The defendant in this case has been three times convicted of domestic violence. Twice against the woman he is now convicted of raping. He is not allowed to see his son without supervision.
Maybe there are normal people out there who get off choking their partners until they pass out and then committing in sex acts on a lifeless body. But how am I not surprised that this man is a repeat violent offender and abuser of women?
Now I am wondering what the ruling would be if the woman was choking the man? Am I the only one who believes the SCC might just have said 'you asked for it' in that circumstance. I don't know for sure if they would but am just seeing if others think there may have been a different standard applied in a reverse situation.
The Ontario Court of Appeal previously ruled in favour of the defendant, basically saying to the woman "you asked for it" as you put it. So one court has said a person can give consent while conscious that continues into unconsciousness, while a superior court has said a person can not.
I'm sure there are people here who, like you, imagine without evidence that the courts have a bias against men. It fits in perfectly with the way you framed your accusation. Basically you haven't shown any evidence or even hinted that such evidence exists but rather openly speculated if anyone else felt the same way.
“The legislation requires ongoing, conscious consent to ensure that women and men are not the victims of sexual exploitation, and to ensure that individuals engaging in sexual activity are capable of asking their partners to stop at any point.”
This seems like a fair argument to me. I can understand the difficulties people would have though. It more or less outlaws this kind of sexual activity which despite the lack of legal consent can still be considered consensual to all involved. How does anyone suggest the law get around this?
