[PASSED] Marital Rape Justice Act

[Christian Democrats]

GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION AT VOTE
Marital Rape Justice Act
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Category: Moral Decency | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Christian Democrats

The General Assembly,

Recognizing that domestic violence continues to be a problem in many of its member states,

Expressing its strong opposition to all acts of sexual violence,

Realizing that many societies countenance domestic violence, namely marital rape, because of primitive beliefs that treat people as if they were the property of their spouses or because of archaic views that wrongly consider consent to marriage or consent to a relationship to be consent to sexual intercourse whenever it is desired by the partner,

Further realizing that many member states lack laws against marital rape, do not enforce laws against marital rape, or have laws against marital rape that are less severe than laws against other kinds of rape,

Seeking to ensure that its member states treat accusations and acts of marital rape just as severely as they treat other accusations and acts of rape occurring outside of committed relationships,

1. Defines marital rape, as used in this resolution, as an act of sexual assault or sexual abuse that is committed against an individual by a spouse, civil partner, domestic partner, registered partner, cohabitant, or someone who formerly had such a relationship with the individual;

2. Mandates that accusations of marital rape be treated by law enforcement the same as or more carefully than similar accusations of nonmarital rape, especially because survivors of marital rape usually live with their attackers;

3. Requires that member states and political subdivisions thereof, in their laws on sexual assault and sexual abuse, eliminate all legal distinctions between marital rapes and nonmarital rapes occurring under otherwise identical circumstances;

4. Prohibits discrimination between marital and nonmarital rapes in the application of sexual assault and sexual abuse laws, namely with regard to the punishment of individuals who commit the crime of rape;

5. Decrees that consent to marriage, civil union, civil partnership, domestic partnership, registered partnership, or cohabitation shall never be considered consent to sexual activity under any circumstances; and

6. Encourages member states to take sufficient steps, such as the establishment of public awareness or special counseling programs, to reduce the number of instances of marital rape in the country.

I have made the definition of marital rape broad so that it includes member states that do not have marriage or have similar unions under a different name. The definition also would extend to member states that do not formally recognize any sexual relationships. Marital rape is a widespread problem in the real world, so I assume that it is also a problem in the world of NationStates, which has many more nations.

Below is a map of marital rape laws in the real world. Marital rape is legal in the countries that are black, and the countries that are colored gold consider marital rape to be "a form of non-criminal domestic violence." You might notice that marital rape is countenanced in the world's two most populous countries, China and India, and in the world's fourth largest country, Indonesia.

According to Wikipedia, 13 percent of married women in the United States are raped by their husbands at least once. In Tajikistan, 47 percent of women are raped by their husbands at least once. In Turkey, 36 percent of women are raped by their husbands at least once. In Turkey, 16 percent of women are raped by their husbands on a regular basis.

Some ambassadors here have stated their opinions that I am obsessed with issues related to marriage. I am not. I do realize that this proposal would be my third resolution on a topic related to marriage if it passes.

[Louisistan]

I'm still looking for the backdoor where the esteemed Ambassador from CD tries to force his religious views on us...
I've not found it yet.

Seems like a good proposal. But I'm still careful.

[Mousebumples]

Here's my question: why are only married people worthy of being protected from rape? That seems somewhat ... prejudicial to me.

As such, I think this may violate CoCR as I don't believe any compelling practical purpose exists to protect only those who are married versus those who remain unmarried.

Yours,
Adele Hale
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Zaklen]

I like it, though I take issue with clause 4. I wish to reserve the right to punish sexual abuse of children more severely than this, just as is the case for other sex crimes.

[Paper Flowers]

I'm still looking for the backdoor where the esteemed Ambassador from CD tries to force his religious views on us...
I've not found it yet.

Seems like a good proposal. But I'm still careful.

I concur with the sentiments of the above Ambassador, while on the surface this resolution is something we would support we are suspicious of the motivation behind it. Hopefully such concerns will prove to be unjustified.

Ambassador Saunders

[United Federation of Canada]

Here's my question: why are only married people worthy of being protected from rape? That seems somewhat ... prejudicial to me.

