[MOOT - SEE GA#597] Prohibiting Marry-Your-Rapist Clauses

[Tinhampton]

TINHAMPTONIAN MINISTRY OF WORLD ASSEMBLY AFFAIRS: Notice of Submission Warning
Considering the original draft publication date for this resolution (March 22nd 2020), let it hereby be known by the Tinhamptonian Ministry of WA Affairs that this proposal will be submitted, lack of complaints notwithstanding, on March 31st 2020 SOON. Thank you for your consideration.

---

Character count: 839
Word count: 136

Lydia Anderson, interim Delegate-Ambassador: This is not just her platform for change - this is, put succinctly, common sense.

OOC: "...or any other actor" in Article a would prevent, for example, presidential pardons with equivalent effect to statutory marry-your-rapist clauses, and verdicts by the WA Judiciary Committee's courts or any future International Criminal Court to that effect.
OOC 2: Don't let anybody tell you that the 2010s were a bad decade: Morocco, Lebanon, Tunisia, Jordan, and Palestine - as well as other states whose names might well be escaping me - have all struck out marry-your-rapist clauses since 2014, thus reducing the number of countries that retain them from 17 to 12. Perhaps I should have started to draft this in August 2017 instead...
OOC 3: This was Draft #1c. It is now on hold given Article 7 of Addressing Domestic Abuse.

Prohibiting Marry-Your-Rapist Clauses
A resolution to enact uniform standards that protect workers, consumers, and the general public.

Category: Regulation

Area of Effect: Legal Reform

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

Agreed that the eradication of acts of sexual violence (such as rape) is in the public interest, but also that it can only be accomplished with a comprehensive approach including legislation, and

Concerned that, while the police are required to treat all sexual crimes equally, they are implicitly allowed to withdraw such charges if the suspect then weds their victim - although such marriages seldom end happily...

The General Assembly hereby:

1. forbids the lifting or suspension of charges for sexual crimes on the sole grounds that the suspect has entered (or promised to enter) into a marriage or civil union with their victim, and
2. orders members to rescind all provisions allowing for the lifting or suspension of charges for sexual crimes solely on the above grounds, and not to enact such provisions in future.

CHANGELOG (OOCly, all times London time):

• 23-Mar-2020, 6pm: Title changed from "Don't Marry Your Rapist" to "To Prohibit Marry-Your-Rapist Clauses."
• 23-Mar-2020, 7:40pm: Title changed from "To Prohibit Marry-Your-Rapist Clauses" to "Prohibiting Marry-Your-Rapist Clauses."
• 23-Mar-2020, 7:50pm: Amend Article a accordingly: "declares that charges for sexual crimes may not be lifted or suspended in any member state - whether by law enforcement, a court of law, or any other actor - on the grounds..." ---> "forbids the lifting or suspension of charges for sexual crimes on the sole grounds...". Also add the word "solely" in Article b.
• 24-Mar-2020, 9:15pm: Amend AGREED accordingly: "sapient" ---> "their inherent."
• 24-Mar-2020, 11:30pm: Amend AGREED accordingly: "since violence against women is opposed to their inherent equality and dignity, its eradication is in the public interest, especially with a cohesive approach that includes legal support for female agency in relationships" ---> "the eradication of acts of sexual violence (such as rape) is in the public interest, but also that it can only be accomplished with a comprehensive approach including legislation"
• 31-Mar-2020, 4:35am: recatted from CivilRights/Mild to Regulation/LegalReform

---

"I'm sorry, but how does this not contradict GA#240?" The author's authorly opinion:
There are two major clauses we must focus on - for which we must introduce sexual crime suspect A and their victim, B:

1. PROHIBITS member-states from creating a legal distinction between sexual crimes which take place within a marriage, or similar relationship, and sexual crimes which do not. Member state X decides to prosecute A for committing a sexual crime outside of marriage to B. A marries B. X drops its prosecution against A for their extramarital sexual crime, because A has married B. X is not "creating a legal distinction between sexual crimes" based on marital status, because the only sexual crime that occurred here took place outside the marriage.
2. REQUIRES..., which may be split into two parts for our purposes:
   
   1. REQUIRES that all sexual crimes, and accusations of such crimes, receive the same level of attention as any other crime of similar magnitude and a response from legal authorities that is timely and appropriate to the circumstances of their execution... A commits a sexual crime against B. B reports it to the police, who then deliver a "timely and appropriate" response in the round. GA#240 doesn't stop them from retracting the consequences of that response later because A and B get married; it only dictates the circumstances in which such a response must be made, and the "attention" that the Old Bill must give to it as it happens (but then who pays this attention?).
   2. ...including efforts to protect the victim from a repeated attack by the perpetrator, regardless of whether the victim and perpetrator are in a marriage, or similar relationship, or not. Simply because X drops its prosecution against A (as enumerated in point 1 above) does not send a message to A that they can continue to commit sexual crimes against B and get away scot-free; indeed, if A commits another sexual crime against B, they can report it to the police again, who will then deliver a T&A response in the round again etc.

I'll happily abandon this if it turns out that what I've written above is Not Even Wrong.

