Affirmative Consent in Post-Secondary Education Act of 2015 (Final vote)

[HagridOfTheDeep]

It's difficult to know how to address the issue. I don't know how right I am in saying this, but I think part of the problem is just with the ambiguity of the act itself. If a person feels violated after a sexual experience, it's not my place to question their feelings or render them moot. But feeling violated after the fact (or during the fact) is not necessarily enough to make the participating partner guilty of anything, especially if consent was implied. Affirmative consent seems like an easy way to solve the problem, but the truth is, that's not how intimacy works, and it's not the job of the government to tell people how to have sex. And since that's an overarching principle I really can't justify straying from, I'm struggling to find a better way to deal with the problem of rape. I might have to resign myself to the fact that current laws are adequate and find some solace in the fact that the solution might rest with education outreach instead.

I mean, I just don't know. None of us "likes" rape. How do we stop it without creating more problems?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Abstain

I don't want my position to be misconstrued as "anti-consent." I want radical change to this bill, which I will offer soon.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Well, my intention was to totally rewrite the thing, but it proved quite difficult and I ended up creating an amendment that's a lot like the one we're currently voting on. I think it makes the legislation more palatable, but I'm not really sure how to proceed.

I believe some of the distrust around the consent piece is that "affirmative" consent must be ongoing at all times. This language does make it sound like the consent must always be explicit. While I agree that sex should happen only between consenting parties, explicit consent is unworkable. My amendment makes it so that the policies must only require consent in any of its forms, not just "affirmative consent." I've also made it so that the institutions must promote affirmative consent; it just sounds friendlier and less invasive. Finally, I've softened some of the language regarding what consent is. Sometimes, lack of protest is consent, because participating individuals shouldn't have to consistently utter "yes please, yes please." Finally, I've changed the "preponderance of evidence" piece. Sorry, but I don't think innocent people should be punished for crimes they didn't commit.

Anyway, that's basically what I have here. I'm not going to put it forward until I hear that it will be approached with some support. After looking at the bill more closely, I think I do support the spirit of it. We just have to make sure that we're not asking for unfair or impossible standards.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Windjammer, don't you mean fail? I see way more Nays than Ayes.

As for the reasonable doubt wording... why? I mean, I understand it is very hard to prove cases of rape or assault, but it's hard to prove anything. The standard exists because, as a country, we believe that people are innocent until proven guilty. Not "suspected mostly guilty." I don't know what the balance is, but "50%+1 evidence" isn't fair either.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Well, one could argue that these institutions also have a responsibility to address very serious issues like these that happen on their premeses.

And yes, I am invoking criminal standards, but only because I believe the principles behind them are applicable here. You can't kick someone out of school based on a suspicion.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

DemPGH, consent is not "asking for permission." Affirmative consent seems to give off that vibe, but I think "consent" on its own is a bit more open to interpretation and manifests in different forms.

As for the standard of evidence... Being kicked out of school for suspected rape carries almost as much baggage as being found guilty and sent to jail. I would rather this bill not speak at all on the standard of evidence than force schools to adopt the preponderance of evidence standard, which, let's face it, could be problematic.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Senator Cranberry, a vote for the amendment does not require a vote for the final version.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

After hearing from a few colleagues, I choose to offer the following amendment once the one we're currently voting on fails. I know it doesn't change much, but I do think it changes the tone of the bill and makes "consent" slightly more palatable.

The next steps, for me, will involve making the penalties less severe for non-compliant institutions and, potentially, removing the government from trying to leverage the disciplinary process whatsoever. They're big changes though, so I'd rather do them one at a time. Plus, I don't know how much of the bill would actually be left.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I really think that the 'consent must be ongoing' language is going to open up a major can of worms that might result in problems once it gets to the implementation stage, fwiw.

I agree. In something related to issues as delicate as this, language REALLY matters. Herein lies the problem, as far as I can see, with what Senator Hagrid is proposing. It does recognise that some situations are ambiguous (or perceived as such), however, recognising it introduces elements subjectivity into the Bill.

How can it not be subjective, though? Consent should be ongoing throughout a sexual activity. So I guess the only solution is to define consent.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

But since we're just asking in that particular section that universities promote consent, how is that a problem?

I would be okay with removing our involvement in the disciplinary process entirely as well, just so it's more of a "soft" kind of push.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Okay, let's try to tackle the problem area another way. I've changed the ongoing consent part. Could it be considered agreeable?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Well, it was a suggestion, not an amendment. But since people seem okay with it, I'll go ahead and put it through as an amendment.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I would like to make one more amendment tonight. Give me that wiggle room? I really believe there's a way to make this legislation friendly to most of us here without sacrificing its core measures. Right now, I'm worried the bill will fail. I want it to pass.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Oh shyte. I totally let this fade off my radar. I'll look at it tonight. Promise. If I don't, feel free to attack my office with torches and pitchforks.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Wrong thread, I think.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

As promised, here is an amendment.

Some will argue that I butchered the bill, but what I think I've done is simplify it. I recognize the importance of strong disciplinary processes on-campus, but I also recognize that we probably shouldn't dictate exactly how things should be done. I thus centred this section on the overarching "themes" we wish to preserve/promote.

What is now Section 4 has admittedly been cut down, but I tried to keep the items that were at least related to helping victims. I don't know how this will go, but I figured it's worth a try. As it is, I don't think the bill will pass. Maybe the amendment will have enough good things in it for enough people to make this work.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Funding is not gone. I just reworded the new Section 4 to make it simpler. We didn't need to explicitly talk about funding in Section 4 because it was already established in Section 1 that failure to enact a comprehensive policy would result in loss of funds. Section 4 just details what the plan must look like. The funding piece is still part of the bill as far as I am aware. Or, at least, that's what I intended.

Aye

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I must reiterate that I firmly believe people are reading the amendment wrong. Should this amendment fail I will spell out the funding piece in big bold letters, but I really don't think it's necessary.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

What's the hold-up here?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

And I guess the VP no longer has the power to keep things going in the meantime? Makes sense.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

One small change at the beginning of section 4.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What are people's thoughts on this? I'd really like it to pass, and if there's anything that can be done to make it so, I'm open to hearing some input. I think we've managed to strike a decent balance already that can hopefully appease both sides, but let's talk about it!

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Aye