[PASSED] Repeal "Marital Rape Justice Act"

[Delegate Vinage]

I have voted AYE on this proposal after a 8/1 internal vote decided said action. Here is hoping we see a better version of this proposal in the coming months.

[New Tarajan]

The Kingdom of New Tarajan renews its VOTE FOR this repeal.

[Myleslhk]

I really am not sure about this one. See, the last one did claimed

eliminate all legal distinctions between marital rapes and nonmarital rapes

This confounds the legal system other than reinforce it. It is like saying all murders are murders and so we need only one category of murder. On that ground I agreed that the last resolution is vague and hasty.

However, this resolution is a repeal. It took out the law enforced. As the Repeal itself stated:

DESIROUS of the opportunity to replace the target resolution with a more effective and comprehensive resolution without these failures,

I agree we ought to have an improved one, but this being a repeal (not a proposal) makes this sound statement ridiculous. Replace with WHAT? The what here is absent entirely, making this a coup and not a reinforcement. Which defeated its purpose in the first place.

Having a bad or outdated law is not a valid reason to throw out the law. That's crazy.

Undecided

[Fotar]

I agree we ought to have an improved one, but this being a repeal (not a proposal) makes this sound statement ridiculous. Replace with WHAT? The what here is absent entirely, making this a coup and not a reinforcement. Which defeated its purpose in the first place.

Having a bad or outdated law is not a valid reason to throw out the law. That's crazy.

Undecided

The end of the first line of the first post has the "what" you are looking for. Here it is for you.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

My position on this repeal is already well known. But for the record...

FOR

[Eireann Fae]

"As we have already indicated, you have our support both for this repeal and your proposed replacement. Good luck to you with both, Sir Derek."

[Aranoff]

Jennifer read over the preliminary voting report and was ecstatic to see such an large voting block for the repeal of the resolution so far. "We are pleased as this Assembly's acknowledgment that such a resolution was poorly executed, and while it had good aims, the new proposal is by far a more reasonable and explicit in dealing with rape. We have said it once, and we will say it again - Rape is an issue of rights and it is a tool of the most vicious kind to force subjugation upon the will of another. We applaud this Assembly's swift reaction on the matter."

[Chemung]

Upon review, if both measures are passed, Chemung has no objection to the proposals.

[SlyFoxHoundia]

You have Slyfoxhoundia's vote. It's essential that everyone has equal rights and that no one can abuse the Marital Rape Justice Act.

[Kulaloe WA]

The notion of a right exists. The right doesn't exist. But by restricting that right, you implicitly accept the assertion that it does exist. I'm having trouble comprehending nothing and you've only made the whole scenario more amusing to me by accusing me of this given that my amusement was in reference to the fact that, after I responded to and refuted the Defendingg delegation's claims, your delegation and Defendingg's proceeded to ignore it and act like your claims (which were basically the same) hadn't been dealt with. It's actually pretty hilarious. The only claim of yours I didn't respond to was that this was statwank, which is dumb as shit and just self-evidently wrong. No one familiar with my delegation's record in the Assembly is seriously considering the accusation that I'm statwanking.

In some nations, there exists the notion that a few people have the right to own other people. So should we have dealt with slavery by acknowledging that folks do have a right to own others, and then curtailing that right in the name of "moral decency"? Clearly not. Instead, we make it clear that there is no right to own another person; in fact others have a right not to be owned.

Similarly, with marital rape we should not be endorsing the idea that there is a "right" to rape one's spouse that needs curtailing.

Since you both are insisting on the flawed notion that the secretariat's list of examples of what constitutes a moral deceny issue to be an exclusive list I'll change my approach:

There is a right, or implied right, to have sex exclusively with one's partner once a relationship is established in almost all cultures. This is found in the notion of "cheating on" that partner by having sex outside of the relationship without permission - more often than not lack of permission is the default assumption since polygamy is not accepted everywhere. How often does one hear religious orders the world over insist that a marriage is not valid in their eyes without consumation, even if the law of the land does not require it? How many married people do you know who have abstained from intercourse, nuns and monks and the like "married in spirit" to deities and/or religious orders and those whose relationships are failing notwithstanding? How many people wait until their wedding night before losing their virginity, even in officially secular nations? How many nations actually legally enforce these concepts? According to these cultures I can claim my spouse whenever I please and they can claim me. In those culture it is our duties to one another to have sex with each other. Yet if so then the freedom from being raped by one's partner is a retriction on that right to engage in sexual intercourse with one's partner.

