Interesting legal view on consent contracts, Canadian point of view.

[Redneck_Nerd]

Ran across this video the other day from a Canadian lawyer I follow on YT.  It's a step away from his usual subjects, but apparently something he's asked about fairly regularly.

It delves into the idea of Consent Contracts from a Canadian law point of view, and explains a lot about the dangers (under Canadian law, or in the courts) of using such contracts as an indication or proof of consent to whatever activities, as well as touching on a little bit of related issues or legal dangers around a few kinks where these contracts often turn up.

I realize that this isn't necessarily applicable to a lot of members, as it's based only on Canadian law, but might still be good to consider or be aware of, as many nations have legal systems with similar views or precedent.

I also realize that sometimes these contracts are more to help ensure involved parties are on the same page, instead of being legal protection, and he touches on that a little as well.  I'm also sure that many already know the points that are made here, but as always, information is power and being more informed can never hurt.  Worth the quick watch either way.

 

 

[ey****]

Being 20 minutes I'm not going to watch through it... buuuuut

Yep, this has come up a few times and it is very important that people involved are aware that having a 'contract' (which isn't really a widespread thing) is more for fun or symbolism than anything binding

It doesn't overrule the law wherever you are - and - of course, yep, should never be used to coerce or threaten the other person.

[lo****]

Seems to me that if your going to have a written contact, as of what you are allowed to do to said parties, this is not covered by any law in any country, it’s something that we would like to happen and can go no further, contacts are a waste of time, I’m not buying a car, or a lease on an apartment, but each to there own , or owners or ownership.

[CopperKnob]

I think it's really applicable regardless of location. For me, there's various forms of consent, a contract for me is implied consent. It may also be informed consent but, not necessarily. I may sign a contract today consenting to a bunch of stuff. That contract might say that i'm going to all that stuff with you from tomorrow until whenever. I may be in a RTC tonight and unconscious tomorrow, i couldn't give informed consent for anything whilst comatose so the contract is meaningless.

[Char__]

I don't think it's for me, but I can see the purpose of a contract as a way of having a written record from kink discussions around limits, greenlit activities and expectations on both sides. But it is really important for all parties to be aware that it will not protect you in a court of law.

[Char__]

*expectations and responsibilities

[so****]

What's its all aboot

[po****]

They may be called contracts but it’s more just a write up so anyone involved in the scene/session knows where the boundaries are. There’s no actual legal basis to them.

[ol****]

I don't think any "contract" will protect you against an assault charge. @CopperKnob has it about right. 

Consent today is not consent tomorrow. 

[so****]

Yeah even here in the US, such contracts are not legally binding. & Our government has an interesting perspective on bdsm as well, which can be extremely detrimental to a Dom if their sub flips out & makes false allegations against them. It's hard to argue to a judge that it was consentual when she's covered in bruises. That's why I vet my subs so heavily. I make 1000% sure that she's mentally stable & is a good person. Because just one false allegation could ruin a Dom's entire life.

[Deleted Member]

In the United Kingdom in 1989 a group of gay men who had been engaging in consensual SM activities were put on trial and found guilty of assault. The dominants/tops were charged with assault, and the men who participated in the activities as "bottoms" or submissives were convicted of aiding and abetting assaults upon themselves

[Deleted Member]

It was called the spanner case

[ey****]

A lot of the laws from the spanner case are still in UK laws as they've never been revoked. They're just not really enforced.

However in recent UK law there were laws passed forbidding the "rough sex defence" which basically means in cases for domestic violence, r*pe or death caused during a BDSM activity (accidental or otherwise) any history of the partner liking BDSM or rough sex can not be used as a defence.

[Deleted Member]

Brings a whole new meaning to consensual activity. I read that as Consent is not consent under law, and means an ex from a bdsm relationship can claim domestic violence or abuse when it suits.

[ey****]

I feel it's important not to have a knee jerk that someone is going to falsely claim

But, moreso - to remember that vetting is a two way thing and also that things are communicated clearly.   

Are you quite sure the other person is happy to go into this and understands what is involved?  Can you feel they're of sound mind?

Despite the law change there is stuff that is going to be very difficult to stick if you've done nothing wrong (but, remember - if the other person dies, you definitely did something wrong)

[Deleted Member]

I agree totally, with all those, amd am always totally open with potentials as to what I have done and my previous experience.