The most fundamental human right...

[Nearly Sane]

Isn't what the judge here thinks imo


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sex-man-wife-judge-court-protection-learning-difficulties-a8849211.html

[jeremyp]

I thought they changed the law on that so it is possible to convict somebody of raping their spouse. That alone makes the judge’s statement false.

It also doesn’t help in the case in question. Who decides on whether a person’s mental abilities have declined to the point where they cannot give consent? On the assumption that the woman in this case is still enjoying the sex, and a willing participant, should the council have the right to tell them to stop?

[Free Willy]

I thought they changed the law on that so it is possible to convict somebody of raping their spouse. That alone makes the judge’s statement false.

It also doesn’t help in the case in question. Who decides on whether a person’s mental abilities have declined to the point where they cannot give consent? On the assumption that the woman in this case is still enjoying the sex, and a willing participant, should the council have the right to tell them to stop?

Is there anyway the government can make this the fault of the teachers?

[jeremyp]

Is there anyway the government can make this the fault of the teachers?

th social workers would be an easier target in this case.

[Roses]

No one should be forced to have sex, married or unmarried.

[jeremyp]

No one should be forced to have sex, married or unmarried.

Nobody here is disputing that. I'm not sure the judge in the story who made the stupid comment is disputing that either.

There isn't any suggestion in the story one way or the other that the woman involved is unwilling to have sex with her husband. The council wants to take her into protection because they are concerned that she does not have the capacity to consent, much like we deem children do not have the capacity to consent.

[Harrowby Hall]

Nobody here is disputing that. I'm not sure the judge in the story who made the stupid comment is disputing that either.

There isn't any suggestion in the story one way or the other that the woman involved is unwilling to have sex with her husband. The council wants to take her into protection because they are concerned that she does not have the capacity to consent, much like we deem children do not have the capacity to consent.

Considering this as someone who has been without a wife for over sixteen years, I don't think that the judge's comment was necessarily stupid - he was speaking in generalities and may well have been addressing the remark to the social services people involved. It may be that - possessing the capacity to consent or not - the woman concerned actually enjoys sexual activity. I think that the council officers' (apparent) view is patronising, intrusive and, in reality, ultra vires.

[jeremyp]

Considering this as someone who has been without a wife for over sixteen years, I don't think that the judge's comment was necessarily stupid - he was speaking in generalities and may well have been addressing the remark to the social services people involved. It may be that - possessing the capacity to consent or not - the woman concerned actually enjoys sexual activity. I think that the council officers' (apparent) view is patronising, intrusive and, in reality, ultra vires.

It was stupid because (especially, if taken out of context) the judge appears to be denying the idea that spousal rape exists. The debate then becomes a debate about how judges are out of touch etc instead of about the case, which throws up a lot of difficult to answer questions.

Look at this thread, for example. Nearly Sane has framed it as a discussion about how wrong the judge is on the subject of human rights, whereas it should be a discussion on whether a council has the right to stop a married couple from having sex with each other because they deem one partner to be too stupid to decide for herself.

[Nearly Sane]

Considering this as someone who has been without a wife for over sixteen years, I don't think that the judge's comment was necessarily stupid - he was speaking in generalities and may well have been addressing the remark to the social services people involved. It may be that - possessing the capacity to consent or not - the woman concerned actually enjoys sexual activity. I think that the council officers' (apparent) view is patronising, intrusive and, in reality, ultra vires.

Not only is it stupid, it's dangerous. It''ll give succour to any idiot that thinks consent in marriage isn't needed. It will be quoted by rapist incels about their rights.

[Harrowby Hall]

But the judge said he wanted to examine evidence in more detail and hear arguments from lawyers representing the woman, her husband, and the council involved before making any decisions.

The judge said the man might be put in a situation where he could face prison if he breached an order on sexual consent.

He also suggested that any such order would be difficult to police.

“I cannot think of any more obviously fundamental human right than the right of a man to have sex with his wife,” he said. “I think he is entitled to have it properly argued.”

[/size]

I think that the judge was addressing the present case and the context of his remark was that he was warning the council officers not to get this case wrong. He is not condoning spousal rape.

This is more about opportunistic journalists looking for an easy headline at the expense of the real problem of the case than a careless judge.

[jeremyp]

I think that the judge was addressing the present case and the context of his remark was that he was warning the council officers not to get this case wrong. He is not condoning spousal rape.

I agree with you

This is more about opportunistic journalists looking for an easy headline at the expense of the real problem of the case than a careless judge.

I agree with this too. But it behooves a judge to remember that there are people out there who will do this and to choose his or her words carefully.