Australia's New Sex Law

[volomavi]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22730073-2,00.html

"TOUGH new rape laws which make it clear being drunk does not constitute consent have been condemned by barristers, who insist: "It will turn our sons into criminals."

The NSW Bar Association reckons the "No means no" law goes too far and will lobby Upper House members to vote against it when it is up for debate next week.

The law will define the meaning of consent for the first time, making it clear that being drunk or under the influence of drugs does not mean consent has been given.

It will also introduce an "objective fault test", meaning a man can no longer use the defence that he thought he had consent if the circumstances appear unreasonable.

"It will turn our sons into criminals," new Bar Association president Anna Katzmann SC said yesterday.

"For years women have been insisting 'No' means 'No'. What troubles us about this new legislation is that it introduces a new regime where 'Yes' may mean 'No'."

Ms Katzmann gave the example of a woman on a first date who might not want to have sex but after both she and the man had drunk too much said "Yes".

The next day she feels guilty and tells her mother, who goes to the police.

"That would be rape under the new laws," Ms Katzmann said. "The fact that he was drunk cannot be taken into account. The fact that she was drunk is no excuse for him."



Damn it! Jay and Pooka! Do something! I'm actually going to visit next spring (aussy fall) and this is not the kind of thing I want to worry about!!

[MNJetter]

Wait a minute.....so according to the new law, if they both get drunk, only the woman is allowed to say no? What if the woman really wanted it, but the man was completely sloshed? He's not allowed to cry rape?

How about they both get drunk, and then both regret it in the morning. Can they both press rape charges against each other?

I think there can be circumstances in which a drunk person can be raped. But that law seems too rigid to be fair in real life.

[PopCulturePooka]

Here we go again. It's been a few months. About thime this debate fired back up at OP9.

[ZaichikArky]

Roxie needs to post the "everything is rape" blog again. That one made me laugh for a good 5 minutes in a row. Kind of hard to do online.

As for this new sex law, Australia is NOT America. Actually you know what? Technically it isn't even a sovereign nation so screw this :|.

[Citizen]

I say we just classify all sex as rape and get it over with. And let's throw in masturbation, while we're at it.

[PopCulturePooka]

I just stopped a rapist!



Now... does anyone know how to treat hammer wounds to your hand?

[Jetsetlemming]

Funny that they call it a "no means no" law, when it's really an "everything means no" law.

[Candyvan Stan]

...And does this only count for women? Seeing as they're saying it will make 'our sons' criminals and that 'a man' can't use it to his defense?

Retarded. Absolutely retarded.

[Roxie]

Roxie needs to post the "everything is rape" blog again.
That wasn't me.

This article is rather ambigious about the law (or maybe the law itself is?). What, exactly, are "unreasonable circumstances"?

And if they (one or both parties) are drunk AND consenting, is that consent automatically cancelled out b/c of the drunkness? Cause it kinda sounds like "you're drunk, so you can't consent no matter what!"

[Candyvan Stan]

That wasn't me.

This article is rather ambigious about the law (or maybe the law itself is?). What, exactly, are "unreasonable circumstances"?


That's 'law-speak' for 'at the judge's discretion'. Basically, it's for the judge to decide of those circumstances are unreasonable enough upon hearing the story.

Law can be very, very ambiguous.

[羽之助]

Actually you know what? Technically it isn't even a sovereign nation so screw this :|.

Sharing a monarch with other nations does not imply a lack of sovereign status.

[Arvynia]

I have mixed feelings about this law... quite honestly - it sucks for the guy if the chick said yes if she drank and then later on feels guilty and charges the guy. It seems like the guy would lose either way... I think it gives too much power and protection for women and not enough for men, especially if they are good decent men who didn't intend this to happen. Can't blame someone if you already gave them the okay...

[ZaichikArky]

Sharing a monarch with other nations does not imply a lack of sovereign status.

To me, it is when you get the chance to vote yourself out of the monarchy and then vote against it.

Also,

the national anthem should be "waltzing matilda" when they had THAT vote.

