New Jersey Judge Rules Muslim Man’s Right to Rape is Religious Freedom

[Busybody]

New Jersey Judge Rules Muslim Man’s Right to Rape is Religious Freedom

Think sharia law isn’t making inroads here in America? Think it’s no big deal? Guess again.

In a recent New Jersey case, a judge denied a Muslim woman an Order of Protection from her abusive husband not because the rapes and domestic violence she detailed were not committed, but because the judge accepted a defense from the man that he was acting on his Islamic beliefs! In denying the woman’s request, the judge stated:

“This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.”

The judge then vacated the temporary restraints previously entered in the matter and dismissed the plaintiff’s domestic violence action

Read more at http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=201118#xjehBL0YpwrEewcO.99

 

[Busybody]

The rapes and domestic violence took place in 2008 and on the night of January 15 to 16, 2009. While raping the woman, the Muslim man said “You are my wife, I can do anything to you. The woman, she should submit and do anything I ask her to do.”

Here are the actual facts of what occurred, as per the court records and transcript from the appellate court of New Jersey where the abused victim successfully appealed the lower court decision. As you'll see, rape was only part of the brutal abuse this woman suffered.

Note that the woman was only 17, she was imported from Morocco as a teenage bride in an arranged marriage having never seen her husband prior to the wedding and that the husband was not some immigrant day laborer but an accountant fully familiar with American customs.

As far as Islamic law goes, the original justice was totally correct. Rape is essentially a non-crime in Islamic law , since it takes four male witnesses to prove it ( Sura 24:4 and 24:13). A raped woman is unable to get justice anywhere sharia prevails, and her testimony is basically considered worthless.

The Quran gives a husband supreme authority over a woman and makes her his property, to do with as he will.

Muhammad is quoted as saying: "If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relation] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning" (Bukhari 4.54.460). He also said: "By him in Whose Hand lies my life, a woman can not carry out the right of her Lord, till she carries out the right of her husband. And if he asks her to surrender herself [to him for sexual intercourse] she should not refuse him even if she is on a camel's saddle" (Ibn Majah 1854).

As a matter of fact, in response to the appellate judge's questions, an imam called as a witness who was involved in the case would not definitively answer whether, under Islamic law, a husband must stop his advances if his wife said "no." However, the imam did acknowledge that New Jersey law considered coerced sex between married people to be rape, something he was apparently unable to concede in the original trial.

Fortunately the appellate court reversed this decision, and the sharia-friendly ruling was not allowed to stand - for now.

Rest assured, there will be more of these.

 

[koalabear]

Diversity is cool.

 

[Busybody]

Im turning MOOSEFUCK and gonna visit AQUA GAL

 

[SeaDaddy1]

That's almost as wacko as the judge who sentenced a 49 yr old male teacher 30 days for raping a 14 yr old student. She committed suicide later.

 

[badbabysitter]

wait till he hears about Mormon cults that think its cool to rape children... I bet there will be hundreds of threads about them

 

[koalabear]

Im turning MOOSEFUCK and gonna visit AQUA GAL

Make sure it is in New Jersey.

 

[renard_ruse]

Why the fuck would a man get "married" when it doesn't give any right to sexual relations?

The wife still has the right to rape the man's bank account and paycheck though.

What strange times we live in.

 

[Busybody]

wait till he hears about Mormon cults that think its cool to rape children... I bet there will be hundreds of threads about them

show us

 

[Busybody]

That's almost as wacko as the judge who sentenced a 49 yr old male teacher 30 days for raping a 14 yr old student. She committed suicide later.

not the same

 

[badbabysitter]

show us

are you seriously telling em you've never heard of this

how fucking stupid are you?

 

[Busybody]

are you seriously telling em you've never heard of this

how fucking stupid are you?

I have never heard of it

show me

 

[Busybody]

I have never heard of it

show me

IM

FUCKING

WAITING

 

[njlauren]

The judge in question argued that under the laws of the country where they came from, a husband can't rape his wife..and the appellate court rightfully overturned the judges ruling. Judges make all kinds of stupid decisions in this country, the judge who sentenced a teacher for having sex with a 14 year old (a 40 year old teacher, mind you) said that in this case, the girl basically was in charge, was 'older then she looked' and therefore in effect said the teacher had lessened fault..which under statutory law is complete and utter bullshit, when an underage child has sex with an adult, especially when it is a)an older adult and b) a position in a position of authority like a teacher, the blame is on the adult, because I don't care if she came on to him in a bra and panties, it is his duty as an adult to say no, but apparently this judge , probably some bible thumping idiot, said she seduced him, which is idiotic.

Under US law, a husband can be charged with rape, if a husband forces his wife to have sex, he can be charged and convicted, and the judge in question frankly was an idiot, the same as the one with the rape case. Claiming this is shariah law coming in is nonsense, it was a judge making a stupid ruling, it happens.