There is no right to rape, there is a right to sex that is being restricted to just CONSENTUAL sex.

[Ossitania]

There is a right, or implied right, to have sex exclusively with one's partner once a relationship is established in almost all cultures. This is found in the notion of "cheating on" that partner by having sex outside of the relationship without permission - more often than not lack of permission is the default assumption since polygamy is not accepted everywhere. How often does one hear religious orders the world over insist that a marriage is not valid in their eyes without consumation, even if the law of the land does not require it? How many married people do you know who have abstained from intercourse, nuns and monks and the like "married in spirit" to deities and/or religious orders and those whose relationships are failing notwithstanding? How many people wait until their wedding night before losing their virginity, even in officially secular nations? How many nations actually legally enforce these concepts? According to these cultures I can claim my spouse whenever I please and they can claim me. In those culture it is our duties to one another to have sex with each other. Yet if so then the freedom from being raped by one's partner is a retriction on that right to engage in sexual intercourse with one's partner.

There is no right to rape, there is a right to sex that is being restricted to just CONSENTUAL sex.

If the right to sex has to be restricted to just consensual sex, then that means you're accepting that the right actually is to have sex, at any time, even if that sex is rape, and you're restricting that right, which means you implictly accept that right to sex which includes a right to rape. We're aware that the notion of that right exists in many cultures. However, sir, that right is a load of bollocks, no one ever has the right to demand sex and saying that the target resolution says you have a right to consensual sex is absurd because if you are entitled it, you have a right to have it whenever you want, which means consent doesn't matter.

EDIT: You're also providing exactly no response on any of the other problems of the target resolution, so even if you were right, and I don't believe you are, that would only mean I put in one spurious argument and is still no defense of MRJA.

[Discoveria]

"I find I must 'bite the bullet' and form a view on this proposal now that it has come to vote," said Matthew.

Repeal "Marital Rape Justice Act"

Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA #231 | Proposed by: Ossitania

The World Assembly,

DEDICATED to the defence of human rights, to the protection of equality, to the combatting of rape and to the administration of justice for all,

BELIEVING the target resolution was written with all of these goals in mind but that it fails to achieve any of them, Technically, there is not really much evidence in MRJA to support this statement. But I'll move on since it's just preamble.

CONCERNED the target resolution merely throws up legal barriers to marital rape without asserting a right to be free from it, thus failing to defend human rights, I dispute that this is a flaw in MRJA. When I considered this issue as applied to privacy rights, I decided that a resolution does not need to explicitly define a right if the mandates within that resolution create that right through their effects. It would be nice if it did, but MRJA does not have to assert a right to be free from marital rape if the effect of MRJA is to make marital rape, de facto, illegal. ADDED: On second thoughts, MRJA does not make marital rape illegal if rape is legal in a nation! However, this is a flaw that could be corrected by passing Sexual Autonomy Guarantee in parallel to MRJA, and not *necessarily* an argument for MRJA's repeal, though it does make my support for this repeal a bit stronger.

APPALLED the target resolution orders the elimination of legal distinctions between instances of rape yet allows for authorities to discriminate in favour of victims of marital rape and against victims of non-marital rape when responding to accusations of rape, thus failing to protect equality, But the argument for this bias in favour of marital rape cases seems reasonable. Equality is not desirable in these circumstances precisely because the victim of marital rape may be at increased risk from their attacker in a way that a victim of a rape by a stranger is generally not. The two situations are not comparable and it is not hypocritical to eliminate legal differences between them while allowing for differences in their 'treatment' by law enforcement.

