The 'thanks' my posts have received would seem to indicate the general pulse is people agree with me.
That's a curious conclusion to draw considering the proportion of users who thanked your posts relative to the number of users who did not thank your posts. (I hope that doesn't sound snarky; not intending it to.)
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
The 'thanks' my posts have received would seem to indicate the general pulse is people agree with me. It's hardly setting a precedent to have a way off-topic thread be moved to the off-topic forum. This is the only thread in 'Fire and Ice' that isn't hockey related. And yes, I think it's fine to expect that moderators would move threads that don't belong in specific sections. That's what they signed up for.
9 thanks out of how many registered active users, yeah it seems conclusive.
As Makarov points out, these are serious topics. Ignoring them, or putting them somewhere out of sight doesn't make them go away.
yeah, definitely the worst of the 4 summers since my join date (which sadly does not include lurk date). if there was a more contentious hockey off-season on this board that you can remember, I'm glad I wasn't around for it...
All the summers are bad. Though lockout year was bad, especially since we just got robbed. Had we been our regular non playoff self, probably a lot quieter.
9 thanks out of how many registered active users, yeah it seems conclusive.
As Makarov points out, these are serious topics. Ignoring them, or putting them somewhere out of sight doesn't make them go away.
Oh right, I will defer to all those posts with 3000+ likes as the only ones the board liked...
10+ is really indicating how people are feeling. 60+ for sureloss saying something funny. 150+ for AC posting one of his compilation videos. 200+ for legendary Wannamaker videos.
Oh right, I will defer to all those posts with 3000+ likes as the only ones the board liked...
10+ is really indicating how people are feeling. 60+ for sureloss saying something funny. 150+ for AC posting one of his compilation videos. 200+ for legendary Wannamaker videos.
In railing against this thread being off topic, you've successfully derailed it further. Congratulations.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Five-hole For This Useful Post:
Just some more interesting statistics re conviction rates for sexual assault in Canada:
Quote:
Despite legislative changes and efforts to better support victims, conviction rates remain lower for sexual assault than for all but one of the other violent crimes tracked in Statistics Canada’s Adult Criminal Court Statistics for 2010–2011.
There are various factors at play, including reliance on myths and stereotypes to discourage the complainant from testifying in court and to attack the credibility of the complainant. Such testimony is generally crucial for the prosecution of a sexual assault case, as there may be no witnesses and little other evidence. Victims may also choose not to continue with the judicial process for various complex reasons.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Throw me in the camp who comes in here looking for actual Kane news only to get frustrated that it's all about sexual assault in general. One more vote for taking that to off-topic.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Frequitude For This Useful Post:
MBates - you say the law of consent relating to sexual assault is unsettled? That's simply not true. There's been no changes in the law for years, and the test is pretty well established.
The law as it is written down in the code may be settled. It's real-life applications (which is what matters in the end) are not. The court cases I have noted here show actual significant disagreement among judges as to whether a person committed a criminal sexual assault or engaged in perfectly legal consensual activity. The disagreement is in how to apply the code sections you have linked. The "law" includes both the code text and common law judicial interpretations of it.
Imagine being an accused person having had your case assessed by 13 judges and them being split on whether you are a criminal who will go to prison and be listed as a sex offender for 20 years or whether you are a law abiding citizen who goes home found not to have committed a crime.
From that actual SCC case in 2011:
Quote:
The only question before this Court is whether consent for the purposes of sexual assault requires the complainant to be conscious throughout the sexual activity. This is because the Crown appeals to this Court as of right on the basis of “any question of law on which a judge of the court of appeal dissents”: Criminal Code , s. 693(1) (a). Accordingly, whether the complainant consented in fact or suffered bodily harm are not at issue; nor is the Court of Appeal’s holding that, for reasons of procedural fairness, the Crown in this case cannot rely on bodily harm to vitiate consent since it did not formally allege that bodily harm occurred. Since the issue of bodily harm is not before this Court, I take no position on whether or in which circumstances individuals may consent to bodily harm during sexual activity. In my view, it would be inappropriate to decide the matter without the benefit of submissions from interested groups.
The dissenting opinion agreed on this point, quite literally writing that "the issue of bodily harm must be left for another day."
You say I am posting things which are "simply not true". The court that decides these issues for every person in the entire country says you are wrong. Nowhere in your link to the text of the legislation can you find the reality that the SCC has deliberately left it an undecided issue just how much bodily harm a Canadian can legally consent to during sex.
While the prior consent issue itself is now resolved by virtue of this case, this excerpt of the dissenting opinion shows how unsettled the issue was and may give a preview of the complete lack of consensus on future issues such as the one of bodily harm:
Quote:
It is a fundamental principle of the law governing sexual assault in Canada that no means “no” and only yes means “yes”.
K.D., the complainant in this case, said yes, not no. She consented to her erotic asphyxiation by the respondent, J.A., her partner at the time. Their shared purpose was to render K.D. unconscious and to engage in sexual conduct while she remained in that state. It is undisputed that K.D.’s consent was freely and voluntarily given — in advance and while the conduct was still in progress. Immediately afterward, K.D. had intercourse with J.A., again consensually.
K.D. first complained to the police nearly two months later when J.A. threatened to seek sole custody of their two-year-old child. She later recanted.
