Oh Canada!

Silly’s Punctured Romance

March 11, 2014

Multiple Pages
Silly’s Punctured Romance

One of my earliest articles for Taki‘s was called “The Week in Canadian Sex News!” It’s easier than you might think to wring 800 words (and even an exclamation point) out of such an unpromising premise. Then as now, the Canadian justice system supplies plenty of inspiration.

Our unelected robed masters seem to have boinking on the brain. Take Manitoba’s Madam Justice A. Lori Douglas, who was the subject of an ethics investigation after her husband took nude photographs of her engaged in various sex acts and uploaded them to the Internet.

They were not uploaded to AboveTheLaw.com, but one of their writers dutifully described the pictures in question, e.g.:

Justice Douglas lies on a bed, eyes closed, her hands shackled to the bedframe. I respectfully submit that the court needs to do a better job of shaving its armpits.

Too bad Douglas wasn’t on the Supreme Court when they heard R. v. J.A.:

During the sexual activity, K.D. consented for J.A. to choke her as part of the sexual activity. K.D. lost consciousness for approximately three minutes, and she understood this might happen when she consented to being choked.

“I presume that the number of Canadian men engaged in contraception sabotage is blessedly small.”

While K.D. was unconscious, J.A. tied K.D. up and performed additional sexual acts on her. In her testimony, K.D. was not clear whether she knew or consented to that sexual activity J.A. performed on her while she was unconscious. After K.D. regained consciousness, she and J.A. continued having consensual sexual activity.

On July 11, 2007, K.D. made a complaint to the police, saying that the activity was not consensual, although she later recanted her statement. J.A. was charged with aggravated assault, sexual assault, attempting to render a person unconscious in order to sexually assault them, and breaching a probation order.

Had she been on the bench, tied up or otherwise, Justice Douglas could have explained the dynamics of consensual D/s breath play from a position of authority that (judging from those pictureless captions above) she preferred not to assume in the bedroom: that is, letting the “dom” have his way with you is precisely the point.

Alas, the Supreme Court upheld J.A.‘s conviction, with a lone (and refreshingly commonsensical) dissent from Justice Morris J. Fish. Maybe he should look up Madam Douglas (and her husband) the next time he’s in the Winnipeg area.

Since I last took up this torrid topic, the same court has ruled that prostitution, which wasn’t illegal to begin with, is now super-duper not illegal. Canadians are now freer than they were in the first place to hire the world’s four homeliest hookers. (The hottest chick in this story is their Annie Lennox-y lawyer.)

Then late last week, a bunch of us were driving home from observing a court case—this fellow is suing someone he’d called an “Islamophobe” for calling him an “anti-Semite”—when we heard about the Supreme Court’s latest sex-related verdict over the radio.

Call it “The Case of the Compromised Condom.”

In December 2011, Craig Jaret Hutchinson was sentenced to 18 months in jail “after he pierced his girlfriend’s condoms with a pin in 2006 so she would get pregnant and not break up with him.”

The girlfriend, whose identity is protected, became pregnant, broke up with Hutchinson anyway, aborted the baby, and then “suffered an infection of her uterus that required treatment with antibiotics.”

Hutchinson was subsequently charged with and convicted of aggravated sexual assault. That’s the conviction the Supreme Court upheld.

Callers to the phone-in radio show we were listening to echoed our reaction: Hutchinson had done something sneaky, silly, dishonest, and pretty twisted, without a doubt. At the very least, he should have been charged with “possession of Ken Burns’s haircut.”

But “sexual assault”? Certainly not. To a man (and woman), callers opined that “fraud” would have been a more appropriate charge—something civil, not criminal.

Although almost everything about the case reeked of 21st-century dysfunction, I thought that surely there was something almost Austen-ish going on here, too. “Breach of promise” wasn’t quite the archaic tort I was groping for, but it was the only one that sprang to mind.

Fortunately, this new decision seems to have limited application beyond the individuals involved. I presume that the number of Canadian men engaged in contraception sabotage is blessedly small.

And let’s be candid: Women trick men into getting them pregnant all the time, but we’ll never live to see a baby mama being charged with aggravated sexual assault for “forgetting” to take her birth-control pill or lying about having her tubes tied.

Speaking of tied-up females: The ethics panel to investigate Madam Justice Lori Douglas turned out to be unethical, so as of November of last year, she “remains in limbo.”

Sounds like something she’d rather enjoy anyhow.

 

SIGN UP
Daily updates with TM’s latest