Canada to change sex assault consent laws and better protect victims in court

[The One Percent]

Yep, there are a few cases where this happens and in the cases that this does happen this is very tragic but hopefully you can understand that the scale of this is extremely small compared to the number of women who get raped, or even the amount of men who get correctly sentenced due to rape?

There are not just a few cases. This is a small sampling that I showed. The current system is already incredibly sympathetic to female rape victims. There is no need to make it even easier to make false allegations and have it stick.

[shadowmouse]

As you state though, the precedents set by the court dictate that the actual article of law is irrelevant.

As you state, however, you are wearing a tortoise on top of your head. Wait, you didn't say that? Odd, because I didn't say what you attribute to me. Stop letting the tortoise whisper things in your ear and stick to what I actually say. This is not an example of something like an outdated blue law, this is something that is indirectly a reflection of social values. There is no need to derail this towards being a discussion of LGBTQ rights, a banned topic, since it criminalizes something purely on which hole is being used, and yet as a symbol of social values it would be odd to see this as anything other than homophobic. That's a shocking contrast to OP's claims about Canada as a shining example of fairness and rights. If I recall, that's reflected in his statement about location: "you wish you lived here" and a running theme in his posts.

As long as people arn't being arrested/prosecuted for ''wrong hole'', what is the point you are trying to make?

And you're just being willfully obtuse.

First, where is your evidence that nobody gets charged with this? You're demanding proofs from others on their points, hold yourself to the same standard. In this case, however, there is a further issue -- does this have a chilling effect by saying that Canada as a nation believes it should be outright criminal for Jack to "ook Jill in the dooker"?

Second, I've made it quite clear -- and you willfully fail to understand -- that this law is not being handled as part of C-51. C-51 is the general clean up act, the one that addresses laws as out of date or brings things in line with various court's holdings. To treat it as a separate law whose repeal is in question is to treat it as still having relevance in 2017, unlike the dueling law for example. Having a "wrong hole!" law at this date in history is an example of Canada not being a world leader in rights -- you do recall that is what OP wanted to use C-51 to show, that Canada was a shining example -- and instead being shockingly out of touch with modern trends by criminalizing an act purely because of which orifice is getting used.

>>>>>"Wrong hole!" Not modern. Not shining example. Should not need any more separate consideration than, say, the law on challenging someone to a duel. Capisce?

Too young to consent to that? There are or should be laws to cover that point, and whether one is too young to consent to older people who want to lick peanut butter off of their toes. Jill does not want Jack to ook her in the dooker? That's also lack of consent, and should be covered by other laws.

While section 159 does not seem to address gender roles, nor do I want to derail to that, I'll leave you with an article on a similar situation in the US: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...uling/7981025/

Some anti-sodomy laws, including Louisiana's, use one statute to prohibit both consensual sodomy and aggravated sodomy. Opponents of the repeal argued that it would eliminate protections from oral and anal sexual assault.

Warbelow said lawmakers could have addressed this concern by rewriting their sexual-assault statutes. While doing so might have been a daunting task, it would have been better than keeping the anti-sodomy laws and relying on courts to uphold the Supreme Court decision, she said.

[Gangresnake]

It is not about ''not liking'' the information being out in the open, it's just that that information is irrelevant to the case and therefore there is no point bringing it up. It is similar to claiming that because someone kicked a kitten once she is more likely to lie about being raped.

You dont know if it's irrelevant or not, it could help a jury understand a character, or disprove a previous testimony, or reinforce a claim.
I'm like a broken record but I have to say it again, if there's no tangible proof and the court decide to "keep looking" by delving into the personal stuff instead of throwing the case, then we're way past the point of "Relevance" at this point anyway.
Which mean you either put everything on the table or you put nothing, and especially no "Defendant get his entire life spread out in the public place while the accuser get to keep her secrets"

Also I dont mind saying that false rape accusation are a minority next to real rape accusation, but they do happen. And they are huge miscarriage of justice that should be prevented in any way possible.
The accuser already got immense power in these cases, giving her more power simply make it entirely worse.

[shadowmouse]

If you look into any Country's laws you'll find a lot of examples of things that are technically illegal but haven't been enforced in decades.

Retired lawyer here, I'm well aware of that. Failure to enforce a law also does not address all of the possible effects of the law. Furthermore, I'm aware that examples of stupidity abound in all walks of life, not just law. It makes them no less stupid, nor does your observation go to the point that OP has a love of posting faux outrage threads often focusing on Canada as being some wonderful example.

