Condoms Go to the Court Supreme

Miscellany

Posted August 12, 2022

Condoms Go to the Court Supreme

There is a hole in the Condom dear Court ...

Back then in Canada’s Centennial year, Pierre Trudeau won an election for buttressing the Bedrooms of the nation against dreaded government intervention. “The government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation”’ is how Trudeau worded it.

In 2014, half-a-century later, not exactly “to the day”, while Canada is “governed” by Justin Trudeau, the sanctity of the nation’s bedrooms is violated by the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”). Significantly, the SCC boast being The-Protector–Supreme of the population from government excesses. Yet:

“The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that stealthing [ = “non-consensual condom removal”] is a form of sexual assault. That means anyone who doesn't wear, or removes, a condom without their partner's consent or knowledge can face a sexual assault charge.”

R. v. Craig Jaret Hutchinson was heard on March 7, 2014 by seven Judges of the SCC. Among them were then Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and the current Chief Richard Wagner. Four were “against” Hutchinson, three “for” him so the young man was sent behind bars for a year-and-a-half. This for conducting himself as 3 of 7 SCC Judges would have conducted themselves had they been in his shoes. Brilliant, eh?

I read, or rather I attempted to read, the “reasons for judgement” in that case. Not being a lawyer I am expected to pretend seeing-justice-done while I cannot read Legalese, but I tried. The attempt boosted my respect for those asserting that, in general, judges rule as they please, which contrasts the method by which the Passenger on the Clapham Omnibus would do it, that is to say, on the bases of facts and reason.

I am left at a loss to imagine why the SCC judges believed that Hutchinson would “admit” to having pierced the “woman’s” condoms – the ownership of the condoms being “hers”, as it was reported; “her” name being hidden by the SCC. I find it inconceivable that Hutchinson would voluntarily relieve “her” from the onus to prove that it was he who had pin-holed “her” condoms. That he took the case to the Appeal Court, and then to the SCC do not manifest a predisposition to help “her” send him to jail for 18 months. Pity the Judges of the SCC, did not consider the probability of “confession extraction”.

In her book Truth-be-Told McLachlin sheds crocodilian tears about people languishing in Her Majesty’s Jails because they could not afford a lawyer to keep them out. I ask her on which authority Judges jail people for having no lawyer. As for me, I will show that a litigant being “unrepresented” is no defence for misjudgement. Judges are not allowed misjudgement of anyone, irrespective of whether the victim had a lawyer or not.

I was prompted to dwell as I did on Hutchinson’s case by the news of another and bigger SCC screwup. This because it arrived c/w the explanation that the new B&E into the nations bedrooms is a natural evolution from the Hutchinson case.

On July 29, 2022, was flashed to us the populace that the SCC had again intruded into the bedrooms of the nations and had gone deeper into what transpires therein, grabbing again on, you guessed it right, condoms.

“Supreme Court of Canada rules not wearing condom against partner's wishes could lead to sexual assault conviction”

In a decision that could set an important legal precedent on consent and sexual assault, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that condom use is legally a part of sexual activity — and that sex without a condom requires separate consent from sex with a condom. This ruling is in connection with the case of Ross McKenzie Kirkpatrick, a B.C. man who did not wear a condom during sexual intercourse with the complainant, even though she insisted beforehand that he wear a condom.”

Oppressors calculate the time and the size of new increments of oppression on the basis of their assertion that the population have become accustomed to the pain from the previous increment and that they now could absorb another. And they size the new increment lesser than one which would cause unmanageable public discontent. This calls for seamless public vigilance over the magistrates and commands strict “zero tolerance” for errant ones. When Premiers and the PM raid the public purse to buy themselves Mid-Pandemic elections to extend their own job-security and boost their power to “govern” us, zero tolerance must be the order of the day. Likewise when the SCC judges reach into our bedrooms to be seized with the nation’s condoms.

It is worrisome is that the 40 million of us could neither stop the politicos from holding these election, nor bar the judges from B&E into our bedrooms.

We need Democracy, all across the spectrum ...

PS: I am in the process of assembling a committee to compile a legal form for “Condom Consent, Denial and Usage Protocol”. Filling it up under candlelight-and-wine and signing it under the watchful lense of the monitoring government camera will add to the condom-experience, so greatly romanticised by the SCC.

*********************************************

Bits and Bytes

August 6 and 9, 77 years ago, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were annihilated by a couple of nukes. It is the most horrific crime humans ever perpetrated on themselves.

How could such an atrocity happen? There are various “explanations” and to them I will add mine.

After the Dark Ages, the applied-sciences fly skywards but the social-sciences stagnate or backslide. We split-the-atom and the first use we could find for that was to make bombs and kill. And that is what we did.

The Golden Age of civilization happened because Archimedes, Plato, Pericles, Sophocles and the rest of the lot marched in sync. The Dark Ages arrested civilization and the renaissance happened lopsided. Where we now are we can’t hobble the applied sciences for the rest to catch up. The best we can do is accelerate the social sciences. And Hope.

Condoms Go to the Court Supreme - Alcyonenews