We also shouldn't be all so happy and patting ourselves on the back. Until about 40 years ago, US law allowed the husband to claim marital rights in a case like this and he would not be charged with rape. The GOP base, the religious reich, are still yelling about this, arguing that sex is a woman's duty and that a husband therefore cannot rape his wife since it is his right, and down in the great american hookworm belt judges still rule this way, and have to be overturned on appeal, so I wouldn't be so smug about Shariah law when we have the religious right Christians who are just as stupid. It is ironic it is often born against Christians hollering about Sharia law coming, when they want to pretty much do the same thing, only I guess because in their eyes it is in the Name of Jesus, that's okay.......

 

[Busybody]

The judge in question argued that under the laws of the country where they came from, a husband can't rape his wife..and the appellate court rightfully overturned the judges ruling. Judges make all kinds of stupid decisions in this country, the judge who sentenced a teacher for having sex with a 14 year old (a 40 year old teacher, mind you) said that in this case, the girl basically was in charge, was 'older then she looked' and therefore in effect said the teacher had lessened fault..which under statutory law is complete and utter bullshit, when an underage child has sex with an adult, especially when it is a)an older adult and b) a position in a position of authority like a teacher, the blame is on the adult, because I don't care if she came on to him in a bra and panties, it is his duty as an adult to say no, but apparently this judge , probably some bible thumping idiot, said she seduced him, which is idiotic.

Under US law, a husband can be charged with rape, if a husband forces his wife to have sex, he can be charged and convicted, and the judge in question frankly was an idiot, the same as the one with the rape case. Claiming this is shariah law coming in is nonsense, it was a judge making a stupid ruling, it happens.

We also shouldn't be all so happy and patting ourselves on the back. Until about 40 years ago, US law allowed the husband to claim marital rights in a case like this and he would not be charged with rape. The GOP base, the religious reich, are still yelling about this, arguing that sex is a woman's duty and that a husband therefore cannot rape his wife since it is his right, and down in the great american hookworm belt judges still rule this way, and have to be overturned on appeal, so I wouldn't be so smug about Shariah law when we have the religious right Christians who are just as stupid. It is ironic it is often born against Christians hollering about Sharia law coming, when they want to pretty much do the same thing, only I guess because in their eyes it is in the Name of Jesus, that's okay.......

really?

show me

 

[Busybody]

IM

FUCKING

WAITING

 

[Busybody]

really?

show me

and NJ NUTBAG, Im also waiting

 

[Busybody]

Im still fucking

waiting

you turds

LYING MOTHERFUCKING ASSHOLE

 

[Busybody]

And the Mooselimbs right to kill infidels because its written in the Koran?????? That good too judge?????

 

[Busybody]

a KNEE GROW

what a surprise

 

[Busybody]

The judge in question argued that under the laws of the country where they came from, a husband can't rape his wife..and the appellate court rightfully overturned the judges ruling. Judges make all kinds of stupid decisions in this country, the judge who sentenced a teacher for having sex with a 14 year old (a 40 year old teacher, mind you) said that in this case, the girl basically was in charge, was 'older then she looked' and therefore in effect said the teacher had lessened fault..which under statutory law is complete and utter bullshit, when an underage child has sex with an adult, especially when it is a)an older adult and b) a position in a position of authority like a teacher, the blame is on the adult, because I don't care if she came on to him in a bra and panties, it is his duty as an adult to say no, but apparently this judge , probably some bible thumping idiot, said she seduced him, which is idiotic.

Under US law, a husband can be charged with rape, if a husband forces his wife to have sex, he can be charged and convicted, and the judge in question frankly was an idiot, the same as the one with the rape case. Claiming this is shariah law coming in is nonsense, it was a judge making a stupid ruling, it happens.

We also shouldn't be all so happy and patting ourselves on the back. Until about 40 years ago, US law allowed the husband to claim marital rights in a case like this and he would not be charged with rape. The GOP base, the religious reich, are still yelling about this, arguing that sex is a woman's duty and that a husband therefore cannot rape his wife since it is his right, and down in the great american hookworm belt judges still rule this way, and have to be overturned on appeal, so I wouldn't be so smug about Shariah law when we have the religious right Christians who are just as stupid. It is ironic it is often born against Christians hollering about Sharia law coming, when they want to pretty much do the same thing, only I guess because in their eyes it is in the Name of Jesus, that's okay.......

WaPo Op Ed: Sex Between Teacher And Underage Students Should Not Be A Crime




Despicable.

Via NRO:


The Guardian and the Atlantic have published columns aimed at normalizing pedophilia. Scientific American and the BBC have publishing articles normalizing polyamory. Now the Washington Post publishes an opinion piece that advocates decriminalizing student-teacher sex.

A Montana teacher was only sentenced to 30 days in jail for raping a 14-year old student. Betsy Karasik says that was too much. From, “Sex Between Students and Teachers Should Not be Illegal:”

As protesters decry the leniency of Rambold’s sentence — he will spend 30 days in prison after pleading guilty to raping 14-year-old Cherice Morales, who committed suicide at age 16 — I find myself troubled for the opposite reason. I don’t believe that all sexual conduct between underage students and teachers should necessarily be classified as rape, and I believe that absent extenuating circumstances, consensual sexual activity between teachers and students should not be criminalized.

