Swedish law would require explicit consent before sexual contact

[Jolly_Penguin]

"If a person has not agreed in words or by their clear actions that they are willing to engage in sexual activity, then forcing or coercing them into a sexual act will be illegal."

That's even better, and I don't see how anybody could object to that. How did that get twisted into the burden of proof being reversed and about verbal consent? Bad reporting in that original article.

 

[Rhea]

It’s an interesting thing. There seems to be this claim that men must never ever be victims of crime (referring to this crime of women deliberately giving consent and then later lying about it so they can trap a man). That the proposed woman criminals just can’t be allowed to happen, and since this crime happens publicly (along with very valid and correct accusations of rape also) and to avoid men ever being the victim of a crime, we should instead make many many mnay more women into victims of crimes because that seems like a fair idea.

Women are victims of a crime.
Often. Far far too often.
Men are victims of a crime.
Sometimes, every now and then.

We know which crime we need to address, right? It’s important that crimes against men go to zero before we spend any time addressing crimes against women.

Because that’s what’s claimed here. That men are victims of a crime, and any collateral damage to women is okay in combatting that crime because it’s so incredible horrible for there to be a crime against men. If combatting that crime against a few men means thousands of women become victims to a crime, that is a reasonable and fair outcome.

Because a thousand women being raped is so much less bad than one man being falsely accused of rape. And because also it’s such a buzzkill to ask for consent and men might get laid less, so that’s pretty awful, too.

 

[ruby sparks]

The first line of the updated article reads: "Sweden is moving closer to making changes to its rape laws that would require people to get explicit consent before sexual contact." -- no mention of how it's going to be determined.

Looks a lot like they are trying to write something that codifies: “Lack of ‘no’ does not mean ‘yes.’ Only ‘yes’ means yes,”

Which, for those who have been grabbed without consent and then heard, “but I didn’t think you’d mind!” Seems like an excellent direction.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL, yeah right. Just this week, three prosecution cases in the UK collapse due to shenanigans. Unfortunately, although not common, these situations do come up.

You seem to be claiming they are three cases where confirmed and explicit consent was given, never revoked, and then later lied about.

What is happening, I think (having listened to radio discussions and interviews with anti-rape activists) is that there is a general push to 'do something' to address the issue due to growing pressure. It is being said that the Police have swung in the opposite direction (from not believing the victim to not believing the accused) in order to get convictions, so as to quell criticism.

However, the bungled cases appear to be and probably are exceptions.

Unfortunately, one female activist on the radio today, when asked if those making false accusations should face charges, equivocated a bit and would not answer directly. Which I thought was a pity. She could have clarified or said that they should not necessarily have to (because a not guilty verdict for an accused is not the same as a guilty verdict for the accuser).

 

[Rhea]

You know, funny thing. People who have clear and explicit consent tend to not be accused of rape and so it is moot.

Wrongful conviction is moot because it is rare? People who are innocent tend not to be accused of crimes of any sort.

Not what I said. Accusations tend not to happen when you haven’t done anything wrong. They are very very very rare.

 

[ruby sparks]

One of the recent cases in Sweden that I read prompted discussions on policy changes (understandably):

Rape suspect freed: 'her no was part of sex game'

"While both agree that the evening began pleasantly with kissing and heavy petting, the two had different view about what happened when the man initiated intercourse with the woman.

"I expressed very clearly that I didn't want to, so there was no way he could misunderstand me," the woman told investigators.

She explained, however, that the man became more aggressive as her protests increased, adding that he "seemed to like it".

The woman screamed so much and so loudly that she eventually lost her voice while the man continued to force himself on her. At one point, he covered her nose and mouth so she couldn't breathe and slapped her in the face, Metro reported.

But the man told the court that he was convinced the woman was into rough sex, saying he received "very clear signals" that she enjoyed what he was doing.

Under the pretense of taking a shower following the incident, the woman then fled the apartment. Witnesses told the court they encountered her lightly clothed and sobbing, an account confirmed by two police officers who responded to the incident."

https://www.thelocal.se/20140110/rape-suspect-freed-claims-womans-no-was-part-of-sex-game

From the same article:

"However, the court tossed out the rape charge, ruling it had not been proven that the 27-year-old had acted with intent to act against the woman's wishes. The verdict cited the suspect's explanation that he thought the woman's protests were part of a violent sex game, despite the lack of an explicit agreement or consent between the two parties about dominant sexual role play."

Rightly or wrongly, Sweden has just gone down a little in my estimation.

 

[Rhea]

What is happening, I think (having listened to radio discussions and interviews with anti-rape activists) is that there is a general push to 'do something' to address the issue due to growing pressure.

Or due to growing realization that many men have been getting away with rape due to lack of action? It may not be “pressure,” it may be actual realization of fact...

It is being said that the Police have swung in the opposite direction (from not believing the victim to not believing the accused) in order to get convictions, so as to quell criticism.

Perhaps this does a disservice to Police who may be trying to do the right thing, rather than just cravenly covering their butts while continuing to think rapes are usually deserved.

