British Government Takes Over Muslim School Whose Books Approve Of Men Raping Their Wives

originally posted by: growler

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: growler

That's because they are called "councils".

But they do exist and they do hand out unlawful religious orientated judgements which unfortunately a significant percentage of the poor people who place stock in such mumbo jumbo follow.

Where are they? That would be all over the place.

ah ye olde ukip line, everywhere but we can't show you one.

No, they are actually part of a system that we imported from... the US, as "Alternative Dispute Resolution".

The UK judicial system has moved to pushing dispute resolution through approved mediators/arbitrators as a first step prior to court proceedings. In fact, it is part of the civil procedural rules (in relevant cases) to identify what ADR steps were attempted and why they failed/were not appropriate in that instance.

Many sharia councils are approved arbitrators. So are plenty of non-religious institutions. Many big commercial disputes start and end in the ADR process.

It's actually part of a solid legal principle - if people can come to an agreement between themselves without needing the court to intervene, then that is the preferred option. ADR cannot come to a conclusion that is unlawful, and it cannot prevent either party continuing to court if they either refuse to be bound by the decision or they feel that the decision is not legally correct. ADR, when done correctly, is an excellent and flexible tool, which is why it is taught on many law degree courses and as part of the BVC and LPTC.

The problem comes with tightly-controlled communities. It's hard to refuse "arbitration" or question whether the decision is legal when your entire community, including your own family, are figuratively twisting your arm behind your back, or you have no way of seeking legal help.

This is where the bugbear of "OMGWTFBBQ SHARIA COURTS IN THE UK!!??!?!!111" comes from. A valid concern, but widely misunderstood.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Ohanka
Also quite frankly context doesn't matter. Your God either endorses rape or he doesn't. Turns out he does. Read your own book.

The word "rape" doesn't appear anywhere in the Holy Bible.

Raping does.

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."

It might not explicitly say rape but it frequently describes taking women against their will, God is quite fine with it, and even commands that they should take a virgin for themselves, Except Moses, he can have 5 virgins. Incidentally Moses is the only man who can talk to God at the time, how very suspicious.

The Quran commands the rapist be put to death. God must've had a change of heart in the time separating Moses from Muhammad.

a reply to: AMPTAH

depends on which version you chose to use??
Deuteronomy 22:28-29New International Version

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 King James Version

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

a reply to: EvillerBob

"It's actually part of a solid legal principle."

Just not solid legal practice, at least where the defined laws of the land are concerned!

End of the day Sharia law amounts to a perversion, or at least very skewed version, of justice by it's very definition in this nation.

Should not be tolerated anymore than any other perversion of the law, else we have no law really.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

It was technically impossible for a man to "rape" his wife just 100 years ago.

100 years ago? For the UK and (parts of) the US it was still an exemption until the 1990s...

a reply to: EvillerBob

How so? And where in the UK?

Rape has been rape as far as my memory recalls.

I will stand corrected but you need to back up such claims!

a reply to: andy06shake

you need to read up on the history or marital rape laws??

time.com...

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: EvillerBob

How so? And where in the UK?

Rape has been rape as far as my memory recalls.

I will stand corrected but you need to back up such claims!

In the UK you couldn't rape your wife until the 1960s I believe. They got charged with sexual assault.

I think to this day it's still a legal impossibility for a woman to rape a man or another woman due to the wording of the law.

a reply to: dawnstar

Maybe, although people that are married should not be raping one another, or crying rape for that matter, at least those of the happily married verity.

End of the day through rape is taken very seriously these days, and has been for quite sometime if somewhat to a lesser degree in the past, equality and all that jazz.

a reply to: Ohanka

If that's the case it's rather sad.

Plenty of legal precedence through of Woman raping Men, even in the UK.

It's not the law per-say you need to worry about but the judges view, and to some extent, the medias interpretation of such.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: EvillerBob

How so? And where in the UK?

Rape has been rape as far as my memory recalls.

I will stand corrected but you need to back up such claims!

R v R [1991] UKHL 12

This is the case that essentially removed the marital exemption. Prior to that, the commonlaw principle stood that consent was given by virtue of marriage.

