“I’ve read a few articles about it. I think it’s a really positive thing and I’m really glad to see the White House taking a strong stance,” Chris Priore, a student at Stony Brook University in New York, said. “I think it’s really good that it’s not just talking to the person who’s the victim and saying hey, this is how you can get out of this situation, and putting it on them — instead it’s making it so the whole community is culpable for it.”
“We have no tolerance for sexual assault on our campus,” UF President Bernie Machen said in a statement. “The university is committed to providing a safe and inclusive environment for every member of the UF community. We must strive to protect all of our students from sexual harassment and assault, and do everything in our power to promote a safe learning environment.”
Savannah Badalich turned the trauma of sexual assault into campus activism with a fight that led to a California law called Affirmative Consent. Students are debating if Canada needs this policy but we already have the equivalent of Affirmative Consent.
Requirements for affirmative sexual consent, or communicated voluntary agreement, were explicitly proposed in Canadian legal literature in 1986, (1) codified in the 1992 Criminal Code amendments, (2) and recognized as an essential element of the common law and statutory definitions of sexual consent by the Supreme Court of Canada in a series of cases decided since 1994.
Quote:Requirements for affirmative sexual consent, or communicated voluntary agreement, were explicitly proposed in Canadian legal literature in 1986, (1) codified in the 1992 Criminal Code amendments, (2) and recognized as an essential element of the common law and statutory definitions of sexual consent by the Supreme Court of Canada in a series of cases decided since 1994.
This may have been discussed earlier in the thread but I hadn't realized how very different the definitions of sexual assault can be across jurisdictions in the U.S. , with individual universities layering their own definitions on top of state and federal definitions.
and yet for 4 years now Firefly has rambled on " but EVERYONE knows what consent is".
She also was claiming for years that the definition of consent has not changed. Dont think she will trot that lie out anymore.
Until it was amended in 1982 the Criminal Code contained the offence of rape. The offence required proof that a man had sexual intercourse with a woman other than his wife without the woman's consent. It was punishable by up to life imprisonment. The offence of rape, perhaps more than any other offence, demonstrated the tensions arising in CRIMINAL LAW from conflicting principles: the presumption of innocence (and thus, the requirement that the Crown prove all of the elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt) and the need to protect potential victims and to punish offenders. The emotional and traumatic nature of the trial (which might include cross-examination of the complainant about her prior sexual conduct with the accused and others), aggravated by the feelings of shame and degradation suffered by a rape victim, may contribute to the fact that rape is an underreported crime. Sometimes the accused is a "friend" or relative, which leads to the imposition of even greater pressure upon the complainant.
Abolition of the Rape Offence
With the passing of Bill C-127, Parliament has abolished the offence of rape, replacing it with the offences of sexual assault. A major purpose of the change was to emphasize that the offence, although sexually related, was essentially a crime of violence, mostly against women. The legislation reflects this in establishing 3 categories of sexual assault: basic sexual assault (ie, sexual touching or sexual intercourse without consent) punishable by up to 10 years' imprisonment; sexual assault with a weapon or threatened violence, punishable by up to 14 years in prison; and aggravated sexual assault, in which the victim is wounded or disfigured, punishable by up to life imprisonment. The distinction between men and women in the idea that only men could commit rape was abolished, since sexual assault is a crime which either sex can commit; spousal immunity was ended (ie, sexual conduct between spouses must now be consensual); proof of vaginal penetration by the penis is no longer a requirement, and so failing to report the crime within a matter of hours (and certainly a day) is no longer fatal to the Crown's case because of insufficient evidence; and the doctrine of recent complaint was abolished so that failure to complain at the first reasonable opportunity no longer harms the complainant's credibility.
Things have changed since Florida State quarterback Jameis Winston was accused of the same.
With these new affirmative consent initiatives colleges are trying to prevent such crimes, but it's worth noting that Canada no longer uses the criminal offense of rape.
This law isn't taking into consideration that women can lie by saying 'I said no, he forced me', which does happen.
Men will do most anything for good pussy...