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

[Deleted]

Sometimes it's very hot waking up to your partner fucking, sucking or wanking you

[Aggrophobic]

Don't nation bash Canada

- - - Updated - - -



That's called trolling

Oh, for sure.
But Tennisace usually does it with such style and without actually using insults or anything of the sort.

[shadowmouse]

Says the guys supporting Oklahoma HB 1441 and where is it illegal to have ice cream in his back pocket

Remind me when Oklahoma becomes a nation and I'll get back to you. Until then, I'm not an Oklahoma resident and live on the other side of the planet. As for the ice cream story -- it is attributed to a number of different states but ...

No one seems to know where this law comes from

Source: http://nypost.com/2016/06/19/new-yor...diculous-laws/

Your turn. Go ahead and justify a law against anal intercourse in 2017 in a country being held up as a world leader in rights. Note, the US currently has Trump as a leader, so I make no similar claim.

[Deleted]

I'm not opposed to this legislation, but being Canadian myself I just want to note that not all of us are condescending.

"Hi, i am pretending to be a right wing guy from canada to get an argument going."

I thought false flag attacks are done since right wing rioters tried to show up as antifa to discredit those.

[Zeek Daniels]

If you consent and then black out it's rape. Unless you consent to having sex while sleeping beforehand, I suppose?

Nah because you dont know how long the guy was having sex with you for. What if the guy stops as soon as you blackout and you had been going at it for a few minutes already. Im not talking about you agreeing to have sex and b4 he even puts it in you black out. Im saying you were already fucking and you pass out. How would you know being asleep if he continued or not. If he says he did then sure call it rape, although i dont think it is. But how are you to prove if he didnt stop if he says he stopped. Seeing as how your passed out.

[Shakari]

If trolling is 'not allowed' then it should be universal. Not tennisace troll threads, then banned for 3 days, then more tennisace troll threads, for the past 3 years, its getting really old.

There's a simple solution ... don't troll lol its amazing how people keep doing it then complaining when they get infracted, doesn't matter who or where or if it seems to you to be one sided, simply don't do it or risk the consequences.

On topic, does seem about time a lot of those laws where brought upto date, but there does seem to be a lot of very specific laws. Still would like to see how these changes effect any case as its still one persons word against another...

[Video Games]

Well i suppose this is a good thing.

[Deleted]

They don't need changing, fake victims and liars are already making the system look bad and hurting real sexual assault and rape victims in the process by putting more doubt on the real victims and not enough investigating into false victims.

- - - Updated - - -



It's a mockery of justice when men are getting wrongfully imprisoned for crimes they didn't commit against women, whether they be spouses or not, especially in consenting relationships.

Do you have any statistics to back up the statement that false accusations are becomming more prevalent?
Last I heard it seems to be ~2-10% of all complaints are false (https://icdv.idaho.gov/conference/ha...llegations.pdf) and even less people end up in jail wrongfully.

In the grand scheme of things, that is a relatively small number compared to the legitimate complaints (though obviously, every innocent person in jail is one too many).

Having said that, I do think think a part of this change is somewhat dubious: If you are able to show texts from a girl saying that she wants to have sex, why on earth wouldn't they be admissible? Sure there is a chance that even though she said previously that she wanted it that she then changed her mind, in which case it is still rape, however in ''he said/she said'' cases I do think that supporting evidence for the intent of a sexual relationship on both sides shouldn't be banned.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree. You would have to be an invalid to not take that into consideration. Some people are chronic false accusers. There is an additional problem with those people not being prosecuted or being punished far too lightly.

Do you have any statistics/proof to base this ''chronic false accuser'' thing on?

[Gatsbybutters]

If trolling is 'not allowed' then it should be universal. Not tennisace troll threads, then banned for 3 days, then more tennisace troll threads, for the past 3 years, its getting really old.

If every other thread wasn't trolling or shitposting and I don't have to close out or mute ads it just wouldn't be mmo champion.
Legit have no idea why I even open this site anymore, between op and the jays this whole site is just bait for mod bans and power trips.
Mmo-4chanpion.com

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

World leader? Hardly. The first rape shield law in the US was passed in 1974. Laws change, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. Your specific question, Complainants should have a right to counsel, and if they have a history of false accusations then by all means those should be admissible. To exclude those items that could show consent is asking for reversal in a higher court. In the age of extreme litigiousness, you are going to reach a point where everyone is wearing a bodycam and recording everything as a defense.

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.

[Deleted]

I agree. You would have to be an invalid to not take that into consideration. Some people are chronic false accusers. There is an additional problem with those people not being prosecuted or being punished far too lightly.

Do you have any statistics/proof to base this ''chronic false accuser'' thing on the only time I ever hear about this ''terrible epidemic of false rape accusations'' is on internet forums.

- - - Updated - - -

What happens if you consent then fall unconscious? Also as long as they dont say that drunk people cannot give consent them im ok with this as long as the victim can prove they were sleeping when the rape occurred. Although seems to me males need to start filming themselves getting consent b4 having sex with complete strangers.

Unfortunately that isn't enough either, since consent can be withdrawn at any moment, if you are mid-thrust and she decides she doesn't want it anymore and you keep going against her will, it's still rape.

