(Campaign Actions are suggestions we make every fortnight for steps you can take – in addition to spreading the No To Rape message online – to help the effort for change. Previous Campaign Actions: [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5].) Click here for the current No To Rape Campaign Action
Posts Tagged ‘Marital Rape’
No To Rape films: “I do/n’t”
Tuesday, September 22nd, 2009
No To Rape is pleased to announce the release of our second film ad, “I do/n’t”, thanks to the kind support of the volunteers listed below.
Credits
Supported by:
Camera and Lighting Equipment: Cinegear
Bridal gown supplied by: La Belle Couture
Lighting supplied by Lightcraft
Thanks to Masano and family, Kath, The Church of the Blessed Sacrament, Auntie Majorie, Uncle Paul Lo and family, Auntie Lisa, Leonard, Snakeweed.
The first No To Rape film ad, “It is time we speak up”, was released thanks to the generosity of writer/director David Shiyang Liu and has attracted more than 1,900 views on YouTube since 10 August.
Please share this video with your friends and family!
Get Rea! – includes victim testimony
Friday, September 18th, 2009
Here is the episode of Get Rea!, hosted by Cheryl Fox, which focuses on marital rape and was first broadcast on 14 September on Channel News Asia. It features moving interviews with two women who have had personal experiences of marital rape, as well as No To Rape.
Segment 1 of 3:
Segment 2 of 3:
Segment 3 of 3:
A salute, and your thoughts
Tuesday, September 15th, 2009
If you haven’t yet caught the Channel News Asia documentary on marital rape, you have a final chance tomorrow, at 5.30pm. No To Rape would like to offer a salute, with the deepest admiration, to those women who have bravely shared their experiences with the nation through this television programme. Your courage and generosity is amazing.
Thank you also to the now more than 2,500 of you who have signed the Petition. As always, many of your eloquent messages deserve to be highlighted here. Some, like this signatory, speak in a voice usually hidden from the world:
I believe in the institution of marriage. Current exceptions for marital is not enough to protect the woman. As someone who was once a victim and had to endure this quietly, I am definitely for the abolition of total rape immunity.
Social worker Hema Gurnani also sheds light on the reality of family violence:
I work in a VWO dealing with children and youth, age ranging from 3.5 – 20 years.
I have been involved in social work for 12.5 years. During my work with children and youths I do interract with many parents, mostly women.
It is indeed very sad to note that there are many women who suffer sexual viloence / abuse in silence because men tend to think that it is their marital right to have sex with his lawful wife with or without consent.
Who is going to stop the abuse or protect the women of our country? I would think women deserve the right to choose, and be free of any sexual abuse.
Gregory Ng offers a clear, heartfelt statement from a male perspective:
this could affect the lives of our mothers, sisters and daughters. protect them like you would protect your own.
Rolling onward
Monday, August 24th, 2009
Today the campaign enters an important week. Wednesday, 26 August, is the 10th anniversary of the hearing of Public Prosecutor v N, the landmark case where a man gagged, tied up and forced sex upon his wife but could not be charged for rape – to the surprise, according to then-prosecutor Mr Wang, even of then-Chief Justice Yong Pung How. Ten years later, despite the 2007 Penal Code Review, the result in the case would be the same. Even in cases of clearcut evidence of non-consent, the law denies that someone who forcibly penetrates his wife is a rapist.
Thank you to the more than 2,300 of you who have signed our petition to express your determination that this must change. We are pleased and grateful to note that recent notable signatories include Dr Kenneth Paul Tan of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, Professor Chua Beng Huat of the NUS Sociology Department and Professor Kumaralingam Amirthalingam of the NUS Law Faculty. Let’s keep the signatures coming!
Seminar video highlights, Part 1
Saturday, August 22nd, 2009
Videos from our public seminar have been available for some time, but we’ve gone through them to extract some brief portions that may be of particular interest.
Benny Bong, President of the Society of Family Violence, talks about some of the troubling aspects of marital rape cases, including how a lack of societal condemnation is like a second victimisation:
Associate Professor Chan Wing Cheong of the NUS Law Faculty responds to a question about whether “vengeful wives” have been known to make abusive allegations of marital rape in those countries which make no distinction between marital rape and stranger rape:
A member of the audience comments on cases where women know their husbands are cheating on them, but nevertheless believe they are obliged to have sex despite the possible ramifications for their own health (e.g. sexually transmitted infections):
More short clips to come – watch this space!
No To Rape in the weekend papers
Monday, August 17th, 2009
As we mentioned a short while ago, No To Rape has been in the papers again. Those interested can follow up on the coverage here:
The Straits Times, 15 Aug 09: “‘Rape within marriage is still assault’”
The Straits Times, 16 Aug 09: Forum letter by Osman Sidek, “Marital rape: Law should protect abused wives”
Thank you to Osman Sidek for supporting the abolition of marital immunity for rape. We would like to highlight one particular point he makes. He writes that marriage entails mutual sexual obligations, before asking what should happen if those obligations are not fulfilled:
The question is whether an aggrieved party should be allowed all means to seek redress – including the use of force – or should the means of redress itself be defined by law so as to be commensurate with the loss of sexual gratification.
