From Morocco to Denmark: Rape survivors around the world are forced to marry attackers

[redqueen]

In March 2012, a 16-year-old girl named Amina Filali killed herself by drinking rat poison. She had been raped and forced—by Moroccan law—to marry the man who had raped her.

Nearly 10 months later, after a wave of demonstrations and sit-ins across the country protesting Filali’s death, the Moroccan legislature made plans in January to amend Article 475 of the penal code—the section that allows rapists to marry their victims in order to escape punishment.

There is no question that this is a huge step forward for women’s rights in Morocco. But it’s just the beginning of the reform that needs to happen for all rape victims in Morocco to be treated as equal citizens. The crime of rape is still legally tied to the victim’s marital status and perceived sexual activity. On the one hand, the law does not recognize rape within a marriage as a punishable crime, as sex is seen as “owed” to a husband; on the other, it adheres to sexist notions of “purity” by meting out a double punishment if the rapist has “taken” the victim’s virginity.

...

And the sort of legal practice that forces victims to marry their rapists is not unique to Morocco. As recently as 1997, 15 Latin American countries allowed rapists to avoid prison time by marrying their victims. A March 1997 New York Times story explained that, as of its writing, Costa Rica required even less: Its laws exonerated any rapist who expressed an “intention” to marry the woman he had raped, even if that woman did not accept his offer.

...

http://www.womenundersiegeproject.org/blog/entry/from-morocco-to-denmark-rape-survivors-around-the-world-are-forced-to-marry

Many countries have changed these laws, many others still have them (Denmark, Russia, Indonesia, Venezuela, and many countries in the Arab world), and even where the laws are not in place, victims are still subjected to the way misogyny influences law enforcement.

[niyad]

1. that practice is so horrendous--the rapist escapes punishment, but the woman is punished.

beyond sick, another clear demonstration of the hatred of women prevalent everywhere, it seems.

[redqueen]

3. Yeah, it's everywhere. Different degrees, different manifestations, but the same cause.

And until we address that cause, we will simply keep dealing with all the symptoms, forever.

[Frustratedlady]

2. Sorry, men. These stupid laws have got to be eliminated.

Apparently, men don't understand what rape means. I swear the Republican state and federal representatives are bad enough, but the men in some of the foreign countries are even worse.

Men have had control for centuries and shouldn't even be making these laws regarding women's bodies. They've screwed things up long enough (pun intended). Time for the women to clean house.

[redqueen]

4. "Men ... shouldn't even be making these laws regarding women's bodies."

Hear fucking hear.

[Laelth]

5. Is this blog entry talking about statutory rape or forcible rape?

The laws being criticized at least make some kind of sense if we're talking about statutory rape, though I would still favor their abolition.

-Laelth

[bettyellen]

10. it makes some kind of sense for a woman to be forced to marry someone? NO.

[Laelth]

11. Um ... no, of course not.

But consider this hypothetical. Let's say we have two 16-year-olds living in Denmark. They have sex. Girl's father finds out about it and presses statutory rape charges against the boy. The law we're discussing seems to say that, if they get married, the boy's punishment for statutory rape should be reduced (or eliminated). Nobody is forcing the girl to marry, here, in this example. We assume she's in love with the boy and may even want to marry the boy, but the boy is still guilty of statutory rape. Why shouldn't his penalty for the crime of statutory rape be reduced if they're both willing to get married? Doesn't this sound like a somewhat-reasonable law if it's statutory rape that we're talking about?

Thus, my question above.

-Laelth


Edit:Laelth--corrected two typos.

[redqueen]

16. That's a good question, and in that case it wouldn't be so nefarious

however without very careful wording, we are left to remain vigilant in order to ensure women aren't encouraged to marry men who abuse them, and that rapists aren't let off the hook by making whatever claims of intent to the court.

[ismnotwasm]

12. Dude....

C'mon man. "Forcible rape"?

[Laelth]

13. Perhaps I am truly dense, but I don't understand your comment.

There's a big difference, as far as I know, between forcible rape and statutory rape. On the other hand, I could be all wrong about that.

Did I say something inappropriate?



-Laelth

[ismnotwasm]

14. kinda, the term was a point of serious contention

Here:

How Todd Akin And Paul Ryan Partnered To Redefine Rape
By Ian Millhiser on Aug 19, 2012 at 5:11 pm

Earlier today, Missouri U.S. Senate candidate Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) claimed that “legitimate rape” does not often lead to pregnancy because “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” This is not the first time the biologically challenged senate candidate tried to minimize the impact of rape. Last year, Akin joined with GOP vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) as two of the original co-sponsors of the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” a bill which, among other things, introduced the country to the bizarre term “forcible rape.”
Federal law prevents federal Medicaid funds and similar programs from paying for abortions. Yet the law also contains an exception for women who are raped. The bill Akin and Ryan cosponsored would have narrowed this exception, providing that only pregnancies arising from “forcible rape” may be terminated. Because the primary target of Akin and Ryan’s effort are Medicaid recipients — patients who are unlikely to be able to afford an abortion absent Medicaid funding — the likely impact of this bill would have been forcing many rape survivors to carry their rapist’s baby to term. Michelle Goldberg explains who Akin and Ryan would likely target:

Under H.R. 3, only victims of “forcible rape” would qualify for federally funded abortions. Victims of statutory rape—say, a 13-year-old girl impregnated by a 30-year-old man—would be on their own. So would victims of incest if they’re over 18. And while “forcible rape” isn’t defined in the criminal code, the addition of the adjective seems certain to exclude acts of rape that don’t involve overt violence—say, cases where a woman is drugged or has a limited mental capacity. “It’s basically putting more restrictions on what was defined historically as rape,” says Keenan.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/08/19/712251/how-todd-akin-and-paul-ryan-partnered-to-redefine-rape/?mobile=wt

[Laelth]

15. OK. I remember that story and understand why that phrasing irks people.

I was just trying to figure out why Denmark would have a law on the books mitigating the penalty for rape when the rapist and the victim marry. The only semi-reasonable conclusion I could come up with was that the law must only apply to cases of statutory rape (as opposed to rape-rape). Denmark, after all, is a pretty liberal place.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

[cui bono]

6. Denmark???

That's hard to believe. I'm sure it's not something that's enforced. Must be one of those old laws that's on the books but "forgotten" about. I'm going to ask my cousins about that.

[Mass]

7. The article's title is misleading, at least for Denmark.

Nobody is forced to marry anybody. This said, if the victim accepts to marry or be in partnership with the rapist or continues to be, this creates grounds to reduce the sentence. It is bad enough, but not what the title suggests.

a 2011 Amnesty International report indicates that Denmark’s legislation “provides that if the perpetrator enters into or continues a marriage or registered partnership with the victim after the rape, it gives grounds for reducing or remitting the punishment.”

[cui bono]

8. Thanks for the info.

Yeah, you never know if the victim is doing it out of fear of further repercussions.

[MadrasT]

9. Because you know forced sex is just fine if she is "yours"

So claim ownership and get a pass

That attitude literally makes me ill

[redqueen]

17. There are so many laws that leave women vulnerable.

We could write a book.

Still, there's good news, at the link they list the countries which, like Morocco, have amended these laws.

And here in the US some laws are improving (http://www.lakeconews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30890:state-senate-unanimously-passes-rape-by-fraud-bill-overturned-rape-conviction-exposed-legal-anomaly&catid=1:latest&Itemid=197), although TRAP laws seem to be a growing problem.