Pastor Defends Rolle Over Comments On Marital Rape
By SANCHESKA DORSETT
sdorsett@tribunemedia.net
 |
| Cedric Moss |
PASTOR
Cedric Moss yesterday defended Minister of Social Services and Urban
Development Lanisha Rolle over her recent controversial comments on
marital rape.
In
a 16-page paper called “Marital Rape - The Past and Present
Discussions” which summarised the 2009 discussion on the issue and
includes his thoughts on the current debate, Pastor Moss said Mrs
Rolle’s statements were “measured and balanced” and said he believes she
was “unjustifiably attacked”.
Last
month, when asked outside a Cabinet meeting if martial rape should be
criminalised, Mrs Rolle said the country does not support violence
against women in any form but added: “In relation to marital rape, I
have always said it is an issue that is private. It can become public,
but we want to start where marriage is sacred and marriage is private.”
Her
comments drew rebuke from social activists, women’s rights groups and
community leaders, some of whom called for her immediate resignation.
However, Pastor Moss said he understands how Mrs Rolle feels, because he has also been attacked for his views on marital rape.
The
senior pastor of Kingdom Life Church said while he believes that forced
sexual intercourse within a marriage should be criminalised, the act
should not be called rape because he believes “there is a difference
between forced sexual intercourse outside of marriage (rape) and forced
sexual intercourse in marriage (spousal sexual abuse) and that there
should be separate laws to cover them.”
“Overall,
Minister Rolle’s statement is measured and balanced, and she said two
very important things which her critics ignored as they berated and
bullied her and called for her resignation,” Mr Moss noted.
“First,
she said she does not support any form of violence against women. On
that point, she and her critics share common ground, but they ignored
it. Second, Minister Rolle said that she believes that if government is
going to pass legislation to affect married couples, it is proper to
consult with the wider community to get their views on it. I would hope
that Minister Rolle’s critics similarly support a consultative approach
so that all interested parties might make their views known on any
proposed legislation.”
Pastor
Moss said if a wife does not desire sexual intercourse, it is wrong
under any and all circumstances “to override her will and force upon her
that which she does not desire.” He said the current discussion on
marital rape should also serve as a reminder “that abuse, be it sexual
or otherwise, and whether in or out of marriage, will not be tolerated.”
Nonetheless,
Pastor Moss said calling forced intercourse within a marriage rape “is
unhelpful and misleading because it departs from the entrenched practice
of naming the offence to describe the crime.”
“The name of the offence needs to describe the crime, not confuse the crime,” he said.
“I
believe that it is right to distinguish between an act of forced sexual
intercourse perpetrated on a woman by a man to whom she is not married
(rape) and an act of forced sexual intercourse perpetrated on a wife by
her husband with whom she cohabits (spousal sexual abuse). Again, in the
case of rape, both the sexual intercourse and the lack of consent are
to be punished, but in the case of spousal sexual abuse, only the
provable lack of consent through force, threat, or fear of bodily harm
is to be punished, not the sexual intercourse.
“Therefore,
if the government moves ahead to criminalise provable forced sexual
intercourse within non-estranged marriages, which I believe should be
done, I believe the offence should be called something like ‘spousal
sexual abuse’ and ‘aggravated spousal sexual abuse’ that would cover
cases where battery and/or sadistic treatment are involved.”
Pastor
Moss made the following recommendations: The government should pass
legislation to make forced sexual intercourse in non-estranged marriages
a crime; the punishment for forced sexual intercourse in marriage
should range up to life in prison to cover heinous acts; complainants in
cases of forced sexual intercourse in marriage should not be allowed to
drop the charge and it should be made an offence for a spouse to
fabricate an allegation of forced sexual intercourse in marriage.
Published on: Tribune242
Comments
Post a Comment