Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ramifications of the Craig J. Hutchinson Case [Nova Scotia, Canada]

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ramifications of the Craig J. Hutchinson Case [Nova Scotia, Canada]

    In this case, Craig J. Hutchinson was convicted of sexual assault for poking holes in his condoms without his girlfriend's consent. Now, she consented to sex. She got pregnant. He confessed to her his actions and she filed charges. Ultimately, he was convicted of sexual assault for what, in the opinion of the court, amounted to fraud. Well, why not simply convict him of fraud? Can fraudulent claims be held to the equivalent of sexual assault? I am doubtful.

    Here are some other scenarios:

    A woman pokes holes in the condom and she gets pregnant. Fraudulent. Sexual assault?
    A 15-year old girl tells her boyfriend she is 16 (the age of consent in Canada). Fraudulent. Sexual assault?
    A woman tell a man she is on the pill when she's not. Fraudulent. Sexual assault?

    Somehow, in any of these scenarios in which it is the woman doing the lying, I doubt the highest court in Canada would ever rule against her, primarily because I suspect that in each of these cases, and in so many others like it, it would be the man who would be at the mercy of the law, while the woman was perpetually the victim.

    So really, what I am getting at here in terms of the title of this post, is that this is yet another straw on the backs of Canadian men (for once, thank God I'm an American, despite our wretched foreign policy), due to the ruling of the court, that instead of simply terming it Fraud, fraud now becomes sexual assault. What's set here is a dangerous precedent. With this hurdling block out of the way, men may be convicted of rape merely for NOT telling their S/O that someone in their family has a mental illness, a history of benign cancer, or an antiquated yet unresolved emigration issue. To wit!

  • #2
    I'll have to read the judge's ratio's in full to see if those possible consequences have any legitimacy under the contextual interpretations of said ratios as applied to the law in question.

    It "may", or "may not."

    Comment

    Working...
    X