As such, I think this may violate CoCR as I don't believe any compelling practical purpose exists to protect only those who are married versus those who remain unmarried.

Yours,
Adele Hale
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

While we agree with the esteemed ambassador from Mousebumples, and abhor where this act is coming from we do point out that this act covers ANYONE in an intimate relationship, not just married individuals.

[Auralia]

Here's my question: why are only married people worthy of being protected from rape? That seems somewhat ... prejudicial to me.

As such, I think this may violate CoCR as I don't believe any compelling practical purpose exists to protect only those who are married versus those who remain unmarried.

I don't think that's the correct way to approach this proposal. CD's research suggests that those in an intimate relationship are more vulnerable to rape than others, given the victim's close relationship with the rapist and the lack of legal protection in many nations. This proposal merely seeks to ensure an equal level of protection from rape for all.

[Christian Democrats]

I'm still looking for the backdoor where the esteemed Ambassador from CD tries to force his religious views on us...
I've not found it yet.

My morality proscribes rape, so I am trying to force one of my religious and ethical views on others.

Here's my question: why are only married people worthy of being protected from rape? That seems somewhat ... prejudicial to me.

As such, I think this may violate CoCR as I don't believe any compelling practical purpose exists to protect only those who are married versus those who remain unmarried.

I believe you are misunderstanding the proposal. It would require that member states treat cases of marital rape at least as severely as they treat cases of nonmarital rape. Section 3c of Resolution 16 already requires member states to have laws against rape. This proposal additionally would require that laws against marital rape not be less severe than laws against nonmarital rape.

I like it, though I take issue with clause 4. I wish to reserve the right to punish sexual abuse of children more severely than this, just as is the case for other sex crimes.

I suggest that you reread that clause more carefully because it says that marital rapes should be treated the same as nonmarital rapes "that occur under otherwise similar circumstances." For example, a 30-year-old man rapes a 28-year-old woman. All other things being the same, it should not matter whether the two individuals are married or unmarried. Sexual abuse of children is dissimilar from this and, therefore, could be treated differently by a legal system.

I concur with the sentiments of the above Ambassador, while on the surface this resolution is something we would support we are suspicious of the motivation behind it. Hopefully such concerns will prove to be unjustified.

I admit that I am trying to force my anti-rape views on others.

While we agree with the esteemed ambassador from Mousebumples, and abhor where this act is coming from

You abhor a proposal against rape for what reason?

[Dagguerro]

We don't see any problem with this proposal although regrettably, like several of my colleagues, I am looking for where exactly the loophole is; given the author's history. Although it seems an unwarranted concern as far as I can tell.

Completely reasonable proposal. Tentatively in favour excepting any major problems that we manage to identify.

Yours, etc,
- Lord Swift

[Cowardly Pacifists]

While I too want to oppose this based solely on the fact that CD has a history and bad reputation for not-so-slyly placing dangerous, wrongheaded blockers into otherwise promising proposals, I will give the proposal the benefit of the doubt and read it before categorically opposing it.

Also, while I agree with Mousebumples that all people deserve to be protected from rape, rape in the context of marriage is an area of special concern. It is worth remembering that, in some cultures it is legally impossible for a man to rape his wife (or spouses to rape each other), on the dubious grounds that by consenting to marry the one has also consented to submit herself whenever the other so chooses. Indeed, the concept of spousal rape itself is relatively new, having only appeared in the past 30 or 40 years or so.

1. Defines marital rape, as used in this resolution, as an act of sexual assault or sexual abuse that is committed against an individual by a spouse, civil partner, domestic partner, registered partner, cohabitant, or someone who formerly had such a relationship with the individual;

I suppose I can live with this definition, though (obviously) ex-spouses are not married so it's quite strange to call rape in that context "marital rape." I think the author needs to remember the whole reason for this proposal is a misconception about what being a spouse means you consent to. I don't think anyone thinks that an ex-girlfriend consents to sexual activity by default the same way some believe (sadly) that a wife consents by default.

2. Requires that every member state treat cases of marital rape the same as or more severely than it would treat other cases of sexual crime occurring under otherwise similar circumstances;

Do we have an argument for treating spousal rape more severely than aggravated rape in similar circumstances? Just curious. Otherwise, this is fine.

