“A man has a fundamental human right to have sex with his wife”.

[KatamariDamacy]

A judge has ruled that, in the case of a couple where the woman has worsening learning difficulties, the man’s right to have sex with his wife overrules her right to consent to it. Social services are concerned her condition means she no longer has the capacity to consent. But it’s all right, because the right for a man to have sex with his wife is a fundamanental human right.

www.theguardian.com/law/2019/apr/03/english-judge-says-man-having-sex-with-wife-is-fundamental-human-right

I’m horrified. Marital rape is illegal.

x a billion doesn't even begin to cover it, so. Basically what the arse hole of a judge is saying is.
This bloke is fine to rape his wife.
He should be struck off

Jesus. How on earth is this allowed?!

Wtf? I can't believe this!

Nobody has any right at all to have sex with ANYBODY. How do his rights overrule need? She’s vulnerable and needs protection.

I'm not going to argue over that particular quote but before this thread gets much longer it is worth nothing that according to the article, the judge has not ruled on the case. He has ordered a full hearing.

www.theguardian.com/law/2019/apr/03/english-judge-says-man-having-sex-with-wife-is-fundamental-human-right

No he hasn’t. He’s ruled
that because this is such a fundamental issue (and affects so many couples) it should go to trial rather than being given the temporary pragmatic solution of a declaration by the husband.

The specific quote is dreadful though.

It is clearly a complete and difficult case so a full hearing does seem sensible. Even if that particular part of his statement is dreadful.

Surely he shouldn't be allowed to 'care for her. What a complete bastard.

I hope the full review protects this woman entirely.

If she cannot give consent then the decision is surely made in law.

Just because she used to consent is not a reason to assume she still wants to.

The article says that a row has erupted - but does anyone know whether anything concrete will happen as a result of this remark? Are judges liable to censure of any kind (beyond public criticism like this, which may well be water off a duck's back)?

You've got your facts wrong op. The judge hasn't actually ruled anything yet. There's going to be a further hearing. Spreading misinformation isn't going go help anyone.

The point of this hearing is to decide how best to protect this vulnerable woman. Decisions have not yet been made.

I do agree that the judge's statement that the right for a man to have sex with his wife is a misogynist statement. Sex is a something to enjoy between 2 people, not a human right for a man to have. I think he needs to have another look at the human rights act.

There have been multiple threads about this. Lawyers explained the reason behind it - basically it is a case to decide at what point social services can intervene in relationships.

The husband in this case has no intention of having sex with his wife. It is a case to test thresholds for intervention as was explained on all of the other threads.

I assume the full review will be determining if she can consent and (hopefully) what will happen if she deteriorates further. I assume the judge is trying to make sure he doesn't place an order on the husband if she can still consent.

How on earth would you even measure the ability to consent?

The man has said he will not have sex with her and has offered a legal and binding promise. On the basis that it is an potentially novel are in which precedent could be set, and the fact interested parties have intervened in the form of the Government Legal Service, the trial will continue to ventilate the issues. It does not mean he can just go ahead and rape her as and when with the permission of the state.

But if the man was a decent human being this wouldn’t even be an issue would it? Any decent man wouldn’t be having sex with a woman whose disabilities had become such that she potentialy couldn’t consent to sex.

I heard about this yesterday, your OP is not correct. The husband has offered to declare and sign that he won't have sex, as the wife has no ability to consent, but it's been agreed to test it in law as it raises the issue of how to protect vulnerable married partners.

She may be perfectly able to consent now but her medical team are concerned about the future and are dealing with it preemptively. We don’t have access to all the evidence nor the submissions made on behalf of the partiesso we simply don’t know.

How on earth would you even measure the ability to consent?

It happens every day in rape trials.

What he said was

“I cannot think of any more obviously fundamental human right than the right of a man to have sex with his wife – and the right of the state to monitor that. I think he is entitled to have it properly argued."

So he thinks it the same or more obviously fundemental than the right to food, shelter and freedom from slavery, torture and degrading treatment.

Even if it is a preliminary court of protection hearing it's one hell of a bad point of view for a judge to hold.

The judge did say it would be hard to police. He's not wrong there.

It’s badly put but it’s a long established principle that there is a right to expect a sex life as per of a marriage. That does not mean you can rape someone but potentially divorce on the basis that the other person will not or cannot participate in sex.

It has been quite badly put by the Judge in that it does not say a person with their spouse but give this is a case about a man having sex with his wife, I can see how the wording has come about.

I suspect the JCIO will be inundated with complaints that will ultimately come to naught.

You’re factually incorrect OP.

Have you read the article?