ACKNOWLEDGING this discrimination was intended to allow for authorities to give due attention to cases of rape where the victim and perpetrator are living together, Well then this negates the previous clause, IMO.

NOTING this goal could be achieved without allowing general discrimination, How is there "general discrimination"? The only area where discrimination is allowed is MRJA's "treatment by law enforcement" clause - which you've already acknowledged was done for a reason.

FURTHER NOTING this goal is not even achieved by allowing general discrimination, as the definition of marital rape excludes familial relationships and other relationships not established in legal contracts that could give the perpetrator just as much access to their victim in order to commit a repeat attack, While this is a problem, I don't think it's a sufficient reason for repeal.

HORRIFIED such discrimination could lead to victims of non-marital rape having their accusations neglected or actively ignored in favour of victims of marital rape, thus failing to combat rape, Well, I'd expect a police force facing resource constraints to appropriately prioritise investigations. This doesn't seem like a big concern to me.

WORRIED the Act's definition of "marital rape" confuses the issue of marital rape, as some of the legal relationships included in the definition carry no connotation or expectation of sexual activity, while some relationships not established in legal contract do carry such connotations and expectations but are excluded from the definition, I think the draft Sexual Autonomy Guarantee does cover this 'definition' problem a lot better than MRJA and on balance I support the repeal in order to advance SAG to vote.

AGREEING these failures were wholly unnecessary and prevent the target resolution from achieving the administration of justice for all,

CONVINCED their exclusion would have increased the efficacy of the target resolution and helped it achieve its goals,

DESIROUS of the opportunity to replace the target resolution with a more effective and comprehensive resolution without these failures, Yes, though most of SAG could be implemented in parallel with MRJA, IMHO. For this reason, I think the case for this repeal is not great, but there is an opportunity to improve on MRJA and I think on balance it would be best to give SAG that chance. In any case I have to vote along with our regional vote.

Hereby

REPEALS GA #231 Marital Rape Justice Act.

[Schwarznia]

Rather than proposing legislation to either amend or add to the act in question, you propose to instead repeal a law and essentially leave victims of marriage rape unprotected? Even if it's for a few months, there's no doubt that repealing the Marital Rape Justice Act is dismissing the pleas of victims for the sake and equality of protecting other victims. For this reason, Schwarznia is strongly AGAINST this proposal, as it accomplishes very little to nothing of what the author intended it to.

[Ossitania]

How is there "general discrimination"? The only area where discrimination is allowed is MRJA's "treatment by law enforcement" clause - which you've already acknowledged was done for a reason.

What I'm saying here is that MRJA allows law enforcement to always discriminate in favour of marital rape cases (as shoddily defined by the resolution) over non-marital rape, even when the reason for this discrimination is no longer applicable, such as when the crime is reported after they've left the shared home and cut their former partner off. I think this absurdity is actually highlighted by CD himself in his wording of the relevant clause of MRJA, when he says "especially because survivors of marital rape usually live with their attackers", which seems to imply there are other reasons, but since no other reason was supplied, it's almost a tacit admission the clause is too broad. Additionally, because there's no floor or ceiling on the discrimination (i.e. it's not phrased so that the discrimination is only allowed when there's the threat that the victim lives with her attacker, it just allows the discrimination generally) there's not strictly any limit on how much law enforcement can discriminate, which I think is especially worrying given the clause specifically deals with accusations - if you can discriminate as early as the point where someone is reporting the crime, that leaves such blatant potential for abuse that law enforcement in a nation with a very dim view of women who do not marry that they could simply "prioritise" marital rape to the extent that non-marital rape victims are essentially denied access to justice, and this would all be perfectly fine under extant WA law.

Rather than proposing legislation to either amend or add to the act in question, you propose to instead repeal a law and essentially leave victims of marriage rape unprotected? Even if it's for a few months, there's no doubt that repealing the Marital Rape Justice Act is dismissing the pleas of victims for the sake and equality of protecting other victims. For this reason, Schwarznia is strongly AGAINST this proposal, as it accomplishes very little to nothing of what the author intended it to.