3. Mandates that every member state treat accusations of marital rape the same as or more carefully than it would treat other accusations of sexual crime that are similar in every other way;

Yes, yes; no getting around the proposal by simply refusing to investigate.

4. Orders member states not to impose punishments against marital rape that are less severe than punishments imposed against those who are guilty of other kinds of sexual assault or sexual abuse that occur under otherwise similar circumstances;

Doesn't provision 2 do this already? One of the two is probably enough.

5. Decrees that consent to marriage, civil union, civil partnership, domestic partnership, registered partnership, or cohabitation does not mean that an individual thereby consents to sexual activity each and every time that it is desired by the spouse, partner, or cohabitant;

From our Nitpicking department: this is kinda the premise of the whole act and probably belongs at the beginning.

7. Requests from every member state an annual report that gives an overview of the sexual assault and sexual abuse laws in the country and data on sexual assaults and sexual abuse in the country, including specific data regarding marital rapes in the country; and

Is a request mandatory? Is it even an encouragement? "Requests" is not a strong word.

8. Encourages member states where marital rape is common to take sufficient steps, such as the establishment of public awareness or special counseling programs, to reduce the number of instances of marital rape in the country.

I think this could probably be REQUIRED without ruffling too many feathers.

For now, I'm provisionally opposed, pending a comprehensive review from our Whats-He-Really-Up-To department. If that review comes back positive, however, I may be inclined to change my position.

Best Regards,

[The Eternal Kawaii]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

It is worth remembering that, in some cultures it is legally impossible for a man to rape his wife (or spouses to rape each other), on the dubious grounds that by consenting to marry the one has also consented to submit herself whenever the other so chooses.

Technically, Kawaiians fall under such a definition, as according to our law, a husband and wife are one person and therefore cannot commit crimes against one another. That said, the Kawaiian legal definition of marriage states that it is a contract between the married couple on one part and the families of that couple on the other. Should one of the married couple fail to live up to the terms of that contract, either by adultery, neglect, or in this case abuse, the other party has a right to redress. And, since marriage is considered a private contract rather than a public one, such redress is usually carried out through our "private justice" system rather than through "public justice".

The bottom line is that Kawaiians do not rape their spouses, as any who would be so depraved as to do so would quickly find themselves killed by their in-laws, with the rest of the community's tacit approval. We find such an arrangement keeps the domestic peace very effectively.

[Christian Democrats]

In response to two questions raised by the ambassador from Cowardly Pacifists:

1. Why does the definition of marital rape include ex-spouses?

Sexual assault by ex-spouses is relatively common, and such rapes often are more violent. I want to make sure that nations do not overlook those crimes based on the argument: well, they used to be married and have sex. To quote the Wikipedia article on marital rape, "Rape by a spouse, partner or ex-partner is more often associated with physical violence. A nine-nation study within the European Union found that current or ex-partners were the perpetrators of around 25% of all sexual assaults, and that violence was more common in assaults by ex-partners (50% of the time) and partners (40%) than in assaults by strangers or recent acquaintances (25%)." Rapes by ex-partners tend to be the most violent, which is one reason that I have inserted a provision regarding those crimes.

2. Is there a reason that the state would want to treat a marital rape more severely than a nonmarital rape that is similar in all other ways?

I imagine that some member states might want to be tougher on marital rapists for four reasons: (1) marital rape may be considered a breach of the marital contract, (2) marital rape may be considered a betrayal of the trust that the victim had in the spouse prior to the crime, (3) nations where marital rape is common or engrained in society may wish to impose harsher punishments against marital rape to send a message that it is not acceptable for someone to commit sexual assault against a spouse, and (4) there is usually more psychological trauma after a marital rape. Being raped by a spouse, partner, or family member is more difficult for many survivors to deal with than being raped by a stranger. The emotional effects often are longer lasting when the victim knew the perpetrator prior to the crime (especially if the survivor knew the rapist well).

[Discoveria]

Looks good, will probably support.

