Man's 'right' to have sex is more important than vulnerable women's right to safety.

[jellyfrizz]

www.theguardian.com/society/2019/oct/03/man-who-does-not-understand-consent-has-right-to-pursue-sex-court-rules

The judgment said that the “decision to engage in sexual relations ... is a primal expression of our humanity and existence as sexual beings. It is an essential part of our basic DNA as reproductive human beings.”

In its submission to the court, the local authority said that there was concern that JB’s behaviour, if unrestrained, “might result in his exposure to the criminal justice system and risk to potentially vulnerable females”. They said that his advances to women in the past have lacked appropriate social inhibition.

FFS!

???

What is wrong with that, in essence?

He is an adult, albeit with social issues. He has as much right as every other adult to have as normal a sexual and family life. I remember when adults with any learnign difficulty (Downs Syndrome etc) were held incapable and were forced into a celibate solitary life as they were deemed dangerous to themselves and others!

If the care package that was in place was overly restrictive then it was right to remove it. Yes, there is a great conflict of interests and, as Victoria Butler-Cole QC says in that last paragraph, it will need to get to Supreme Court in some form, in order for it to be resolved.

As far as I can tell there is nothing preventing his care team putting another Order in place that is less restrictive and enables him to form proper relationships.

No one has a “fundamental right to sex”.

However, it’s not clear what restrictions the LA are trying to impose. Are they trying to prevent him (trying to) form a relationship (“family life”). Because that would be unfair.

The correct judgement should have been that he has a right to want sex but not at the cost of unconsenting women. That is the bloody judgment! The fact of consent is not changed by the judge deciding the Care Package was too restrictive!

The REAL issuse is that this has not been tested at the Supreme Court, so no judge can make any other decision. Just like the man with a wife with dementia! There is NO OTHER judgement they can come to without a Supreme Court ruling.

The LA have appealed. Hopefull that will be heard and they will; chase it all the way up the system and get a definitive answer. Nobody has done that before. It needs to be done, as quickly as possible.

What is wrong with that, in essence?

The lack of consent part. That his sexual wants are being put above the right of vulnerable women around him to live safely.

If it were about him wanted to have a relationship with a consenting adult then that's a completely different scenario.

I think this is an extremely difficult case. It is essentially about placing indefinite restrictions on a person not to pursue a relationship because of a perceived danger arising from his learning disability. It does engage Article 8 rights. I can see no mention of previous convictions.

If you think about it, a rapist does not have these restrictions. A prison sentence for what? 4 years? Then free to pursue relationships with women. We live in a free country, and restriction of liberty even to prevent harm to others, is regarded as a serious matter.

I’m not sure what the answer is. I don’t know all the facts, so that makes it hard to judge, but to have a care plan that rules out all hope of forming a sexual relationship for a disabled person seems challegeable.

What lack of consent?

He has not raped anyone. He has not assualted anyone. His carers fear he might and had a care package in place to prevent him starting any relationship, it seems.

The judge has NOT said he can have sex with anyone, consenting or not. She said he has the right to the same private and family life as anyone else. His congitive impairment is not enough to prevent that.

THAT is how the law stands. Did you not read the rest of my post?

Just to add, as pointed out above. There is NOTHING here that says he has a right to sex over and above the issue of consent.

All these cases involving people with learning disabilities or dementia are incredibly difficult. It's about the extent to which you can impinge on someone's human rights. If you believe someone might commit a crime, to what extent should you be able to take action to stop them doing it? As another example, if someone with impaired mental capacity expressed the desire to burn down the Town Hall, should you be allowed to lock them up in their own home so that they can't do it? Or should you say: you can't lock up someone who hasn't yet committed a crime, so they should be free to go out and then be arrested if they commit the crime?

Obviously in one sense it's horrifying that we allow a man to be in a situation where he might sexually assault women. But on the other hand, if we want to prevent him from doing that, do we have the right to put in place measures that will stop him trying to form a normal sexual relationship? (Not that it seems very likely that he could have a normal sexual relationship, but leave that aside for the moment.)

That is what the judgement is about - it's about saying everyone, including mentally impaired people, are entitled to exercise basic human freedoms, even if the exercise of those freedoms may lead to them committing a crime.

