Canada Supreme Court: Saying "no, not without a condom," does not mean “yes, without a condom”

[SaysWho?]

Condom use can be a condition of consent in sexual assault cases, Supreme Court rules | Globalnews.ca

GLOBALNEWS.CA

---

The court ruled on a British Columbia case in which a complainant told a new sexual partner that she would only have sex with him if he wore a condom.

 

Quote

In a 5-4 decision Friday, the top court says that “no, not without a condom” should not be found to mean “yes, without a condom” in a courtroom.

 

The court has ordered a new trial in a British Columbia case in which a complainant told a new sexual partner, Ross McKenzie Kirkpatrick, that she would only have sex with him if he wore a condom.

The fact Kirkpatrick used a condom the first time they had sex led the complainant to assume that he was already wearing one when he initiated sex for a second time, she told the court – but he wasn’t, which she said she did not realize until he ejaculated.

 

[Brick]

Yeah "stealthing" is an issue with douchebag assholes, so this ruling makes sense. 

[Jason]

2 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

“no, not without a condom” should not be found to mean “yes, without a condom”

 

Fright's title:

 

Quote

"I won't have sex, not without a condom," does not mean you've consented to sex with a condom

 

We've been Rileyed!

[Jason]

That or the article needs copy editing.

[CitizenVectron]

I think the topline ruling is pretty obviously correct. The reason it was 5-4 (when Canada's Supreme Court typically rules much more lopsided) is, I think because in this specific case this is what happened:

• Woman was going to have sex with man, but said only if he wore a condom (which he did)
• Later, they were going to have sex again, and she didn't express this opinion again explicitly, and he didn't wear a condom (without her knowledge)

So the question is: If she's set the standard for condom-wearing once, should it be assumed to stand until revoked? Or does she need to express this each time? The court says that yes, consent for a certain act (and excluding other acts) remains in place until revoked, it does not need to be restated each time.

 

I agree with that.

[SaysWho?]

1 minute ago, Jason said:

 

Fright's title:

 

 

We've been Rileyed!

 

???

 

“no, not without a condom” should not be found to mean “yes, without a condom”

 

means

 

"I won't have sex, not without a condom," does not mean you've consented to sex with a condom

[CitizenVectron]

@SaysWho? That makes sense, but the title of the post doesn't:

 

Canada Supreme Court: Saying "I won't have sex, not without a condom," does not mean you've consented to sex with a condom

 

The bolded part should read does not mean you've consented to sex without a condom

[CitizenVectron]

These double negatives should be removed. The best way to phrase this (which media has failed at) is:

 

Canada Supreme Court: Consenting to sex with a condom does not grant consent to sex without a condom

[SaysWho?]

3 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

@SaysWho? That makes sense, but the title of the post doesn't:

 

Canada Supreme Court: Saying "I won't have sex, not without a condom," does not mean you've consented to sex with a condom

 

The bolded part should read does not mean you've consented to sex without a condom

 

Ah, I see; I didn't say without.

 

The negatives are tripping me up.

 

 

[Jason]

The story as presented in the thread title seemed like a story. The actual story seems like a no doi situation and how the fuck did 4 of them rule otherwise? What happened to SCOC justices being better picked @CitizenVectron?

[CitizenVectron]

2 minutes ago, Jason said:

The story as presented in the thread title seemed like a story. The actual story seems like a no doi situation and how the fuck did 4 of them rule otherwise? What happened to SCOC justices being better picked @CitizenVectron?

 

As usual, I imagine it's the specifics of the situation, and details we don't read about in the topline story. Because they are ruling on a specific case, not the idea itself, necessarily.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

This is why teaching clear, affirmative consent from an early age is important for everyone