Supreme Court of Canada to explain reasons for tossing charges against mom who had sex with minor

contractor808 · 2017-07-07T17:01:47+00:00

Women rate higher than minors on the victim scale.

zulu127 · 2017-07-07T13:12:56+00:00

[Barbara] George assumed C.D. was over the age of 16 because he had facial hair, a mature demeanour and apparent sexual experience.

How would she know he had sexual experience before she had sex with him? And what does that matter?

8088XT8BIT · 2017-07-07T17:33:47+00:00

StartStopPause .. "Other men had had her, your honour. So me having sex with this underage girl didn't seem like a big deal." "Good point, defendant. Case dismissed." Exactly Right !!

No one needs to hear a load of horseshit from The SCOC .. On how they let the skank walk. We all know why - They didn't give a shit about him.

tiqr · 2017-07-07T20:12:29+00:00

Put down the pitchforks guys.

Here's the SCC Decision: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/16723/1/document.do

First, this took place at a party hosted by her 17-year-old son. It would be reasonable to expect the other guests to be a similar age.

The sexual activity happened after Ms. George’s son — who was 17 at the time — hosted a party at their apartment.

Second, he came to her bedroom on his own, and they talked for a long time about "mature" topics.

However, after the party ended, C.D. came to the bedroom. They spoke for several hours about music, custody issues, C.D.’s relationships, and his difficulties meeting mature girlfriends.

Third, the boy initiated the sexual contact. She repeatedly asked him to stop, but ultimately let him have sex with her. The boy wasn't accused of sexual assault for this.

Ultimately, C.D. initiated sexual contact. He asked Ms. George if it “would be weird” if he kissed her. Almost simultaneously, C.D. leaned forward to kiss Ms. George. She backed away, but C.D. again moved towards her, and she let him complete a brief kiss. C.D. then “immediately” moved on top of Ms. George, removed the blankets which were covering her body, lowered his pants, and moved her underwear to the side. She asked him what he was doing. She also asked him to stop several times. But he ignored these requests and persisted. In the end, Ms. George “simply let him finish.” She described the sexual encounter as “weird, awkward, and quick.” Despite these facts, there was “no dispute that, although reluctant at first, Ms. George was a willing participant.” Further, before the Court, neither party contested Ms. George’s consent to the sexual activity.

At Trial, she was acquitted. On Appeal, she was found guilty. At the Supreme Court, she has been acquitted. The Supreme Court agreed with the Trial judge. She successfully argued that there was an "air of reality" to her mistaken belief that he was over 16.

The court looked at the range pre-encounter indicators of the boy's age. He was at a party with her 17 year old son. He had facial hair, and looked older. He engaged in mature, adult conversations with her. He smoked and easily bought cigarettes.

At the time of the sexual activity, Ms. George had presumed that C.D. was around 17 because, in the several months she had known C.D., he looked that age, shaved, openly smoked cigarettes, easily bought cigarettes, and was a friend of her son (who was himself seventeen, typically socialized with older peers, and displayed less emotional maturity than C.D.).

Moreover, the comfort with which C.D. initiated the sexual encounter suggested he was older. When the court talked about his he appeared to be "sexually experienced", they were not saying "he was good at sex", they were saying he initiated the sexual encounter with a degree of confidence that suggested he was older.

The law says an accused can reasonably believe a person is of the age of consent if they take reasonable steps. This does NOT mean you need to check their ID to meet this standards (the Court also says that sometimes checking an ID could conceivably be not enough because of fake IDs). It will depend on the facts of every case. Here, there were lots of good reasons to believe this boy was at least 17 years old. The court found that there was sufficient evidence for her to reasonably believe he was of the age of the consent.

And to be frank, this boy borderline sexually assaulted her. The court doesn't list it in their reasoning, but I guarantee it was on their minds. She didn't groom this kid in advance. She had no reason to suspect he was 3 years younger than her son. And she certainly didn't plan this encounter. Her only error in judgment was carrying on a conversation in her bedroom, and not being forceful enough in pushing the kid off of her.

I think the Court made the right decision here.

_exitus_acta_probat_ · 2017-07-07T17:56:02+00:00

So, Supreme Court of Canada, if I believe that a 14 year old girl is over the age because she stacked like a brick shithouse and has public hair, then we're all good, right?

aegorrivers · 2017-07-07T18:39:56+00:00

Since when is ignorance a defense in front of the law? Oh that's right, it's not when you're a male. My bad.

thrway_1000 · 2017-07-07T17:07:19+00:00

https://archive.is/49o5K

2017-07-08T00:57:12+00:00

As opposed to in the US where you can be convicted of statutory rape even if you have 2 forms of ID and the girl is working as a stripper....strict liability offense

feedmecarrots · 2017-07-08T05:01:52+00:00

Well, we are listening. I don't expect anything intelligible.

Title	Supreme Court of Canada to explain reasons for tossing charges against mom who had sex with minor
Author	zulu127
Upvotes	25
Comments	33
Date	July 7, 2017 1:10 PM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/6ltjgr/supreme_court_of_canada_to_explain_reasons_for/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/supreme-court-of-canada-to-explain-reasons-for.918653 https://theredarchive.com/post/918653

Comments