Get consent (in writing, if you can)

[thodisipagal]

John Boehner (not former House Speaker of the US) wanted to bone a hot chick one winter day in Vancouver. He did a quick search on the internet and called Meghan Faux. Miss Faux, a curvaceous and vivacious woman in her late 20s, was available an hour later.

John was buzzed up when he arrived at her Coal Harbor condo tower. His heart raced by her beauty and her oomph. She welcomed him with a hug and a kiss. He put the donation on the table and with it she momentarily disappeared, telling him to get comfortable in the bedroom.

When she joined him in bed in her birthday suit, he pulled her in his arms, wrapping an arm around her shoulders. His right hand fondled her ample breasts and lowered his head to suck on her nipple. Before he did that, he made sure to seek her verbal consent, "May I?" Miss Faux replied, "Yes, please. Suck my nipple." He sucked on her right nipple. The detailed oriented man that he was, he noted that Miss Faux said, "Suck my nipple."

He paused and gingerly asked, "Do you consent to my sucking your left nipple, too?"

Mr Boehner was a smart man. He watched TV and was aware of what is going on in a court in Toronto with Jian Ghomeshi. He didn't want to take chance and have Miss Faux charge him with sucking tits without the lady's consent.

"John, darling, aren't you coming to bed, honey? It's late," He was startled by his wife and woken from his dream.

He looked at the wife, who was feeling overly amorous in her sheer nightie. She pulled him toward her. "Touch me," she whispered.

After a good thirty seconds of thinking, he asked, "Do you consent to touching your hoo-haa or just your ta-tas?"

 

[wetnose]

It's pointless to get consent since she can claim she never gave it. If you really want to protect yourself, you need a videographer for her testimony, a breathanalyzer and a notary.

 

[Billiam]

Your trivializing of a sexual assault case currently underway is quite disturbing. There is no joke in all of this.

 

[thodisipagal]

Your trivializing of a sexual assault case currently underway is quite disturbing. There is no joke in all of this.

If anybody is trivializing sexual assault, it is the three Crown witnesses in the Ghomeshi case.

Because of their unreliable testimony, thousands of women who are assaulted sexually will be discouraged to come forward.

 

[Billiam]

Don't know where you get the notion that their testimony is unreliable as you are not at the trial and have heard only a tiny portion of the case being reported by the media.
And my opinion is that BECAUSE of their courage to come forward and give their evidence, others will ENCOURAGED to come forward in this case and others.
Victims trivializing sexual assault by coming forward - what a bizarre and callous notion (much like your original post).

 

[mikehawksbig]

Your trivializing of a sexual assault case currently underway is quite disturbing. There is no joke in all of this.

This, and the fact there is no such thing as consent in this case. The Supreme Court has ruled that person cannot consent to an assault that causes bodily harm. This is likely why the defence has skirted the issue of whether or not the witnesses consented and focused more on whether the testimony about whether it actually happened or not is reliable.

If you cause someone bodily harm, you have committed assault under the law. It doesn't matter whether or not it was asked for or consented to. Or whether it was notarized.

In the end, it is still incontrovertibly true that Ghomeshi gets off on violence towards women. He publicized that fact himself.

 

[thodisipagal]

This, and the fact there is no such thing as consent in this case. The Supreme Court has ruled that person cannot consent to an assault that causes bodily harm. This is likely why the defence has skirted the issue of whether or not the witnesses consented and focused more on whether the testimony about whether it actually happened or not is reliable.

If you cause someone bodily harm, you have committed assault under the law. It doesn't matter whether or not it was asked for or consented to. Or whether it was notarized.

In the end, it is still incontrovertibly true that Ghomeshi gets off on violence towards women. He publicized that fact himself.

What do you think of BDSM?

 

[thodisipagal]

Don't know where you get the notion that their testimony is unreliable as you are not at the trial and have heard only a tiny portion of the case being reported by the media.
And my opinion is that BECAUSE of their courage to come forward and give their evidence, others will ENCOURAGED to come forward in this case and others.
Victims trivializing sexual assault by coming forward - what a bizarre and callous notion (much like your original post).

I have never met Justin Trudeau. Is he my prime minister? Is that your argument?

 

[Billiam]

Justin Trudeau? WTF? Apparently your meds need adjusting.

 

[mikehawksbig]

What do you think of BDSM?

Why does it matter what I think? There is no such thing as legal consent with respect to bodily harm - sexual encounter or otherwise. Whether I agree or disagree with this is irrelevant.

This article from last year lays some of it out. Note the part about prior consent not being determinative, even with BDSM: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/the-ghomeshi-question-the-law-and-consent/article21315629/

 

[thodisipagal]

Why does it matter what I think? There is no such thing as legal consent with respect to bodily harm - sexual encounter or otherwise. Whether I agree or disagree with this is irrelevant.