By comparison, even in the case of murder, an aggrieved family will not enjoy legal immunity should the members resort to physical violence as a means of recourse.
In fact, in no other situation will a victim be allowed to take justice into his own hands.
So why does sexual gratification occupy such a lofty space in our law that physical coercion becomes fair recourse when it is deprived?
Marital counselling, sexual therapy or even termination of marriage are fair and civilised means of recourse to conjugal deprivation.
This is consistent with what we have said before. People may disagree about the nature and extent of any sexual obligation implied by marriage. But whatever one’s views on this point, the physical invasion of a human being against their wishes is unacceptable. Someone frustrated about the state of sexual relations in their marriage can and should seek peaceful options to resolve the problem. If they choose instead to use force, the law should hold them accountable for this choice.
More on PP v N
Sunday, August 16th, 2009
You may have seen that No To Rape has been featured in the Straits Times again. Thank you once again to all the volunteers and supporters who have helped to make this campaign newsworthy. Your efforts mean that the No To Rape message can reach a wider group of people.
Interestingly, blogger Mr Wang has picked up the story (we are grateful for the link!), and it emerges that he was the prosecutor in the landmark marital rape case of PP v N (we posted the facts previously but the link is malfunctioning slightly – click on the ‘Legal’ tag on the right and you can read them). Mr Wang describes his experience in the High Court:
The prosecution appealed for a higher sentence. I took the case to the High Court. There I presented to the Chief Justice various arguments for a heavier sentence.
I still remember the first question that Yong Pung How had asked in court. He asked, “Why wasn’t this man charged for rape?”
Yong didn’t know that the prosecution couldn’t do that. He looked slightly stunned, when I pointed him to the relevant immunity provision in the Penal Code. At first sight, Yong’s ignorance of that point was very surprising (you would expect the Chief Justice to know better). However, on further reflection, Yong’s ignorance was not that surprising.
Why? Well, as Chief Justice, Yong had heard hundreds, perhaps thousands of criminal cases. So he knew a lot about criminal law. But Yong had never heard a single case where a husband had been charged for raping his wife. And that, of course, was because the law did not even allow the prosecution to charge any husband for such an offence.
Anyway, the Chief Justice increased the sentence for N. He brought the overall sentence close to the maximum possible, for the charges of “criminal intimidation” and “voluntarily causing hurt”. If I recall correctly, it added up to a few years’ imprisonment. This was a big improvement over the original sentence, but it was still a lot lower than what it would have been, for a bona fide rape charge. Even the Chief Justice is constrained by the words in the Penal Code, you see.
It may be worth referring to the words of then-Chief Justice Yong in the case, which reflect the principles that rape is a form of sexual violence and that violence committed against one’s spouse is no less severe than violence against a stranger. Both these principles support the total abolition of marital immunity for rape. We have added emphasis to the relevant language.
Query on proof and ‘double jeopardy’
Friday, August 14th, 2009
We have received the following query, which may be of interest to visitors to the site. So, with the kind permission of the author, we are reproducing it here. Given the length of the query, the author has also given us permission to abridge the initial email. We have indicated omissions and paraphrasing in square brackets but hope the final result accurately conveys the substance of the concerns: Entry continues, click here for more
Change in the Bahamas
Thursday, August 13th, 2009
Not only among our neighbours (and many in Asia), but also in the distant nation of The Bahamas, marital rape is being taken seriously:
The government presented legislation to Parliament that would completely ban marital rape in The Bahamas.
Presently, marital rape is only recognized in The Bahamas if the couple is separated or is in the progress of getting a divorce.
This has similarities to the position in Singapore, where marital rape is only treated as rape in limited circumstances.
This interesting article details the reactions of a number of Christian ministers in The Bahamas. They state that the ethical teachings of their faith condemn marital rape, and acknowledge that state law must hold perpetrators of violence accountable.
Bishop Williams said marriage ordained by God involves caring, sharing and love for one’s spouse. Therefore, a man living by the Word of God is not going to willfully violate his own wife. He advises that if there are any problems (especially those sexual in nature) in the marriage, a husband who loves his wife as God says he should, will be more understanding about the matter and be able to deal with it by showing love and not violently or by force.
“If by force, then where is the love of God in his heart?”
Grand Bahama Christian Council President Bishop Sobig Kemp believes the amendment of the marital rape law does not go against the word of God because love is the fulfilment of God’s word.
“Love never forces itself on a person, that is not God’s way,” Bishop Kemp said. “Therefore it is never demonstrated with violence or abuse. This problem arises because of self or personal gratification in a relationship without any concern or interest for the other person. This is totally contrary to God’s Word.”
Endorsed By