Unfortunately, one female activist on the radio today, when asked if those making false accusations should face charges, she equivocated a bit and would not answer directly. Which I thought was a pity. She could have clarified or said that they should not necessarily have to (because a not guilty verdict for an accused is not the same as a guilty verdict for the accuser).

Agreed.

 

[ruby sparks]

From 2016:

How researchers want to reform Swedish rape law

"Many other European nations, for example England and Wales, already have a so-called sexual consent clause built into their rape legislation, but Sweden does not."

https://www.thelocal.se/20160419/how-researchers-want-to-reform-swedens-rape-law

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

t’s an interesting thing. There seems to be this claim that men must never ever be victims of crime (referring to this crime of women deliberately giving consent and then later lying about it so they can trap a man). That the proposed woman criminals just can’t be allowed to happen, and since this crime happens publicly (along with very valid and correct accusations of rape also) and to avoid men ever being the victim of a crime, we should instead make many many mnay more women into victims of crimes because that seems like a fair idea.

Women are victims of a crime.
Often. Far far too often.
Men are victims of a crime.
Sometimes, every now and then.

We know which crime we need to address, right? It’s important that crimes against men go to zero before we spend any time addressing crimes against women.

Because that’s what’s claimed here. That men are victims of a crime, and any collateral damage to women is okay in combatting that crime because it’s so incredible horrible for there to be a crime against men. If combatting that crime against a few men means thousands of women become victims to a crime, that is a reasonable and fair outcome.

Because a thousand women being raped is so much less bad than one man being falsely accused of rape. And because also it’s such a buzzkill to ask for consent and men might get laid less, so that’s pretty awful, too.

Rhea, I get that you are compassionate about rape victims, and I commend you for that sentiment, you should be, and we all should be. But think through what you are saying.

you just said in your previous post that because innocent men (who get consent) don't tend to get accused, therefore innocent men getting accused is moot. Did I get that wrong? Are you not calling the wrongfully convicted moot?

Are you not speaking against the presumption of innocence? Do you want men to have to prove they didn't rape women if they are accused of doing so?

Do you call for the same in all aspects of criminal law or only here? Should a person accused of murder or theft have to prove they didn't do it rather than the crown proving that they did?

Is it misogynist and hateful of women to suggest that men accused of rape should have to be fairly convicted before we label and treat them as rapists?

A huge irony here is that courts actually have shown bias AGAINST men in both conviction and sentencing when charged with the same crimes and with the same evidence as women. Our society actually has a tendency to see women as victims and men as aggressors. Yet, you've somehow flipped that over in your mind.

- - - Updated - - -

You know, funny thing. People who have clear and explicit consent tend to not be accused of rape and so it is moot.

Wrongful conviction is moot because it is rare? People who are innocent tend not to be accused of crimes of any sort.

Not what I said. Accusations tend not to happen when you haven’t done anything wrong. They are very very very rare.

So? You said that makes them moot. Does it or does it not?

 

[ruby sparks]

Or due to growing realization that many men have been getting away with rape due to lack of action? It may not be “pressure,” it may be actual realization of fact...

It's much the same thing, imo. The pressure has come from realities which are actual.

Perhaps this does a disservice to Police who may be trying to do the right thing, rather than just cravenly covering their butts while continuing to think rapes are usually deserved.

It may do. I'm really just quoting an activist who's main point was to suggest that there should be specialists, perhaps slightly independent of the Police.

If the Police in the Allen case were trying to do the right thing.......well, whoever knew of the recordings that were eventually released under duress was not, I think, trying to do the right thing.

In her opinion, the Police just aren't showing themselves capable to do the job right, one way or the other.

Probably a bit harsh, imo. But not something I'm expert enough on to decide whether I agree or not.

Agreed.

It's an unfortunate side effect, literally, of taking sides. The woman has probably spent many years trying to rectify a serious and institutional wrong (rapists getting away with rape) and so may have, understandably, lost some neutrality. Neutrality is very very hard to achieve, in almost anything, I think.

It wasn't a terrible faux pax on her part. She was mainly right on the money.

 

[Rhea]

So? You said that makes them moot. Does it or does it not?

The careful reader will observe that I wrote that recordings of consent are moot when you have actual consent because no one ever asks you for evidence because no one is accusing you because you had actual consent.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

no one ever asks you for evidence because no one is accusing you because you had actual consent.

Explain that part. It still appears you may be claiming no one is accused of rape if they had actual consent. If so, how is that any different from saying there are no wrongfully accused? And if there are no wrongfully accused, why do we have criminal courts?

 

[TSwizzle]

"If a person has not agreed in words or by their clear actions that they are willing to engage in sexual activity, then forcing or coercing them into a sexual act will be illegal."

That's even better, and I don't see how anybody could object to that. How did that get twisted into the burden of proof being reversed and about verbal consent? Bad reporting in that original article.

It's still not clear how prosecutors are going to prove that consent was not given when the accused is going state that consent was given. I guess we will have to wait to see where it goes.

 

[Elixir]

"Following the changes to the law, the prosecution will have to present evidence demonstrating that the sexual act was not consensual."

Yipes. Does the absence of any signed consent form constitute proof of the non-consensual nature of the act?
Might be a great time to be a notary in Sweden!