- - - Updated - - -

Sometimes it's very hot waking up to your partner fucking, sucking or wanking you

To be fair, when someone is your partner it is unlikely he/she will accuse you of rape.

- - - Updated - - -

Remind me when Oklahoma becomes a nation and I'll get back to you. Until then, I'm not an Oklahoma resident and live on the other side of the planet. As for the ice cream story -- it is attributed to a number of different states but ...


Source: http://nypost.com/2016/06/19/new-yor...diculous-laws/

Your turn. Go ahead and justify a law against anal intercourse in 2017 in a country being held up as a world leader in rights. Note, the US currently has Trump as a leader, so I make no similar claim.

To be fair, I think his point is that a lot of countries/places have obsolete laws which are no longer being enforced, both the ice cream and the anal rape laws are examples of that. I would guess its not as simple as saying ''this law is stupid, be gone'' even though no judge would think about enforcing it.

[Alexeht]

In 1992, Canada introduced "rape shield laws" that ban a complainant's sexual history or medical records from being used as evidence that she was likely to have consented to sex or that she was unreliable. The changes proposed on Tuesday would expand these laws to include sexual texts, emails, pictures and videos.

So basically in Canada only women can be raped? Also sexual pictures mean that women cannot wear stuff showing cleavage? So burka/hijab for everyone?

[Deleted]

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.

Yes, defamation of character laws are a thing for a reason.

Also the things being banned arn't random stuff, but information that people often erroneously think is relevant to the case at hand,

Having said that, I would like someone to explain to me how texts in which both parties consent to having sex are irrelevant? Sure, consent may have been withdrawn after those texts were send but if the case is he said-she said I still think that previous intentions should carry some form of weight.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

Yes, defamation of character laws are a thing for a reason.

Also the things being banned arn't random stuff, but information that people often erroneously think is relevant to the case at hand,

Having said that, I would like someone to explain to me how texts in which both parties consent to having sex are irrelevant? Sure, consent may have been withdrawn after those texts were send but if the case is he said-she said I still think that previous intentions should carry some form of weight.

Again, nothing is off limits in a court case... or rather, shouldn't be.

You're talking about lives at stake here. You can't have half-measures because you're putting more weight, by default, on the accuser out of "sympathy". Hell, just the accusation in of itself does a brutal number to the accused's life whether found guilty or not in a court of law.

[shadowmouse]

I would guess its not as simple as saying ''this law is stupid, be gone'' even though no judge would think about enforcing it.

Well, I wouldn't quite call it "simple" and yet ...

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court. The Court struck down the sodomy law in Texas in a 6-3 decision and, by extension, invalidated sodomy laws in 13 other states, making same-sex sexual activity legal in every U.S. state and territory. The Court, with a five-justice majority, overturned its previous ruling on the same issue in the 1986 case Bowers v. Hardwick, where it upheld a challenged Georgia statute and did not find a constitutional protection of sexual privacy.

Lawrence explicitly overruled Bowers, holding that it had viewed the liberty interest too narrowly. The Court held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the 14th Amendment. Lawrence invalidated similar laws throughout the United States that criminalized sodomy between consenting adults acting in private, whatever the sex of the participants

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas emphasis added

For the actual case: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-suprem...t/539/558.html

Responding to a reported weapons disturbance in a private residence, Houston police entered petitioner Lawrence's apartment and saw him and another adult man, petitioner Garner, engaging in a private, consensual sexual act. Petitioners were arrested and convicted of deviate sexual intercourse in violation of a Texas statute forbidding two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct. In affirming, the State Court of Appeals held, inter alia, that the statute was not unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court considered Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U. S. 186, controlling on that point.

Held: The Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause. Pp. 3-18.

[Deleted]

Well, I wouldn't quite call it "simple" and yet ...


Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas emphasis added

For the actual case: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-suprem...t/539/558.html

Not sure what your point is here? Appearently in canada a law isn't invalidated even when the supreme court rules that it is no longer valid, it just stops being applied and then a process like is mentioned in the OP has to be set in motion to actually remove the law? Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?

- - - Updated - - -

Again, nothing is off limits in a court case... or rather, shouldn't be.

You're talking about lives at stake here. You can't have half-measures because you're putting more weight, by default, on the accuser out of "sympathy". Hell, just the accusation in of itself does a brutal number to the accused's life whether found guilty or not in a court of law.

I disagree, if you say ''well the person murdered a puppy when she was young so she probably invented this claim as well'' this is called character assasination and is actually not allowed in a court of law. So there are def things that are and should be off limits.

I am guessing that the things mentioned in the OP (medical records, sexual history) can be seen as the same kind of thing: it is irrelevant to the case if a girl has been promiscuous in the past, bringing up that information is just an attempt to slut-shame.

Having said that, I do agree with you that it is weird that sexual text messages/emails/videos are being excluded as well, especially if they contain clear intent from both parties to engage in sex.

Having said that, obviously if there is strong evidence that one of the parties later withdrew their consent that should nullify the aforementioned information, however I do think it would be relevant in he-said she-said cases and I have yet to see an argument against the use of this specific information, maybe someone could link the original court case where this precedent was set?

