Canadian judge finds Palestinian man not guilty of raping wife - "because he believed he could have sex with his wife whenever he wanted"

talkingshop

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
26,677
I think it becomes relevant when you combine it with the fact that the victim (not in a legal sense a victim, I suppose, but she seems like a victim to me) also believed that he had the right to have sex with her.

It's a most unusual case, where you have two people in a sexual relationship where neither believe that rape is even possible, until they later discover that it is. That could affect how easy it is for the woman to actually communicate her refusal. The judge seems to have combined this with a couple of other facts (such as how the woman only reported this 11 years later, and continued to have sex with the husband afterwards) and found reasonable doubt as to the husband's mens rea in the 2002 incident.
I know it's unusual, and I don't disagree with most of what you are saying, but the husband believing he had a right to is not relevant, that is his ignorance of the law, which would not be an excuse.

What is relevant is whether he believed that she was consenting, and overall I don't think it's unreasonable that to conclude that she did in fact over the course of her marriage consent to an ongoing situation where her husband could have sex with her when he wanted. Evidence as to one occasion in all those years where she apparently said "stop" was not given that much weight in view of the fact that the complaint was only made so many years later, and in circumstances of a dispute/break-up - not unreasonable, I think.
 


Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
86,869
I know it's unusual, and I don't disagree with most of what you are saying, but the husband believing he had a right to is not relevant, that is his ignorance of the law, which would not be an excuse.

What is relevant is whether he believed that she was consenting, and overall I don't think it's unreasonable that to conclude that she did in fact over the course of her marriage consent to an ongoing situation where her husband could have sex with her when he wanted. Evidence as to one occasion in all those years where she apparently said "stop" was not given that much weight in view of the fact that the complaint was only made so many years later, and in circumstances of a dispute/break-up - not unreasonable, I think.
I don't think it's reasonable to say she consented - consent has to be informed, and hers was not informed by the fact that she was not required to consent.
 

talkingshop

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
26,677
I don't think it's reasonable to say she consented - consent has to be informed, and hers was not informed by the fact that she was not required to consent.
She consented to marrying and to staying married, and that is what she understood marriage to be.

But in any case, she doesn't ever have appeared to discussed or negotiated with her husband on the matter - she could for instance have proposed that (notwithstanding what she understood to be his legal rights) that they would only have sex when they both wanted to, or she could have threatened to leave him, etc. But she didn't apparently. In this situation it not entirely unreasonable that the husband might have considered in his mind that overall she consented to the situation. The one alleged incident in 2002 has to be taken in this context, especially when as I said the complaint was only made so many years later, and in circumstances of a dispute/break-up.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
86,869
She consented to marrying and to staying married, and that is what she understood marriage to be.

But in any case, she doesn't ever have appeared to discussed or negotiated with her husband on the matter - she could for instance have proposed that (notwithstanding what she understood to be his legal rights) that they would only have sex when they both wanted to, or she could have threatened to leave him, etc. But she didn't apparently. In this situation it not entirely unreasonable that the husband might have considered in his mind that overall she consented to the situation. The one alleged incident in 2002 has to be taken in this context, especially when as I said the complaint was only made so many years later, and in circumstances of a dispute/break-up.
But her understanding wasn't fully informed - if she had known that she wasn't required to consent to sex, she probably wouldn't have.
 

talkingshop

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
26,677
But her understanding wasn't fully informed - if she had known that she wasn't required to consent to sex, she probably wouldn't have.
She married, and stayed married, believing she had to let him have sex with her whenever he wanted. It appears she thought this was a price worth paying for staying married.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
86,869
She married, and stayed married, believing she had to let him have sex with her whenever he wanted. It appears she thought this was a price worth paying for staying married.
So what? It doesn't mean she consented to it.
 

talkingshop

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
26,677
So what? It doesn't mean she consented to it.
It does, really - except when she made it explicit that she didn't consent to a particular act, which she allegedly did once in 2002. But clearly taking a number of factors into account, the judge didn't consider it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt that an occasion occurred where she clearly demonstrated to her husband that she did not consent, and he went ahead anyway.
 