Agree with Curious. The problem here is the care package rules out ANY romantic/sexual relationship.

My understanding is that his ‘right to sex’ overrides the consent. And mine is that it conflicts with it... and that needs to be changed in the Supreme Court.

Maybe we mean the same thing. I am as angry about it as others are, BUT I don't think it is a heinous derogation of duty by the judge. I think it highlights the very real need for further legislation.

That is what needs to be focussed on. There have been far too many simialr cases over the last few years. They need to end. That will only happen if one case is pished through. No amount of decrying a decision will change it. Legal action is needed to do that! Hopefully the LAs appeal will do that. I doubt the jiudge WANTED to rule as she did... the law is still ' a ass' in this!

@RoyalCorgi that has far more clarity than my attempt! Thanks.

It is 'interesting' and we do need to have it cloely examined. But it may well turn out to be one of thoise areas that the law cannot pronounce upon. THAT will also be a landlark decision.

As NellieEllie and RoyalCorgo outlined, it is far more complex and way beyond the normal scope of a law court.

Of course it is the right decision and it's not even a case of conflicting right but of entirely different rights.

Everyone has the right to sex and sexuality, it's the right to control your own body and sexuality without fear of discrimination or coercion. Disabled people have the same right to sex as others, and an institution, doctor or carer cannot prevent someone from exercising their right to sex. The right is, rightly, established in many legal codes after years of abuses when certain people and certain groups of people, which have included the disabled, black people, ethnic minorities, gays and lesbians, have been targeted and prevented from exercising their right through criminalisation, sterilisation and castration.

The right to sex is entirely different from how one chooses to exercise this right. If this man, or anyone else chooses to exercise this right wrongly, e.g. abusively, without consent, etc. then they can be held accountable for this action. No one else is held accountable for what they might do, why should this person be? And how about others who may have already proven they cannot exercise the right to sex responsibly and respectfully of others, like rapists and paedophiles, should they be incarcerated for life or castrated? Why single out this person and not everyone who might act without obtaining consent?

It isn't NOW PARAMOUNT though!

This is one of the results of us, as a society, understanding that people with significant learning disabilities are entitled to as normal a life as is possible. We, as individuals, understand that this man has no right to sex with anyone he chooses. He does not. The issue arises in that the law has not kept up with societal changes. It rarely does.

This man has committed no crime.

The issue is with the Care Package, the one sarah links to was criticised, as is the one in place for this man! As a society we are pulling in many different directions. Liberal acceptance of the rights of individuals coupled with the desire to prevent any possible harm to anyone, anywhen will lead to many such cases.

his ‘right to sex’ overrides the consent

When this is decreed by a court of law it just becomes a rapist's charter, doesn't it?

Except that is NOT was the judge said. It is a luird translation of the judgement and does nothing other than cause outrage and obfuscate the real issue behind the case.

What people seem to be missing here is that he does want a relationship, and that is a right that is enshrined in Article 8 of the HCR.

If this judgement had gone through, and he had subsequently had a sexual relationship with a consenting partner, the partner could have been charged with sexual assault or rape, as he would have been deemed unable to consent.

For some decades there has been a move to make daycare mixed sex as it is a more normal social setting, and it puts vulnerable women at risk.
Their right to safety should outweigh the mans 'right' to pursue a 'relationship'.

If a man is being kept away from women its because his behaviour is considered a risk to women.
When the judge talks about 'making a mistake', what she ignores is that this can involve a rape and the risk of pregnancy for a women who may be incapable of giving consent.

Doesn't the fact it's gone to court suggest that he understands autonomy and is objecting to decisions made about his body on his behalf?

It says he wants a girlfriend so would get say no to a burly man giving him the eye? Is he a risk to little girls as well?

I'm suspicious about this.

Reading the judgement, it sounds like he has messaged and approached women inappropriately.

There are millions, (billions?) of men who have done that on occasion and there are millions who have done much worse.

This sounds like someone who wants a relationship, but their disabilities mean that negotiating the social conventions of developing a relationship are difficult. That needs support not a draconian removal of his right to bodily autonomy.

Full judgment here:

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2019/39.html

Thanks @Stinky. That makes interesting reading and clarifies much of the media headlines.