Jump to content

what kind of legal right an ace can be deprived of?


Discoverasexuality

Recommended Posts

In the Criminal Code of Canada it states that sentencing of crimes should factor in "evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor". This centers around what the presiding judge takes as evidence for the offender's motivation, instead of perception from the victim as the law in England and Wales states. Unfortunately I think the Canadian legislation gives more room for discrimination and injustice towards asexual victims, in the eyes of an invalidating judge. I certainly hope we never come across an example of that, though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the UK someone can be charged of a hate crime if the defendant believes the victim was of a minority. They don't necessarily have to be or identify as such. For example, punching a straight person because you believed them to be a homosexual is a hate crime and this carries a more severe punishment than common assault. You do not have to be a minority to be a victim of a hate crime.

I'm unsure if there is legal precedant for a hate crime against an asexual person. The orientation my exist but the law  needs to recognise it as well. I understand it needs to be reported as a hate crime to be treated as such and that police officers frequently do not understand this aspect of the law. They have been known to give people bad advice and tell disabled people that no crime has occurred. Source: this happens in this documentary.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, borkfork said:

This is no longer part of modern state law. Once a couple has a marriage license they're married in the eyes of the government. What else they have to do (ceremony wise) can vary by state or county.

 

That said, it may be up to the immigration officer assigned. If they notice the couple doesn't kiss, which most aces don't like kissing, they may think that's fishy. They want to see a loving, committed relationship.

 

The term consummation used in divorce proceedings as follows:

Varies by state. Some still require consummation. Also, annulment is valid in many states due to lack of sexual consummation, which would cancel many divorce benefits. 

 

And the inmigration officer is allowed to ask personal questions of a sexual nature and judge based on your answers if your marriage is valid or not. If the officer views no sex as no relationship (which many, many sexuals do since it would be to most) then they can deny you or stall you for more proof if they dont like your answers. 

 

I am currently trying to get my spouse into the U.S and the proof of a relationship part is a pain in the neck, tbh (and Trump has made it take a year vs 3 - 6 months). We have a lawyer though to help. And we are sexually intimate so dont have to worry about that part if it comes up. Basically you want them to think you are normal in every way but dont over sell the sex stuff (some people offer sexts and sex tapes o.O). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Serran said:

Varies by state. Some still require consummation. Also, annulment is valid in many states due to lack of sexual consummation, which would cancel many divorce benefits. 

 

And the inmigration officer is allowed to ask personal questions of a sexual nature and judge based on your answers if your marriage is valid or not. If the officer views no sex as no relationship (which many, many sexuals do since it would be to most) then they can deny you or stall you for more proof if they dont like your answers. 

 

I am currently trying to get my spouse into the U.S and the proof of a relationship part is a pain in the neck, tbh. We have a lawyer though to help. And we are sexually intimate so dont have to worry about that part if it comes up. Basically you want them to think you are normal in every way but dont over sell the sex stuff (some people offer sexts and sex tapes o.O). 

Consummation laws mostly exist now for people to get out of bad marriages. One person might conceal that they had a STI and say they wanted to wait for marriage. The definition also states "sex or co-habit." Co-habit is pretty easy, we do it with family and roommates. Anyone looking to come here should make sure there's no archaic laws hidden somewhere. The government doesn't care who you do or don't have sex with unless it's illegal (like statutory rape), it generally only comes up in divorce or annulment.

 

An immigration officer will ask questions, but they're not going to ask to see a sex tape. Mostly they'll notice body language and if a couple doesn't kiss or touch each other much. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

The Crown Prosecution Service, which takes all the prosecutions in England and Wales, uses this infographic:

 

004_c_0_0.png

 

https://www.cps.gov.uk/hate-crime

 

They give more details here, and it looks like asexuality could be covered:

 

 

Another reason I wish I lived in the UK.  Not that I expect to have to use that law, but it just shows that the UK has a much more sensible concept of what should be law.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most states and counties in the US now have "no-fault" divorce laws -- and divorce is called dissolution, which emphasizes dissolving the marriage contract, rather than divorcing the other person.  There is no need to list any particular reasons for filing for  dissolution; "irreconcilable differences" is what's said in the paperwork.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Discoverasexuality

I am from India and as we use the british made Indian Penal Code, it's very primitive and rigid. 

Let's talk about the developed countries, what people implement there , we accept that after few decades. 🙊

I'm more interested  about the UK and european law though.  @Giwreh

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2018 at 3:32 PM, borkfork said:

Consummation laws mostly exist now for people to get out of bad marriages. One person might conceal that they had a STI and say they wanted to wait for marriage. The definition also states "sex or co-habit." Co-habit is pretty easy, we do it with family and roommates. Anyone looking to come here should make sure there's no archaic laws hidden somewhere. The government doesn't care who you do or don't have sex with unless it's illegal (like statutory rape), it generally only comes up in divorce or annulment.

 

An immigration officer will ask questions, but they're not going to ask to see a sex tape. Mostly they'll notice body language and if a couple doesn't kiss or touch each other much. 

I didnt say they would ask for a sex tape, I said some offer it. One of the tips for the process is to not give out photos or tapes, cause they get them and dont want to see that. And it is considered over selling and makes them think it is a fake relationship. Which is why that was a side note in parenthesis with a o.O added, to denote odd side note.. just a fun random fact you learn when going through the visa process. 

 

What they can ask though are things like is your spouse circumcised? Do they have tattoos and if so where ? And other things you might not be privy to if you havent seen them naked. They can also ask other personal questions if they start to become suspicious about your lack of a sex life being a sign you arent a real couple. And if they decide no sex means not a real marriage, they can deny you or stall you until they are satisfied. It is a their best judgement thing and most people will assume lack of sexual intimacy means not romantic, since that is the norm. They do care if you are a valid couple and to most sexual peoples thoughts that means sexually intimate. So, keeping the illusion alive that you are is a good idea. 

 

You also have to have basically everyone you know give written testimony you are a legit couple, lots of photos of you together, logs of your conversations via text and social media, etc etc. So if something in the logs gives away your lack of a sex life, you may raise flags. Best to carefully select out anything relating to that if one is trying to get an easy case. Which, I found how hard it is to sort through years of logs to find nice neutral but obviously close convos this month trying to do it for my relationship. So, it is something to be aware of if you are trying to go through the process. Anything personal can be and probably should be edited out. 

 

As for consummation laws, they are stilll used for things like getting out of financial responsibilities and the like. In Florida it can be used as a reason to keep your spouse from alimony or a cut of your military or pension benefits. Basically we didnt have sex so it wasnt a real marriage, therefore I dont have to pay you anything (even if you live together, it depends on why you werent having sex). And in other countries such as China it can be a reason for the spouse to owe you money (which, another fun side note, so can having plastic surgery and not telling them til after marriage in China). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2018 at 8:22 AM, Nowhere Girl said:

But how does the "free space" in the center work?

You get to mark it automatically

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2018 at 8:13 PM, Nanoic said:


I'm unsure if there is legal precedant for a hate crime against an asexual person.

I'm afraid both you and tele have an overly rosy view of the situation in the UK as it stands.

 

It is not currently possible for a "hate crime" to be committed against someone who ID's as asexual, as it cannot fall under any of the protected characteristics defined in the Equality Act 2010.

 

In the case of criminal law, then a judge is free to consider anything brought to their attention when considering mitigating or aggravating factors for sentencing, but might be limited in access to higher tariffs by the sentencing guidelines which tend to mirror legislative definitions.  You would hope that most judges would take asexuality into account, indeed the VPS (victim personal statement) was introduced with the intent that the effect of the crime on an individual is taken into account.  But judges are not bound to the higher sentencing bands in the way that a protected characteristic might force.

 

The situation is even worse for employment law, since the same specific definition is used for the protected characteristic of sexuality, then it would be totally legal for an employer to discriminate against someone who is "out" as asexual.  Happily though, I reckon most employers are so ignorant of the law that it makes little practical difference, unless it really got right down to brass tacks, when getting adequate redress might prove tricky.

 

In case you are wondering the protected characteristic of sexuality (which you must not discriminate against) is defined in UK law as this:

 

Sexual orientation

(1)Sexual orientation means a person's sexual orientation towards—

 

(a)persons of the same sex,

(b)persons of the opposite sex, or

(c)persons of either sex.

 

(2)In relation to the protected characteristic of sexual orientation—

 

(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person who is of a particular sexual orientation;

 

(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who are of the same sexual orientation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
paperbackreader

Sorry if I'm repeating what other people have already said - butting in half way with some quick fire research and haven't read the whole thread. 

 

Andy's copypasta comes from here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/12 - section 12 of the Equalities Act 2010 

 

The CPS legal guidance is here: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homophobic-biphobic-and-transphobic-hate-crime-prosecution-guidance 

Like most guidance issued by the CPS - there is quite a lot of detail but crucially this is the charge test: 

 

Quote

 

The defendant must intend to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation; recklessness is not enough; and the behaviour must be threatening. So using abusive or insulting behaviour intended to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation does not constitute an offence, nor does using threatening words likely to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation.

