Case Commentary: R. v Walsh and the “Myth” of Marital Rape
This case commentary explores the law of sexual assault and the meaning of “consent” in the context of intimate relationships. In Walsh, the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal ruled on the boundaries of consent with respect to marital partners. This ruling represents a setback for women'...
| Published in: | Canadian Journal of Women and the Law |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
University of Toronto Press Inc. (UTPress)
2016
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/cjwl.28.1.230 https://utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/cjwl.28.1.230 |
| Summary: | This case commentary explores the law of sexual assault and the meaning of “consent” in the context of intimate relationships. In Walsh, the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal ruled on the boundaries of consent with respect to marital partners. This ruling represents a setback for women's equality because it infers that consent can be implied by marriage. Regrettably, this error in law is legitimatized by the old and pervasive myth that rape cannot occur between married couples. However, as repeatedly confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada, the law of consent is the same irrespective of the nature of the relationship between the complainant and the accused. |
|---|