Rape 'impossible' in marriage

spen666

Jake151 wrote:

So because I disagree with it I'm not aloud to express my view on it? and yet someone is aloud to express their views on something that shouldn't even be hinted to as the correct thing to do.

So I have to sit back and watch as he is saying its allowed in marriage but I cannot express my views on why I believe it shouldn't have been reported? Something does not add up there.

Jake the only person saying something should not be said / reported is you?

Remember posting this?

That cleric shouldn't have made those comments and it should not be in the paper

The highlighted bit sounds very much like censorship.

Just because someone has a differing view to you, is no reason to call for their view not to be allowed to be reported. That is the approach of a totalitarian society. It is a dangerous view to go down.

You ask why it is being reported in this country and say it is irrelevant to the UK - well it may have escaped your mind that
a) he is living here ( probably a British Citizen)
b) He has a prominent role within the muslim community here
c) He is head of a sharia law system in this country that is both legal and accepted by the British Legal System as having a role
d) even if none of the above apply, we are not so narrow minded to ignore what is happening in the rest of the world.

It is not compulsory to have christian views or to believe that all laws in this country are right. To call for changes in law is something that is right and proper in a free country. That is totally different from my agreeing with his views- because I do not agree with his views but am happy that I am not so narrow minded as to want to silence those I disagree with.

Before you start trying to twist things again. Stop and read my last 2 posts. I have not in either post suggested you do not have the right to hold or express those views.

dilemna

I believe the case in 1991 was RvR where the HoL decreed that within marriage a man can be guilty of rape where his wife does not give consent to sex. Prior to this in law a wife was considered a chattel. The decision of the HoL in RvR was later confirmed in one of the Sexual Offences Acts meaning Parliament ratified the earlier HoL decision.


I think Sheikh Sayeed's response when asked how men who have raped or forced themselves upon their wives should be dealt, is revealing showing just how backward and repressive a legal system Sharia law really is, conferring few rights on Muslim women in Muslim marriages. But our UK law did not change until 1991 so we can't really leap onto the righteous moral high ground.

Asked about how men who are found to have forced themselves upon their wives were punished, he explained: "He may be disciplined, and he may be made to ask forgiveness. That should be enough."

Thankfully in the UK English law takes precedence. The problem is communicating this to vulnerable Muslim women living in fear of their husband and reprisal from their own families for bringing shame on them. A very nasty situation which cannot be made light of.

IronHorse100

Jake151 wrote:

That cleric shouldn't have made those comments and it should not be in the paper. Rape if its in a marriage or not is rape and is a serious crime and haunts millions of woman or are afraid of coming forward and articles like this are not going to help anyone at all.

errr eh??! So you agree it's a serious crime, but incitement to rape by someone who has the respect of, and moral authority over hundreds / thousands of uk citizens should not be reported by a uk newspaper???? Don't you think it might just help the potential victims by bringing it into the public forum? Or would it be better if it was swept under the carpet?

Ollieda

I think a lot of people here have just skimmed over the article and made judgements. He's not saying that rape should be legal in a marridge, nor is he saying that such a practice is acceptable. He's just saying that the term rape is incompatible with the understanding of rape in sharia and then following up with the idea of assumed consent (one of the main reasons that it was legal up until 1991 here!). It's an interesting legal arguement, something you might see in an essay, but at the end of the day - If your in this country you live by this country's rules!

pbt150 wrote:

I vaguely recall some of my friends at Uni who were studying law once came up with something like this. Apparently rape is very difficult to prove in marriage (not sure if it's actually illegal or not), and a woman can never rape a man.

At first rape was hard to prove due to needing to prove the act, the lack of consent from the woman, and the man doesn't reasonably believe that the woman lacked consent, now it is becoming a lot easier, with the wife's statements becoming a lot more powerful and a general policy leaning towards cutting down on domestic violence and related problems. As for the women raping man situation, it is indeed not possible as rape is where "he intentionally penetrates the vag*na, an*s or mouth of another person (B) with his pen*s" (Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.1(1)(a) (not sure what the filters would pick up so i've added the *s) for female to male "rape" it classes as assult with penetration or sexual assult (depending on the exact circumstances)

pastey_boy wrote:

what if an english man rapes a muslim ? and rape in marriage should be legal , why should you be refused use of amenities that you have paid for and have a legally binding contract to prove ownership of ???

If an English man rapes a musilm woman here then its rape, if it were in a country governed by sharia law then it would be a different offence just not called rape. Just beacuse they don't recognise the name as the same offence doesn't mean they condone it, its just treated differently. Such as us not having the US style "2nd degree murder" we don't condone such behavior, we just call it either murder or manslaughter.

Weejie54

Such as us not having the US style "2nd degree murder" we don't condone such behavior, we just call it either murder or manslaughter.

And we can call it culpable homicide (north of the Carter Bar).

spen666

Jake151 wrote:

@Spen

Thats still making no sense, because I have said something that you don't agree with then you have to post your reply to it? That is basically what I have done with this report, there is nothing wrong with it, its my views as where they his views, what I may have said may come across as aggressive or offensive but its a matter that is close to my heart and something that I do not take lightly and the idea of this even becoming any sort of law in the UK would be something that horrifies millions as rape does happen in marriage. I'm not saying I don't agree with his views but if you ask one of the many million of woman who have been raped whilst in a marriage I'm sure they would be horrified by the report.

.....

Jake,

I really suggest you re read what you have posted ( and was quoted by me in both my posts to you.

You have said the paper should not report the views you do not agree with. That is far different from simply saying you do not agree with the views.

I do not agree with your views as expressed on here, but I do not call for you to be prevented from airing those views. Indeed I would argue most strongly you should be able to express those views.

The only person who is saying these views should be either not expressed or reported is you.

spen666

Ollieda wrote:

...... As for the women raping man situation, it is indeed not possible as rape is where "he intentionally penetrates the vag*na, an*s or mouth of another person (B) with his pen*s" (Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.1(1)(a) (not sure what the filters would pick up so i've added the *s) for female to male "rape" it classes as assult with penetration or sexual assult (depending on the exact circumstances).....

Close, but no cigar.

You fail to understand the law fully, in particular joint enterprise

Can I refer you to the following case which was widely reported at the time
Rape 1

Rape 2

The female here was properly convicted of rape. The fact the victim happened to be female in this case is co incidental.

The female in this case was properly convicted of rape as part of a joint enterprise. Indeed she was said to be the instigator in many ways.

Quoting the law is helpful, but only if you understand the application of it fully.