D:

[rowyn]

So I’m following this link from level_head
because sometimes original sources make things seem more reasonable and AHHHHHH NOOOOO.  Not this time.
 
Executive Summary: 
 

Victim: My (now-ex) husband imprisoned, physically assaulted, and raped me on numerous occasions during our short marriage.  I would like a restraining order against him. [Warning: if you follow the link, please be aware that the victim's account of the abuse is really disturbing. D: ]
Police: Here’s various pictures taken at the hospital when she escaped after one of the assaults.
Defendant’s mother: He didn’t do it!
Defendant: Can I take the fifth? I’m taking the fifth.
Judge: Well, this sure looks like assault.  But I’m not going to issue a restraining order and I’m not going to find for sexual assault, because the defendant believed that raping his wife wasn’t a criminal act.

Me: WTF? It matters whether or not he thought rape should be legal?

Appeals court: WTF? It doesn’t matter if he thought rape should be legal.  It also doesn’t matter if raping his wife is permissible under his religion.  IT’S AGAINST THE [expletive deleted]* LAW YOU [expletive deleted].
Legislature: In fact, we passed the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act specifically to say that it doesn’t [expletive deleted] MATTER WHAT YOUR [expletive deleted] SOCIETAL NORMS ARE ASSAULT IS A CRIME [expletive deleted].

Me: [hugs a legislator]

Precedent: Freedom of religion
does NOT mean you get to break the law whenever it conflicts with your beliefs.
Appeals Court: YEAH WHAT THEY SAID.  Here’s
your restraining order.  Geez.

Me: [hugs the Appeal Court too]
 
* I could not actually write about this without cursing, so I’ve edited out the swearing after the fact.  You’re welcome.
 
It’s worth noting this was not the criminal trial, which I hope had a saner judge presiding.  This case was filed under the state’s Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, whose purpose is to protect victims from their abusers, while criminal proceedings are mainly about punishing perpetrators in accordance with the law.  This case also seems to demonstrate the need for if not the effectiveness of the PDVA.  O.o
 
I’ve left out a bunch of details which others may feel are salient but which seem pretty irrelevant to me.  Like that both members of the couple were Muslims and citizens of Morocco in the US on the husband’s worker’s visa.  Or that their iman would not actually say that raping your wife is wrong in the eyes of his religion, although he did admit that it’s a crime in New Jersey. Or that the husband executed the divorce despite the wife’s protests.  Or … whatever, I don’t really care because none of it matters.  HI WELCOME TO AMERICA RAPE IS A CRIME HERE.  Have a nice day. 

Comments

[shockwave77598.livejournal.com]

My view on this is that if it's acceptable to beat and rape women where you come from, then stay the *&^* there! Because down here in the south it's acceptable to take child and wife beaters, release them on bond, and the sheriff sit back with a Miller in his hands as neighbors tie a rope around his feet and drag the "defendant" through fields of cactus behind a 4x4...

Just making sure he gets home, Sheriff. Well, most of him.

[rowyn]

I can't help but hope that it's not actually acceptable where he's from, either. Not that I'm ever going to show up there in person to find out. D:

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

I don't know about Morocco, but there are places where, um, it is. It used to be that way in the whole world until relatively recently. }:/ It's part of the women as property crap that marriage was based off of.

[rowyn]

Sometimes I fantasize that isn't true. That it's just pro-Western propaganda designed to make us feel good about ourselves, like old Soviet propaganda about how much America sucks.

I'm not sure which is worse, the idea that everyone around me is horribly deceived by a vast conspiracy about how the world works, or that a large portion of the human race is treating half of the species like crap. D:

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

Freedom of religion means that congress isn't allowed to pass laws that outlaw specific religions. You could argue that outlawing the practice of a religion could be a backdoor way of outlawing a religion and get a law overturned (or an exception made) on those grounds.

We've had pot-smoking and people being allowed to give (tiny amounts of) wine to young children based on the freedom of religion, for example. And some indian whalers. Generally, you sue in court for the right to break the law in the name of freedom of religion *ahead of time*.

And you're never going to be allowed to impose your religion on other people, so the wife would have to consent to being raped for it to be okay. And 'my religion doesn't forbid rape' is not the same thing as 'the practice of my religion requires me to rape people'.

So, uh, yeah. The judge was smoking crack.

[rowyn]

Yeah, the section on precedents went into some of the examples where courts ruled in favor of religious expression trumping law, and basically said 'they don't apply here'. ♥ the appelate court.