autism and impaired cognition?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/...ex-court-rules
autism and impaired cognition?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/...ex-court-rules
I can't help but feel that to say people have a 'fundamental right to sex' represents something of a can of worms.Originally Posted by Monty92
A fundamental right to "pursue" sex, no? That's a very different thing to a fundamental right to sex.
No. That's what the headline says, but the actual quote from the judge refers to "a fundamental right to sex", which strikes me as carte blanche for Johnny Rapist.
But this fella has never actually been charged with any criminal offence. Are you really arguing that we should be restricting freedoms on socially awkward but law abiding people?
How was your tasting menu?
Where does his freedom to pursue sex end and the right of others not to be sexually threatened by him begin?
Clearly he represents a sexual threat or the case would never have been brought. Whether that is his fault or not isn't really the point. If he represents a substantive threat, his freedom ought to be restricted. After all, we effectively do this via the Mental Health Act with sectioning, etc.
You've just conjured the end sequence on a episode of the Benny Hill Show. (Ask an adult).
:yaketysax:
“Other clubs never came into my thoughts once I knew Arsenal wanted to sign me.”
Ah, to stop the person being sent to a low or medium secure hospital because of his 'offending behaviour', no doubt.
He only touches women (or men) up because he's autistic. And has a fundamental right to sex. Obviously a greater fundamental right than that of a woman (or man) not to be molested by a mentalist.
Lawyers and judges should be embarassed to take their salaries and fees for supporting this sort of nonsense.
“Other clubs never came into my thoughts once I knew Arsenal wanted to sign me.”
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote