"In the absence of a constitutional challenge, the appropriate body to amend the sexual assault consent law is Parliament if it considers it necessary.
'Give it to you, the House of Commons. No?
Are you in a bad mood?
Maybe we should dim the lights.
As far as the Supreme Court of Canada is concerned, it has passed 6-
The decision, announced on Friday, was about clearly pressing issues while unconsciously, bundling and pushing the rectum up with a false penis.
Considered sexual assault.
We're not all happy. this is half. cleared up?
When writing for the majority, Judge Beverly mclaclin did point out: "In some cases, the concept of consent adopted by Parliament seems unrealistic.
This is a mouthful.
Technically, if the decision is reached to an illogical conclusion, sex with a snoozing partner may be equivalent to anal sex with a sex toy against a non-affectionate partner.
Believe me, there will always be someone ready to seize an unexpected legal loophole.
Unlike their cousins in the provincial court of appeal, the Supreme Court has not been forced to hear every single case brought forward for their deliberate consideration.
When a person seeks permission to appeal to the country's Supreme Court, they do not even need to give a reason for the rejection.
But when the decision of the lower court of appeal is not unanimously passed --
As a result, the business between a couple who are only called J. has become a mess. A and K. D. —
The court that finally appealed to justice was obliged to hear the dispute again on the basis of the petition. The mink-
There is no doubt that the trimmed courts have many important things to do, so there is a precedent
In the case of a woman, she was disturbed by her husband while she was lying . . . . . . Well, it's not sleep, it's lights --
Freed from erotic suffocation, she allows her husband to suffocate her, tie her up, and pierce her with a fake penis.
The lady then withdrew her consent retroactively, but changed her mind again at the trial.
"Yes" means "no" according to the Supreme Court's calculation, even if the complainant says "yes"no-
Yes, and admitted after the oath that the charge was made-
Two months after the incident.
Custody dispute between the couple
Or, as the majority decision on Friday said: "Yes, in fact it means no legally.
A completely contradictory statement
Law is good for them.
However, in the case of thinking before the Supreme Court, the concept makes sense: women's right to withdraw consent at any time during sexual activity, and the legal presumption that consent cannot be granted when an individual is unaware --
Fainting, vomiting blood or coma
It seems obvious.
However, these circumstances do not fully apply in these cases, as found by the Ontario Court of Appeal when these tall foreheads overturned their convictions last year.
It is true that the intricate details are so specific to the couple's relationship that when the Crown seeks appeals and legal education and action for women, there seems to be no good reason to invest it in the highest fund for all (LEAF)
Intervenors in the case.
A basic rule of thumb is that bad cases lead to bad laws.
It was never an unpleasant thing about sex, nor did a man take advantage of an unconscious partner.
On the contrary, the allegation is seen as a means to achieve another goal altogether --
Transfer his threat to have him charged with serious sexual assault in order to seek sole custody of their children
Subsequently, the plaintiff expressed regret and revoked it.
The couple only knew the initials because of the publication ban.
One night in 2007, when they moved from the living room sofa to the bedroom to have sex, K. D.
Agree to suffocate.
It is obvious to some that this feeling can aggravate the sexual experience.
When the parties agree to this activity, of course I am not here to judge the sex life of anyone.
The court should not do the same. K. D.
Not only agreed to suffocate beforehand, but also agreed-
Counsel for the defendant pleaded and the complainant later admitted
When she was in a coma, she inserted a false penis.
"At the moment, I just do it in the spirit of the experiment," she testified . ".
According to her own estimate, K. D.
After a coma of about three minutes, when she woke up, she was found to have been ruthlessly penetrated by many people in Deere.
Taken out after about 10 seconds, the couple then had vaginal sex.
There is no evidence that the woman had done anything against her will, that the permission had been revoked by language or conduct, that the husband had not determined or misunderstood that it had been agreed, or this consent has been "vandalized" in some way by intentionally causing bodily harm.
In fact, the trial judge, who sent her husband to prison for sexual assault, acquitted him on charges of serious beating and beating for physical injury, and finally, the wife agreed to suffocate and did not suffer physical injury, "Because the unconscious she experienced was only short-lived.
But she was convicted of sexual assault. D.
Cannot "legally agree to the sexual act that occurs when she is unconscious.
"According to the existing definition of consent in Parliament, the Supreme Court agrees with this key point --
The complainant is required to remain awake throughout the sexual acts in question.
"The definition of consent by Parliament does not include prior consent to the sexual act committed by the complainant unconsciously.
The majority of the decisions emphasized that the concept "produces fair results in the vast majority of cases and has proven to be of great value in combating stereotypes that have existed in history ".
But in writing the objection, Judge Morris Fish emphasized the point: "One of the fundamental principles of the Canadian sexual assault Act is that it does not represent" no ", only" yes ". ’ K. D.
"The provisions of the Criminal Code on consent to sexual contact and case law are intended to protect women from abuse by others.
Their goal is to safeguard and strengthen women's sexual autonomy rather than to make choices for them. ”K. D.
Made the choice and made it clear.
But the Supreme Court
Basically childish to women.
Otherwise it has been ruled.
If I could understand why.
Rosie DiManno usually appears on Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday.