Friday, November 09, 2007

Australian Law That Defines Consent Opposed By Bar Association

From the Daily Telegraph:

The NSW [in Australia] Bar Associations reckons the “No means no” law goes too far and will lobby Upper House members to vote against it when it is up for debate next week.

The law will define the meaning of consent for the first time, making it clear that being drunk or under the influence of drugs does not mean consent has been given.

It will also introduce an “objective fault test”, meaning a man can no longer use the defence that he thought he had consent if the circumstances appear unreasonable.
“It will turn our sons into criminals,” new Bar Association president Anna Katzmann SC said yesterday.

Katzmann then goes on to give a familiar scenario that reinforces the rape apologist's mantra: Most of those who report rape did willfully consent to sex while impaired and are just suffering from morning after regret.

The problem with this mantra is that this so-called willfully consenting can happen while women are asleep or unconscious.

What isn't suprising is that those who likely claim that rape is rare predict that more precise definitions of consent for sex will expose how common rape really is. That's a bad thing. So to is punishing all those opportunistic rapists who are the sons of lawyers and other respectable folk.

If this current standard that the bar association is defending is true legal consent then it must be applied to all non-sex crimes where consent is a defense.

That means it isn't a crime if your best friend waited for you to pass out before grabbing your wallet, taking all your cash and then maxing out your credit and debit cards to buy all the cool products for himself, it was a gift from you to him. You never showed any negative reaction to his actions even though he did it all in your presence. The fact that you had your fingerprint scanned on certain accounts before transactions draining those accounts were approved proves that you cooperated in these financial transactions.

Reporting him to the police would be nothing more than morning-after regret on your part. You need to be held accountable for your bad decisions -- even if you were drunk or drugged out.

You can't be allowed to call your best friend a thief. If we use the current standards around rape, there should also be a call for you to be prosecuted for filing a false police report. Restitution and some jail time might teach you to be more responsible in the future.

“The stupid, the negligent, the intoxicated, the crazy will be treated as if they are the same as the true rapist, who knows there is no consent to sexual intercourse,” Mr Odgers [Chair of the Bar Association’s criminal law committee] said.

The stupid, the negligent, the intoxicated, the crazy that Odgers refers to are getting their consent not from those they want to have sex with but from people like Odgers. "You say no, but the bar association says yes. They -- and I -- win. And we want to keep it that way."

hat tip: The Curvature

Technorati tags:


Bookmark and Share
posted by Marcella Chester @ 1:08 PM   0 comments links to this post


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home