Sir, one cannot amend or add to extant WA law, if it is not adequate, the only recourse is to repeal and replace it. As it happens, I have a replacement which I will be proposing if the repeal passes. I agree that it is undesirable that for (hopefully just) the space of a few days, the replace law will not be on the books, but that is merely the unfortunate reality of how the WA works.

[Myleslhk]

The end of the first line of the first post has the "what" you are looking for. Here it is for you.

Thanks for the clarification. But The new bill IS about "Sexual Autonomy", that's why I am confused about the point of a repeal, the two resolutions need not opposed each another to begin with.

It does seem at atm inevitable that the repeal will pass, so I suppose the key would then be who would get the "replacement". Don't forget, the previous bill received overwhelming support too.

Alternative, a new MRJA alongside. As I said, the two are not against each other, only the details.

Still undecided.

[Opaloka]

Having read the arguments the Workers' & Soldiers' Government voted FOR this repeal. We look forward to the swift passage of the act's replacement.

[Kulaloe WA]

If the right to sex has to be restricted to just consensual sex, then that means you're accepting that the right actually is to have sex, at any time, even if that sex is rape, and you're restricting that right, which means you implictly accept that right to sex which includes a right to rape. We're aware that the notion of that right exists in many cultures. However, sir, that right is a load of bollocks, no one ever has the right to demand sex and saying that the target resolution says you have a right to consensual sex is absurd because if you are entitled it, you have a right to have it whenever you want, which means consent doesn't matter.

EDIT: You're also providing exactly no response on any of the other problems of the target resolution, so even if you were right, and I don't believe you are, that would only mean I put in one spurious argument and is still no defense of MRJA.

Your spurious argument is what is at the heart of the debate. By your own admission it was Scaredilocks' interpretation of MRJA that inspired you to draft this repeal in the first place. While your replacement does provide a freedom from unwanted sexual attention it also effectively asserts that the right to sex does not extend to rape, albeit with liberating language. By telling nations that their citizens do not have the right to rape you are thus still "restricting" that "right" and therefore, by your own argument, you are acknowledging a right to rape exists in your replacement. So even though you are using a "Human" Rights resolution you are still creating the primary problem you sought to aleviate. Additionally, I don't think you understand what a right to consensual sex means: if the right to consentual sex exists then demanding sex whenever you want against ones partner's wishes means that the sex is non-consentual, which would mean you would NOT have the right to proceed. How hard is that to comprehend? It's like you're saying that the right to bear arms means everyone is required to go about their daily routines with a hunting rifle slung over their shoulders. But perhaps you are right. Perhaps a right to rape exists. At any rate you still haven't addressed this issue without creating a right to rape.

If you think I'm a broken record then also consider this: Your insistence that it is somehow discriminatory to take extra care to protect a marital rape victim by paying extra attention to marital rape cases is just plain ridiculous! It is necessary because the victim and the perpetrator live together and thus the victim is in a tougher situation than the victim of rape from a stranger. The extra care also is needed to prevent people who are innocent from being imprisoned because of a lying vindictive spouse. I mean you don't want to arrest someone until you are sure they are guilty, right?

[Ossitania]

Sir, if you genuinely can't understand the difference between what CD did, which is tacitly acknowledge a right and restrict it, and what I'm planning to do, which is explicitly reject the right, then I don't know what I can say to you to illuminate the difference, but I'll try one more time. The right to rape does not exist. However, some people falsely believe it to exist. CD's proposal validates that belief. My proposal rejects that belief. With CD's proposal on the books, that belief in a right to rape is said to be true, thereby creating that right in international law. With my proposal on the books, that belief in a right to rape is said to be false, thereby rejecting that right in international law. The difference between restricting and rejecting a right is the difference between saying "I know you're entitled to do this, but I don't want you to" and saying "you're not in any way entitled to do this, so don't do it".

Yes, you've just restated what I said and highlighted precisely why a right to consensual sex is absurd. What you're trying to say is that one has a right to consent to sex. Not the same thing. Moving along.

