How Appealing



Sunday, May 29, 2011

“No consent in unconscious sex case, Supreme Court rule”: Yesterday’s edition of The Toronto Globe and Mail contained an article that begins, “People cannot consent in advance to sexual activity that takes place while they are unconscious, the Supreme Court ruled Friday. The closely watched case involved an Ottawa man and his live-in partner of nine years who engaged in erotic asphyxiation. In a split 6-3 decision issued Friday, the court restored the man’s conviction for sexual assault for performing a sex act on his girlfriend while she was unconscious.”

The Toronto Sun reported yesterday that “Top court rules against ‘advanced consent.’

Yesterday’s edition of The Vancouver Sun contained an article headlined “Top court interpretation of ‘consent’ really about sexual autonomy; Ruling addresses timing of permission to engage in sex.”

The Canadian Press reports that “Supreme Court rules unconscious woman can’t give consent to sex.”

Reuters Canada reports that “Ruling clarifies meaning of consent in sex.”

CBC News has a report headlined “No consent in unconscious sex case: Supreme Court.

And today in The Toronto Star, columnist Rosie DiManno has an op-ed entitled “Supreme Court’s consent ruling infantilizes women.”

You can access Friday’s ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada at this link.

Posted at 10:20 PM by Howard Bashman



“Judge, lawyer nominated for federal appeals court; President Obama gets to choose either Justice Jon Levy or lawyer William Kayatta Jr. for the post”: This article appeared yesterday in The Portland (Me.) Press Herald.

Posted at 10:07 PM by Howard Bashman