This article from last year lays some of it out. Note the part about prior consent not being determinative, even with BDSM: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/the-ghomeshi-question-the-law-and-consent/article21315629/

You are probably right that one cannot lawfully consent to activities that inflict bodily harm. Let me agree with you on that.

But, what the lawyer of the accused is trying to do in the court is to discredit all three key Crown witnesses such that it will be difficult for the judge to rule in favor of Crown. If he couldn't, then Crown didn't prove that Ghomeshi sexually attacked, consent or no consent. I suggest you read the other Ghomeshi thread on this board for some snippets.

 

[thodisipagal]

Justin Trudeau? WTF? Apparently your meds need adjusting.

Sure, Dr. Billiam, I'll take your medical advice and adjust my medication.

 

[yazoo]

Don't know where you get the notion that their testimony is unreliable as you are not at the trial and have heard only a tiny portion of the case being reported by the media.

You have only heard the same tiny portion of the case, yet have reached the conclusion that a man, who should be considered innocent until proven guilty, is guilty. All because of some PC notion that saintly women can do no harm and men are always evil. No-one should go to jail because they 'might' have committed a crime - just to satisfy some agenda.

 

[Billiam]

Where the fuck did I say he was guilty?

 

[mikehawksbig]

You are probably right that one cannot lawfully consent to activities that inflict bodily harm. Let me agree with you on that.

But, what the lawyer of the accused is trying to do in the court is to discredit all three key Crown witnesses such that it will be difficult for the judge to rule in favor of Crown. If he couldn't, then Crown didn't prove that Ghomeshi sexually attacked, consent or no consent. I suggest you read the other Ghomeshi thread on this board for some snippets.

That was my only point. But you are explaining criminal defence 101 - creating reasonable doubt. That's the defence counsel's job. No surprise there.

I've been sitting in the media gallery in the courtroom most of the week. I'm not unclear on the defence tactic.

 

[thodisipagal]

That was my only point. But you are explaining criminal defence 101 - creating reasonable doubt. That's the defence counsel's job. No surprise there.

I've been sitting in the media gallery in the courtroom most of the week. I'm not unclear on the defence tactic.

Came across this article by a law professor.

http://ablawg.ca/2016/02/08/reflections-on-week-one-of-the-ghomeshi-trial/

The professor does speak in support of the prosecution but also says, "The testimony at the first week of the trial indicates that the question of whether one can legally consent to sexual activity involving choking is less likely to be the focus than whether the sexual assaults actually occurred and / or whether there was consent to the sexual activity in fact."

Interestingly, contact sports like boxing, kick boxing, wrestling, etc. would all be illegal sports if one could not consent to activities leading to bodily harm.

I mean, how many times has Mike Tyson been bloodied in the face?

 

[thodisipagal]

To those who took offence to my OP, I just want to say that it was not my intension to belittle the case, much less belittle sexual assault and sexual harassment in particular and misogyny in general. I feel strongly about these issues.

My intention was to draw attention to the impact of this case and sexual assault and harassment cases like this in society. While we cannot and must not sweep sexual assault complaints under the carpet, we must not treat the accused as guilty until proven so in a court of law. That is the fundamental tenet of our criminal law. One is and must be presumed innocent and the burden of proof lies with the prosecutor.

A subliminal dynamics is also at play here. Sexual assault and murder cases evoke raw sentiments and passion. We must always remember it is too easy to speak in support of prosecution of these crimes. Who wouldn't? But just because we feel so strongly about these crimes, we can't slip burden to disprove on the shoulders of the accused. Making objective observation is not endorsing crime or criminals.

Also, while having a debate, it is not necessary to insult others.

 

[windowshopr]

Interestingly, contact sports like boxing, kick boxing, wrestling, etc. would all be illegal sports if one could not consent to activities leading to bodily harm.

I mean, how many times has Mike Tyson been bloodied in the face?

I thought of this the other day. So - in Canada, one can not consent to any actions causing bodily harm? Is that correct? If that's the case, how do any contact sports bypass the law? The argument that one's a 'sport' and one is... personal fun but illegal would be ludicrous in my mind.

 

[vancity_cowboy]

how about hockey? ound:

 

[Tugela]

This, and the fact there is no such thing as consent in this case. The Supreme Court has ruled that person cannot consent to an assault that causes bodily harm. This is likely why the defence has skirted the issue of whether or not the witnesses consented and focused more on whether the testimony about whether it actually happened or not is reliable.

If you cause someone bodily harm, you have committed assault under the law. It doesn't matter whether or not it was asked for or consented to. Or whether it was notarized.

In the end, it is still incontrovertibly true that Ghomeshi gets off on violence towards women. He publicized that fact himself.

Is that so? Ever been to a boxing match?

Random violence in professionals sports, such as hockey, almost never gets charged even though it is viewed publically by millions, because there is such a thing as implied consent.

Of course you can consent to such things. The question a court would ask is if consent was given, or reasonably would have been implied considering the overall nature of what you did consent to.