P.S.A. attacks rape law provision

Press, 29 February 1984, Page 6

P.S.A. attacks rape law provision

PA Wellington The Public Service Association yesterday criticised a Rape Law Reform Bill provision which would not penalise men for raping their wives in marriage. It told a Parliamentary’ select committee that it could not see why this “antiwomen” provision Should remain in the law. Retaining such a provision reinforced the myth that wives were the properties of their husbands who may use and abuse them as they saw fit, it said in submissions to the statutes revision select committee. The bill, introduced into Parliament late last year, provides that no person shall be convicted of rape of his wife unless they were living apart at the time in separate residences. Women members of Parliament criticised the clause at the bill’s introduction and many

groups have since echoed their criticisms. Select committee hearings on the bill began yesterday morning. In ' its submission the P.S.A. said that it could not support any provision which made rape within marriage legal. “Rape within marriage remained rape — an enforced or unwanted sexual connection," the P.S.A. said. “A spouse when entering the marriage contract no more consents to being raped than to being beaten or murdered. “And if assault within marriage and murder within marriage are illegal, then why should rape be given privilege?” It might be more difficult to prove to a jury that rape within marriage had taken place, but that was not sufficient reason to exclude it from the law.

"As the clause now stands, it is palpably discriminatory in that it states a man cannot be convicted of raping his wife if he is living with her. but does not extend this privileged legal position to wives, who can. in theory, be convicted of raping husbands." the P.S.A. said. It said there was no doubt that rapes within marriage did take place. Women's refuges and rape crisis centres had reported that many of the women who sought their help were victims of marital rape.

At a time when New Zealand was a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, it was singularly inappropriate to retain a clause which was blatantly discriminatory against women, especially those who were wives.