There are some nitpicky changes I'd like to make but I will leave these until nearer submission.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

In response to two questions raised by the ambassador from Cowardly Pacifists:

1. Why does the definition of marital rape include ex-spouses?

Sexual assault by ex-spouses is relatively common, and such rapes often are more violent. I want to make sure that nations do not overlook those crimes based on the argument: well, they used to be married and have sex. To quote the Wikipedia article on marital rape, "Rape by a spouse, partner or ex-partner is more often associated with physical violence. A nine-nation study within the European Union found that current or ex-partners were the perpetrators of around 25% of all sexual assaults, and that violence was more common in assaults by ex-partners (50% of the time) and partners (40%) than in assaults by strangers or recent acquaintances (25%)." Rapes by ex-partners tend to be the most violent, which is one reason that I have inserted a provision regarding those crimes.

Here's the main premise behind this proposal:

Realizing that many underdeveloped societies countenance domestic violence, namely marital rape, because of primitive beliefs that treat people as if they were the property of their spouses or because of archaic views that wrongly consider consent to marriage or consent to a relationship to be consent to sexual intercourse each and every time that it is desired by the partner

The idea that folks consider spouses property, or that society recognizes consent to marriage as consent to sex, simply does not apply in the case of ex-spouses.

I'm (obviously) not denying that rape by ex-spouses is a bad thing. I simply don't think that the reasons you stated in the preamble as the need/justification for this act apply to cases of rape by ex-spouses. There's little reason to believe that the consent/property misconceptions bleed over from spouses to ex-spouses.

In any case, I'm not gonna make an international incident out of this. While my Secretary of Technical Correctness may lose his mind, I could live with the irregularity of a marital sexual misconduct law that extends protection to unmarried parties.

2. Is there a reason that the state would want to treat a marital rape more severely than a nonmarital rape that is similar in all other ways?

I imagine that some member states might want to be tougher on marital rapists for four reasons: (1) marital rape may be considered a breach of the marital contract, (2) marital rape may be considered a betrayal of the trust that the victim had in the spouse prior to the crime, (3) nations where marital rape is common or engrained in society may wish to impose harsher punishments against marital rape to send a message that it is not acceptable for someone to commit sexual assault against a spouse, and (4) there is usually more psychological trauma after a marital rape. Being raped by a spouse, partner, or family member is more difficult for many survivors to deal with than being raped by a stranger. The emotional effects often are longer lasting when the victim knew the perpetrator prior to the crime (especially if the survivor knew the rapist well).

Fair enough.

[Oneracon]

Permanent Mission of the Kingdom of Oneracon to the World Assembly

While we understand the rationale for the section mentioning "someone who formerly had such a relationship with the individual", we agree with earlier point of the delegation from Cowardly Pacifists that while rape by ex-spouses is still a terrible crime it seems out of place in a proposal that by name is explicitly regarding marital rape.

Additionally, realising the sensitivity of the subject matter, we take issue with some of the harsh wording in the preamble that seem out of place in an otherwise very neutrally-worded proposal.

Realizing that many underdeveloped some societies countenance domestic violence, namely marital rape, because of primitive beliefs that treat people as if they were the property of their spouses or because of archaic views that wrongly consider consent to marriage or consent to a relationship to be consent to sexual intercourse each and every time that it is desired by the partner,

Further recognizing that the emotional trauma of being raped by a spouse or significant other often is more painful than being sexually assaulted by a stranger because of the bond that had been shared prior to the abominable¹ act and because it is often the case that the victim must live with or is unable to escape from the abuser,
^{1 we would also support use of a word like "traumatic" in place of no qualifier at all}

Otherwise, however, we are fully in support of the honourable ambassador from Christian Democrats' proposal.

Phillip Webber
Ambassador of the Kingdom of Oneracon to the World Assembly
Regional Delegate for Caballete Equus

[Louisistan]

Deputy Ambassador Roland Schulz:
It seems that thus far no one has found a loophole in the proposal put before us by the esteemed Ambassador from Christian Democrats. Therefor, our delegation has decided to operate under the assumption that this is actually a good proposal and that there is no such loophole.

