The Tribune

EDITOR, The Tribune.

Recently the print media has been reporting, albeit anonymously, divorce/family proceedings held in the Supreme Court. Such reporting appears to be novel as over the years one rarely expected to read about proceedings held in the family division of the Supreme Court.

The underlying word or adjective here is “family” and one wonders whether such news, not being of a public nature, should be reported in the newspapers as these cases relate solely to the parties involved in the family proceedings save to be used as references in supporting authorities as doctrine of precedent used by judges or attorneys in future cases.

Some members of the public regard the reporting of the proceedings or facts of the case as invasive and traumatic for those parties who, by virtue of having to commence divorce proceedings, already are experiencing distress due to having had to commence these proceedings.

The concern perhaps is that the world needs not know about what has transpired between two persons who have freely entered contractual relations, the moral consideration of which the parties must not “depart from the normal standards of conjugal kindness toward each other” during the subsistence of the marriage. And should that “contractual” relationship fail where one party’s behaviour has changed, for example, of wanting to have sex without the other party or spouse’s consent is nobody’s business, especially the legislature (members of Parliament), the Bahamas Christian Council or the women’s advocacy groups. None of these was present when the spouses declared their marriage vows of love, through sickness, health, etc. to each other, so none of them ought to be interfering in the “marital” affairs by creating an offence called “marital rape” involving “the contract of marriage” between a man and a woman who freely signed a marriage certificate. It is between those parties, and if one of those parties discovers that the person she/he married turns out to be a person whose behaviour has departed from conjugal kindness by insisting on “forced” sex upon the other, then that particular spouse can resort to the Supreme Court by petitioning it on the ground of cruelty to have the marriage dissolved as provided under the Matrimonial Causes Act.

That ground involves facts/circumstances comprising both physical and mental cruelty. Obviously, the framers of the aforesaid legislation foresaw and foreshadowed that parties or spouses may breach the marital contract, and they, therefore, provided those parties a remedy by dissolving the marriage on the ground of cruelty should either party quit showing the conjugal kindness behaviour during the subsistence of the marriage by forcing sexual intercourse upon the other without her consent or permission to so engage when the other party does not want to have sexual intercourse.

The legislature has already intervened on behalf of the public by the creation of the MCA, and it is not now their business to interfere in two grown adults’ marriage affairs. So, why should the politicians or members of Parliament take precious time away from doing the electorate’s business in the House of Assembly to discuss or debate the passing of legislation of something called “marital” rape, the interpretation of which is seemingly confusing. There are those activists who want this to become law so that the legislature can intervene to protect women who may be raped while there may be a separation order obtained in the lower courts between the parties. But the spouse or party did not see fit to have the union between themselves dissolved by the Supreme Court. That seems quite irresponsible on the part of either party to the “contractual marriage” and seems to leave the door to the matrimonial home and the vagina open for possible reconciliation with force of taking the vagina.

Incidentally, recently a Supreme Court judge in a divorce proceeding where both parties petitioned the court to terminate/dissolve the marriage on the grounds of cruelty were both granted decree nisi on that ground of cruelty. Surely, raping a party to a marriage is cruelty by virtue that it is not part of the conjugal kindness expected of parties to a marriage. So, again, whose business is that of so-called marital rape, but the business of those parties who said “I do” during the celebration of their marriage. It is simply between them and the divorce courts.

The question is: are there sufficient cases of these types of complaints made to the police to warrant it being of such great importance for our politicians to debate in the House of Assembly?

It is especially noteworthy that the President of the Council said that his members were divided on the issue of marital rape. It seems the women’s group are vigorously advancing their voices that the government makes marital rape an offence. Perhaps, it is high time that these activist groups focus more on prevention of their causes, for instance, we only hear their voices when a child has been abused, whether physically or sexually, or killed, but we never hear about the group publicly admonishing their gender (female mothers) to cease and desist from randomly and negligently bringing men, their boyfriends, into their homes and not protecting their small female or male child who could be physically and sexually harmed by their boyfriends or lovers. It’s deeply concerning to observe the silence on such prevention by the women’s advocacy groups.

There are so many more pressing issues that the legislature needs to be addressing as Members of Parliament, not issues like ‘marital’ rape which simply is none of their business or anyone else’s except for those parties to the marriage. The offence of rape is appropriately covered under the Penal Code for ALL offenders, married or not, and to further discuss may result in the invasion of married persons’ privacy, the consequence of which may be regarded as senseless abuse of the parliamentarians role and duty to its constituents.

ELEANOR ALBURY

Nassau,

January 6, 2023.