Saturday, July 22, 2006

Marital rape

The issue of marital rape in Malaysia has become a hot topic - at least among members of the NGOs, among the lawmakers, and in the local mainstream newspaper. I remember writing about a similar issue somewhere in my darling bloggie but can't seem to recall when.

An amendment of the existing Penal Code caused stir when the word 'marital rape' was failed to be mentioned in it. Debate on the issue of marital rape include:


Pros:

The new Section 375A of the Penal Code (apparently) state that its an offence for a husband to cause hurt, physical or mental injury to his wife for the intention of sex.


Some Member of Parliments (MPs) argued that its harder to convict a husband to 'marital rape' than the proposed law.


Some women may mis-use the law if the word 'marital rape' included. This include blackmailing the husband and during divorce proceedings.


Marital rape is against the religion of Islam and other religions (?????)




Cons:
Making marital rape an offence would educate society about gender equality.


Incorporation of the term "marital rape" would protect a married woman's dignity.


No one including the spouse has the rights on a woman's body. Its a sacred and private 'property' of a woman, and shall remain so despite the fact that she is married.


The punishment for so-called
the new Section 375A of the Penal Code was only max of 5 years! Yet, more often married women are tend to be raped many times (reportedly as often as 20 times!).


How do lawmakers (and law) perceive a case where a woman has to given in to her husband when there is a threat of physical violence, rather than physical assault which medical professionals able to verify? or because of her intention to protect her children from a monsterous husband? Why didn't the law address this issue?



My verdict:
Malaysia inherited English common law, which provided that “when a woman marries, she is deemed to have given herself to her husband and is his property and thus he has a right to her body.” Yet, many of former British colonies (and Britain itself) have since recognized marital rape.

As for me, I see the 'new' law remained as an 'old law'. As mentioned by some members of an NGO, it addressed the issue of violence but not rape.

It is still funny to see that this issue being 'still debated' and to say that the 'jury is still out there' is a verdict which will not satisfy any feminist. We are still in a long way before we manage to coax/persuade the lawmakers to take us, the women, more seriously.

May be... a female Prime Minister would change it all...


Read more HERE.


11 comments:

anup.777 said...

First of all , welcome back Amu!!!

.... as for this serious issue ... i think it would be very difficult to prove ... dunno what else to say ...

praveen said...

**Some women may mis-use the law if the word 'marital rape' included. This include blackmailing the husband and during divorce proceedings.**

that I guess would happen a lot. Btw, how would one prove that she was raped by her husband...signs of torture??

Jeevan said...

when a woman marries, she is deemed to have given herself to her husband and is his property and thus he has a right to her body. Even he can be his husband, but he dont have rights to touch her wife with out her permision.

Nowdays the Martial rape's are mostly done on childreans, its a big cruel.

Mohan said...

Ammu,i really dont know what to say,,coz i am still single hehehe

visithra said...

I was just happy the max sentence is finally longer

if it effects "religious laws" believe me it will never change

Keshi said...

thats so sick..ppl who do that should be jailed for life.

Keshi.

Eclipsed Thoughts said...

How can you even call that sick fellow a "man" or a husband if he has to rape a woman to prove that he has some organs that his wife doesnot have!!

World is full of disgusting characters, and they are the cause of disgrace to the whole race!!!
hey ought to be shackled and jailed for the rest of their lives!

tulipspeaks said...

@ anup

thanks dear.. :) :)

yea its difficult to prove. thats one of the challenge i can forsee. :(




@ praveen

in what they r proposing, sign of torture will be one of the evidence that would be accepted. but then, some women can be easily threaten by the husbands. there is no need for the monsters to go extra mile and hurt their wives. how would a law address this?

btwn, yes the law can be always mis-used. actually if we want, we can mis-use any law. for example, a student can even file a case against her lecturer for causing mental torture to the student:P (know who is tat student eh? but in the end, justice must prevail. i dont think it should be an issue to actually deny the other women of what suppose to be her rights - the rights to say NO :)


=ammu=

tulipspeaks said...

@ jeevan

glad to hear such views from a man. :)

well, marital rape comes to the picture when a husband rapes his wife. its called incest if done on his children. seriya? thats a common (sadly) but very serious crime in Malaysia



@ mohan

ithelam too much thaane? hehehe..



=ammu=

tulipspeaks said...

@ visithra

:) i know what is 'religious laws' means here.. sadly, religions exist to protect everyone but looks like its going on an opposite direction.




@ keshi

one sentence: i'm a supporter of corporal punishment.

thats say it all nah?




@ eclipsed thoughts

nicely put! like the way u think, similar to mine :)


=ammu=
looks like someone has just joined the club. welcome..

Keshi said...

**i'm a supporter of corporal punishment.


u r? u mean physical?

Keshi.