OTTAWA – Secretly filming and sharing footage of consensual sex constitutes a sexual assault, according to an Ottawa judge’s recent ruling, sparking a debate over how courts view consent i...
It’s not, though. Consent was given. There is some responsibility on those entering into an agreement to do their due diligence. Precedence dictates that it situationally dependent and up to the courts to decide on a case-by-case basis. “I didn’t realize” isn’t a good defence without something of substance to go along with it.
Consent was given to a different act than the perpetrator was intending on having. It shouldn’t fall on one to confirm that every sex act one participates in is not being filmed against one’s wishes, that should (pretty obviously, I think) require notification of intent.
Consent was given to a different act than the perpetrator was intending on having.
Yes, if there is something of substance to prove that is the case then the courts will undoubtedly side in your favour. But “I didn’t know” is not sufficient to demonstrate that the intent differed. There are inherently many things one will not know about the situation. The obligations of an agreement are not invalided just because something you didn’t expect happened. The nuance must be taken into account.
It shouldn’t fall on one to confirm that every sex act one participates in is not being filmed against one’s wishes
It is the onus of one entering into an agreement to do their due diligence. Combing the room for cameras may be beyond reasonable, but letting it be known that your privacy is valued when settling on the terms of the agreement is a reasonable expectation. Certainly, if that is spelled out in the agreement then there is an expectation that it will be honoured.
It’s not clear cut at all, but it also doesn’t need to be as that is exactly why we have a court system.
It’s not, though. Consent was given. There is some responsibility on those entering into an agreement to do their due diligence. Precedence dictates that it situationally dependent and up to the courts to decide on a case-by-case basis. “I didn’t realize” isn’t a good defence without something of substance to go along with it.
Consent was given to a different act than the perpetrator was intending on having. It shouldn’t fall on one to confirm that every sex act one participates in is not being filmed against one’s wishes, that should (pretty obviously, I think) require notification of intent.
Yes, if there is something of substance to prove that is the case then the courts will undoubtedly side in your favour. But “I didn’t know” is not sufficient to demonstrate that the intent differed. There are inherently many things one will not know about the situation. The obligations of an agreement are not invalided just because something you didn’t expect happened. The nuance must be taken into account.
It is the onus of one entering into an agreement to do their due diligence. Combing the room for cameras may be beyond reasonable, but letting it be known that your privacy is valued when settling on the terms of the agreement is a reasonable expectation. Certainly, if that is spelled out in the agreement then there is an expectation that it will be honoured.
It’s not clear cut at all, but it also doesn’t need to be as that is exactly why we have a court system.