Sexual Autonomy Guarantee
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Ossitania
The World Assembly,
DEFINING "the right to sexual autonomy" as "the right to be free from unwanted sexual activity, to never be obliged to engage in sexual activity and to participate in sexual activity only with the free and informed consent of all parties to that activity",
CONVINCED that everyone has the right to sexual autonomy,
SEEKING to guarantee this right to every citizen of every member-state,
ACKNOWLEDGING that there exists a belief that a marriage contract, or equivalent legal document, or the existence of a similar relationship, represents a permanent and continuous state of consent to sexual activity,
WISHING to eliminate inequality between victims of rape while also preserving the practical capability to intervene in a manner appropriate to the circumstances of the crime,
Hereby
GUARANTEES every citizen of every member-state the right to sexual autonomy without exception,
DECLARES that consent to sexual activity may be withdrawn at any time before or during sexual activity,
MANDATES that no marriage contract, or equivalent legal document, or the existence of any similar relationship, shall ever be construed as providing prima facie consent for sexual activity, nor shall any state or manner of dress, nor any behaviour perceived as "sexual provocative",
PROHIBITS member-states from creating a legal distinction between sexual crimes which take place within a marriage, or similar relationship, and sexual crimes which do not,
REQUIRES that all sexual crimes, and accusations of such crimes, receive the same level of attention as any other crime of similar magnitude and a response from legal authorities that is timely and appropriate to the circumstances of their execution, including efforts to protect the victim from a repeated attack by the perpetrator, regardless of whether the victim and perpetrator are in a marriage, or similar relationship, or not,
STIPULATES that, with specific regard to protecting victims from repeat attacks, special care and attention must be given where a shared work, education or living space, or other factors, such as a familial or professional relationship, give the perpetrator a level of access to the victim that a random attacker would not have,
ENCOURAGES member-states to establish education programs to correct misconceptions and misinformation about sexual crimes and to combat stigma against the victims of such crimes.
As a resource for comparatives between MRJA and SAG, here's a list of my problems with MRJA and how I dealt with each one in my draft:
1. It misstates the problems that cause marital rape.
My objection on this point has been mischaracterised. My objection to the use of "archaic" and "primitive" in the preamble wasn't due to their being offensive to certain cultures, it was because I felt it gave the impression that the attitudes that lead to marital rape are only found in undeveloped backwater countries when they are a modern problem with modern consequences.
In my proposal, I don't try to attribute the belief to any particular cultures or time periods or what have you. I acknowledge it exists and that's all the attention needs to be given to such dumb and despicable nonsense.
2. It treats marital rape as a civil right.
This is not one I put in my repeal because it borders on metagaming a little, but MRJA treats marital rape as a civil right to be restricted. On a meta level, this happens due to the fact that MRJA is a Moral Decency resolution ("A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.") but even materially, CD himself admitted in MRJA's drafting thread that the resolution accepts the right to marital rape exists and then throws up legal barriers to restrict access to it. The defense for this is that some people do believe this right exists, but CD's response was not to disabuse them of this notion. Instead, he validated it. This is Cowardly Pacifists's well-articulated explanation of this problem.
In my proposal, the very first clause does the exact opposite and guarantees sexual autonomy to every citizen of every member-state, making a very concrete statement on sexual rights that completely rejects the belief in a right to marital rape. I also encourage education programs to combat such beliefs, as well as stigma against rape victims.
3. It allows the police to generally discriminate against unmarried rape victims.
I get what CD was trying to do here. There are particular situational concerns with marital rape that he was trying to allow for - that is, that the victim and perpetrator live together and the police should be able to respond with extra haste and seriousness to prevent a repeat attack. However, CD didn't need to legislate for general discrimination, he could have just specifically allowed for special attention where the perpetrator has easy access to his victim. This seems especially egregious given that his definitions mean this discrimination can't be used in cases where familial relationships and other relationships not established in legal contract give the perpetrator just as much access to the victim as if they were married. Not only did it go to unnecessary extremes to allow this special attention, it doesn't even accomplish the goal of allowing this special attention for all cases where it's necessary.
In my proposal, I don't just allow, I require that the legal authorities give a timely and appropriate response to all accusations and instances of rape, with special attention for cases where the perpetrator has access to the victim. And I do it while prohibiting discrimination between marital and non-marital rape.
4. It has a bad definition of marital rape that confuses the issue.
The definition is too broad and overly legalistic. It includes relationships with no connotation or expectation of sexual activity (domestic partnerships) and excludes relationships which do have such connotations or expectations but aren't established by legal contract.
I don't bother with a definition of marital rape because I don't simply block access to a right to marital rape. I establish a right and then prohibit common excuses for rape from being used as an argument for consent, including marriage contracts and similar documents, the mere existence of similar non-legal relationships, state or manner of dress and "provocative" behaviour. In this way, I also deal with MRJA's narrowness.
Also, it's a small clause and not particularly a response to MRJA (SAG was already being drafted on its own terms when MRJA happened, I essentially merged together the original SAG and an MRJA replacement), but I ensure that consent to sexual activity can be withdrawn at any time before or during sexual activity, which I think is probably a good thing.
All constructive comments and criticisms are welcome.
