National is promising to modernise laws on sexual consent, saying there must be consent before sex every time, rather than assuming it has been given.
The party says if it is re-elected, it will ensure that consent is actively given, meaning there must be a “yes” rather than the absence of a “no”.
Personally, I have very rarely given explicit consent to sex or obtained explicit consent. So, according to National, I have been raped multiple times and also committed rape multiple times. And nearly always at the same time.
[…] Justice spokesperson Paul Goldsmith said the “yes” could be communicated by words or actions and that silence was not consent.
Except that’s not what you’re saying. But anyway…
“The change would align the law with what we’ve been telling our kids for a long time: that you need positive consent before sex, each and every time, rather than presuming it,” he said.
In court cases, the prosecution would still need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that consent was not given and that the defendant did not believe on reasonable grounds that it was, he said.”
And how is this any different from what we have now?
[…] The bill was developed by a cross-party group of MPs and seeks to define consent as something “communicated through words or actions" and make clear the consent cannot be inferred from silence or inaction and make it clear that a person cannot reasonably believe consent has been given unless they have taken reasonable steps to establish it.
Again, how does this differ, in practice, from what we have now?
In a statement, Labour’s Justice Spokesperson Camilla Belich said the reform was ready and National could act now or “continue to delay”.
“This should never have become a political issue. MPs from across parliament worked together to develop this bill because New Zealanders deserve consent laws that are clear, modern and fit for purpose.
“It’s deeply disappointing National walked away from those bipartisan discussions. If they are serious on reform, why wait? We can do this now. This bill already has support from the Labour and Green caucus and is being actively discussed with other parties across the House.”
The Green Party also called out National for walking away from cross party support to improve consent laws.”
Of course Labour and the Greens would agree with it.
Consent has always been problematic and what is being proposed isn’t going to change that. Imagine two people completely drunk and going at it like rabbits. If you believe that if a person is inebriated they cannot give consent, then both have committed rape. Drunken consent is still consent by the way.
Imagine a 15-year-old having sex on the eve of her 16th birthday with her boyfriend, who is a month older than her. According to the law, her boyfriend has raped her. Or, to really put a spanner in the works, imagine if both of them have the same birthday (underage sex laws are a necessity, however, as otherwise every paedo would be saying “I don’t care if she was only seven, she still consented!”).
What actions show consent? When does a person’s actions say “yes”? Well, with criminal cases, where there is an allegation of rape that’s what the judge or the jury tries to work out. On a case-by-case basis.
I really can’t see what difference this proposed law change is going to make.
By the way, rape allegations come under three headings: regret, revenge and real. Most fall under the first two and this is why many allegations don’t make it to court.
But don’t tell your average hairy-legged lesbian that. Or Paul Goldsmith.
