29 ms·

Maybe the first question is whether it's assault. It's assault in Canada, at least, because the doctor was abusing his authority in order to touch you. This rem

by devinj 16y ago

Maybe the first question is whether it's assault. It's assault in Canada, at least, because the doctor was abusing his authority in order to touch you. This removes any possibility of consent.

roel_v 16y ago
I'm not sure. Why do you think this would be assault? I'm not familiar with Canadian law, but article 265(1)(a) defines assault as without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly; I'm not sure that performing a physical examination under false pretenses is 'applying force'. There may be Canadian case law clarifying this, I don't know, but prima facie it doesn't seem to me that your position is correct. Note that other legal systems have problems with doing things under false pretenses. A woman claimed rape because her husband's brother slid into bed with her and initiated sex, in which she went along. The guy didn't disclose explicitly that he wasn't the woman's husband. When she found out she felt (justifiably) violated. Yet the guy was acquitted because there was no statute on getting sexual favors under false pretenses (there is now by the way, as a result of this case).
- devinj 16y ago
  You quoted the first paragraph of the section on assault. The definition of "consent" as used in the first paragraph is given in the third paragraph. It also covers the case of false pretenses: (3) For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of (a) the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant; (b) threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant; (c) fraud; or (d) the exercise of authority. I was referring to part d. Part d would also apply to TSA officials as far as I know, but if they were on Canadian soil they'd probably get some special exemption. Also, I don't believe they technically do the searches on Canadian soil. Airports are weird.
  - roel_v 16y ago
    Yes, but my point wasn't so much that there wasn't consent (well I admit that I was going on a tangent in that direction in my last paragraph...) but that there is no 'force' being applied.
    - devinj 16y ago
      There is. That is the assault law. Unless you're suggesting that grabbing someone's breasts is never sexual assault... Force means something a bit looser than you probably think it does. A light tap can be considered assault, let alone grabbing and poking.

by devinj 16y ago

Maybe the first question is whether it's assault. It's assault in Canada, at least, because the doctor was abusing his authority in order to touch you. This removes any possibility of consent.

roel_v 16y ago

I'm not sure. Why do you think this would be assault? I'm not familiar with Canadian law, but article 265(1)(a) defines assault as without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly; I'm not sure that performing a physical examination under false pretenses is 'applying force'. There may be Canadian case law clarifying this, I don't know, but prima facie it doesn't seem to me that your position is correct. Note that other legal systems have problems with doing things under false pretenses. A woman claimed rape because her husband's brother slid into bed with her and initiated sex, in which she went along. The guy didn't disclose explicitly that he wasn't the woman's husband. When she found out she felt (justifiably) violated. Yet the guy was acquitted because there was no statute on getting sexual favors under false pretenses (there is now by the way, as a result of this case).

devinj 16y ago
You quoted the first paragraph of the section on assault. The definition of "consent" as used in the first paragraph is given in the third paragraph. It also covers the case of false pretenses: (3) For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of (a) the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant; (b) threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant; (c) fraud; or (d) the exercise of authority. I was referring to part d. Part d would also apply to TSA officials as far as I know, but if they were on Canadian soil they'd probably get some special exemption. Also, I don't believe they technically do the searches on Canadian soil. Airports are weird.
- roel_v 16y ago
  Yes, but my point wasn't so much that there wasn't consent (well I admit that I was going on a tangent in that direction in my last paragraph...) but that there is no 'force' being applied.
  - devinj 16y ago
    There is. That is the assault law. Unless you're suggesting that grabbing someone's breasts is never sexual assault... Force means something a bit looser than you probably think it does. A light tap can be considered assault, let alone grabbing and poking.