We would like to address some of the concerns brought forth by our esteemed colleagues:
The Canadian Ambassador has already pointed out that this proposal does NOT only protect married persons. As such, the title may be misleading but that is something we could live with.
Also, we find it important to include ex-spouses in this proposal. While it may be true that clause 3 does not apply in this case, clause 5 definetly does! Rape by an ex-spouse will certainly involve massive psychological trauma! Maybe the preamble could be reworded. But our support of this resolution stands regardless of this.

[Imperial Yamea]

[align=center]

Realizing that many underdeveloped some societies countenance domestic violence, namely marital rape, because of primitive beliefs that treat people as if they were the property of their spouses or because of archaic views that wrongly consider consent to marriage or consent to a relationship to be consent to sexual intercourse each and every time that it is desired by the partner,

Further recognizing that the emotional trauma of being raped by a spouse or significant other often is more painful than being sexually assaulted by a stranger because of the bond that had been shared prior to the abominable¹ act and because it is often the case that the victim must live with or is unable to escape from the abuser,
^{1 we would also support use of a word like "traumatic" in place of no qualifier at all}

With the changes as suggested by the esteemed delegate from Oneracon we will certainly support this proposal.

Mr. P. Perkins
Imperial Yamean Representative to the WA

[Christian Democrats]

Realizing that many underdeveloped some societies countenance domestic violence, namely marital rape, because of primitive beliefs that treat people as if they were the property of their spouses or because of archaic views that wrongly consider consent to marriage or consent to a relationship to be consent to sexual intercourse each and every time that it is desired by the partner,

Further recognizing that the emotional trauma of being raped by a spouse or significant other often is more painful than being sexually assaulted by a stranger because of the bond that had been shared prior to the abominable¹ act and because it is often the case that the victim must live with or is unable to escape from the abuser,
^{1 we would also support use of a word like "traumatic" in place of no qualifier at all}

1. I'll think about making these changes, but I do not really see a reason for them. Evident in the real-world map, marital rape is legal in most underdeveloped nations. I can only assume that this is the same in the World Assembly. With more than 17,000 member states, I further assume that there are a lot of member states that countenance marital rape. I also do not see reasons for removing the words "primitive," "archaic," and "abominable." Are these words not accurate descriptors of what this proposal aims to fight? Out of curiosity, why do you suggest that I remove these particular words and not others?

2. On the point of marital rape that has been raised with regard to ex-spouses and ex-partners, this proposal more broadly could be construed as a measure to fight intimate partner violence. The phrase "intimate partner violence," however, does not have the same psychological effect on the reader as "marital rape." If the Assembly will pardon my delegation, "martial rape" not only is a shorter expression to write over and over again (remember that there is a proposal character limit); but it also is better for labeling purposes if and when this proposal reaches the masses for a worldwide vote.

Most organizations, from what I have read, usually consider marital rape (by its strictest definition) alongside other forms of sexual abuse by current partners, ex-spouses, and ex-partners. To quote the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious, preventable public health problem that affects millions of Americans. The term "intimate partner violence" describes physical, sexual, or psychological harm by a current or former partner or spouse. This type of violence can occur among heterosexual or same-sex couples and does not require sexual intimacy.

http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/intimatepartnerviolence/index.html

Marital rape usually is considered alongside other forms of intimate partner violence. I am not using the latter term because it is too long and does not have the same emotional effect as hearing the words "marital rape."

[Oneracon]

Permanent Mission of the Kingdom of Oneracon to the World Assembly

In response to the esteemed delegate from Christian Democrats:

1
We suggest these changes for the same reason we said originally, it is unnecessarily harsh wording that clashes with an otherwise very well-written and neutrally toned proposal. We happen to agree that views regarding consent to marriage equalling consent to sex are archaic and that marital rape is abominable, but we do not agree with using a resolution to have the nations of the World Assembly go around on a high horse declaring certain nations to be "primitive", "underdeveloped", etc. Neutral wording in a resolution will make it not seem as if we are directly attacking those nations that may still hold those views (such as those nations ruled by religious fundamentalism) and would make them more apt to cooperate with the resolution.