We are nonetheless urged by the Crown to find that the complainant’s yes in fact means no in law. With respect for those who are of a different view, I would decline to do so.
The provisions of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 , regarding consent to sexual contact and the case law (including R. v. Ewanchuk, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 330) relied on by the Crown were intended to protect women against abuse by others. Their mission is not to “protect” women against themselves by limiting their freedom to determine autonomously when and with whom they will engage in the sexual relations of their choice. Put differently, they aim to safeguard and enhance the sexual autonomy of women, and not to make choices for them.
The Crown’s position, if adopted by the Court, would achieve exactly the opposite result. It would deprive women of their freedom to engage by choice in sexual adventures that involve no proven harm to them or to others. That is what happened here.
Adopting the Crown’s position would also require us to find that cohabiting partners across Canada, including spouses, commit a sexual assault when either one of them, even with express prior consent, kisses or caresses the other while the latter is asleep. The absurdity of this consequence makes plain that it is the product of an unintended and unacceptable extension of the Criminal Code provisions upon which the Crown would cause this appeal to rest.
Lest I be misunderstood to suggest otherwise, I agree that consent will be vitiated where the contemplated sexual activity involves a degree of bodily harm or risk of fatal injury that cannot be condoned under the common law, or on grounds of public policy. Asphyxiation to the point of unconsciousness may well rise to that level, but the contours of this limitation on consent have not been addressed by the parties. Nor has the matter been previously considered by the Court. For procedural reasons as well, the issue of bodily harm must be left for another day.
I agree as well that prior consent affords no defence where it is later revoked or where the ensuing conduct does not comply with the consent given.
Applying these principles here, I would dismiss the appeal.
Finally, I think it helpful to set out succinctly the issue on this appeal.
According to the Chief Justice, the question is “whether an unconscious person can qualify as consenting [to sexual activity]” (para. 33). With respect, that is not the question at all: No one has suggested in this case that an unconscious person can validly consent to sexual activity.
Rather, the question is whether a conscious person can freely and voluntarily consent in advance to agreed sexual activity that will occur while he or she is briefly and consensually rendered unconscious. My colleague would answer that question in the negative; I would answer that question in the affirmative, absent a clear prohibition in the Criminal Code , absent proven bodily harm that would vitiate consent at common law, and absent any evidence that the conscious partner subjected the unconscious partner to sexual activity beyond their agreement.
In this case, J.A. engaged with K.D. in sexual activity to which K.D. freely consented while conscious. The Chief Justice would nonetheless convict J.A. of sexual assault, a serious crime. I oppose this result. In my respectful view, it is unwarranted as a matter of statutory interpretation, prior decisions of the Court, or considerations of policy. And it is wrong on the facts of this case.
That is what divides us. The rest is commentary.
In 2013 the U of A and U of C law schools debated this case during their annual Alberta Court of Appeal moot competition - specifically to argue the yet to be decided question whether during BDSM type sex a person can voluntarily consent both in fact and in law to being injured to the point of "bodily harm" in the Criminal Code. I tried to find a link but I can't. I was the U of C team instructor...you can believe me or not on the point.
I dare say that for someone like Kane who may be charged with sex assault including an allegation of leaving bite marks this unsettled area of the law (if it is also that way in New York) could make or break the case. Depending, of course, on upon the actual facts and evidence or lack thereof.
^ I completely agree that there are many difficult questions regarding sex and consent that remain unanswered (and no doubt some that remain unasked so far.) Questions regarding our ability to consent to potentially dangerous or harmful sexual activity (the BDSM question) or the findings that a cognitively disabled person lacks the capacity to consent (essentially condemning that complainant to a life of celibacy) are particularly difficult.
However, the vast majority of people in Canada are not confronted with these difficult questions in their day to day life. For most of us, I think, consent is pretty easy to recognize (generally speaking).
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Can we change the thread title? Clearly not a discussion about WHAT is happening with Kane.
EDIT!!
I know. I keep clicking on this assuming there was some development, but instead get presented with multiple masters theses on the failings of Webster's definition of rape.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flames89 For This Useful Post:
The 'thanks' my posts have received would seem to indicate the general pulse is people agree with me. It's hardly setting a precedent to have a way off-topic thread be moved to the off-topic forum. This is the only thread in 'Fire and Ice' that isn't hockey related. And yes, I think it's fine to expect that moderators would move threads that don't belong in specific sections. That's what they signed up for.
Oh please. Your post got 9 thanks out of the nearly 1,000 people that have visited the site today. Let's not use "Thanks" as a metric for anything.
You asked why the thread hasn't been moved - I answered. I don't have a problem moving a thread if it should be. But I think this is an important topic and people should discuss it. If it is getting a little uncomfortable that comes with the territory, but the alternative is to just brush it under the rug.
You can take part in the conversation or not. Your choice.
There are other venues where if you want "just the news" you can get it.
The Following User Says Thank You to JiriHrdina For This Useful Post:
I know. I keep clicking on this assuming there was some development, but instead get presented with multiple masters theses on the failings of Webster's definition of rape.
When there is an update we will update the thread title accordingly.
The Following User Says Thank You to JiriHrdina For This Useful Post:
Though lockout year was bad, especially since we just got robbed. Had we been our regular non playoff self, probably a lot quieter.
