March 11, 2014
Hutchinson was subsequently charged with and convicted of aggravated sexual assault. That’s the conviction the Supreme Court upheld.
Callers to the phone-in radio show we were listening to echoed our reaction: Hutchinson had done something sneaky, silly, dishonest, and pretty twisted, without a doubt. At the very least, he should have been charged with “possession of Ken Burns’s haircut.”
But “sexual assault”? Certainly not. To a man (and woman), callers opined that “fraud” would have been a more appropriate charge”something civil, not criminal.
Although almost everything about the case reeked of 21st-century dysfunction, I thought that surely there was something almost Austen-ish going on here, too. “Breach of promise” wasn’t quite the archaic tort I was groping for, but it was the only one that sprang to mind.
Fortunately, this new decision seems to have limited application beyond the individuals involved. I presume that the number of Canadian men engaged in contraception sabotage is blessedly small.
And let’s be candid: Women trick men into getting them pregnant all the time, but we’ll never live to see a baby mama being charged with aggravated sexual assault for “forgetting” to take her birth-control pill or lying about having her tubes tied.
Speaking of tied-up females: The ethics panel to investigate Madam Justice Lori Douglas turned out to be unethical, so as of November of last year, she “remains in limbo.”
Sounds like something she’d rather enjoy anyhow.