3 ms·
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 co
by 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 agoYes, 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 agoThere 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.