If I remember correctly, they both were into it and they did it many times in the past. She just didn't like the last time a few months afterwards right around the time he was trying to get custody of their kid.
SCC Decision on Consent
- Thread starter TenPenny
- Start date
If I remember correctly, they both were into it and they did it many times in the past. She just didn't like the last time a few months afterwards right around the time he was trying to get custody of their kid.
I'm so glad you find it amusing, I don't.
This stupid woman asked for and consented to erotic asphyxiation and anal sex. Months later she decided to pervert justice by filing a false report and them commit perjury in an attempt to get back at her partner for an argument over child custody. When a provincial appeal court rightfully overturned the conviction some radical women's group decided to hijack the case without the original complainant to further their own agenda resulting in the SCC stepping into the bedrooms of every consenting adult couple in the land.
This guy did 18 months in jail based on lies and perjury for what was in reality a consensual act. Where are the charges against her for perjury, filing a false complaint and obstruction of justice? She should be doing 18 months and liable for civil remedies and this ruling has basically given her a free pass. I hope you can keep laughing as more women decide to take advantage of this ruling and tell lies months or years after the fact when they get pissed off at their partner. I hope you find it funny as people go to jail for consensual sex acts because somebody decides to get even during a divorce or separation.
If you think that is funny that is up to you but do not make out like the outrage over the facts by some of us is unwarranted. There is a good reason this was not a unanimous decision and there was a strong dissenting opinion. If you think discussing hypothetical potentials that could arise from this decision is funny you have a strange sense of humour.
It's an extremely slippery slope in trying to differentiate between activities at this point. The fact is that the SCOC ruled on a broad enough base that it will not be too difficult to extrapolate this to any circumstance wherein someone is unconscious... On the other hand, if we are making the argument that there is a defined understanding of the "activity" related to circumstance, then the SCOC was in error in this specific circumstance.
Re: No consent in unconscious sex case: Supreme Court
That's not a valid defense. There can be at times, no evidence of sexual assault or something done to your body during sex & after losing consciousness..... when you are put under for an operation, you still don't know what happened and/or if the doctor touched you in anyway that could be deemed inappropriate.
"Saving one's Life" isn't something that could be an excuse to be able to get away with such an action.
And not all operations done that put someone under are for saving one's life..... plastic surgery, fixing your teeth, etc.
The same rules towards consent no longer applying once you lose consciousness with operations as well as sex. There have been many cases where patients charged/sued their doctors for doing exactly what's being talked about. The patient is put under, and while they're doing their thing, the doctor plays around with their genitals or flat-out had sex with their bodies...... and I doubt many even consented to that happening before they were put under.
With sex, even if they consented before they went out to be choked out or whatever, it's still assault.
And what happens when you and your partner come home drunk and one of you passes out or completely forgets what happened the night before? What if both of you passed out??
Let me guess, whoever wakes up first to realize what happened get's to file the charge?
That's not a valid defense. There can be at times, no evidence of sexual assault or something done to your body during sex & after losing consciousness..... when you are put under for an operation, you still don't know what happened and/or if the doctor touched you in anyway that could be deemed inappropriate.
"Saving one's Life" isn't something that could be an excuse to be able to get away with such an action.
And not all operations done that put someone under are for saving one's life..... plastic surgery, fixing your teeth, etc.
The same rules towards consent no longer applying once you lose consciousness with operations as well as sex. There have been many cases where patients charged/sued their doctors for doing exactly what's being talked about. The patient is put under, and while they're doing their thing, the doctor plays around with their genitals or flat-out had sex with their bodies...... and I doubt many even consented to that happening before they were put under.
With sex, even if they consented before they went out to be choked out or whatever, it's still assault.
And what happens when you and your partner come home drunk and one of you passes out or completely forgets what happened the night before? What if both of you passed out??
Let me guess, whoever wakes up first to realize what happened get's to file the charge?
Re: No consent in unconscious sex case: Supreme Court
I expect that the woman gets to file the charge, no matter what.
I expect that the woman gets to file the charge, no matter what.
I never said I find the case funny... go back and read. The hypotheticals like "you'll be arrested for kissing your wife!", are amusing, sorry. It's so far out in left field. "Why if I can't choke my wife out and then switch the game up on her, next think you know, I can't even kiss her!"
