Turkey Moves Toward Passage Of Controversial “Marry Your Rapist” Law

Flag of Turkey

We have often discussed the struggle of women in Muslim countries in resisting religious-based requirements for coverings and limitations on their movements and interactions. Turkey was once the exception among these countries as a secular, modern nation. That was before the rise of Islamic parties under the authoritarian President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Turkey under Erdogan has already rolled back on protections for girls and women in abuse cases. Now the country is considering a horrific law aptly called the “marry-your-rapist” bill. Under this legislation, men accused of having sex with underaged girls could avoid punishment if they marry their victims.

We have discussed the continuing practice of forced marriages and sexual abuse of girls in Muslim countries, including clerics who insist that girls as young as nine are ready for marriage. This law would effectively allow men to buy their way out of punishment by striking a deal with a victim’s family. Since many girls come from poor families, the opportunity to buy your way out of a rape case is high.

Not only has Erdogan destroyed the country’s secular traditions but eviscerated civil liberties and press freedoms. Women quickly felt the pressure of his Islamic parties. Erdogan himself declared that a woman who did not bear children was “incomplete” and that equality with men was “against nature.” He declared bluntly “You cannot put women and men on an equal footing. It is against nature.”

A similar law was attempted years ago but now conservative and religious parties are trying again. A recent government report on child marriage estimated a total of 482,908 Turkish girls were married in the last decade.

63 thoughts on “Turkey Moves Toward Passage Of Controversial “Marry Your Rapist” Law”

  1. The reason why clerics are justified claiming little nine year old girls are ready for marriage is because that is when Mohammed consummated his marriage with Aisha, whom he married at 6.

    The Qur’an says Mohammad is the perfect example of a believer, and all subsequent generations will fall short. Mohammed slept with a nine year old girl, took sec slaves, slept with sex slaves in his wives’ beds, said married women cannot say no, killer non believers, hated and killed Jews, and was a slaver. A great many evil acts have been justified because Mohammed said so.

    That is why Sharia Law is incompatible with Western human rights. Moderate Muslims ignore about 2/3 of the Qur’an, but Sharia Law itself cannot.

    1. said married women cannot say no,

      Karen, I’d suggest you get hold of an old examination of conscience. You’ll discover that in the years just prior to Vatican II, you were advised pastorally to confess if you’d denied your spouse ‘conjugal rights’. Pretty sure that’s there because some people use sex as a weapon in domestic arguments.

    2. Muslims and communists are sworn, direct and mortal enemies of America and Americans. The proof exists in their Quran and Manifesto. Why does government allow enemies and enemy moles awaiting orders into America? The Founders required letters, documents and other “…proof…” of “…good character,…” for naturalization and entry.
      ______________________________________________________

      “…and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character,…”

      United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790

      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

  2. This is an example of why cultural relativism is wrong. I do not find this treatment of rape victims acceptable. It’s their country, their rules, and women clearly lack the power to change it.

    But I find it abhorrent and am blessed to be a woman in the United States.

  3. Defending the Very First Right: Life

    President Trump:
    this movement can only succeed with the heart and the soul and the prayer of the people let us work together to build a culture that cherishes innocent life

  4. Refreshing

    https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/24/we-are-messengers-takes-a-swipe-at-the-media-at-the-march-for-life/

    ‘We Are Messengers’ Band Takes A Swipe At The Media At The March For Life

    “This is what matters: family and freedom.”

    We Are Messengers, a Christian band who performed at the March for Life pre-march rally Friday morning, took a swipe at the media for its portrayal of American culture.

    Looking out over the vast crowd gathered on the National Mall, lead singer Darren Mulligan, said, “This is what unity looks like. This is what American looks like.”

    Mulligan, an Irish American, continued, “I hear on the news, ‘Oh, America’s falling apart. America’s so divided.’ …But I see you all here in a beautiful picture of what America looks like: One people under God, under one sky.”

    He didn’t stop with his critique of the media, however, next addressing pro-lifers themselves.

    “We’re pro-life, pro-baby. But we’re also pro-woman.”

