Friday a New Jersey court rejected religion as a defense to non-consensual sex (rape). Previously a New Jersey court did not find sexual assault or criminal sexual conduct to have been proven in spite of the fact that a man had engaged in sexual relations with his wife against her expressed wishes.
The original judge stated:
In other words, the court did not prosecute the man for rape because the Judge accepted the husband's belief that his religion obligated his wife to have sexual relations when and where he wanted it.
After acknowledging that this was a case in which religious custom clashed with the law, the appellate court reversed the original decision, writing (among other things):
Defendant’s conduct in engaging in non-consensual sexual intercourse was unquestionably knowing, regardless of his view that his religion permitted him to act as he did.
As the judge recognized, the case thus presents a conflict between the criminal law and religious precepts. In resolving this conflict, the judge determined to except defendant from the operation of the State’s statutes as the result of his religious beliefs. In doing so, the judge was mistaken.
The couple, originally citizens of Morocco and adherents to the Muslim faith, were wed in Morocco in an arranged marriage on July 31, 2008, when the bride was seventeen years old. The parties did not know each other prior to the marriage. On August 29, 2008, they came to New Jersey where the husband was employed as an accountant.
The wife’s allegations of abuse included several instances of non-consensual sex as well as other physical and mental abuse. The wife testified that:
on their return to the apartment, defendant forced plaintiff to have sex with him while she cried. Plaintiff testified that defendant always told her:
This is according to our religion. You are my wife, I can do anything to you. The woman, she should submit and do anything I ask her to do.
After having sex, defendant took plaintiff to a travel agency to buy a ticket for her return to Morocco. However the ticket was not purchased, and the couple returned to the apartment. Once there, defendant threatened divorce, but nonetheless again engaged in non-consensual sex while plaintiff cried. Later that day, defendant and his mother took plaintiff to the home of the Imam and, in the presence of the Imam, his wife, and defendant’s mother, defendant verbally divorced plaintiff....
Clearly the original ruling was a travesty of justice. "No" means no, regardless of religious affiliation or marital status. As for the man's erroneous assumption that his religious faith gave him permission to rape his wife - ignorance of the law is not a defense.
The appeals court did the right thing by overruling the original judge. As for the couple, a child was conceived out of this short, unhappy relationship. Let us hope that child escapes the religious ignorance and superstition that ensnared his or her parents.
Comments
Hopefully, this will give the woman reason to have second thoughts on the religion as well, but it probably won't happen that way.
Hope the original judge was removed from the bench.
Oh please, Steve-in-SA, you're acting as if this is just a Muslim issue. Sixty years ago when my grandmother told her pastor that my grandfather was forcing her to have non-consensual sex, he told her that the New Testament said (Colossians, 1 Peter, etc) that it was her duty to submit to her husband. How many Christian women have been told to submit to non-consensual sex or else they're committing a sin? We'll never know, because Christian men will never tell. Rape and other atrocities occur wherever men hold any kind of power over women, be it religious or societal. Women should run far, far away from men who belong to any patriarchal faith, be it Jewish, Muslim, Christian, or whatever. Thank god my mother found an agnostic man who treated her like his equal in all things. I know my father is in Heaven, while if there is any cosmic justice, my grandfather is burning in Hell.
Oh please, Steve-in-SA, you're acting as if this is just a Muslim issue. Sixty years ago when my grandmother told her pastor that my grandfather was forcing her to have non-consensual sex, he told her that the New Testament said (Colossians, 1 Peter, etc) that it was her duty to submit to her husband. How many Christian women have been told to submit to non-consensual sex or else they're committing a sin? We'll never know, because Christian men will never tell. Rape and other atrocities occur wherever men hold any kind of power over women, be it religious or societal. Women should run far, far away from men who belong to any patriarchal faith, be it Jewish, Muslim, Christian, or whatever. Thank god my mother found an agnostic man who treated her like his equal in all things. I know my father is in Heaven, while if there is any cosmic justice, my grandfather is burning in Hell.
The original judge should be immediately and permanently disbarred. His ruling was not based upon the law in any way whatsoever.
Criminy, well that's a relief! At least there's still some people who haven't lost their minds over Islam.
ISLAM IS NOT A RELIGION! IT IS A VERY VIOLENT AND MILITANT POLITICAL CULT!
ANYONE WHO FOLLOWS THE TEACHINGS OF ISLAM IS ON AN INEVITABLE PATH TO VIOLENCE!
TO READ WHAT ISLAM TEACHES, GOOGLE: TOP TEN REASONS WHY SHARIA IS BAD FOR ALL SOCIETIES
@Elizabeth: exactly, it's not a problem only with Islam. It's a problem with all religions. By definition, religious beliefs are in conflict with evidenced reality. Whenever you act on these beliefs you run the risk of behaving immorally and/or foolishly.
YYUU -- you might want to consider changing your screen name to WooWoo. Of course Islam is a religion, and has been since the seventh century. Please get your facts straight before posting such inane hate-filled drivel.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!