Interesting Links for 16-08-2024

[andrewducker]

1. Edinburgh plans lodged for new open air market overlooking Portobello Beach

(tags:edinburgh markets )

2. European human rights law and the legality of sex offence prosecutions based on deception as to gender history

(tags:law rights transgender LGBT UK Europe )

3. Please Don't Idolize Me (or Anyone, Really)

(tags:behaviour ethics people )

4. New Brexit inspection charge is 'huge extra expense for nothing', say firms

(tags:UK Europe trade Doom )

5. Is this the end for the magnetic stripe?

(tags:magnets Technology banking obsolescence )

Comments

[lilysea]

I clicked on the link, and the article seems to suggest than, in another case,

NOT disclosing HIV+ status does not violate consent

which is ????

I think HIV+ status is extremely relevant to consent!

a series of Court of Appeal cases have placed emphasis on an act/omission distinction in the context of establishing liability for sexual fraud. Thus in R v Dica the Court of Appeal made clear that non-disclosure of HIV+ status did not vitiate consent for the purposes of rape, albeit the case considered liability under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.Footnote 33 In R v EB, the Court of Appeal had to consider the same point on a rape charge. Latham LJ rejected the argument that non-disclosure vitiated consent stating:

As a matter of law, the fact that the appellant may not have disclosed his HIV status is not a matter which could in any way be relevant to the issue of consent under section 74 in relation to the sexual activity in this case.

[andrewducker]

You'd think so, wouldn't you.

Although back in the olden days you'd have gotten them with an attempted murder charge, now that there is decent medication you probably wouldn't.

[lilysea]

I think, with current medications, attempted murder is too much of a charge

but,

given how expensive HIV medication is,

how disruptive it can be to lifestyle,

and the fact that it has side effects

and the fact that, even with medication, people with HIV are still likely to die at age 60 when they would have lived to age 80 if they didn't have HIV

I would support a legal charge of "Gross Bodily Harm"

"According to the Criminal Code WA, grievous bodily harm is an injury that endangers or is likely to endanger the victim’s life. Additionally, it is an injury that causes or is likely to cause permanent injury to the victim. As defined by the code, these injuries may vary significantly. A severe head injury, a broken jaw, and a loss of a limb are all GBH cases.

If the victim seeks medical care and their injury symptoms improve or are resolved, the GBH charge remains unchanged. This is because partial or complete recovery from an act causing GBH cannot erase the fact that the event happened."

[andrewducker]

The Crown Prosecution Service has a whole set of guidance on the topic:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/intentional-or-reckless-sexual-transmission-infection

[lilysea]

We had a case here in Australia sometime between 2011 and 2019 where an HIV+ sex worker had unprotected sex with her clients without telling them that she was HIV+

If I remember correctly, she got a prison sentence, which I felt was appropriate

If she had told her clients that she was HIV+, and they had still chosen to skip condoms, then I would regard that as 100% her clients responsibility, but she didn't give them the chance to make an informed decision

[andrewducker]

Absolutely.

[wildeabandon]

I think more relevant is the fact that modern medicine suppresses the virus to the extent that there is no risk of infection.

If you've got an undetectable viral load then I don't think there's any duty to disclose.

[lilysea]

With the case of the HIV+ sex worker that I mentioned that went to court between 2011-2019, she did not have an undetectable viral load - she was not taking medication to reduce her viral load

and several of her clients became HIV+ after having unprotected sex with her

(and these days, they can do HIV strain-typing to show a causal link)

[anna_wing]

Also, the virus is suppressed only if the infected person can (a) get access to that medicine at all and (b) forever. Neither of which can be reliably guaranteed in quite a lot of the world.

[lilysea]

Re: trans disclosure, I think no one has a duty to disclose their assigned gender at birth.

If it is desperately important to know what the assigned gender at birth of their sexual partners was, it's up to the person who wants to know to ask.

Sleeping with someone who is trans doesn't cause harm.

[andrewducker]

I would tend to agree that there isn't a duty to do so.

While also feeling that if you think it might upset someone to know that they had done something then a general approach of not doing that without a conversation is a good one.

[lilysea]

Holy shit, there was also a case where they decided that a man LYING ABOUT HAVING HAD A VASECTOMY didn't invalidate consent!

I think that "have sex with me, you can't get pregnant" is a totally different thing to "have sex with me, you can absolutely get pregnant" !

"The Court considered the facts of Lawrance to be analogous with those of B and decided that that the explicit lie of the defendant as to his vasectomy did not vitiate consent as defined by section 74 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. This was because it was not sufficiently closely connected to the nature and purpose of the act of sexual intercourse. Rather, it was a deceit as to the nature of the defendant’s ejaculate and the risks associated with having unprotected sex with him. The defendant's lie had not deprived the other person of the freedom to choose whether to have the sexual intercourse which occurred."

[andrewducker]

"it was not sufficiently closely connected to the nature and purpose of the act of sexual intercourse" - that's a really really odd approach!

#3

[mellowtigger]

Refusing in general to idolize people is a good rule to live by. It's the heart of an old Buddhist saying which was first told to me in the 1990s as, "If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha." Even NPR did a story on this concept.

[bens_dad]

2. I am surprised and pleased to see that deception can constitute rape. (I am used to the To Kill A Mockingbird definition: "Carnal knowledge by force without consent.")

The moral appears to be "If something about the other person is important to you, talk about it before you sleep with them."

There seems to be a suggestion that this is only about technicalities for a rape prosecution; other charges may still apply ...
If you avoid a conviction by this loophole/technicality you are still being a not very nice person.

I have attempted to read the article but I am still not clear whether this loophole is open to someone who actively lies or just someone who doesn't tell the truth. To my mind getting consent by actively lying *is* morally the same as rape.

[lilysea]

It very much depends on what the lie to the sexual partner is:

lying about

a) whether or not you've had a vasectomy

b) or your STD/STI status

c) or whether you are taking the oral contraceptive pill/Depro Provera/an IUD/Implanon

is very different to

d) lying about who you voted for at the last election.

Lying about a) through c) is potentially rape

lying about d) is an arsehole thing to do, but it is not rape.

[bens_dad]

I am going to claim the "getting consent by actively lying" clause and the "morally" here.

If you are trying to seduce me and I have just told you that who you vote for is important to our relationship, then I stick by my claim.

Perhaps I don't see a woman raping a man the same way you see a man raping a woman ?

[andrewducker]

Yeah, I think that "morally" and "legally" are going to conflict a bit here.

[movingfinger]

Anecdote ≠ data, but I have a cardback phone case and I've never had trouble with the cards I've kept in it...