 

[SeaDaddy1]

WaPo Op Ed: Sex Between Teacher And Underage Students Should Not Be A Crime




Despicable.

Via NRO:


The Guardian and the Atlantic have published columns aimed at normalizing pedophilia. Scientific American and the BBC have publishing articles normalizing polyamory. Now the Washington Post publishes an opinion piece that advocates decriminalizing student-teacher sex.

A Montana teacher was only sentenced to 30 days in jail for raping a 14-year old student. Betsy Karasik says that was too much. From, “Sex Between Students and Teachers Should Not be Illegal:”

As protesters decry the leniency of Rambold’s sentence — he will spend 30 days in prison after pleading guilty to raping 14-year-old Cherice Morales, who committed suicide at age 16 — I find myself troubled for the opposite reason. I don’t believe that all sexual conduct between underage students and teachers should necessarily be classified as rape, and I believe that absent extenuating circumstances, consensual sexual activity between teachers and students should not be criminalized.

At 14, they're just kids and have no idea wtf their doing. There was definitely problems at home. The teacher was in his 40s at the time and has the responsibility to say no; NOT take advantage of the girl's state of mind just because he wants something to dip his dick into. She wasn't old enough to consent; therefore it was rape.

On a personal hypothetical note; had it been my daughter, that teacher would be lucky to live long enough to go to court. That judge would damn sure loose his next election and pray to his god I don't see his sorry ass in a back alley somewhere.

 

[Busybody]

Any woman

that cries RAPE

LIES

Daughter Trying to Free Dad She Once Accused of Rape. “At nine, Chaneya Kelly accused her dad of raping her. He was sentenced to forty years in jail. Now an adult, married, and a mother, she says her mother threatened her into making that accusation, her dad is innocent, and she’d like to see him set free. . . . The insanity of assuming that any child making that accusation is telling the truth; the insanity of the idea that any accusation of abuse must have truth at its core is a sort of madness many — aware of the creation of false memories — are willing to shake off. But there is something else at work here: that it doesn’t seem to have occurred to anyone that a mother (or any other adult with control of the child) could use the child as a weapon in a marital dispute or a divorce. That is a form of blindness that must be unique to our times.”

 

[Busybody]

Daughter hopes letters free dad she says was convicted after her false rape charge
By BRUCE GOLDING
Last Updated: 5:34 AM, August 23, 2013
Posted: 1:26 AM, August 23, 2013



EXCLUSIVE

She sent her dad to prison — and now she’s hoping these letters get him out.

A woman whose childhood rape testimony against her upstate father got him sentenced to up to 40 years in prison wrote him a series of letters confessing she was forced to lie by her abusive mother.

“I didn’t want to get beat so I made up a lie that I’d take back anyday. I regret everything I said,” Chaneya Kelly, now 24, wrote to dad Daryl in a 2002 letter obtained by The Post.

“It’s just that I didn’t want to get beaten by a ‘drunken’ mother.”

Daryl Kelly, now 54, was convicted in 1998 of raping, sodomizing and sexually abusing Chaneya in their Newburgh home — largely due to her testimony as an 9-year-old.




’FESS UP: Chaneya Kelly (left) wrote letters to jailed dad Daryl (holding her son Julian) saying her mom forced her to say he raped her as a child.

He’s currently serving a 20- to 40-year sentence, and isn’t eligible for parole until 2018.

In her 2002 letter, Chaneya said she should be the one behind bars.

“I feel guilty when I talk about it. I feel that I should be in prison instead of you,” she wrote.

In another letter, dated Oct. 2, 2006, Chaneya said she wished she “could change the past,” and noted the irony “that mommy would have been locked up for perjury charges” if Chaneya had only told the truth. That letter is signed “Daddy’s Big Girl, Neya.”

Daryl Kelly’s appeals have repeatedly been turned down, but his case is under review by the District Attorneys Association of the State of New York.

He’s also now being represented by Peter Cross, the lawyer who last year helped win the release of Eric Glisson after 16-plus years in the slammer following his wrongful conviction of murdering a Bronx livery driver in 1985.

If the pending review doesn’t clear Kelly, Cross said he’ll use Chaneya’s letters for an appeal.

Chaneya has tried to retract her allegations since shortly after her dad’s conviction, including a 1999 affidavit in which she said she testified falsely “because my mother was angry and I was afraid of her.”

Her mom, Charade Kelly, also signed a sworn statement saying that Daryl “should not have been prosecuted” because Chaneya “never said her father did anything to her until I said it to her first.”

In January of last year, Chaneya sent a desperate letter to Gov. Cuomo, saying, “I did what any other eight year old would do.”

“Until this day, I regret that decision, I wish I would have taken that beating,” she added.

But Chaneya yesterday told The Post that her dad doesn’t blame her, saying that when she first visited him in jail, “the first thing he did was hug me and tell me that he loved me and that none of this is my fault.”

 

[Busybody]

Im still fucking

waiting

you turds

LYING MOTHERFUCKING ASSHOLE