A senior UK judge commented on a case, in which social services asked the court to decide on preventing a man from having sex with his wife of 20 years because she may no longer be able to give her consent.
However, the judge said he would hear all evidence and statements from all sides before making a decision.
"I cannot think of any more obviously fundamental human right than the right of a man to have sex with his wife — and the right of the state to monitor that. I think he is entitled to have it properly argued," he added.
His statement caused outrage by a Labour MP for Bristol West, Thangam Debbonaire, who said it legitimised "misogyny and woman-hatred."
This legitimises misogyny and woman-hatred. A judge stating "I cannot think of any more obviously fundamental human right than the right of a man to have sex with his wife". No man in the UK has such a legal right to insist on sex. No consent = rape. https://t.co/PUYmhR9TN3
— Thangam Debbonaire (@ThangamMP) April 2, 2019
Family Court Judge? A sneak preview of the belief systems that prevail? Women & children are owned by men?
— Teresa (@Tranzform) April 2, 2019
It’s not a judgment on the actual consent. It’s a judgement wether it can be heard. It’ll end up being a judgement on Marriage as a construct and implicit and explicit rights. This is a massive case.
— Niallmo (@Niallmo) April 2, 2019
I have been with my husband for fourteen years and bore his two children.
— Zelle Bee (@neglectedspace_) April 3, 2019
He still has literally NO rights over my body. I'm living in it, not him.
According to social services, the woman in question didn't have the ability to freely give her consent, which prompted their request meant to ensure she is not raped.
The judge in turn said that the man may face a situation where he would risk prison sentence, but added that an order preventing him from having sex with his wife would be difficult to monitor.
Commentary on social media, including barristers' viewpoints, pointed out that the judge's comment was taken out of context and "but it doesn't mean the judge is misogynistic or doesn't understand the law."
The Court of Protection makes decisions about capacity to consent to sex on a fairly frequent basis. The judge appears to have been referring to the principle accepted by the courts that the state shouldn't interfere in the private lives of consenting adults….
— Tor Butler-Cole (@TorButlerCole) April 2, 2019
It is a badly phrased sentence and even worse taken out of context, but it doesn't mean the judge is misogynistic or doesn't understand the law. Here is one of his recent judgments on a similar issue: https://t.co/V05x8C7tES
— Tor Butler-Cole (@TorButlerCole) April 2, 2019
According to UK law, it is illegal for an individual to commit a sexual act without the consent of their spouse or their ex-spouse, or against their will.