I've explained in my repeal why the discrimination clause overextends. If you're not even going to read the repeal, please don't come into my thread and argue about it. The target resolution allows discrimination between marital and non-marital rape in all circumstances, even when a marital rape victim has left the shared home or even when a non-marital rape victim does live with her rapist. This is dumb. I've explained this already.

[Discoveria]

How is there "general discrimination"? The only area where discrimination is allowed is MRJA's "treatment by law enforcement" clause - which you've already acknowledged was done for a reason.

*snip*

Thank you for explaining. I acknowledge this concern, but don't find it particularly persuasive. Sexual Autonomy Guarantee does appear to address this problem.

If the right to sex has to be restricted to just consensual sex, then that means you're accepting that the right actually is to have sex, at any time, even if that sex is rape, and you're restricting that right, which means you implictly accept that right to sex which includes a right to rape. We're aware that the notion of that right exists in many cultures. However, sir, that right is a load of bollocks, no one ever has the right to demand sex and saying that the target resolution says you have a right to consensual sex is absurd because if you are entitled it, you have a right to have it whenever you want, which means consent doesn't matter.

EDIT: You're also providing exactly no response on any of the other problems of the target resolution, so even if you were right, and I don't believe you are, that would only mean I put in one spurious argument and is still no defense of MRJA.

Your spurious argument is what is at the heart of the debate. By your own admission it was Scaredilocks' interpretation of MRJA that inspired you to draft this repeal in the first place. While your replacement does provide a freedom from unwanted sexual attention it also effectively asserts that the right to sex does not extend to rape, albeit with liberating language. By telling nations that their citizens do not have the right to rape you are thus still "restricting" that "right" and therefore, by your own argument, you are acknowledging a right to rape exists in your replacement. So even though you are using a "Human" Rights resolution you are still creating the primary problem you sought to aleviate. Additionally, I don't think you understand what a right to consensual sex means: if the right to consentual sex exists then demanding sex whenever you want against ones partner's wishes means that the sex is non-consentual, which would mean you would NOT have the right to proceed. How hard is that to comprehend? It's like you're saying that the right to bear arms means everyone is required to go about their daily routines with a hunting rifle slung over their shoulders. But perhaps you are right. Perhaps a right to rape exists. At any rate you still haven't addressed this issue without creating a right to rape.

Matthew gently suggested, "This is looking more and more like an argument over semantics. After all, rape is by definition sex without consent, and a right to rape is equivalent to a right to have sex without consent which could be considered one right out of a set of rights to have sex. Ultimately what matters is not what we call the effect of the resolution, but what the resolution actually does."

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: There is no right to have sex. That's part of the issue with MRJA. It's in the wrong category to achieve what it set out to achieve. Not to mention the other failings detailed by Ossitania's posts.

[Edorbe]

I want to support this repeal, and . . . need to know (would like to see some discussion of): 1.) What is the replacement (where do we review it)?, and, 2.) How is it that such an allegedly faulty proposal was ever passed in the first place, shouldn't this current discussion regarding repeal have taken place before the original proposition was ratified?

[Potted Plants United]

I want to support this repeal, and . . . need to know (would like to see some discussion of): 1.) What is the replacement (where do we review it)?, and, 2.) How is it that such an allegedly faulty proposal was ever passed in the first place, shouldn't this current discussion regarding repeal have taken place before the original proposition was ratified?

1) Here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=214929
2) It was discussed, a LOT, but the author chose to ignore it, a LOT.

[Zarkanians]

Supported, stamped. Zarkanians already has its own anti-marital rape laws, but it's good to see that the WA is also addressing this.

-From the mouth of the Immortal Lord Emperor, Snowskeeper Ferenczy, and written by the hand of his faithful prophet, Colonel 187.

[Daily Deliberate Oppression]

Congratulations on the impending victory of this much-needed remedy to discrimination.

[Steidenland]

Honestly, Steidenland sees no problem with the Marital Rape Justice Act. Rape is rape, no matter the victim or the rapist. If there are other reasons for the repeal, we are willing to listen to them.