You might find it amusing, but that's how the law works.
Now that consent can be deemed to be revoked if a person is asleep or unconscious, even if previously given, a kiss, which can be considered sexual assault (if unwelcome), if given when your partner is asleep or unconscious, could lead to exactly this.
After all, the part you seem to wilfully ignore, is that this sexual activity is something that she agreed to and willingly participated in, until afterwords when she decided that she didn't like it.
You might find it funny, but many of those who follow the law know what a slippery slope these things turn out to be, and it's going to be interesting to see what happens now that consent can be retroactively revoked.
I have twice now seen you refer to him switching it up. Apparently you don't have a grasp of the facts. She had given prior consent to anal sex while unconscious, she decided after a heated argument to lie about that and then recanted and admitted to giving consent during the appeal. She was the one switching it up...not him. That is why the original conviction was overturned.
See, what you seem to be ignoring is that the law also has a duty to look at what's the right ruling for an individual case, not just how others might be affected by it down the road. You and Nick are quite convinced of precisely what went on in that courtroom, but I'm gonna go with the courts rather than some folks off the internet. The Supreme Court of Canada felt the ruling of the provincial court was flawed, that once she was unconscious, he had nmo right to move her and start something new before she woke back up. It seems pretty common sense to me.
Holy crap, what part of 'she lied and perjured herself' do you not quite understand? What part of 'she did not take this to the SCC' are you missing? What part of her telling him he could move her and stick it up her a*s are you having a problem with?
Are you part of one of these man-hating women do no wrong groups or what?
It'll come down to this... At some point, the message will become really clear when a couple of high school kids get pregnant and the male will be able to point to this precedent and absolve their role in the baby-making process by simply stating that "they didn't really want to" a few months after the fact.. All it will take is the male to say it first and the courts will have to consider the comment.
By the way - It doesn't matter one iota if they were conscious or not, the reality is that they can make this comment despite their enthusiastic interest in getting their pants around their knees in the first place... The SCOC has now enshrined one's ability to change their mind, conscious or not, months after the fact long after the fun has been had but the consequences are still in play.
The Supreme Court of Canada has the obligation to follow the law as written...and the law is quite clear on consent. The majority of the court obviously interpreted this section as saying an unconscious person cannot consent to what is being done to them...and what alternative did the Justices have? Is an unconscious person capable of removing consent? No.
273.1 (1) Subject to subsection (2) and subsection 265(3), “consent” means, for the purposes of sections 271, 272 and 273, the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in the sexual activity in question.
(2) No consent is obtained, for the purposes of sections 271, 272 and 273, where
(a) the agreement is expressed by the words or conduct of a person other than the complainant;
(b) the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity;
(2) No consent is obtained, for the purposes of sections 271, 272 and 273, where
(a) the agreement is expressed by the words or conduct of a person other than the complainant;
(b) the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity;
You're barking up the wrong tree Ton, Nick is a legal conspiracy nutter.
You spelled stupid wrong Karrie.
Please provide quotes for all those claims.
That's the section I was withholding, I wanted to see how serious Nick was in actually educating himself. Even after the big hint I gave him, he still managed to keep babbling on, erroneously.
The fact that that section pertains specifically to sexual contact, medical procedures are exempt. Just like boxing, is exempt under the legitimate commission exemption.
Like I said way back at the beginning, the gov't must now address the wording of this legislation, to ensure that it isn't used incorrectly in the future.
You would take the word of the Supreme Court over a highly trained user of Internet Explorer or Firefox? The court is out of its league.
Where I see the slippery slope in this particular example relates to the notion that engaging in this specific activity runs the risk of the participant being rendered unconscious as a result of the activity.
Presuming that the participant was aware of this possibility and they consented in advance knowing the potential consequences, does their original (conscious) consent apply?
It's fair to suggest that if the SCOC requires ongoing (conscious) consent before and during the activity; other activities mentioned in this thread (ie surgery) can be equally as applicable.
There's an acronym in BDSM, SSC. It stands for safe, sane, consensual.
There are safe words, so that at any given moment, a person can withdraw consent. Anyone that participates as an ethical member of said community, knows, that as soon as someone passes out, you stop.
They can no longer use a safe word, or maintain consent.
The SCC didn't just pull this out of their collective asses.