[Araraukar]

OOC: How does your mockery of a proposal have anything to do with the title?

[Cisairse]

Support, because eh why not.

[Tinhampton]

OOC: How does your mockery of a proposal have anything to do with the title?

ALSO OOC: This proposal would, if passed, require member states to repeal any marry-your-rapist clauses that may exist in their legislation... although it would apply to those suspected of any sexual crime, not only rape.

[WayNeacTia]

"No."

Wayne

[Separatist Peoples]

"This bans a popular carrot that would be used in place of a forced marriage stick. No civilized nation would be affected by this, leaving only our dearly absurd friends in the lurch. I can't see what there is to oppose."

[Island Girl Herby]

"This bans a popular carrot that would be used in place of a forced marriage stick. No civilized nation would be affected by this, leaving only our dearly absurd friends in the lurch. I can't see what there is to oppose."

You mean other than the title? Ehhhh okay hear me out. The title implies ehhh no no no the title IMPLORES that victims can’t marry their rapists which is not what the mandates ehhhh mandate. I mean I get what this proposal is tryin’ to do but that ain’t it.

Also I see a problem with this. What if two people who are citizens of nation A are engaged and ehhhh engage in sex in nation B where one or the other ain’t of legal age in nation B? This basically forces nation B to prosecute one of the engaged couple for statutory rape. Don’t seem fair.

[Tinhampton]

Lydia Anderson, interim D-A: The title has been changed from "Don't Marry Your Rapist" to "To Prohibit Marry-Your-Rapist Clauses." There have been no changes to the proposal's category or text.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Omit 'To'. Same warrants for why 'On' is bad.

[Araraukar]

OOC: WIth slightly less tired brain: could the word "only" be added before "on the grounds" in there? Just emphasizing that it can't be the only reason. It might be one of the reasons given, especially in cases where the alledged victim wasn't the one who claims the rape happened (this has happened lots of times when parents dislike who daughter is dating), but not the only one.

(Also, don't drink shoggoths even if they're in a wine bottle, especially on a trans-Siberian train carrying mining crews to work in a mine deep enough to have disturbed nameless horrors. And no, my dream was not a nightmare.)

[Tinhampton]

Anderson: A thing, I suppose? Right, now I need to sozzle the watercapp---croppers...

OOC: Let me know if you prefer the old version of Article a.
OOC 2: Why did I dream last night that "Ban on Secret Treaties" was repealed in October 2019? O_o

[Separatist Peoples]

"This bans a popular carrot that would be used in place of a forced marriage stick. No civilized nation would be affected by this, leaving only our dearly absurd friends in the lurch. I can't see what there is to oppose."

You mean other than the title? Ehhhh okay hear me out. The title implies ehhh no no no the title IMPLORES that victims can’t marry their rapists which is not what the mandates ehhhh mandate. I mean I get what this proposal is tryin’ to do but that ain’t it.

Also I see a problem with this. What if two people who are citizens of nation A are engaged and ehhhh engage in sex in nation B where one or the other ain’t of legal age in nation B? This basically forces nation B to prosecute one of the engaged couple for statutory rape. Don’t seem fair.

"...what? The mandate takes away the carrot offered to the social circle to forgive the crime. That is absolutely valuable. Forced marriages are already illegal, but states can still aggressively coerce individuals into legitimizing a crime. This stops that. How is that not good?

"Further, rape is clearly different than statutory rape. Its why we denote statutory rape with the term 'statutory' even if bans on rape are themselves statutory law. That isn't a terribly strong argument."

[Aclion]

"This bans a popular carrot that would be used in place of a forced marriage stick. No civilized nation would be affected by this, leaving only our dearly absurd friends in the lurch. I can't see what there is to oppose."

"isn't the point of these laws so the victim isn't murdered by their family?"

[Separatist Peoples]

"This bans a popular carrot that would be used in place of a forced marriage stick. No civilized nation would be affected by this, leaving only our dearly absurd friends in the lurch. I can't see what there is to oppose."

"isn't the point of these laws so the victim isn't murdered by their family?"

"Disowned, really."

[Araraukar]

"isn't the point of these laws so the victim isn't murdered by their family?"

"Disowned, really."

IC: "In some cultures that may be one and same, really. But as per the proposal, the title and the contents still do not match. The clauses present do not actually prohibit requirements to marry one's rapist, but rather have it so that doing so or being in any kind of relationship with them can't be used as the only reason to abandon rape charges. I get that the actual contents are harder to make a snappy title of, but it may come back to bite the author if this goes to vote, as voters generally dislike dishonest titles. At least the ones who are awake when entering their vote."

OOC: Also, why are the active clauses a. and b. when there is no numbered main clause(s) for them to be subclauses of?

Oh and "opposed to sapient equality and dignity" in the preamble can really just drop the sapient from it, because it specifically mentions women instead of females, it's fairly understandable that it refers to people to begin with.

[Tinhampton]

Anderson: The kinds of policies that my fellow ambassador Äyrämäki was describing are colloquially known as "marry-your-rapist clauses," hence the title. Forced marriage was outlawed by Resolution one-sixty.

