Does “No, Not Without a Condom” Mean “Yes, Even Without a Condom”?: The Fallout from R v Hutchinson
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In R v Kirkpatrick, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia held that consent to sexual activity cannot be established where a man proceeds with unprotected vaginal intercourse when his sexual partner has insisted on a condom. While this finding should be uncontroversial, it is in fact contrary to the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in R v Hutchinson. In this comment we argue that the approach taken in Kirkpatrick is correct and consistent with the landmark decision in R v Ewanchuk. We urge the Supreme Court of Canada to reconsider its majority judgment in Hutchinson in order to fully recognize the central role that a condom plays in whether a woman agrees to participate in sexual activity.\nDans l’affaire R c Kirkpatrick, la Cour d’appel de la Colombie-Britannique a estimé que le consentement à une activité sexuelle ne peut être établi lorsqu’un homme a des relations vaginales non protégées alors que sa partenaire sexuelle a insisté pour qu’il utilise un préservatif. Bien que cette conclusion ne devrait pas être controversée, elle est en fait contraire à l’arrêt de la Cour suprême du Canada dans l’affaire R c Hutchinson. Dans le présent commentaire, nous soutenons que l’approche adoptée dans l’affaire Kirkpatrick est correcte et conforme à l’arrêt historique rendu dans l’affaire R. c. Ewanchuk. Nous demandons instamment à la Cour suprême du Canada de reconsidérer son jugement majoritaire dans l’affaire Hutchinson afin de reconnaître pleinement le rôle central que joue le préservatif dans le consentement d’une femme à participer à une activité sexuelle.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".