From cnews.canoe.ca ...
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2010/11/08/16028701.html?cid=ETF
In what Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin called a “funny offence,” the Ontario Court of Appeal in Canada recently overturned a Lower Court decision finding a man guilty of Sexual Assault. The issue hinges on the interesting concept of whether a person can give consent to sexual activities that will eventually occur when that person is unconscious. In this specific case, a woman apparently gave consent to her partner to tie her up, choke her into unconsciousness, and then penetrate her with a dildo. Six weeks after the escapade occurred, she changed her mind and called police, resulting in her partner being charged and convicted of a sexual offense.
This case raises some very interesting issues. Coming to my mind ... What happens if a couple consents to sexual activity before they drink or use mind-altering chemicals and then engage in sex under the influence? Indeed, the implications go even beyond sexual activity to the issue of what can one consent to, while of sound mind, that may ultimately occur when they are not. For instance, if one cannot give advance consent to sexual activity while unconscious, can one in advance refuse life-saving efforts via a "do not rescusitate" order?
The case will now be heard before the Supreme Court in Canada.
RJW
No comments:
Post a Comment