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

Not sure what your point is here? Appearently in canada a law isn't invalidated even when the supreme court rules that it is no longer valid, it just stops being applied and then a process like is mentioned in the OP has to be set in motion to actually remove the law? Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?

- - - Updated - - -



I disagree, if you say ''well the person murdered a puppy when she was young so she probably invented this claim as well'' this is called character assasination and is actually not allowed in a court of law. So there are def things that are and should be off limits.

I am guessing that the things mentioned in the OP (medical records, sexual history) can be seen as the same kind of thing: it is irrelevant to the case if a girl has been promiscuous in the past, bringing up that information is just an attempt to slut-shame.

Having said that, I do agree with you that it is weird that sexual text messages/emails/videos are being excluded as well, especially if they contain clear intent from both parties to engage in sex.

Having said that, obviously if there is strong evidence that one of the parties later withdrew their consent that should nullify the aforementioned information, however I do think it would be relevant in he-said she-said cases and I have yet to see an argument against the use of this specific information, maybe someone could link the original court case where this precedent was set?

I believe any and all information is pertinent. If she has a history of sexual deviancy then that should be considered. It doesn't need to be presented as a "silver bullet" but as simply another detail for the jury to consider concerning the character of the accuser.

Hurting animals as a child doesn't equate to the case in any shape nor form and that's why it'd be considered character assassination because you're taking an utterly irrelevant detail in order to slander the opposition. A lifetime of sexual deviancy does however mean something in a case concerning sexual misconduct. It needs to be considered.

Similarly, that can also be brought up with the accused. If he has a history of questionable conduct and sexual activities(particularly rough or power-tripping) then that makes it more believable he could've committed the crime in question. Forcefully omitting details because you feel it isn't fair to a given party isn't really being impartial and weighing all of the facts.

[Ehrenpanzer]

I like how I get infracted for trolling in a tennisace thread who is one of the biggest trolls in the forums. GG mods

I see you've met Endus, our resident "you have a different opinion other then my virtue-signalling ultra liberal bullshit so here's an infraction" moderator......

[shadowmouse]

Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?

Let me back up and take it from the beginning then. OP used a BBC article, despite being a Canadian and having access to Canadian sources to inject the claim "Seems like Canada is a world leader in protecting victims of sexual assault." Go back to the OP, do you see that stated? Look at what has been bolded, is that what it says there? My elderly eyes don't see it if that's the case.

I went to see what a Canadian source would say and found a Canadian government site that went into particulars: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc...-mgnl/c51.html

What I found was that C-51 is described as: Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act. It does incorporate the changes described in the BBC article, but simply as part of a general move to amend the Criminal Code, and it is the same Act brought up as making it legal to challenge someone to a duel. So, no, nothing claiming to be a world leader in protecting victims of sexual assault.

That's when I noticed the side bar had a separate section on Anal Intercourse:

Section 159 of the Criminal Code (Anal Intercourse)

On November 25, 2016, the Government of Canada introduced legislation to eliminate section 159 of the Criminal Code, which makes anal intercourse illegal except when it is conducted in private between two persons who are both 18 years of age or older, or between a married husband and wife.

Learn more about the proposed repeal of section 159.

Notice, C-51 is the clean up Article, this is a separate proposal to eliminate a "Tab A only goes in Slot B" law, not even something LGBTQ specific but a law simply criminalizing "wrong hole!". In 2017. And it is merely proposed. C-51 does away with other laws that can be covered by alternate means, the site uses fraud as an example. Why then wouldn't section 159 be covered by laws protecting the other orifices of minors and their persons?

With that in mind, recall your comment on it being not that simple. My reply was that in the US, the case I cited did just that -- it struck down sodomy laws across the US. Read the Canadian government site link. It contains a section discussing: "Provisions that have been found unconstitutional, or are similar to those found unconstitutional" Do you see 159 or anal intercourse there? Again, I don't.

So, in 2017, Canada still criminalizes "wrong hole!" That still leaves me on WTF Canada? Note that sodomy laws in the US were state laws, and we began moving away from them in the 1960s.

[Mistame]

What a bullshit. Actually, i believe the forum mods do good work on this forum.

Beside the fact that both calling people "trolls" and talking about moderation is against forum rules. Lets return to the topic?

Let's, especially considering that they're not wrong.

As i said, victims need all the support they need. They should get psychological support, they should be allowed to not participate in public cases.

No. An accuser not having to appear in a trial is a blatant miscarriage of justice. In fact, I'd argue that any accuser who doesn't appear in person during a trial should have their case thrown out.

Which doesnt mean a judge needs to drag the victim to the court room to talk about the sexual abuse in detail to a crowd.

You do realize that the onus is on the accuser to prove the accused is guilty, right?

"Hi, i am pretending to be a right wing guy from canada to get an argument going."

I thought false flag attacks are done since right wing rioters tried to show up as antifa to discredit those.

Personal attacks are against forum rules, too, you know. Also, you seem to just be throwing around "right wing" like it's major insult or something. I doubt you even know what it means, given that your English seems to be a bit subpar.