Which part of "the prosecution will have to present evidence" do you not understand?

I don't understand what constitutes sufficient evidence. Is the absence of documentation of non-consent, sufficient to prove consent, and is the absence of documentation of consent sufficient to prove non-consent?

I don't understand what they're demanding in either case.

 

[ruby sparks]

"If a person has not agreed in words or by their clear actions that they are willing to engage in sexual activity, then forcing or coercing them into a sexual act will be illegal."

That's even better, and I don't see how anybody could object to that. How did that get twisted into the burden of proof being reversed and about verbal consent? Bad reporting in that original article.

It's still not clear how prosecutors are going to prove that consent was not given when the accused is going state that consent was given. I guess we will have to wait to see where it goes.

It's unlikely to sort out that sort of he-said-she-said mess (in the cases where that's what courts have to go on) but I think at least it emphasises to people (mostly men I suppose) about the importance of consent.

As another article said, other countries, including the UK, already have such items on the statute book and we still have problems.

 

[ruby sparks]

Which part of "the prosecution will have to present evidence" do you not understand?

I don't understand what constitutes sufficient evidence. Is the absence of documentation of non-consent, sufficient?

Given that there have been a few quotes given here about both verbal and non-verbal (behavioural) consent (which you may not have noticed) it would appear documentation is not going to be needed. As to what constitutes 'sufficient' I imagine we might have to wait and see how individual cases play out, since the law is often not absolutely specific and relies on words like 'sufficient' and 'reasonable', and indeed precedent and case law.

 

[ruby sparks]

I seriously doubt that the purpose of this is to expect people to either sign something or say something into a recording device just before having sex.

In any case, how would anyone know that the victim was not signing or speaking under duress?

Or maybe I missed something in the reports.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh yes, this is going to be interesting;

Sweden is moving to change its rape law to shift the burden of proof from the claimant to the alleged attacker, in a proposal that would require people to obtain explicit consent before sexual contact. Isabella Lovin, the deputy prime minister, said the recent #metoo anti-harassment campaign had shown the need for the new legislation, which is expected to be approved by parliament on Thursday. Under current Swedish law, someone can be prosecuted for rape only if it is proven that they used threats or violence. Under the proposal, rape could be proven if the claimant did not give his or her explicit verbal agreement or clearly demonstrate a desire to engage in sexual activity.

Teh Gruaniad

I am probably missing something but I don't really understand how on earth either person could actually prove one way or the other unless there is a recording, a witness or a document signed with a notary or something.

I think it's worth noting that it says in your bold part, "could be proven". It's open-ended. Will be assessed case by case.

If lawmakers were too precise in their prescriptions, two things might happen. First, the circumstances in each case might not be allowed to be considered adequately. The second thing is that lawyers might make less money.

 

[TSwizzle]

It's still not clear how prosecutors are going to prove that consent was not given when the accused is going state that consent was given. I guess we will have to wait to see where it goes.

It's unlikely to sort out that sort of he-said-she-said mess (in the cases where that's what courts have to go on) but I think at least it emphasises to people (mostly men I suppose) about the importance of consent.

As another article said, other countries, including the UK, already have such items on the statute book and we still have problems.

Which kinda makes me think this proposal won't be effective.

 

[ronburgundy]

There will be a phone app, I'd guess.

But if neither party has written consent did they both rape each other?

Or is there some sort of race to the police to get your "I was raped" claim in first. Or maybe there's an app for that too.

Cute how you write this as if it will be applied equally between genders.

Cute how you slipped in that little tidbit of misogyny there (not really).

It isn't misogyny to argue that such a law is unlikely to applied equally to both genders. In fact, it is pointing out the misogyny in the enforcement of such laws, since the concept that females are weak, powerless, and passive participants in sex is the basis for such unequal enforcement.
You can try to argue that this fear has no foundation, but your reply is just a dishonest ad hominem.

 

[Rhea]

no one ever asks you for evidence because no one is accusing you because you had actual consent.

Explain that part. It still appears you may be claiming no one is accused of rape if they had actual consent. If so, how is that any different from saying there are no wrongfully accused? And if there are no wrongfully accused, why do we have criminal courts?

Yeah, I’m saying that wrongful accusation is more rare than a shark bite and all I hear are these guys whining, “wait, I gotta _ask_ and get get an actual yes answer? How’m I gonna get laid now? This is abominable!”

And I just want those guys to shut up and not be like that any more.

 

[ruby sparks]

no one ever asks you for evidence because no one is accusing you because you had actual consent.

Explain that part. It still appears you may be claiming no one is accused of rape if they had actual consent. If so, how is that any different from saying there are no wrongfully accused? And if there are no wrongfully accused, why do we have criminal courts?

Yeah, I’m saying that wrongful accusation is more rare than a shark bite and all I hear are these guys whining, “wait, I gotta _ask_ and get get an actual yes answer? How’m I gonna get laid now? This is abominable!”

And I just want those guys to shut up and not be like that any more.

Between 2.1 and 10.9% of swimmers get bitten by a shark?

https://icdv.idaho.gov/conference/handouts/False-Allegations.pdf