Free Dating Site    

So as somebody said above ... take her home. Make sure she DOESN'T get raped and ask her out again sometime.

"Take me home and f*** me."

DEFINITION

The Criminal Code of Canada definition of Assault:
A person commits an assault when:

without the consent of another person, a person applies force intentionally to another person, directly or indirectly;

a person attempts or threatens, by act or gesture, to apply force to another person, if a person has present ability to effect their purpose; or causes that other person to believe, upon reasonable grounds, that they have present ability to effect their purpose;

while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, a person accosts or impedes another person or begs.

The definition of Assault is used to define Sexual Assault because they are exactly the same except for the sexual part.

SECTIONS OF THE CRIMINAL CODE

Section 271 – Sexual Assault
Section 272 – Sexual Assault with a Weapon, Threats to a Third Party or
Causing Bodily Harm
Section 273 – Aggravated Sexual Assault
Section 151 – Sexual Interference
Section 152 – Invitation to Sexual Touching
Section 153 – Sexual Exploitation
Section 153.1 – Sexual Exploitation of Person with a Disability
Section 159 – Anal Intercourse
Section 173.2 – Indecent Acts – Exposure of Genitals to Person Under
16 Years of Age


SEXUAL ASSAULT (Basic Summaries)

Section 271 – Sexual Assault:
Somebody touches you in a sexual way on purpose, directly or indirectly, without your consent.

Section 272 – Sexual Assault With A Weapon, Threats to a Third Party or Causing Bodily Harm:
Somebody sexually assaults you and is armed with, or uses, a weapon, or, forces you to have sex by threatening to do injury to somebody else, (for example: they threaten to hurt your brother or sister if you don't do it), or, they injure you.

Section 273 – Aggravated Sexual Assault
Somebody sexually assaults you and they cause serious injuries to you.

Back to: SECTIONS OF THE CRIMINAL CODE
OTHER SEXUAL OFFENCES (Basic Summaries)

Section 151 – Sexual Interference:
If you are under 16 years old, it is a criminal offence for someone to touch your body for a sexual purpose with a part of their body or any object, directly or indirectly.

Section 152 – Invitation to Sexual Touching:
If you are under 16 years old, it is a criminal offence for someone to invite, counsel or incite you to touch, directly or indirectly, their body, the body of someone else or your own body, for a sexual purpose (with a part of your body or any object).

Section 153 – Sexual Exploitation:
If you are 16 years old or older, but under 18, it is a criminal offence for someone in a position of trust or authority to have sexual contact with you even if you consent to it. For example, someone in a position of trust or authority such as a minister, coach, employer, teacher, etc.

Section 153.1 – Sexual Exploitation of Person With a Disability:
If you are mentally or physically challenged (any age), it is a criminal offence if, without your consent, someone invites, counsels or incites you to touch, directly or indirectly, their body, the body of someone else or your own body, for a sexual purpose (with a part of your body or any object) if the offender is in a position of trust or authority towards you or if you are dependent on the offender.

Section 159 – Anal Intercourse:
If you are under 18, and not married to each other, it is a criminal offence to have anal sex even if both persons consent. You must be over 18, or married and both consenting. It must be done in private and only by two people (if there are three people involved then the law says it's not in private).

Section 173.2 – Indecent Acts – Exposure of Genitals to Person Under
16 Years of Age:
If you are under 16 years old, it is a criminal offence for someone to expose his or her genital organs to you for a sexual purpose.

Back to: SECTIONS OF THE CRIMINAL CODE

CONSENT (Your Rights About Saying Yes or No)

The law about consent can be complicated.
There are times when the offender sexually touches the victim without asking for permission. But, sometimes they do ask and the victim says "no" but the offender touches them anyway. If you say "no" then it means exactly that.

Your consent can't be forced. The courts can decide that consent was not given if the offender uses force, threats, fear of bodily harm, or by lying about what they wanted to do with you, or, if you are unable to give consent because you're mentally challenged.

Even if you do say yes, there are some cases when the other person can still get charged. Sometimes, you're not legally allowed to consent to have sex (Canadian Criminal Code 2000):

Basically, the legal age of consent is 16 years.

If you are under 14 years old, and you have sex with somebody more than two years older than you are, the other person can be charged with Sexual Assault. If you're 13 years old, you can consent to have sex with someone who' s 15 years old but you can't consent to have sex with a 16 year old person. The 16 year old person can be charged. If you're under 14 years old, you can't consent to have sex with anyone more than two years older than you are.

If you are under 18 years old, you can't legally consent to have sex with someone who is in a position of trust, power or authority over you. For example, a minister, coach, employer, teacher, police officer, etc. can be charged.

For more detailed information on the legal age of consent to sexual activity in Canada see the Parliamentary Research Branch at the Library of Parliament's website.

The Definition of Sexual Assault

The Canadian Criminal Code2 no longer contains separate offences of rape or indecent assault. In 1983, both of these offences were subsumed in the newly-created offence of “sexual assault.” The offence of assault is defined in s. 265 of the Code as an intentional touching without consent; ss. 271 through 273 create the offences of sexual assault, sexual assault causing bodily harm, and aggravated sexual assault. These offences are gender-neutral, in that either the complainant or the accused can be male or female.