 

Conduct or material which only stirs up ridicule or dislike, or which simply causes offence, would not meet the requisite threshold required by the Act, i.e. hatred. So, for example, the offences do not, and are not intended to extend per se to childish name calling, or the telling of jokes, or the preaching of religious doctrine, unless those activities are threatening or intended to stir up hatred. 

 

(Emphasis my own) 

The guidance also states: 

Quote

The term 'hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation' is defined in the new section 29AB of the 1986 Act and is expressly limited to orientation towards persons of the same sex, the opposite sex or both. It does not extend to orientation based on, for example, a preference for particular sexual acts or preferences.

This mirrors 29AB of the 1986 Act refers to the Public Order Act 1986 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/29AB

Quote

 

29AB Meaning of “hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation”

In this Part “hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation” means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to sexual orientation (whether towards persons of the same sex, the opposite sex or both

 

...all of which at first glance appears to discount asexuality from its definitions, as sexuality is defined as a something you have towards the same, the opposite, or either gender, rather than the absence or lack thereof.  


Furthermore, people were discussing whether it would be discriminatory towards asexuals not to consider as applicable tariffs may not take in to account statutory aggravating factors of discrimination - and therefore people committing hate crimes against asexuals may get off with a lighter sentence than those commiting hate crimes against perceived homosexuality / bisexuality etc. 

 

So I had a look at the charging guidance for assault. Assault is assault, and will be chargeable nonetheless, dependent on the severity (ABH, GBH, etc., etc.). I didn't research other offences e.g. criminal damage. The sentencing guidelines council guidance (https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Assault_definitive_guideline_-_Crown_Court.pdf) lists sexuality / racial / disability / religious discrimination as 'statutory aggravating factors' for the various assault charges - but also lists other aggravating factors such as premeditation, whether the victim is a vulnerable person (this is also defined in law - typically this means a child or vulnerable adult - someone that has received social OR care service help within the last 12 months), and interestingly, 'gratuitous degradation of victim'. 

 

It is also interesting to note that other discrimination factors covered by Equality Act 2010 such as gender identity is also not listed as a statutory aggravating factor, but is clearly taken in to account in CPS guidance. So it is appears to me at face value that lawyers have something to hook their case on to for aggravation (gratituous degradation, premeditation, etc.) - which may allow the judge to access higher tariffs if it was proportionate to do so. 

 

I'd look in to the immigration bits later - but honestly, I haven't heard of immigration officers asking straight up whether a marriage has been consummated or not; the most frequent test is proof of the longevity of the relationship - photos etc. to prevent scam marriages for immigration purposes. 

 

(PS: Personally I do not feel that being ace makes other people discriminate against me, and it's not something that I feel will happen in the course of employment, being a volunteer or a customer, and I haven't heard of any significant hate crime targeted against asexuals either... if you're in this unhappy position - reach out to me and I'd be happy to research on your behalf and help you access legal support if I'm able to help)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

This looks to me like the CPS is trying to be pragmatic and responsive to the real world in a way that statute can't. The courts, if they choose, can, too. It depends on how much a particular judge or judges goes by the letter of the law or considers its intent when confronted with a grey area, I guess, which is pretty much the point of the higher courts. The letter of the law isn't so helpful, but if a prosecutor made the argument that Parliament's clear intent was to punish more severely people who attacked others based on factors like race/gender/sexuality (and I think it's clear that's what Parliament did mean), then a judge could take that line because asexuality is certainly in that grouping.

Link to post
Share on other sites
paperbackreader

Yes - exactly Tele -for assault, harassment, and most criminal stuff I believe the courts would be able to take it in to consideration formally with the charging guidance available without relying on an equality perspective (which I personally feel is beneficial - tariffs should take in to account severity, culpability and impact rather than definition of equality / discrimination) - and the CPS (with all its failings) are relatively good at being pragmatic without need or necessity for amendment to the law. The letter of statutory law has some catching up to do, but it appears the guidance / charging practice takes in to account the material issues - level of degradation, pre-meditation, etc. - all of which points to discriminatory practices, whether or not asexuality meets the criteria for Equalities Act 2010.