Did I go hunting articles and start a thread to bash Canada? No, I used to live there and rather like the place. I responded to Tennisace in one of many Tennisace threads -- notice who is absent from this discussion (Tennisace) -- looked for a Canadian source instead of BBC, found a Canadian government site, had a WTF response to something linked in the side bar. Saying something else dumb exists (look, we have Trump, OK) is a deflection.

[Rotted]

I think it requires common sense if it gets to court tbh,

If someone invites you back to their house and your chatting and they pass out from alcohol, and you proceed to stick your dick in them, that's rape.

If you were in the process or leading up to sex (aka sexual contact) with the alcohol involved, and one of you passes out and the other one continues, then that's grey water in my books.

Honestly, I've on more than one occasion been the less drunk individual with a girl whose passed out or what we call shit the bed drunk, dancing, flirting from the age of 18 to 40s, and as much of a state I've been in (some pretty nasty ass states) I've always taken them home, put them in bed (fully clothed), left a glass of water and walked out while locking up. But I can see how that might be the case for some people

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Retired lawyer here, I'm well aware of that. Failure to enforce a law also does not address all of the possible effects of the law. Furthermore, I'm aware that examples of stupidity abound in all walks of life, not just law. It makes them no less stupid, nor does your observation go to the point that OP has a love of posting faux outrage threads often focusing on Canada as being some wonderful example.

Did I go hunting articles and start a thread to bash Canada? No, I used to live there and rather like the place. I responded to Tennisace in one of many Tennisace threads -- notice who is absent from this discussion (Tennisace) -- looked for a Canadian source instead of BBC, found a Canadian government site, had a WTF response to something linked in the side bar. Saying something else dumb exists (look, we have Trump, OK) is a deflection.

I'm certainly not going to defend Tennisace...but you're doing the same thing... Meeting Faux Outrage with more Faux Outrage. As we both know...those laws you cited to attack tennisace with are not enforced (I'm not even sure they 're even actually enforceable anymore....if they ever were).

[Theodarzna]

Like I was saying before, I do think that it happens and every time someone who is innocent goes to jail is a big deal.

Having said that, you are going to have to agree with me that it happens far less frequently than someone making a legitimate rape claim and that therefore, relatively this issue is more important.

It is not about ''not liking'' the information being out in the open, it's just that that information is irrelevant to the case and therefore there is no point bringing it up. It is similar to claiming that because someone kicked a kitten once she is more likely to lie about being raped.

Even one life throw into jail for a crime they didn't commit is atrocious.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Even one life throw into jail for a crime they didn't commit is atrocious.

I agree...

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"
-William Blackstone

Of course...a lot of people tend to switch their opinion on this as soon as it becomes about the Death Penalty.

[Theodarzna]

I agree...

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"
-William Blackstone

Of course...a lot of people tend to switch their opinion on this as soon as it becomes about the Death Penalty.

I have the same opinion of the Death Penalty.

I would also say there is an implicit statement that the response to false rape accusations and false convictions for rape is to state "Well the MAJORITY of the time its not false!" which has the implicit meaning that those who are accused have lives that are fungible and of little enough value that a loss for them is acceptable if we ensure that accusers absolutely see the person accused get locked up.

Lets not mince words or beat around the bush. That argumentation has the implicit meaning that a mans life (Because lets be real here, it is only men who will get this treatment) is fungible and up for sacrifice for the peace of mine of women.

When we curtail due process and the rights of the accused we are making an implicit value judgement about the importance we place on the people accused or the Demographic for whom this law will most likely affect.

[shadowmouse]

As we both know...those laws you cited to attack tennisace with are not enforced (I'm not even sure they 're even actually enforceable anymore....if they ever were).

No, I don't "know" it. Cough up stats. What I do know, and what I've clearly spelled out, is that this particular law is on the books and -- going by a Canadian government website -- is currently being treated as a separate item from the broader C-51 Act. Why?

As stated in the article I previously linked, sodomy laws function as a social statement, regardless of whether they are enforced. Note that in the article about Louisiana a law that conflicts with a controlling US Supreme Court case was still being used to harass people, and we are unlikely to find clear figures to see if section 159 is being used similarly. For all we know, it is, and it would not necessarily need to be law enforcement doing it for this to be a bad thing.

Long story short, "wrong hole" is a pointless, dated, and insulting law. It sends a message to teens in particular, a group still figuring out their stance on sex and gender roles, that there is a right way to have sex. Defend it or admit that.

Actually, let me just do this ... Beetlejuice, I mean @Endus please ring in as a Canadian and a mod to address the role of law in this instance without diverting into a banned discussion of gender.

[Zython]

If you were in the process or leading up to sex (aka sexual contact) with the alcohol involved, and one of you passes out and the other one continues, then that's grey water in my books.

N...no. That's...that's still rape. Like, "don't fuck people when they're unconscious" is a REALLY easy rule to follow. I'm not fucking an unconscious person right now. See? Easy peasy.

[Seranthor]

Yeeeaaah, you can't just forcefully block pertinent details from reaching a court case. The individual's character is ALWAYS brought to question and if you can bar given details from coming to light against prosecutor, then why can't the defendant have certain details they'd rather not be public, forcefully kept under wraps? Not to mention, these same details would likely, magically, appear in the media regardless as leaks. So what then? Do we start banning the media from allowing them to run what they feel is newsworthy information? ...and it goes on and on and becomes in general, a huge mess.

There really, unfortunately, isn't much you can do for cases like this. There is too much hearsay going on and factual evidence tends to run thin. So at best, character details become EXTREMELY important in helping to come to a decision.

And herein you make my case for me...

[Bakis]

Better late than never Canada.

[Vynny]

The rape shield thing sounds pretty bad imo. I mean since the use of sexual texts, pictures, emails, and videos to cast doubt on a complainant's reliability you could literally video tape everything with the alleged victim enthusiastically saying "yes" the whole time and that could be deemed inadmissible in court with these changes which is really fucked up.

Secondly, the unconscious thing is great. That's pretty much all I have to say about that part.

[Ghostpanther]

Go Canada! I feel it is a good thing. Those who prey on the weak and take advantage of them when they are not in a strong resistance state of mind, are scums.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Long story short, "wrong hole" is a pointless, dated, and insulting law. It sends a message to teens in particular, a group still figuring out their stance on sex and gender roles, that there is a right way to have sex. Defend it or admit that.

Actually, let me just do this ... Beetlejuice, I mean @Endus please ring in as a Canadian and a mod to address the role of law in this instance without diverting into a banned discussion of gender.

I won't defend the law...i do not agree with it...but the law is not enforced.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc...9-qr_s159.html

Section 159 has been found to violate section 15 of the Charter, which guarantees the right to equality, by:

Ontario Court of Appeal in 1995 (C.M.);
Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division in 1995 (Halm);
Quebec Court of Appeal in 1998 (Roy);
Alberta Court of Queen's Bench in 2002 (Roth);
British Columbia Court of Appeal in 2003 (Blake); and,
Nova Scotia Court of Appeal in 2006 (A.S.).
Section 159 was found to violate the Charter's equality guarantee on the basis of marital status, age and sexual orientation because it provides a limited exception for a "husband and wife" only and makes a distinction between the age of consent for anal intercourse, which is 18 years, and the age of consent for other types of sexual activity, which was 14 years until 2008, when it was increased to 16 years. The offence was also found to have a disparate impact on homosexual males, because anal intercourse is a "basic form of sexual expression for gay men" (Ontario Court of Appeal in C.M., 1995, paragraph 21).

[GreenJesus]

The rape shield thing sounds pretty bad imo. I mean since the use of sexual texts, pictures, emails, and videos to cast doubt on a complainant's reliability you could literally video tape everything with the alleged victim enthusiastically saying "yes" the whole time and that could be deemed inadmissible in court with these changes which is really fucked up.

Secondly, the unconscious thing is great. That's pretty much all I have to say about that part.

hahah.. The judge says "pics or it didn't happen"

[Stanislav]

You're giving tennisface exactly what he wants. Food. Don't do that.

yeah it does seem that he has some kind of pull around this OT forum, i guess the mods love his empty bait threads.

i guess instigating people on a forum is rewarded around here.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

yeah it does seem that he has some kind of pull around this OT forum, i guess the mods love his empty bait threads.

i guess instigating people on a forum is rewarded around here.

Tennisace actually gets banned a lot.

[shadowmouse]

the law is not enforced.

Wouldn't that contradict your own damn link? Just be quiet, that's a Trump level of dishonesty. In fact, in the future don't even bring up more of your bullshit about 'well, la, there are all kinds of old laws on the books'.

10. Are charges still being laid and convictions entered under section 159?

Section 159 continues to be charged and convictions continue to be entered, including in jurisdictions in which the offence has been struck down. For example, in 2014/2015, the most recent year for which data on Criminal Code charges is available, there were 69 section 159 (anal intercourse) charges brought before adult courts in Canada, but no convictions. In 2013/2014, there were 98 section 159 (anal intercourse) charges brought before adult courts in Canada, which resulted in 7 convictions under section 159. Since section 159 was enacted in 1988, the conduct at issue in these cases must have occurred after that date, but exactly when that conduct occurred is unknown.