The question which the judge had to decide was whether in those circumstances, despite her refusal in fact to consent to sexual intercourse, the wife must be deemed by the fact of marriage to have consented. The argument before us has ranged over a wider field and has raised the question whether there is any basis for the principle, long supposed to be part of the common law, that a wife does by the fact of marriage give any implied consent in advance for the husband to have sexual intercourse with her; and secondly, the question whether, assuming that that principle at one time existed, it still represents the law in either a qualified or unqualified form.

The courts had been trying to get around the exemption for some time, with rape charges often ending up as assault charges, but this remains (to my knowledge) the leading case.

I believe the last time the exemption was successfully used was in R v J [1991] 1 All ER 759, which was heard just before R v R reached the House of Lords.

a reply to: EvillerBob

Really? Our courts of law are plea bargaining rape down to assault......Just assault, not even serious assault or assault of a sexual nature???

That's a scary prospect if indeed the case.

Up my neck of the woods, i have to say Rape is generally treated as such in Scottish courts of law, but then again we do have the not proven get out of Gaol free card at play.

originally posted by: andy06shake

Plenty of legal precedence through of Woman raping Men, even in the UK.

Nope. There is no "legal precedence" of women raping men in the UK. The statutory definition specifically requires the defendant to have a penis.

There are other offences, such as Assault by Penetration, but they fall under the wider remit of the Sexual Offences Act and not the specific section that defines rape.

Sexual Offences Act 2003

1 Rape

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.

(3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

Section 5 (rape of a child under 13) gives essentially the same definition as found in s1(a).

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: EvillerBob

Really? Our courts of law are plea bargaining rape down to assault......Just assault, not even serious assault or assault of a sexual nature???

That's a scary prospect if indeed the case.

Up my neck of the woods, i have to say Rape is generally treated as such in Scottish courts of law, but then again we do have the not proven get out of Gaol free card at play.

It's not exactly a plea bargain. Prior to R v R, there was a risk that the prosecution for rape would fail, so they looked for anything else that could fit. In some of the earlier cases they also fell foul of a slightly more restrictive definition that excluded some forms that are now recognised as rape.

If you're bored enough to read the entire judgment, you'll find that they discuss Scottish law - noting that it had adopted a similar position (that marriage = consent) until only a few years prior...

and how long ago was it that you could Make a wife have sex?
about 50 years? so they are not That far behind!

originally posted by: Ohanka

Raping does.

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."

You're reading things "into the book" that isn't there. If a man has sex with a virgin, he is to marry her, because the "sex act" is the holy marriage in God's eyes. The "civil ceremony" that is performed for "marriage" is just to tell everyone else that these two people now belong to each other. But, even that "civil ceremony" is meaningless until the "sex act" occurs between the male and female. If they don't have sex, the marriage is annulled. Lack of consummation is grounds for divorce. So, what the bible is saying is that, however the sex occurred, the man is to marry the girl. Even if she agreed and was happy to have sex with him, he still has to marry her. It's not specifically about "rape."

The violation is that a woman should be a virgin before taking a husband. It doesn't matter if she "consented", the bible position is that it's still a violation, requiring payment and civil ceremony of marriage. That then makes it "ok".

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: AMPTAH

depends on which version you chose to use??
Deuteronomy 22:28-29New International Version

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 King James Version

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

They can keep their shekels, any normal parent would want blood

originally posted by: buddha
and how long ago was it that you could Make a wife have sex?
about 50 years? so they are not That far behind!

We're about to get rid of marriage altogether.

The problem is that people are entering into contracts with each other which they have no intention of upholding.

They cheat on their partners, they refuse sex with their partners, they divorce at an increasingly rapid rate.

Why do they bother to get married?

Because, it's an old tradition that has lots of positive memories built up during the historical times when marriage was something completely different.

So, today, people are "longing" for the "true marriage" of old times, but at the same time "rejecting" those "bigoted" views on which that old male + female paradigm was based. They end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

a reply to: AMPTAH

The question then is: Was the virgin consenting?

a reply to: EvillerBob

"Prior to R v R, there was a risk that the prosecution for rape would fail, so they looked for anything else that could fit."

That's the very definition of a plea bargain i'm afraid.

Our system of law and our idea of justice are not exactly synonymous sometimes.