    You can’t tell young women they can’t have an abortion if you aren’t willing to do something to help, Mulligan said.

    “America, you do a lot of talking sometimes, and not a lot of doing. … You’ve got to be taking care of people. … Let’s be about that love.”

    Mulligan doubled down on the importance of faith and the pro-life message, taking a third swipe at people of all political stripes for squabbling over what he believes to be secondary fights in the culture war.

    “America, if you’re going to be obsessed with plastic straws and what bathroom people can use, you’re missing the big picture,” he said. “This is what matters: family and freedom.”

    The first group on the rally stage this morning, We Are Messengers will be followed by remarks from abortion survivors, congressmen and congresswomen, notable pro-life Louisiana Democratic state Sen. Katrina Jackson, and even President Donald Trump, making him the first president ever to appear at the March for Life.

    After the rally, attendees will march up Constitution Avenue, where they’ll conclude outside the Supreme Court, the site of landmark Roe v. Wade decision that made abortion legal in the United States 47 years ago.

  5. Less Than A Year Ago,

    Republicans In Alabama Tried To Ban Abortion..

    With NO Exceptions For Incest Or Rape

    Alabama Republicans presumed the national party was behind them when they pursued an absolute and total ban on abortion. Such a law would have kept rape victims emotionally tied to their rapists. But when coverage of the Alabama law began to play in mainstream media, Republicans outside Alabama began to get cold feet.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/444169-senate-republicans-running-away-from-alabama-abortion-law

    1. Republicans In Alabama Tried To Ban Abortion..With NO Exceptions For Incest Or Rape

      Of course this is humbug. There are hardly any pregnancies generated by either. But it hardly matters. A child conceived by rape or incest is still a child.

      1. Tabby, this story isn’t fiction. Alabama attempted this and Google has a number of stories to confirm; including a piece from “The National Review” that seems cheer-on total abortion bans.

        The truth is that even most Republicans are uncomfortable with total bans and it illustrates a fundamental weakness with the entire anti-choice movement. When individual stories are told, regarding extraordinary circumstances, the American public sympathizes with women attempting a way out.

        1. Google has a number of stories to confirm

          Given that you could not access, view nor interpret the Nature article I provided yesterday debunk the political climate change garbage, why are we not surprised you resort to Google for your sources?

          Peter, you should hire attorneys to sue your hometown School Board for failing miserable at your education. Perhaps you should enroll in Trump University

          1. Estovir, there was NOTHING in that “Nature” story debunking Climate Change. You were simply attempting a cheap, stupid bluff.

            And if you’re attempting to suggest that Alabama never tried to pass this totall ban, then you’re just a fool. That less than a year ago in May of 2019. I can still remember it. And even Absurd feels that law was right in principle.

        2. Tabby, this story isn’t fiction. Alabama attempted this and Google has a number of stories to confirm; including a piece from “The National Review” that seems cheer-on total abortion bans.

          Who said it was, Peter?

          I don’t keep up on Alabama politics, but I’d be perfectly happy if they instituted a comprehensive ban and put the state’s abortionists and their customers behind bars.

          What is a fiction is the notion that rape or incest is a significant source of pregnancies or a motive of consequence for abortion. The number of forcible rapes recorded each year is about 140,000 right now. Given the prevalence of oral contraceptives, IUDs, and sterilization among women of child-bearing age and given the probability of conception in natural sex among even the most fertile age-ranges, the number of pregnancies which would result from rape would be 4,000 a year absent any emergency D & C offered.

          As for incest, here’s a popular article on the subject:

          https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/what-scientists-found-after-analyzing-cases-of-inbreeding-in-the-uk

          Which finds that 0.03% of the population is the issue of a set of 1st or 2d degree relatives.

          You have about 6,000,000 conceptions a year in this country. At a rate of 0.03%, that’s 1,800 pregnancies. Even if such pregnancies were aborted as often as Down’s babies discovered via testing, you’re still talking about 20,000 a year.

          NB, in 1960 in this country – when abortion was unsafe, illegal, and rare – the number of deaths in childbirth was about 2,600 a year. Annual birth cohorts have hardly increased in size since then, btw.

