You are allowed to rape your wife!

[Glacier]

If you don't know any better, it means you're not guilty of sexual assault if attempt to plow your tilth as often as you desire, so says judge.


Ottawa man not guilty of sexual assault because he thought he could have sex with wife anytime

[Ka-El]

Ignorance of law is no excuse - especially for a Judge. Hopefully not a Judge much longer.

271. Sexual assault
271. Everyone who commits a sexual assault is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years and, if the complainant is under the age of 16 years, to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 18 months and, if the complainant is under the age of 16 years, to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of 90 days.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 271; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 10; 1994, c. 44, s. 19; 2012, c. 1, s. 25.

265(1) Assault - A person commits an assault when
(a) without the consent of the other person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;

A person commits a sexual assault when without the consent of the other person; he engages in sexual behavior or touches the person in a sexual manner

273.1(1) Meaning of "consent" - Subject to subsection (2) and subsection 265(3), "consent" means, for the purposes of sections 271, 272 and 273, the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in the sexual activity in question.
(2) Where no consent obtained - No consent is obtained, for the purposes of sections 271, 272 and 273, where
(a) the agreement is expressed by the words or conduct of a person other than the complainant;
(b) the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity;
(c) the accused counsels or incites the complainant to engage in the activity by abusing a position of trust, power or authority;
(d) the complainant expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to engage in the activity; or
(e) the complainant having consented to engage in the sexual activity, expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to continue to engage in the activity.

[Glacier]

[maryjane48]

this should make all the christian rightwingers happy . they arent guilty of a crime now

[JagXKR]

You keep sinking to new lows. Amazing.

[Ka-El]

this should make all the christian rightwingers happy .

what ???

[my5cents]

I saw the topic, and I used the link...

As I read the content of the news item BEFORE I GOT TO THE PART explaining the background of those involved.

I said to myself "this will be an immigrant couple" and this is political correctness gone awry.

Yup. Where they came from, it's OK, so obviously it's OK to do it here.

Funny when a Canadian goes abroad to a country where they have very repressive laws, like drinking or whatever, they have to be extra careful not to run afoul of those laws.

Why are there three standards ?

-> An immigrant in Canada, is apparently judged by the law where they came from
-> A non-immigrant in Canada is judged by the law in Canada.
-> A Canadian visiting a foreign country, or living in one is judged by that country's laws, not Canada's.

How many think, that if the two person involved were Angus McDoodle and his wife Mable McDoodle, that he would have gotten away with raping his wife ?

So I guess Canadian law is based on one's heritage and not Canadian law.

I wonder how many laws are completely different in Syria, that we will excuse our new Syrian immigrants for violating ?

[The Green Barbarian]

I'm still wondering what happened to the Syrian refugee in Fredericton who beat his wife senseless with a hockey stick and claimed ignorance of the law as his defense. Anyone know? Yes, you read that right. He thought it was totally legal to beat his wife with a hockey stick, because "that's what we do back home", and he didn't know that it wasn't allowed here. What the hell are we doing in terms of educating these people when they come here? Does everyone just assume that they know the law? I don't get it.

Man who beat wife said he didn’t know it was against law,” read a recent headline in the New Brunswick Telegraph Journal.

The man – Mohamad Rafia, a Syrian refugee – didn’t just beat his wife, he beat her with a hockey stick. For half an hour.

Rafia told a Fredericton court that he didn’t know it was a crime in Canada to beat your wife with a hockey stick for half an hour.

Following the attack, Rafia’s wife was taken to a local hospital and initially lied to protect her husband. She later revealed that he beat her with a hockey stick – for half an hour – pulled her hair, hit her in the face and threatened to kill her.

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/06/16/th ... ee-program

I saw leftists screaming about how the burka law in Quebec is "un-Canadian". It's also "un-Canadian" to beat your wife with a hockey stick. Maybe focus on educating the element coming from the Middle East who doesn't get that and you might do some good.

[mexi cali]

I saw the topic, and I used the link...

As I read the content of the news item BEFORE I GOT TO THE PART explaining the background of those involved.

I said to myself "this will be an immigrant couple" and this is political correctness gone awry.

