...In S.D. v. M.J.R., (click title to entry - thank you) the plaintiff, a Moroccan Muslim woman, lived with her Moroccan Muslim husband in New Jersey. She was repeatedly beaten and raped by her husband over the course of several weeks. While the plaintiff was being treated for her injuries at a hospital, a police detective interviewed her and took photographs of her injuries. Those photographs depicted injuries to plaintiff’s breasts, thighs and arm, bruised lips, eyes and right check. Further investigation established there were blood stains on the pillow and sheets of plaintiff’s bed.
The wife sought a permanent restraining order, and a New Jersey trial judge held a hearing in order to decide whether to issue the order. Evidence at trial established, among other things, that the husband told his wife, “You must do whatever I tell you to do. I want to hurt your flesh” and “this is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you.” The police detective testified about her findings, and some of the photographs were entered into evidence....
In the article by The Heritage Foundation, they make the claim that a woman is not safe from her husband in the USA. That is a LIE.
Domestic Violence occurs for many reasons, but, for a woman to seek retribution against her husband due to PREVIOUSLY CONSENTUAL sexual 'content' of the marriage is not going to win her a restraining order.
The 'content' of Sharia Law is taken completely out of context by The Heritage Foundation for hate mongering of Muslims. It is just that simple.
The problem with this case is that although the woman was proven to have received 'harsh' treatment by her husband it is not grounds for permanent restraining order. IT IS GROUNDS for a divorce now that she no longer consents to rough treatment by the man. She could move out of the relationship into a life she creates for herself with either visitation or custody of her children depending how it all works out for the best interest of the children.
The ONLY way this case becomes a case 'good enough' for 'the test' of a Permanent Restraining Order is if the man goes beyond the actions of 'normal' in separating and eventually divorcing his wife. If he is an Orthodox Muslim and will never change to realize the freedoms the USA allows to women and the equity she has for a happy and 'violence free' life and he seeks REVENGE against her for some 'understood religious right,' then he is entering the place within domestic violence cases and/or stalking cases that will put him in adverse light of the court.
The woman may be humiliated by her past sexual relationship with her husband, especially if she has confided in an American friend that does not tolerate domestic abuse. But, more than likely, she was given advice to TRY TO GET the upper legal hand by seeking a restraining order against him by provable facts that occurred within the relationship.
The case was not "W"rongly decided, it was correct. The woman obviously has the law to support her 'desire' for independence from a traditionally violent Orthodox Muslim relationship. The question is not the law in the USA and if we are to believe The Heritage Foundation, then the Mormons should be locked away forever.
The law cannot stop consentual relationships, no matter the context of that relationship. It can investigate deaths. It can investigate maiming and rape. But, it cannot hold 'bedroom antics' to the scrutiny of the courts when it fact it was all consentual right up to the point where it is not.
Where a woman is not respected she needs to be empowered to leave marriages and relationships. That is why there are domestic violence shelters and we are all too familiar with 'recidivism.' I don't know how many times staff at women's shelters shake their heads at the return of a woman to a violent relationship. Women return to these relationships for many reasons and frequently it is economic. But, all too frequently there is pressure on them by family or friends in undermining their intent to change their lives, especially in strongly ethnic or religous content.
The Heritage Foundation never SPOKE to the decision in this case, they spoke to the 'knuckling under' by the judge to 'Sharia Law.' That is a lie. They completely took the case out of context and used it for political fodder and it works. Believe me it works. The woman that passed this onto me, thought it was possible her husband would be given the right to beat her as this was now precedent by legal decision.