Ah well, I have never approved of national anthems other than maybe the soviet one. they always seem to chose the 3rd best song of the lot : (.

[Roxie]

I have mixed feelings about this law... quite honestly - it sucks for the guy if the chick said yes if she drank and then later on feels guilty and charges the guy. It seems like the guy would lose either way... I think it gives too much power and protection for women and not enough for men, especially if they are good decent men who didn't intend this to happen. Can't blame someone if you already gave them the okay...
The flip side of this is it DOES NOT give "power and protection" to women, but takes it away from them. The way the law is described in the article, it implies that a woman is not capable of giving consent while drunk. That damn it all! She's drunk and her consent MUST be false.

Just adds more to the "one shouldn't get drunk ever, cause you might get raped" (what a sad state!) instead of addressing how to to stop rapists and rapes from happening.

[Arvynia]

Although I agree with you that the law described implies that a woman is not capable of giving consent while she is drunk, I still think that it puts the situation more in her hand than in the guy's hand if she chooses to report her drunken sex as rape.

I think the law is out there supposedly to protect women and to try to define a definite line where consent is "not consent." I'd feel that women who may actually use this are the ones that end up feeling guilty for sleeping with the guy. I do agree that it adds more to "don't get drunk cuz you may feel horny later, have sex, and then feel guilty afterwards-rape"

But also keep in mind that just cuz you did get drunk and had sex, you don't have to report it (supposing you don't care or that you know what you were doing). It's not stopping anyone from having drunk sex, ya know. So I don't think it's taking anything away from women.

-But on the matter of rape, I'd agree with you that it doesn't really address how to stop or rapists or rapes from happening.

[MNJetter]

To me, it is when you get the chance to vote yourself out of the monarchy and then vote against it.
So monarchies don't get to be sovereign nations, ever? o.O

I think you're getting "sovereign" confused with "democratic".

Either way, the Queen has no more power over Canada and Australia than she does over England itself. Having the same pseudo-political figurehead on your money as another country doesn't make you the same country.

[Candyvan Stan]

.

Ah well, I have never approved of national anthems other than maybe the soviet one. they always seem to chose the 3rd best song of the lot : (.


Yes. The Soviet anthem is the most awesome anthem ever.

Other than this, I don't understand a thing you posted in this thread. How is Australia not a sovereign nation?

Either way, I thought some more about it, and I still think this law is retarded. It makes men out to be sexual predators and women out to be bumbling idiots when induced with alcohol.

[PopCulturePooka]

To me, it is when you get the chance to vote yourself out of the monarchy and then vote against it.

Also,

the national anthem should be "waltzing matilda" when they had THAT vote.

Ah well, I have never approved of national anthems other than maybe the soviet one. they always seem to chose the 3rd best song of the lot : (.
Whats wrong with 'Advance Australia Fair'? It's better than the story about an old coot that steals shit and gets shot by the cops.


And the ONLY action the Monarchy has taken in Australia in the past 50 years was to dissolve the government in the 70's because Parliament was hung. One party was in power while the other controlled the Senate, and hence nothing was getting through. Part of our constitution then states that the Governor General, usually a figurehead representative of the Queen, has to call a Double Dissolution.


Other than that we are a sovereign nation.

[Citizen]

It makes men out to be sexual predators and women out to be bumbling idiots when induced with alcohol.

Well, at least they got one part right.

But which one?

[ZaichikArky]

Other than this, I don't understand a thing you posted in this thread. How is Australia not a sovereign nation?

It's my bitterness about a nation voting to technically keep itself as a monarchy. It would be similar to Canada doing the same thing if they had the choice way back when. I'm just really morally opposed to it.

Anyway, at least Australia makes its citizens vote. I always wish they'd do the same thing in the states. But then I tell Americans this and they're like "OMG it's unconstitutional omg" And then I think "Oh, so the 2000 election was?" >_>.

[Shuft]

Thank god this finally passed. Now I can go back to Australia and get sloshed without having to worry about my anus.

[Buckwheat]

So if two chicks get really drunk and have sex, can they sue each other?