Yup. Where they came from, it's OK, so obviously it's OK to do it here.

Funny when a Canadian goes abroad to a country where they have very repressive laws, like drinking or whatever, they have to be extra careful not to run afoul of those laws.

Why are there three standards ?

-> An immigrant in Canada, is apparently judged by the law where they came from
-> A non-immigrant in Canada is judged by the law in Canada.
-> A Canadian visiting a foreign country, or living in one is judged by that country's laws, not Canada's.

How many think, that if the two person involved were Angus McDoodle and his wife Mable McDoodle, that he would have gotten away with raping his wife ?

So I guess Canadian law is based on one's heritage and not Canadian law.

I wonder how many laws are completely different in Syria, that we will excuse our new Syrian immigrants for violating ?

Re-read the article. The judge said that marriage is not a shiled against sexual assault and that the preosecution had failed to prove that he knew what he was doing was wrong. He was judged by the rules of this country and our law.

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it into a poitical issue. That same law works for all of us. It may be stupid in some cases but there is no way to create laws to cover every eventuality.

[Ka-El]

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it into a poitical issue. That same law works for all of us. It may be stupid in some cases but there is no way to create laws to cover every eventuality.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. I think (hope) that someone is going to determine this Judge failed badly.

[my5cents]

Re-read the article. The judge said that marriage is not a shiled against sexual assault and that the preosecution had failed to prove that he knew what he was doing was wrong. He was judged by the rules of this country and our law.

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it into a poitical issue. That same law works for all of us. It may be stupid in some cases but there is no way to create laws to cover every eventuality.

Marriage is not a shield to sexual assault charges, and neither is ignorance. Well except, apparently if you are an immigrant from a country that does allow marriage as a shield to sexual assault charges.

Perhaps you should read Sec 19 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

[Ka-El]

Perhaps you should read Sec 19 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

It is disturbing that a Judge could make such an inappropriate ruling, and I certainly hope this matter gets appealed by Crown. At the same time, it is indeed unfortunate that the failure of this Judge is going to be used as political fodder to attack immigrants, instead of directing the criticism and blame in the direction it belongs.

[the truth]

this should make all the christian rightwingers happy . they arent guilty of a crime now

and or the muslim males

[The Green Barbarian]

At the same time, it is indeed unfortunate that the failure of this Judge is going to be used as political fodder to attack immigrants, instead of directing the criticism and blame in the direction it belongs.

Where does the "blame" belong to? What i find shameful are people who want to use political correctness as an excuse to blather on about "attacking immigrants" whenever an actual immigant uses ignorance of the law as a defense when caught beating the crap out of their wife. No one is "attacking immigrants" and while it make your little liberal tummy glow it just is disingenuous to even introduce this concept to the discussion.

[Veovis]

This one bothers me. I get that she didn't understand or know that you could be forced to marry someone and be expected to perform "relations" with them as an upbringing and that was ok, and he was taught the same but then years later learning "oh I could have told him to get lost...."

The issue is, yes that scenario is terrible. NO she was not raped. She wasn't in the mood, yet was willing for the most part. Crappy line but a reality.

I can look back and see times I had sex with my wife where I was interested and she wasn't as much, didn't make it rape as there wasn't a force.....and actually vice versa...in a relationship sometimes there is give and take.

In a bad relationship (arranged or not) things can get messy. This is one of them. My problem is that it was consent without desire, not desire without consent......it still sounds like she was married off and had a crappy life......at the end to rewrite things as a FU would be nice, but not fact which the judge had to rule on.



EDIT: it has been pointed out to me that some people might find that a healthy sexual relationship where not everybody is wound up and randy as can be at every given moment might be misunderstood as "unwanted". I will clarify, sometimes I am in the mood and the wife less so, sometimes the wife is and I am not. This does not mean sex cannot happen and if it does does not mean any transgression has occurred. The fact that people think healthy sexual relationships are some *bleep* crazy porn fueled rabbit like romp is amazing, when in fact a proper relationship can have my turn your turn and our turn moments in all of it and be fulfilling caring and loving.

People spend so much time trying to claim that sexual freedom is proper, but nothing about sexually healthy relationships that have ebs and flows and give and take and a balance in a healthy relationship.