Friday, May 27, 2011

Canada Court Rules That Unconscious People Cannot Consent to Sex, Threatening GOP Bill to Narrow Definition of Rape

CALGARY, Alberta -- In a stunning legal maneuver with sweeping international ramifications, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Friday that unconscious individuals cannot consent to sex. Therefore, having sex with a person who is not conscious at the time constitutes sexual assault. The ruling further stipulates that partners who black out during sex play -- specifically from erotic asphyxiation, even when mutually agreed upon at the start -- shall not be considered consenting under the law. As a result of setting this new precedent, countries around the world expect the law to make its way onto their own books, with detrimental consequences. In the United States, for example, the law threatens to reverse the GOP’s bill to simplify and correct the definition of rape, proposed by Republican Chris Smith.

More Cons than Pros?
France anticipates that all “culturally acceptable” deviations of love making in the country may become illegal if the Canadian law spreads. South African officials, who struggle with some of the world’s highest incidences of rape against women and children, fear the law will likely lead to their arrests, effectively shutting down the governance of the country. The United States also worries that these changes will affect universities, neo-conservative political rallies, certain churches, and the entire state of South Dakota, possibly necessitating the construction of more prisons than the country can afford. Even worse, by focusing on the crackdown of date rape drugs such as GBH, the American pharmaceuticals market could be permanently crippled, with widespread economic damage.

Redefining Consent
The court in Canada clarified the definition of consent as requiring the participant to provide “active, actual consent throughout every phase of sexual activity.”

Opponents argued that the ruling created a dangerous ambiguity, potentially stressing the need for “dirty talk” as a primary means for this communication.

“What’s the outcome here?” one attorney asked. “It will be important that schools begin teaching students how to talk smut in bed, and provide some scripts, in the normal course of sex education classes? That’s absurd.”

“As a Christian nation, teaching children sex is bad enough, but now obscenity?” agreed Carlisle Olden-Whitely, chairman of San Narciso’s foremost conservative political action committee -- Association of Republican Seniors, Wives, Young Professionals and Entrepreneurs (ARSWYPE). “This is nothing more than a liberal ploy to funnel federal money into Planned Parenthood for unnecessary abortions. It gives every drunk slut a pass on her bad decision making, and forces tax payers to compensate her ‘buyer’s remorse.’ We have no business enabling this behavior.”

The Canadian law could severely damage the Smith Bill, championed by conservatives as a way to curb such buyer’s remorse.

Introduced by Republican Chris Smith and supported by 173 members of the House, the bill includes a provision that could redefine rape and rein a woman’s current set of “overreaching rights” back into “the reasonable and manageable parameters by which everyone else is bound.”

The Smith Bill seeks to clarify an “unwanted advance” as rape only when it’s deemed “forcible,” but not statutory or coerced. This could mean that the following situations would no longer count as rape: “rapes of women drugged or given excessive amounts of alcohol, rapes of women with limited mental capacity, and many date rapes.” The bill also changes the legal term of rape “victims” to rape “accusers,” and defines the rare instances of rape as solely “between a man and a woman.”

Furthermore, in stark contrast to the Canadian ruling, consent would need to be “implied or otherwise expressed to the understanding of only one party, and then only prior to the sexual activity.”

“Under the Smith Bill,” Olden-Whitely explained, “simply moving the lips of your unconscious partner with your fingers and mimicking her voice would be considered consent. Using your hand to make her head nod, or placing her hands on your genitals would also be acceptable. But the Canadian law threatens to abolish all of this work, and creates such a gray area that simply kissing your wife could land you in jail for rape. And if consciousness is mandatory, then most married men in this country are guilty of rape every time they mount their spouses. Honestly, we need to wholly redefine the term ‘rape’ to something more legally accurate, such as ‘tentative sexual partnership’ or ‘convincing the prospect.’ But this is what happens when once respected political offices fall prey to PMS and hippie bias.”

(c) 2011. All stories are works of satire and parody.