence and contact with children, and for maintenance and property settlements. Such provisions produce a conflict between the human rights of the woman to be free to marry and the freedom of people to practise their religion (see Article 18 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is repeated almost word for word in Article  9(1) European Convention on Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief).  The difficulty is that most countries operate under constitutions based on a separation between church and state which forbid governments from interfering in the practice of religion within their territory unless the behaviour of one or more parties is in breach of the local civil or criminal law. Thus, for example, in Rhodesia, the case of Berkowitz v Berkowitz (1956) (3) SA 522 (SR), held that it was inappropriate to use contempt proceedings to force a husband to grant a get because anything concerned exclusively with religious formalities was outside the jurisdiction of the secular courts.  Nevertheless, the majority of Western states do, to some extent, make the secular court's response to matrimonial proceedings conditional on the relevant party taking the steps necessary to complete a religious divorce on fair terms, so that either the court will impose excessively generous orders for maintenance and property settlement, or deny access to a civil decree or to ancillary relief until the religious formalities have been completed.   ===Canada===  In Canada, following consultation with all major religious groups, the Divorce Act was amended in 1985 to add Section 21.1 to give the courts have the power to dismiss any application, and strike out any pleadings and affidavits filed by a spouse who has failed to remove religious barriers to the remarriage of the other spouse. The legislature intended to: *place spouses on a more equal footing in civil divorce actions; *encourage women in particular to exercise fully their rights under the law; and *maintain the integrity of the Divorce Act 1985 by helping to ensure that refusing to accept or to give a religious divorce was not used as a bargaining tool to gain unfair concessions on child custody and access, or monetary support.  This reflects a general strong response at a federal level to any elements of duress or undue influence within the civil law system.  ====Bruker v. Marcovitz====  The justiciability of a civil contract with religious overtonese is now being tested in the Supreme Court Case of Bruker v. Marcovitz. See Canadian Civil Liberties Association. http://www.ccla.org/pos/legal/  In 1969, the parties married in an orthodox ceremony.  During the next 11 years they adopted two children after Ms. Bruker was unable to conceive.  In April of 1980, Ms. Bruker initiated divorce proceedings.   A link to the decision database is http://www.jugements.qc.ca/ and the full decision can be found with a text search for “Bruker” under “Cour d’appel”  In 1980, Mr. Marcovitz agreed upon a consent judgment for the divorce to appear immediately before Rabbinical authorities for the purpose of granting the religious Get.  Shortly, after the civil divorce, Ms Bruker, personally and through various attorneys and Rabbis, asked Mr. Marcovitz to provide the get, but Mr. Marcovitz refused. Mr. Marcovitz opined that he refused to comply because he viewed Ms. Bruker's behavior since the divorce as harassment and an attempt by her to alienate him from his children.    Ms Bruker sued Mr. Marcovitz in 1989, seeking damages in the amount of $500,000 ``for having been restrained from going on with her life since de Decree Nisi [...], for having been restrained to remarry according to the Jewish faith [and] for having been restricted of having children``.  Marcovitz vs. Bruker (500-09-013353-032; September 20, 2005)  In 1995, a certificate of divorce was issued by the Rabbinical Court of Montreal with Mr. Marcovitz's consent and participation to the get.  Despite receiving the get, Ms Bruker amended her action to increase the amount of the damages claimed to $1,350,000 and to include damages ``for the loss of consortium.``   Since Mr. Marcovitz was in breach of a judgment of the civil court, the lower court found that the matter could be argued before the civil courts and that Mr. Marcovitz had breached his contractual obligation to ``appear before Rabbinical Authorities.  He awarded Ms. Bruker $47, 500 in damages.  On appeal, Justice Hilton, writing for the three member court, overturned the lower court judgement.  The appellate court ruled that the obligation was religious in nature and so could not be judged by the civil courts.   ``It matters not that the obligation was stated in the Consent that the Superior Court ratified, since the Superior Court could never have entertained an application for corollary relief under section 17 of the Divorce Act to require the issuance of a ghet. It is not at all unusual to see the parties in an agreement on corollary relief undertake to perform a variety of obligations that are not, strictly speaking, obtainable independently, but which are desirable nevertheless to the extent that they promote an amicable post-divorce environment.``   ``While I recognize the usefulness of the inclusion of obligations of this nature in divorce agreements, it does not follow that they all automatically become subject to curial supervision and control, whether for specific performance or damages in the event of a breach. In my view, in order for such clauses to be enforceable, they must be directly related to one of the subject matters on which courts issue or vary orders of corollary relief, and otherwise be justiciable. - Justice Hilton, Quebec Court of Appeals  Arguments were heard in the Supreme Court of Canada on December 5, 2006. A decision on the case is pending.`` On December 27 2006 the Supreme Court received the final transcript of the proceedings. The decision is pending.`` {{cite web | url= http://cases-dossiers.scc-csc.gc.ca/information/cms/docket_e.asp?31212 | title=Docket: Stephanie Brenda Bruker v. Jessel (Jason) Benjamin Marcovitz | year=2006 | publisher