          All of that adds up to fewer than 30,000 pregnancies out of 6,000,000 conceptions, IOW, fewer than 0.5% of all conceptions. )The prevalence of ectopic pregnancy is 4x that).

          1. Tabby, all your data raises the question: “So what”? If rape and incest aren’t statistically that common, then what’s the problem with exceptions??

            This piece from USA Today was written during the Alabama controversy. It cites a number of stats that illustrate how public opinion is conflicted and all over the map. But public support for first trimester abortions is well above 50%

            https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/24/rape-and-incest-account-few-abortions-so-why-all-attention/1211175001/

            1. If rape and incest aren’t statistically that common, then what’s the problem with exceptions??

              That’s the wrong question, Peter. People like you harp on these fancied ‘hard cases’ when only a tiny minority of abortions are motivated by hard cases. It’s just rhetorical gamesmanship on your part.

              The exceptions are only valid when the mother is in danger. Ectopic pregnancies aside, those are rare as hen’s teeth. The reason they are invalid is that the moral standing of the child is not contingent on the circumstances surrounding its conception. This is not that difficult.

              1. Tabby, obviously it is quite difficult. Even most Repiblicans favor some exceptions. Your view is that of a very small minority.

                1. Your view is that of a very small minority.

                  Current abortion law is in tune with the view of a single-digit minority of the public. (But, unfortunately, most of our odious appellate judiciary and law professoriate). Doesn’t bother you at all.

          2. So you would be amenable to charging the man who inseminated the woman and then denied his responsibility along with the ‘abortionist’?

            The young sons of powerful men that use their entitlement to spend their seed and then use their father’s power to insist on and pay for the abortion?

            Or the men that impregnate a woman that they don’t want their wives to find out about?

            Or the men that decide AFTER their casual intimacy results in a viable pregnancy that they aren’t ready for a child or willing to support that child?

            Are they included in the ‘customer’ you speak of?

            1. So you would be amenable to charging the man who inseminated the woman and then denied his responsibility along with the ‘abortionist’?

              If he’s implicated in the transaction with the abortionist, charge him with a primary crime, with an anticipatory offense, or as an accessory after the fact. If he’s not, don’t. Police and courts make these determinations every day of the week in other matters.

              The young sons of powerful men that use their entitlement to spend their seed and then use their father’s power to insist on and pay for the abortion?

              Non sequitur. You should probably get over your social resentments, while we’re at it.

              Or the men that decide AFTER their casual intimacy results in a viable pregnancy that they aren’t ready for a child or willing to support that child?

              Men get hit with paternity suits and support orders all the time under the current legal regime. On occasion, courts can be quite brutal in enforcing them. Don’t know where you’ve been.

    1. FarOutWest – there is a defense to statutory rape, in some states, of marrying the ‘victim.’ So, maybe it isn’t rape rape as Whoppie would say

      1. True, but even if not criminally punishable, imagine the literal hell the 14 year old girl endures married to a 60 year old man.

            1. Anonymous – I thought Paltrow’s candle should come with a warning list of all the people who have been in her vagina.

              1. I haven’t been on this site in a few days, but I saw PCS commented, so I clicked, and lo-and-behold….this was not what I was expecting at all…..ROFL…..not at all.

                And just as a side note, ewww, that’s wrong. Smh.

                1. WW33 – well, for some of the women it could be a selling point and for some of the men it would be off-putting. I believe in strict labeling of products for the general public. 😉

                  1. Then, I definitely recommend a label that says, “Warning: Contents is Hot! Avoid pouring on crotch/groin region. Not to be consumed.” 😉

                    I think that should suffice for Manufacturer having a duty to warn about foreseeable dangers from misuse of the product.

  6. What is the difference from that and treating women as second or worse class citizens worth nothing when theirl raspist is awarded the Presidency and the rapists wife ignores the victims as if they didn’t exist (second debate 2016) or when his political party honors every type of variation possible except female or woman in favor of a gobbledegook collection of initials ir or when the same group supports victimization of women by supporting rape and are openly sexist as well as racist and bigots.

