Canadian man found not guilty of raping wife [Gaza “Palestinian”—Sharia via “mens rea”]

BBC News ^ | 20 October 2017

[Olog-hai]

A Canadian man was found not guilty of rape because he believed he could have sex with his wife whenever he wanted.

Ontario Superior Court Justice Robert Smith ruled the prosecution failed to prove the accused man knew his behavior was criminal.

The judge did not dispute that non-consensual sex had taken place multiple times, the Ottawa Citizen reported.

The man, from Gaza, was part of an arranged marriage with his wife, a Palestinian who grew up in Kuwait. “Marriage is not a shield for sexual assault,” Judge Smith wrote in his decision, according to the newspaper. “However, the issue in this trial is whether, considering the whole of the evidence, the Crown has proven the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.” […]

The judge found the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the man had criminal intent, known as “mens rea” in the law. …

[Olog-hai]

So now ignorance of the law is an excuse.

(This is from a week ago, but I didn’t see it in a site search, so sorry if it was and I missed it.)

[heartwood]

He may not have intended law-breaking as such, but he did intend to have carnal knowledge of his wife against her will.

[Newbomb Turk]

Ignorance of reality is more like it. You can have sex with your wife anytime you want, but its gonna cost you. Diamonds, gold, new cars, bigger house...

[samtheman]

Here’s a rapist the average western “feminist” will defend to the death.

Not just defend the rapist... but defend their right to rape.

Because every western “feminist” knows all too well, it’s one thing to scream bloody murder when Rush Limbaugh wants to make you pay $10 a month for your own birth control (the horror! the horror!) but when it comes to muslim rapists you have to not only grin and bear it, you have to proclaim how great it is from the rooftops.

[grey_whiskers]

Used to be by common law, it was impossible to rape one's wife.

Now even marriage isn't enough for sex: but she gets to ride the carousel then divorce him and take him for everything, once she's decided she's not haaaaaaaaaappy.

[Nifster]

Gee I guess all cultures are the same. /s

[samtheman]

That may have been true in the past... but nowadays the rule is simple:

All rape is against the law unless it’s committed by a muslim... then it’s not rape.

[grey_whiskers]

Even lefty icons like Weinstein are getting called out on it.

[samtheman]

great cartoon

[Darksheare]

Ignorance of the law is only an excuse for certain protected classes, usually “muslim”.

[Candor7]

So now ignorance of the law is an excuse. >>>>>>>>>>

Nah!

The Crown proved gonorrhea but not mens rea.

Jessica Carvell for the Crown, a female prosecutor,
brought the case forward when she did not have sufficient proof of intent or mens rea. Both of these goat herders, man and wife, thought that the husband had a right to have sex with her whether she wanted it or not. No mens rea.

Yet another case of a woman prosecuting a case based on political correctness.

You can see the written decision here:

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2017/2017onsc4277/2017onsc4277.html

[littleharbour]

Mens rea is often misunderstood. You do not have to intend to commit a crime. You just have to intend to do the act, whether or not you are aware that the act is prohibited by law. Good luck getting out of a DUI because you’re visiting a State that has a lower blood alcohol threshold.

[Bonemaker]

“×A Canadian man was found not guilty of rape because he believed he could have sex with his wife whenever he wanted.”

Thats a knee slapper! Canadian women must be just like American women.How about EVER?

[onedoug]

Welcome to the world of sharia. Just claim you’re a filthy muslim, and get a pass on anything and everything.

[grey_whiskers]

Or, say, if you store tens of thousands of State Department documents on a private server, allowing multiple foreign intelligence services access to them, since you didn't have intent, then no reasonable prosecutor would seek charges.

[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

"Ontario Superior Court Justice Robert Smith ruled the prosecution failed to prove the accused man knew his behavior was criminal."

But if a Good Ole' Boy from Alberta was caught packing a handgun, do you think the judge would care whether the accused knew it was criminal or not?

[Trillian]

I'm surprised half of hollywood hasn't changed religion yet.

[Bulwyf]

Married women need to read the new testament. Especially the part about their bodies not belonging to them but to their husbands and vice versa. Sex in marriage should not be turned down except in the circumstances Paul mentions. If Christian couples followed that, we’d have far less problems.

This situation involving moslems is far different though, as women are simply property in their death cult.

[Candor7]

You just have to intend to do the act>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Yes, that’s a fact. Any prosecutor though always makes sure the element is present on any felony charge. The defendant in this case did not have the intent to do the act, he literally could not tell the difference between right and wrong either, neither could the victim.

For example DUI laws require no mens rea proof because they are strict liability statutes where the proof of mens rea is generally defined out of any required proof in the definition section of a statute.

Its the same with game and hunting laws. no mens rea required, only proof of the act itself.Its called a strict liability law.

However almost all felony crimes have the requirement of proof of both mens rea and actus reus.

This female prosecutor simply went ahead and prosecuted on the basis of liberal fascist style political correctness.The Judge made a good call.