NJ.com, the online news amalgamator, reports on an interesting legal case. An American Muslim has been convicted of kidnapping and sexually assaulting his wife. His arguments—at one time accepted by a lower court—were that his behavior was withing the traditional bounds of his culture. A higher court disagreed and sent him back for a new trial.
I do not doubt that many Muslims share this man’s belief that he was behaving correction and appropriately. Indeed, his behavior would not raise many eyebrows in more than a few countries. He is not, however, being railroaded by an anti-Muslim judicial system. Rather, the State of New Jersey is applying its laws uniformly and noting that personal beliefs, including religious beliefs, do not hold a higher value than laws generated by a state or country’s own values.
I don’t know whether we’ll be seeing YouTube videos calling for the President to pardon this man. He may have enough friends to make that happen. Bus, as in the case of Homaidan Al-Turki, the arguments will be no more persuasive. The just observation of human rights—including the right of women to say no to sex—is considered far more worthy of protection than an individual’s perception of what is permissible.
Bayonne husband convicted of sexually assaulting wife;
she testified he told her “this is according to our religion”
MICHAELANGELO CONTEA Bayonne man faces up to 20 years in prison after being convicted of kidnapping and sexually assaulting his wife, whom he met for the first time at their wedding in Morocco in 2008.
The case made headlines in August when an appeals court reversed a ruling by Hudson County Superior Court Judge Joseph Charles, who refused to give the wife a restraining order even though the judge concluded there was “clear proof” the husband engaged in nonconsensual sex with her in November 2008 and January 2009.
Charles, a former assemblyman and state senator, said he did not feel the husband “had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault . He was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was consistent with his practices and was something that was not prohibited.”
The appellate court’s June 23 reversal said Charles was “mistaken” in his theory that the husband’s personal belief system trumped state statutes against rape.
…
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
September:28:2010 - 19:47
“His arguments—at one time accepted by a lower court—were that his behavior was withing the traditional bounds of his culture. A higher court disagreed and sent him back for a new trial.”
The fact that ANY court entertained this idea is outrageous…rape is rape no matter from whom it is experienced. That iw why we have laws…to protect people from draconian cultural and religious practices…
September:28:2010 - 19:50
I’m not positive, but does Saudi law criminalize spousal rape?
September:28:2010 - 20:52
John,
Saudi law doesn’t apply in the US. The US laws should be applied equally on all the people in the US without bringing their religion in between. If these people didn’t want to follow the US Constitution, they should not be living in the US.
They can go and live in the KSA if they like the Saudi laws that much. There is no need to impose Saudi laws in the US.
Besides, it’s not just the right of the man to decide whether he wants to follow his custom or not. It’s also the right of the woman to decide whether she wants to follow her custom or whether she wants to follow The US Constitution.
By upholding the Saudi law in the US, the American court is basically saying there is no gender equality in the US and Saudi law matters more there than the US Constiution.
So much for the great American democracy under Obama and his sycophantic, hypocritic coterie having no spine to oppose the extreme right-wing Islamism.
September:28:2010 - 20:59
Actually, Saudi Arabia didn’t enter into the case at all. The man’s nationality is not cited, though his wife is Moroccan. It could be he is Moroccan, too.
And, as the court decided, it is indeed US law, not any religious or cultural law or custom that pertains in the US. Please re-read the article when you get down from your soap box. The court actually agreed with you, finding the lower court had erred on the side of PC-ness.
September:28:2010 - 21:05
@4
it’s ok. daisy’s sport is saudi bashing.
September:28:2010 - 21:16
It didn’t used to be, but sadly appears to have become so.
September:28:2010 - 21:17
John,
You cited Saudi law to Oby. I was responding to your comment.
The way the lower court judged the case, it shows that a Muslim woman can not get justice in the patriarchal mindset of the US judicial people who want to uphold only the man’s rights in their misguided anti-democratic, spineless approach.
It’s shameful that a court in a democracy should have this kind of approach while deciding a case.
It is beginning to appear more and more as if the US is no longer being governed by the American people according to the US Constitution, but according to the whims and fancies of the Islamic world, thanks to Obama’s incapability as a President.
If your comment no 6 is meant in response to ME, yes, the more I read about Saudi Arabia, the more I hate that country. Blogs like yours and Carol’s have helped me to arrive at my conclusions.
And I have now met democratic-minded Saudis who also criticise Saudi Arabia, so I am not alone in this.
September:28:2010 - 22:00
John…
“The appellate court’s June 23 reversal said Charles was “mistaken” in his theory that the husband’s personal belief system trumped state statutes against rape.”
How in the world can we live in the USA and people like this Judge Charles seated on the bench giving verdicts like he did? I would actually be interested in seeing his other rulings in cases by non Muslims claiming rape from a husband. Perhaps he has a twisted set of misogynistic values and applies them equally to Muslim and Non in the husband’s favor…or perhaps this man should be brought out behind the woodshed and thrashed for all he is worth for basically trampling on the Constitution, women’s rights, and basic human decency…it would almost be easier for me to imagine that he applies whacko type judgement to all women in cases like this because for me the alternative is so repugnant that it is hard to think about. That basically there are two sets of rules. One for Muslims and one for Non Muslims…and how long would it take the non Muslim man to figure out a way to claim his “religious” right over his wife until women have no rights in this area left…at least not in this guy’s courtroom.