    The socialist liberal regressives live in the world of openly treating women as second class baby factories brainless something to be used and oh yes et us not forget whats her name some girl from out wests somewhere when it comes to supporting the victims rapist and their part in the whole sordid episode by a sordid group of those who speak falsely out both sides of their mouth

    1. Your history needs correcting, Michael.
      Bill Clinton, Frequent Flyer of Jeffrey Epstein’s ‘Lolita Express’ and expelled from the Rhodes Scholar program for raping Ida Wellstone, ran and won the Presidency in 1992 and 1996, not 2016.

  7. This law would effectively allow men to buy their way out of punishment by striking a deal with a victim’s family.

    Only if their families were willing to do this to them. Your so fixated on law that it hardly occurs to you that law subsists in culture.

    Erdogan himself declared that a woman who did not bear children was “incomplete”

    Yes, childless people are incomplete. So are bachelors and spinsters. That you’re willing to lie and saying a lesser state is just as good as a greater one does not make a lesser state any better. It just makes you a liar. People who haven’t had children for one reason or another have to live with their circumstances and their decisions.

    and that equality with men was “against nature.” He declared bluntly “You cannot put women and men on an equal footing. It is against nature.”

    Again, you’re chastising this man for refusing to subscribe to social fictions which are modal among professional-managerial types in occidental countries. The problem here is yours, not his. Men and women are complimentary and they are made for each other. It’s not a strictly egalitarian relationship, but one in which people prosper from division of labor. More than fifty years after the advent of Friedan-style feminism you have ample data to observe what happens when such notions inform official policy. The results:

    1. Widespread practice of abortion, which is a frank horror

    2. Widespread ba*stardy

    3. Routinized, unilateral divorce on demand

    4. The socially catastrophic implosion of fertility all over the occidental world.

    5. The valorization of sexual deviance, with official assaults on anyone who dissents.

    6. State abuse of cultural dissenters generally.

    7. A culture of underperformance in the public and philanthropic sector (or, perhaps, exacerbating the already existing culture).

    And you’re never going to get women and men to have the same disposition toward work, to have the same disposition toward children, to value the same things, to be irritated by the same things. That’s going to be reflected in the division of labor of society at large. To employ lawyers to harass people who refuse to pretend is to promote contortions in social relations which make everyone worse off.

    Here’s a suggestion, professor. Quit comparing a caricature of Muslim society to a fantasy version of occidental society. Compare the real with the real.

  8. Well, at least the perv would have to legally marry the child, giving her some (admittedly limited) legal rights. That’s better than the child “brides” and sister-wives of the Mormon polygamists, whom Turley defends, who have no legal standing whatsoever.

  9. Let’s see now, as I understand it, the boundaries of the United States extend along the border with Canada then 12 miles out in the Atlantic and 12 miles out in the Gulf of Mexico then along the Rio Grande River to New Mexico and across the border with Mexico to San Diego and 12 miles out in the Pacific and continues to 12 miles out from the Canadian border. That means that whatever happens in Turkey or any other country is outside our control. If Turks want to implement a law – based on Moslem doctrine – that a woman must marry a man who rapes her, it’s TURKEY’s business, not ours. This wasted space could have been used for something else, perhaps the issue of using government-collected taxes to support religious institutions (schools.)

      1. I don’t. Free speech derives from deliberative constitutional processes (see Robert Bork on this point). To deny it is to place an element of public policy outside popular deliberation and to put it in the hand of some clerisy. None of these clerisies have much legitimacy or are owed much respect.

        This is an amendment to their penal code. All societies must have some sort of penal code. This is an amendment to remit punishment. It’s a bad idea, but it does not constitute state harassment of dissidents. (What it does is legally ratify cruelty incorporated within family relations, which is something you expect among people whose sensibilities are disordered).

  10. Theocracy is just adorable, isn’t it.

    Fortunately Christian Dominionists in this country would never seek to undermine the secular design of the Constitution.

Leave a Reply