If we may ask, what other words would the esteemed delegate have also expected us to suggest removal for?

As for the the use of the word "abominable" in the second clause in question, the sentence would read exactly the same without it. If the esteemed delegation of Christian Democrats would prefer a descriptor to remain in that clause, a word like "traumatic" can be used to put more focus on the suffering of the victim rather than the perspective of third party observers.

(OOC: CD, you can assume what you like but NationStates isn't the real world. I'm going to have to disagree with you that we can use real-world figures to justify wording like that in a WA resolution)

---

2

Regarding the use of "marital rape" in place of Intimate Partner Violence: we disagree with wording a World Assembly resolution in favour of appealing to mass opinion instead of technical correctness but will still support the intent of the proposal.

(OOC: As for the character limit, you could have just abbreviated it to IPV)

Phillip Webber
Ambassador of the Kingdom of Oneracon to the World Assembly
Regional Delegate for Caballete Equus

[Louisistan]

[
Regarding the use of "marital rape" in place of Intimate Partner Violence: we disagree with wording a World Assembly resolution in favour of appealing to mass opinion instead of technical correctness but will still support the intent of the proposal.

This quote is written on a peace of paper, with a post-it note stuck to it:

^that!
From the desk of Roland Schulz, Deputy Ambassador and Rep. on the floor to the World Assembly General Assembly

[Runty]

My worry with this proposal has to do with evidence.

Already as we see with date-rape situations, it's a lot harder to prove rape in what is already an intimate relationship. It basically boils down to a "he said she said" situation. There are instances of consensual sex where one party later uses the threat of "well, I'll say you raped me" as a means of gaining power over the other. Meanwhile, in cases where the rape legitimately was rape, it tends to be harder to prove than in stranger rape.

I'm not condoning marital rape by any means. I just want to encourage couples to work out problems themselves if possible and not hold the threat of "crying rape" over their spouse's heads every time they get in an argument.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Sorry - have to agree with mousey on this one. Seems kinda silly to target only marital rape while ignoring, you know, regular rape (or as a GOP pal of mine might put it, "legitimate" rape). So I would have to oppose this.

(Please, no resolutions outlawing rape either - as I recall, the last attempt was a complete disaster.)

[Bears Armed]

Sorry - have to agree with mousey on this one. Seems kinda silly to target only marital rape while ignoring, you know, regular rape (or as a GOP pal of mine might put it, "legitimate" rape). So I would have to oppose this.

(Please, no resolutions outlawing rape either - as I recall, the last attempt was a complete disaster.)

For that matter, why outlaw rape before outlawing murder?
"A fate worse than death"?

[Sanctaria]

I'm siding with the Kennyite and Mousebumplonian delegations here. As atrocious as the crime is, I'm not sure why the author wants to target marital rape only. Although given his past obsession with the act of marriage it really shouldn't be a surprise.

[Unibot III]

Further recognizing that the emotional trauma of being raped by a spouse or significant other often is more painful than being sexually assaulted by a stranger because of the bond that had been shared prior to the abominable act and because it is often the case that the victim must live with or is unable to escape from the abuser,

Drop this clause, it could be incredibly offensive to actual rape victims who were raped by strangers. Rape is not incremental; every case is tragic and senseless. I understand where you going with it, but I don't think it is true, rape affects victims really horribly no matter if they know their victim or not. Perhaps the only thing that could help rape victims that don't know their attacker is they would be more likely to shift blame on someone if they didn't know them, whereas if you know the person that is raping you, you're going to shift blame different and be unhealthily sympathetic.

My recommendation is, using the sexual privacy act as a foundational document, create a resolution that incorporates what you have in an omnibus resolution regarding rape, especially forms of martial and war rape. Since people will be concerned that if you're emphasizing martial rape here, other forms of rape against single women could become more accepted. By doing a more general resolution you can avoid the accusation that you're subtly emphasizing christian values, wherein married women are seen as pure and needing protection and young unmarried women are treated as "overly promiscuous" and rape against them can be seen as "deserving" (i.e., just world theory) or simply not "rape rape" (as according to Whoopi Goldberg), or "legitimate rape" or whatever.