September:28:2010 - 23:35
I suspect this judge just still doesn’t “get” how a husband can rape his wife. I can remember when not “getting” that was pretty common. It sure seems a judge should “get it”.
Daisy apparently defines “democratic” muslim as one who agrees with her that the Park 51 project should be stopped. Otherwise, like me, you are an “Islamist”. Who knew?
September:29:2010 - 00:45
The idea of spousal rape is quite new, and its criminalization even newer. The USA criminalized it state by state starting in 1975 and not all 50 until the 90′s. Canada did so federally in the 80′s, many countries not until the 2000′s (India Oct 2006). I couldn’t find info for Saudi Arabia, but other Muslim countries have made it illegal (Turkey, Malaysia, Tunisia). In other Muslim majority countries it would be part of the moudawana or Sharia family law, which speaks of spousal rights to conjugal relations but also about respecting wishes.
The problem in all jurisdictions is with the perception and interpretation of consent, so that actual prosecution is difficult even where the law is supported. I get the impression that part of the initial ruling here was about the perception of consent as much as about spousal rights. It doesn’t seem like a plot to impose religious rights over spousal rape so much as an instance of a cultural defense and a lower court’s erroneous decision.
I have had this conversation about the idea of spousal rape with a thoughtful sincere Western law student, who looked puzzled and said, “But the rape laws exempt spouses”. I was less calm when I said, “Then change the law”. His reply, “That takes a long time”. Mine, “Then start right away!”.
Sandy–Indeed, I was surprised to learn elsewhere of all the ways in which you are undemocratic. An astonishing list! I’m shocked!
September:29:2010 - 03:59
If the religion that this Moroccan man refers to is that of the Rasulullah, then he is mistaken.
The use of violence during sex between wife and husband is not mandatory, and there are many who would assert that it is forbidden.
It may be culturally normal in Morocco — I am not expert in Marocaine customs.
September:29:2010 - 06:38
@7
i hate the saudi *government*. no.. i despise it as there is no way around the fact that it is a dictatorship in the core. however, i will tread carefully on purely social issues and will not transgress on purely religious issues. i will also identify cases where the al-Sauds do good despite only doing it for self-interest.
for example, i will never say that the abaya is something ridiculous and i will defend a woman’s right to that in the “free” western world.
you will also find me “defending” saudi arabia when all these simplified extremism arguments are made against it. for example:
gas tank -> terrorism => alt. energy stops terrorism
“wahhabism” -> terrorism
..which i do simply b/c the logic is too simple or plain wrong.
September:29:2010 - 07:02
As I commented earlier, I believe it was a PC-mindset that took over in Judge Charles’ case. I’ve read that in other cases he’s been a fine judge. Here, IMO, he let outside influences affect his ruling. He got slapped down pretty hard. Judges, too, are human.
Rather than a failure of the court system, I think this case shows that it worked. The problem got caught at the appeals court level and reversed. That’s how legal problems are supposed to be fixed.
September:29:2010 - 08:30
Me #12–The ME in #7 was a reflexive; Daisy was referring to herself, but I appreciate the rundown of your belief system.
John #13–Thanks for adding the information about the Judge. I do think this was a rather minor error in the broad scheme of things, though requiring correction. It is one that maybe fits with the ambient culture of his local jurisdiction. I don’t know if, at this level, judges are elected in the US, but, if so,that may have played a role too.
September:29:2010 - 09:16
Whether judges are elected very much depends on just which state and which level of the judiciary: there are at least 52 different answers! (I’m including DC and Puerto Rico, though it probably also pertains to other US territories.) The question of whether judges should be elected is a hot one right now. Former Supreme Ct. Justice Sandra O’Connor, for example, is arguing strongly against it. In my state, judges are appointed, but at least for the state Supreme Ct., must win retention elections to hold onto their jobs.
I don’t pretend, either, that all judges are paragons of prudence. As I said, judges are human. That’s why having a multilevel process of review is extremely important.
September:29:2010 - 17:22
OK…OK…I admit perhaps I have over reacted a TAD in my harsh judgement of Judge Charles. I guess we are all entitled to mistakes. (Judge Charles I mean.) It is just hard for me to think that woman could be abused by her husband in this way and it not be seen as wrong. PC or not… Abuse is not right in any circumstances but in this particular circumstance (rape)I feel women are particularly vulnerable and at the mercy of men and it can damage them emotionally so badly. Since rape is a weapon of control and humiliation to see it used in the guise of marital relations when the woman doesn’t want it and was hurt due to it really hurts me for her.
September:29:2010 - 21:59
John-thanks for your reply. I am in favour of the Canadian system in which judges are appointed by the judiciary, based on their performance first as lawyers, then as judges to move up. No doubt their are politics involved but not so much party politics, and of course they too are human, make errors, and some stay past their prime, so to speak.