 

I think the crunch issue might actually be in civil (such as employment tribunals, discrimination from advancement, etc) rather than criminal cases, where the Equality Act definition will probably have a more material impact on a case. I'm not a lawyer - but I would imagine that if someone sought to argue on the basis of being discriminated against according to the Equalities Act 2010 - there may be an argument by the defendant that the plaintiff has failed to provide a credible reason why the defendant has discriminated / acted against the terms of the Equalities Act 2010 - and throwing out a suit on that merit, going by the letter of the law, would probably stand to be credible, as asexuality is not considered a protected characteristic. 

 

So - it probably doesn't stop people from proving constructive dismissal / unfairness - but it stops people from tagging discrimination on to their case, and therefore a chance that criminal charges as well as civil liabilities could be levied. 

 

(Should I study law? I'm such a big frigging law geek)

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, paperbackreader said:

So - it probably doesn't stop people from proving constructive dismissal / unfairness - but it stops people from tagging discrimination on to their case, and therefore a chance that criminal charges as well as civil liabilities could be levied. 

 

Nice detailed posts, I did try to convey it succinctly, but obvs that didn't quite work.

 

If you have less than two years service, then an employer could dismiss you on fairly trivial grounds purely because they dislike you being openly asexual, even citing that as a reason.  You would have zero legal grounds to allege unfair dismissal, assuming none of the other specific grounds applied. 

 

Of course after two years, all the other parts of employment law kick in and discrimination becomes less critical as a means of protection.

 

As I said above, I don't think this is an actual real problem, most HR drones will run away screaming at the suggestion of discrimination, it would not even occur to them that it might be legal, no one would like to take that test case.

 

I think you are right about tribunals etc though, which is what I was alluding to with my brass tacks comment above.  However that defence is basically admitting the discrimination, but claiming it is not illegal, which definitely sounds like a very high risk strategy.

 

 

Tele, your faith in the CPS is truly heartwarming, but their guidance needs to be read with eyes wide open, often in law, words can have a specific defined meaning which is not quite as wide as the same words in common usage.  This leaks out in to guidance documents which muddy the waters by being written in everyday language.

In practice though you are completely right, every case is considered on its merits and any fool trying to defend or mitigate a criminal act with "They aren't gay enough, so it doesn't really count" is only going to pick up some extra time to think about how dumb that was.

Link to post
Share on other sites
paperbackreader
12 hours ago, Andy Roo said:

In practice though you are completely right, every case is considered on its merits and any fool trying to defend or mitigate a criminal act with "They aren't gay enough, so it doesn't really count" is only going to pick up some extra time to think about how dumb that was.

Someone should do a parody comedy sketch about this. Where are you LGBT comedy lords, come on!! 

 

Pretty sure employers can't just dismiss you on the grounds of being openly X sexuality as defined by the law within 2 years - that would be a surefire way to attract tribunal police and get an equalities lawsuit thrown at you in the same way that if it could be proven that someone didn't give you a job and gave someone much less qualified because of your sexuality?? They can however pretend to dismiss you on hating your attitude within 2 years and would more likely than not get away with it. 

 

It'd be interesting to see if there's any equality law litigation that has been thrown out because asexuality is not recognised as a protected characteristic - I'll have a look when I next have access to case law. 

 

Agree on the common language vs legal language. There are reams and reams of legal debate about 'proportionality' and how it applies in different situations, cases and jurisdictions - in fact - even concepts of 'reasonable force' that appear to me to be pretty damn easy to square off continues to come back for debate from time to time, but such is the vagaries of making and keeping a legal system - semanticists that debate in minutiae and move further and further away from common sense and then, usually, invariably come back on point after a public outrage, after a long track around the bushes... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/15/2018 at 12:39 PM, Snao Cone said:
  • ... or motivation for success as sexual folks do

It's kind of funny but I have sort of fallen into that category. I am a 56 year old IT worker and basically work for medical insurance since 2016. I could not even get arrested at an IT jobs fair now and I am not alone for people in my profession and age group. But it dawned on me a few years ago that beating the ground trying to be what most describe as being a "success" no longer made any sense to me. My retirement savings are ample for me to retire on some day. I do not need to save to put children through college, pay off a mortgage or support a marriage. I realized that as a lifelong bachelor, it was pointless in constantly trying to accumulate more wealth in a job market where I am basically considered well past my prime (despite continuing to work with the latest technologies such as Amazon Alexa Skill programming). I would not say this is an "asexual" thing but being single and unattached does make dropping out of society a lot easier. Especially not having a spouse riding me to go out and find a real job that pays.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...