The latest strange decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, which
led to a rather nasty exchange between two high ranking judges,
prompted a reader to write a letter that was
published in the Globe and Mail on March 8, 1999.

[beginning of letter]

The following document should be carried by any man in Canada
today.

Consent Form

I, Ms ......., in consideration of (tick box) a church marriage[ ], a
registry-office marriage[ ], an engagement ring[ ], a diamond
bracelet[ ], Woolworth earrings[ ], a visit to a symphony[ ], art
gallery[ ], movie[ ], rock concert[ ], dinner[ ], box of chocolates[ ],
walk in the park[ ] or sweet talk[ ] from:

Mr. .........., who represents himself as single[ ], separated[ ] or
unhappy with his spouse[ ], live-in girlfriend[ ], fiancee[ ], partner
of the masculine sex[ ], to be 'mens sana in corpore sano'
(especially corpore sano)[ ], solvent[ ], and enamoured of me[ ];

Will allow him the following activities on ...... (year) ...... (month)
....... (day) between the hours of ....... and .......:

To walk beside me[ ], hold hands[ ], embrace waist[ ], kiss (mouth
closed)[ ], kiss (mouth open)[ ], gentle embrace[ ], full-frontal
embrace[ ], remove my hat and coat[ ], gloves[ ], shoes and socks
(if any)[ ], top[ ], bottom[ ], underclothing partially[ ] or
completely[ ], fondle me[ ], romp on bed[ ], hearthrug[ ],
greensward[ ], including full quenching of his lust[ ].

I hereby declare that I am over the age of consent[ ], in full
possession of my senses[ ], sober[ ], unaffected by any drug[ ],
sterile[ ], on the pill[ ], over childbearing age[ ];

I further hereby declare that I will not hold Mr. ...... responsible for
the activities set above in any court of law[ ], will not inform his
wife[ ], girlfriend[ ], mother[ ], teacher[ ] of these activities, nor
for any untoward consequence of his action in the future[ ].

Unless I change my mind.

Signed: .............
Witness: ............
Witness: ............

[end of letter]

So don't leave the home without it.

Pavel

Pavel Dvorak wrote

Indeed , a needed form for legal protection in this sue happy society . A
must for a single guy to protect himself from a date rape charges :-)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Lepsi pivo v zaludku nezli voda na plicich."
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" "
"It's better to have a beer in the stomach than water in the lungs."

                                            J. Cimrman

Dear Editor,

George Jonas ("The new reign of terror", OC 5/3/99 A17) has made exactly the
points that needed to be made. The main concern with the SCC decision in
Ewanchuk should be with the finding that certain areas of law in Canada at
present do not admit dissenting opinions and are treated as exhibits of
moral decadence. Consider the SCC Justice John Major's statement chiding the
Alberta Court of Appeals, that no defence of implied consent to sexual
assault exists in Canadian law. My fear that as such hyperboles become
commonplace they will competely destroy the spirit of goodwill and common
purpose, the essential elements for law to function in any society.
      Second, the public outcry over the 'bonnets and crinolines' remark,
George Jonas intimates, itself suffers from a great deal of stereotyping.
True, judges should abstain from such levities because they demean people
who appear before the courts. But inappropriate as they may be they cannot
be held as proofs of intent to do harm, or a generalized contempt the legal
traditions had for women and their complaints. Allow me two small examples
to quickly dispell the notions that the patriarchal law in the past
tolerated rape and stereotyped its victims, which are implicit in Mme
Justice L'Heureux-Dube's judgment.
     In the much misunderstood time of bonnets and crinolines, William
Blackstone's 'Commentaries on the Laws of England' (pub.1783), explained why
it had been a crime in England since the Tudors to sexually attack even a
prostitute:  "The civil law (i.e. the Roman legal traditions - ed.) seems to
suppose a prostitute or common harlot incapable of any injury of this kind:
not allowing any punishment for violating the chastity of her, who hath
indeed no chastity at all, or at least hath no regard to it. But the law of
England does not judge so hardly of offenders, as to cut off all opportunity
to retreat even from common strumpets, and to treat them as never capable of
amendment. It therefore holds it to be felony to force even a concubine or
harlot, because the woman may have forsaken that unlawful course of life".
So, apparently, the law knew four hundred years ago that woman's sexual past
is immaterial when trying rape. It knew that rape is rape, no matter who its
victim.
  And just so there is no doubt the law was not all talk and no action there
is the sad case of a country gentleman hanged about the time of Blackstone's
writing. His name was Francis Charteris, his rank 'colonel', and his crime,
the rape of his servant girl Anne Bond. She had no fear to go to talk to the
magistrate. She told him her employer offered her a purse of gold to sleep
with him but she refused, so he "used violence" to take her. Charteris
denied the charge but somehow it did not not make an impression on the
wigged dignitaries in Old Bailey. They threw the book at him. In an age
where the minimum sentence for sexual assault was two years in gaol, his
crime was found to be a capital offence. Anne Bond did not need any rape
shield law; her character spoke for her loudly enough.
    These examples - let me stress the words of George Jonas - are not to
suggest that women did not suffer sometimes at the hands of the justice
system. I have cited them here simply to show that the best in law has
always abhorred stereotypes - of any kind.

Hned jsem si to vytisk - nekolikrat!