The Code does not define the “sexual” element of a sexual assault. The Supreme Court of Canada has defined this element as follows:

‘Sexual assault is an assault ... which is committed in circumstances of a sexual nature, such that the sexual integrity of the victim is violated. The test to be applied in determining whether the impugned conduct has the requisite sexual nature is an objective one: “Viewed in the light of all the circumstances, is the sexual or carnal context of the assault visible to a reasonable observer?”’3
The actus reus of sexual assault therefore encompasses all forms of intentional, non-consensual touching that violates the complainant’s sexual integrity, whether or not the touching would have amounted to rape or indecent assault before 1983.

To prove a sexual assault, the Crown must also prove fault or mens rea, specifically that the accused knew, was wilfully blind to, or was reckless as to the victim’s lack of consent.4 To raise a reasonable doubt about the mens rea, the accused may not rely on his own self-induced intoxication or on his own failure to take reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant’s consent.5

For the actus reus of sexual assault, “consent” is purely subjective; that is, to prove that the complainant did not consent for the purpose of establishing the actus reus, the Crown needs to prove that the complainant, in her own mind, was unwilling for the sexual touching to occur.6 Consent is also limited by certain non-exhaustive provisions of the Code,7 including expressed lack of agreement by the complainant.8

For the mens rea of sexual assault, “consent” is objective. The accused’s claim that he honestly and mistakenly believed in the complainant’s consent must be a belief that the complainant had communicated her consent to him;9 it must not be tainted by any of the statutory factors vitiating consent;10 and it cannot be raised unless the accused took “reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time” to ascertain consent.11

Subject to certain exceptions, the age of consent to sexual activity in Canadian criminal law is 14.12

Proof of Sexual Assault

In order to establish that a sexual assault occurred, the Crown must prove each of the elements listed above beyond a reasonable doubt: that there was an intentional touching, that the complainant did not subjectively consent to the touch, that the touch was of a sexual nature, and that the accused knew or was wilfully blind to or was reckless as to the complainant’s lack of communicated consent, and did not have a mistaken belief in consent.

To prove non-consent, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the complainant physically resisted the attack or that the accused used physical force. It would be a serious error of law for a trial judge to instruct a jury that proof of non-consent depended on resistance by the complainant or use of force by the accused. While the Crown may introduce evidence of injury to the complainant as evidence of non-consent, such evidence is not required to prove non-consent.

There is no concept of “implied consent” in the Canadian law of sexual assault. Neither the accused at the time of the offence nor the court at the time of trial can infer consent from lack of resistance. The Supreme Court specifically rejected the concept of “implied consent” in Ewanchuck13 and, in R. v. M.(M.L.),14 held that lack of resistance is not to be equated with consent.

It is, therefore, important to note that the absence of evidence of resistance by a complainant would not be relevant to the assessment of credibility of the complainant, and it would not be necessary for the Crown to establish that an accused used force or threats.

As stated in paragraph 1.6 above, under Canadian law, it is legally possible for a person of 14 years of age to give consent to conduct of a sexual nature. Furthermore, the age of the victim would have no formal impact on the burden of proof or on the facts that the Crown would have to prove. However, depending upon the specific facts of a given case, age and sexual inexperience of a victim could be used by the Crown in establishing the elements necessary to prove sexual assault, i.e. whether or not the victim consented.

Investigation and Prosecution of Sexual Offences

The decision to lay a charge under the Criminal Code normally rests with the police. It is open to the police to choose not to lay a charge if they find that an allegation is “unfounded.” There is little recourse for the complainant in this situation.

The Canadian code does not explicitly define sexual assault in terms of the types of sexual activity prohibited. However, for the purpose of determining whether a sexual assault has occurred, the statute defines consent as the “voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in the sexual activity in question.” If the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity or if the complainant expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to engage in the activity, a defendant may not successfully defend against charges of sexual assault on the grounds that the complainant consented.

Again, what we need here is lawyer from America and from Canada. . .maybe other countries,too. There are a lot of people telling us what the law is and NONE of them are listed as convicts, law officers or attornies.

Should they fight back and have to show 'defense' wounds? It's hard enough for a rape victim to get a conviction, this would set them back a century.

To prove a sexual assault, the Crown must also prove fault or mens rea, specifically that the accused knew, was wilfully blind to, or was reckless as to the victim’s lack of consent.4 To raise a reasonable doubt about the mens rea, the accused may not rely on his own self-induced intoxication or on his own failure to take reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant’s consent.5

it's rape the second she feels she made a bad decision and wants to call it that.

And face it, it will be a cold day in hell before you see a guy in court calling such an example of poor judgement rape, just because his girlfriend found out or the woman was particularly homely and his friends found out.

It's not a matter of wanting to call it that. It is what it is. If a woman feels violated, who are you to say that she hasn't been?