(OOC: Lettered main clauses are part of my house style. Also, "sapient" ---> "their inherent" in the first prefatory clause.)

[Kenmoria]

“I don’t see why the preamble mentions specifically women when it is conceivable that people of all genders could be forced into marriage on account of rape.”

[Tinhampton]

“I don’t see why the preamble mentions specifically women when it is conceivable that people of all genders could be forced into marriage on account of rape.”

Anderson: Ambassador Lewitt, sir - the author of the draft I was given, who is now hiding out from the rest of the World and its Assembly for the next couple of months, argues that rape is a subset of Violence Against Women since it is an act of sexual violence. There is conceivably the possibility that non-women, most notably men, could be victims of rape, but Tinhamptonian law does not treat it as such, and in any event many rape victims are female.

(OOC: The BBFC classifies every movie/film broadcast in the United Kingdom. Its classification guidelines state that it will not classify movies which promote/glorify "rape or other non-consensual sexually violent behaviour." Rape is an act of violence. Ergo, it can be classified as a subset of Violence Against Women - which therefore makes it positively dreadful, dreadfully wrong, and wrong enough to be made illegal. Understood?)

[Kenmoria]

“I don’t see why the preamble mentions specifically women when it is conceivable that people of all genders could be forced into marriage on account of rape.”

Anderson: Ambassador Lewitt, sir - the author of the draft I was given, who is now hiding out from the rest of the World and its Assembly for the next couple of months, argues that rape is a subset of Violence Against Women since it is an act of sexual violence. There is conceivably the possibility that non-women, most notably men, could be victims of rape, but Tinhamptonian law does not treat it as such, and in any event many rape victims are female.

(OOC: The BBFC classifies every movie/film broadcast in the United Kingdom. Its classification guidelines state that it will not classify movies which promote/glorify "rape or other non-consensual sexually violent behaviour." Rape is an act of violence. Ergo, it can be classified as a subset of Violence Against Women - which therefore makes it positively dreadful, dreadfully wrong, and wrong enough to be made illegal. Understood?)

(OOC: I understand that rape can be classed as an act of violence against women, and is also an crime exclusively suffered by women from a legal perspective in many countries. However, given that the WA maintains a species-neutral outlook on the basis that different member nations may have different species, it seems strange to not take a gender-neutral outlook, given that a matriarchy where rape is far more commonly suffered by males is also possible.)

[Morover]

“I don’t see why the preamble mentions specifically women when it is conceivable that people of all genders could be forced into marriage on account of rape.”

Anderson: Ambassador Lewitt, sir - the author of the draft I was given, who is now hiding out from the rest of the World and its Assembly for the next couple of months, argues that rape is a subset of Violence Against Women since it is an act of sexual violence. There is conceivably the possibility that non-women, most notably men, could be victims of rape, but Tinhamptonian law does not treat it as such, and in any event many rape victims are female.

(OOC: The BBFC classifies every movie/film broadcast in the United Kingdom. Its classification guidelines state that it will not classify movies which promote/glorify "rape or other non-consensual sexually violent behaviour." Rape is an act of violence. Ergo, it can be classified as a subset of Violence Against Women - which therefore makes it positively dreadful, dreadfully wrong, and wrong enough to be made illegal. Understood?)

"I'd agree with the Kenmorian delegation on this subject. Rape being a subset of "Violence Against Women" is not very inclusive, especially considering the vast array of nations who belong to this Assembly, many of which don't even have assigned gender. While obviously not affecting the actual effects of the proposal itself, I personally would feel more at ease if such wording were fixed."

[Tinhampton]

Anderson: WOWZERS! Mind if I borrow your neotransititron?!

OOC: AGREES clause amended due to popular demand.

[Waldenes]

This sounds more than reasonable. The people of Waldenes intend to support your proposal.

[Araraukar]

Anderson: The kinds of policies that my fellow ambassador Äyrämäki was describing are colloquially known as "marry-your-rapist clauses," hence the title. Forced marriage was outlawed by Resolution one-sixty.

"You are relatively new here, so you might not know that in the World Assembly, "the resolution does what the resolution says it does", so your title still is one big fat lie. You don't do anything of the sort in the actual mandates. Why do you have such a hard-on for the "marry your rapist" bit? Couldn't the title be just something akin to "Prohibiting Relationship Excuses on Rape Cases"? That would be more or less exactly what you're trying to do in the active clauses."

OOC: My new title suggestion is something like 45 marks long - the current title length maximum is a bit over 50, so you have a little bit of fiddle room left.

[Island Girl Herby]

Much better title, and the “sole grounds” thing seems to address my objection from earlier. Full support!

[Bananaistan]

"This does not prohibit marry your rapist clauses which are already illegal under WA law. Opposed on account of the mangling of language.

"Also opposed on account of the content. Forced marriages and sexual assault are already prohibited. So this can only act on the tiny subset of cases where some victim consents to subsequently marry the person who sexually assaulted them. The logical outcome here is spouses being compelled to testify against spouses. This is not cricket. Nor is forcing any victim of sexual assault into court."

OOC: I don't think the category. There's nothing here that reduces government control of people's private lives.

Also, does this happen anywhere IRL?