Supreme Court of Canada ruling that might complicate stealthing

[Poz50something]

There'a a recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling that might complicate matters for those who want to stealth fuck, that is, to fuck without a condom without the knowledge of the sex partner.  Already, pozzing is definitely against Federal Canadian law, although being poz isn't. If one is on triple therapy, and consistently uses a condom, one does not have to disclose ones serostatus. However, if your partner specifies that a condom is to be used, then it becomes part pf the act. and not agreeing to protection could be taken as non consent. [think before following links] https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/cb/2022/39287-eng.aspx [think before following links] https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13511/index.do The SC of Canada has consistently ruled that condom use, when it is demanded, is part of the agreement, and must be adhered to. 

[BootmanLA]

6 hours ago, Poz50something said:

There'a a recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling that might complicate matters for those who want to stealth fuck, that is, to fuck without a condom without the knowledge of the sex partner. 

You mean that the Supreme Court of Canada is holding that you can't legally fuck someone while intentionally violating the terms of the consent they gave? Shocking.

Good for them.

[ejaculaTe]

7 hours ago, Poz50something said:

[think before following links] [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/cb/2022/39287-eng.aspx [think before following links] [think before following links] [think before following links] https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13511/index.do 

For the law geeks in the crowd, the first web address is to a summary of the July 29, 2022 decision of the Canadian Supreme Court in R v. Kirkpatrick. The second web address takes you to an earlier decision, R v. Hutchinson, which is discussed in the Kirkpatrick decision. If you want to read Kirkpatrick, which happens to be a mere 310 paragraphs (125 pages), click on the word "Decision" which is in the text box in the upper right portion of your screen.

Edited July 31, 2022 by ejaculaTe
added number of pages

[BootmanLA]

I'll just note here that (non-legally speaking), having read the case, she should have gone Lorena Bobbitt on him. 

[HornySpanish]

It's normal, consent is the basis for sex, and stealthing is not consensual, so you take that risk when you do it.

[ErosWired]

…that might “complicate” stealthing. As if stealthing were in any way something that ought to be easy? By all means let’s complicate the fuck out of it. Literally.

[garsento]

Good.

[downtownswallow]

Stealthing is horrible.  It violates a human being for the sake of another's pleasure.  

[Vancityaladdin]

Stealthing without consent should never be done. 

Sucks that the courts aren't repealing the popper Ban despite UBCs paper tying that ban directly to the increase in substance use to fill the void of Poppers 👀

It'd be nice to order jungle juice when it's made in BC

 

[garsento]

5 hours ago, Vancityaladdin said:

Stealthing without consent should never be done. 

Sucks that the courts aren't repealing the popper Ban despite UBCs paper tying that ban directly to the increase in substance use to fill the void of Poppers 👀

It'd be nice to order jungle juice when it's made in BC

Agreed. I am in Ontario, and frankly, the idea that poppers are banned when there are cannabis shops on every corner strikes me as ridiculous. Why not just regulate the quality of poppers as cannabis is regulated?

[Gohandsome]

On 7/30/2022 at 9:04 PM, Poz50something said:

There'a a recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling that might complicate matters for those who want to stealth fuck, that is, to fuck without a condom without the knowledge of the sex partner.  Already, pozzing is definitely against Federal Canadian law, although being poz isn't. If one is on triple therapy, and consistently uses a condom, one does not have to disclose ones serostatus. However, if your partner specifies that a condom is to be used, then it becomes part pf the act. and not agreeing to protection could be taken as non consent. [think before following links] [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/cb/2022/39287-eng.aspx [think before following links] [think before following links] [think before following links] https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13511/index.do The SC of Canada has consistently ruled that condom use, when it is demanded, is part of the agreement, and must be adhered to. 

It will turns things hotter than it is. When something forbidden, then it becomes tastier! 

Edited January 30, 2023 by Gohandsome

[Vancityaladdin]

7 hours ago, garsento said:

Agreed. I am in Ontario, and frankly, the idea that poppers are banned when there are cannabis shops on every corner strikes me as ridiculous. Why not just regulate the quality of poppers as cannabis is regulated?

I only recently heard the ban is related to a politician who was in the closet and partied hard but when they found him passed from OD, family and the conservatives opted to hide what he was doing and blame Poppers.

Yeah, no actual medical support for this ban. Poppers were the sacrificial pawn 

 

[Cutedelicategay]

First, in Canada remember there are not many poz gifters. It's a myth that people are still into gifting. I really doubt that. Most poz guys are on meds. 

Second, this adds to complexity in sex clubs, darkrooms, bathhouses. If a bottom is bent on a fuck bench, ass up and lubed, who is going to check whether the initial condom is still in place especially when poppers are flowing. 

Activist judiciary is a major issue in the world right now.