Dimples 77

Duplicate Account
Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
19,060
The woman in this case moved to Canada in 1989 or thereabouts, but claims that she only discovered that she had the right to refuse consent in 2013. If more had been done to ensure that she was aware of her rights (and perhaps if more had been done to ensure that her husband was aware of his responsibilities) then the woman might not have suffered as she did (or it might have been easier to secure a conviction for the husband's actions).

Eduction for kids doesn't cover these kinds of cases, where someone arrives from outside the jurisdiction and may not have the required knowledge of Canadian law.


Which party or parties do you think should have been doing this "more"?

Given the background of the 2 of them, do you really think that the husband was going to be instructung his wife on what her rights were?

I'd have thought that even if he did know about Canadian law that he'd have been quite happy to keep his wife in the dark about it.

As to your last point - "where someone arrives from outside the jurisdiction and may not have the required knowledge of Canadian law" - a candidate for the leadership of the Conservative Party was howled down during the campaign to elect a new leader for that party when she suggested that if she became Conservative leader, and then prime minister, she would require each immigrant to Canada to be screened for Canadian values.

She gave "three examples of questions she wants asked of immigrants:

- Are men and woman equal, and entitled to equal protection under the law?
- Is it ever OK to coerce or use violence against an individual or a group who disagrees with your views?
- Do you recognize that to have a good life in Canada you will need to work hard to provide for yourself and your family, and that you can't expect to have things you want given to you?"

Not such a bad idea, but "progressives" in Canada howled her down, calling her a bigot.

I think such a thing would be a start, but on top of that I'd have thought that it was incumbent on all new immigrants that they should spend some time learning what Canadian law is, and not go swanning around behaving as if they were still living in some backwards sh*thole like Gaza.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
86,869
Which party or parties do you think should have been doing this "more"?
The state.

I don't agree with screening people for "Canadian" values, unless you're going to start screening natural-born citizens too.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
86,869
You, and all the rest of the women who spit on me every day because I express my pro life views, have no interest in engaging in this decision in Canada, hiding behind the racist slur and Merc whose posts have truly disgusted me, not because technically he's giving the judges view of the law, but he's in effect accepting it.

Sexual contact without explicit and ongoing consent is sexual assault - regardless of the relationship imo.

In Canadian law sexual assault is clear and was amended to include sexual assault against a spouse in 1983. Over 30 years ago.
Apparently Canadian law and you don't agree as to what constitutes rape.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
29,092
Yeah in general it seems there needs to be a bit of tuning in Canadian courts.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/27/canada-judge-says-sexual-assault-victim-may-have-been-flattered-by-the-incident

During the trial – in which the court heard that Figaro forcefully tried to kiss the girl, licking her face and groping her before she managed to get out of the cab – Braun brought up the girl’s physical appearance.

“She’s a young girl, 17. Maybe she’s a little overweight but she has a pretty face, no?” the judge said, according to a recording published by the Journal de Montréal.

Citing the girl’s strict religious upbringing, the judge suggested that she might have welcomed the advances of the 49-year-old, who he said “looks good and doesn’t seem his age”.

He continued: “She was a bit flattered … Maybe it was the first time he showed interest in her.”

The judge also suggested that trying to kiss someone may be acceptable but that a different level of consent would be needed for anything more. “A man is interested in her, he tries to kiss her. Surely the same consent isn’t required to try to kiss someone as for – as we say – putting one’s hand in the basket,” Braun asked, using a French expression for grabbing someone’s rear end.


Canada pledges investigation into why rape victim was held in jail with attacker
Read more
Braun eventually found Figaro guilty of sexual assault. He dismissed Figaro’s claims that he had not noticed the 17-year-old before, citing the fact that the accused regularly stopped in at the coffee shop where she worked. In his ruling, the judge said he found this hard to believe, “taking into consideration the [victim’s] figure, which is quite voluptuous; the court specifies that she is a pretty young girl.
 

midlander12

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
5,896
Has Justin Timberlake pronounced on this matter yet? He was very quick out of the blocks on the Quebec burka legislation. Presumably he'd be even more concerned that Canadian law was letting men off with raping their wives, if they're Muslim and don't know the law and their culture 'permits' it. I mean, he would, wouldn't he?
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top