"I cannot think of any more obviously fundamental human right than the right of a man to have sex with his wife’

[Ratatouille76]

www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sex-man-wife-judge-court-protection-learning-difficulties-a8849211.html%3famp

Am speechless. Men have the right to have sex with their wives?

My point is that you said, "so I'm not sure where his right to have sex with someone who consents, comes into this, as apparently she can't, and how, in these circumstances can she be (or others) who are vulnerable, be protected within a marriage?" and I was trying to explain in simple terms about what the law means by 'fundamental right' and how this case will attempt to establish how individuals who don't have the capacity to consent to sex can be protected as per the MCA.

And yes men and women are and have been prevented from having consensual sex if they have a learning disability, dementia or a mental health problem for example, despite them having the capacity to make this decision. People have been moved away from their partners, women have been sterilised without their consent and men have been medicated to reduce their natural sexual drive.

That's why the MCA is an important piece of legislation, and it's vital that the practical application of its statutes are considered in court.

Yes sonic, the issue of regaining capacity is an important one, and one that needs to be considered in this case.

So, to paraphrase, your point in being on this thread is to set out in simple terms what the case is about?

Didn't ss bring this as a protection for the woman who can't consent, and now its more about but he can't be refused his fundamental right?

Thank you to those who have explained so clearly the implications and context of this case. I was shocked, disgusted, outraged by the headlines. Now I'm pleased that this situation is being thoroughly probed to the benefit of everyone. I hope the process isn't too stressful for the couple in question.

No smother that isn't what the case is about.

I honestly don't think anyone can explain it more clearly than they have on this thread, including the links.

Now I understand why Leavers voted for Brexit....

What about stopping and engaging a brain cell for a change?

Wouldn't it be more likely that this sentence was lifted entirely out of context so as to give it a very different meaning to the one intended simply to provide a click baity headline for the media?

It's really not that hard is it?

Again, what was your point on this thread?

Smother, it’s like you just aren't reading what has been said here. Several women on the thread have given nuanced explanations of what the case is about - and how it’s completely different from what you suggest (and from what the clickbait headlines suggested with their isolation of the judge’s wording).

Like pickle, I was initially outraged when I heard the reporting. Thanks to pps I’m reassured that this is not the upsetting type of case lots of us initially thought it must be.

@Smotheroffive it's hard to see what you are getting at. Is it this? "I am cross that this seems to have its emphasis on his rights (to not be barred from consensual sex) when the case was about her being protected?"
The case is about her, and people like her, being protected both from marital rape AND from unnecessary state interference.
The headline is about his rights, but is inflammatory click bait and needs to be ignored.

I keep asking you what your point is on this thread and you have ignored me again? Why?

...and pleased don't @ me

Ok smother- people won't know you don't like being @'d. You might want to turn it off in settings.

I don't think anyone knows what you are asking. We've tried. What's your point?

I think Smothers question 'what's your point?' is directed to me.

You answer your own question Smother when you say "So, to paraphrase, your point in being on this thread is to set out in simple terms what the case is about?"

Yes, because the clickbait headline is (deliberately) misleading, many women were (understandably) angry about it, and the case is actually a very necessary consideration of some of the practical applications of the statues of MCA and Human Rights Act.

....I didn't like to assume or be rude...so thank you for answering

I'm not sure what any of your posts are for pickled - tbf most are not impressed at being 'called' onto threads via @'s.

Awful, awful reporting.

A lot of people have misunderstood what human rights are. They are not rights that one person can enforce against another. They are rights that the state cannot interfere with.

In this case, the wife wants to have sex with her husband. She consents. The issue is that she does not any longer have the mental capacity to give valid consent. Does this make the husband a rapist? Or not?

George these are some of the issues that the MCA was created to address. Within this Act, sex is an 'exempted' decision - if someone lacks capacity to make this decision, no-one can make a 'best interests' decision on their behalf. The state then has a duty to protect this individual from having sex because, as you say, if they did the person they had sex with would be committing an offence under the Sexual Offences Act.

So while it is a 'fundamental right' that adults can have consensual sexual relationships, the state can and should 'interfere' if one or both of the parties involved lacks capacity.

I have wondered whether the husband himself has LD and Hayden J was concerned about issuing orders on the behest of SS without properly hearing arguments. May account for the unusually clumsy phrasing from him?

Yes, Hayden J went on to say, "“I think he is entitled to have it properly argued.”

Some well explained and reassuring post in the last page or two - thanks.
Seems it's not as shocking as first thought.

I have wondered whether the husband himself has LD and Hayden J was concerned about issuing orders on the behest of SS without properly hearing arguments. May account for the unusually clumsy phrasing from him?

And

Yes, Hayden J went on to say, "“I think he is entitled to have it properly argued.”

Hmm, hadn't considered this - do you think it's possible that Hayden was using "he" as in the legal manner of saying "he" to mean any person of either sex? So he could have been talking about a general "a person's right to have consensual sex with their partner if they want to", perhaps?

Yes, absolutely.

Hayden was referring to the 'fundamental right' of adults to have consensual sex and when and how the state should intervene in private relationships including marriage.

This involves key legal issues of capacity and consent, and how the law can be operational.

His use of sexed pronouns was unfortunate (although accurate to this case to be fair).

Really glad I read this thread. And thanks to pp’s for explaining the legal framework behind the click bait headlines.

And it may also be that both spouses in this marriage have LD but only one is clearly lacking capacity currently. That doesn't mean the other should be signing declarations put in front of them by SS without a judge hearing arguments to ensure everyone and everything involved is properly understood.