Paki Dot

attention-whoring babbling

link

Girl, Ebony: Consent

I believe I’ve seen a comprehensive description of consent once before. Figured I’d contribute as it’s a subject that bears repeating.

Consent is:

  • Non-coercive: If you’re cojoling, threatening or otherwise trying to “convince” someone to engage in a sexual act with you, you are breaking consent. If you asked 16 times and got 15 No’s and 1 Yes, you still did not adequately obtain consent. Also, you’re a weak individual.
  • Not fixed: What I mean by this is you shouldn’t take for granted that after asking once for consent that you now have consent forever. It’s not like landing a gig as a Supreme Court judge. You don’t have consent for life. It should be continuously negotiated.
  • Dynamic: Related to the above note, consent for one act does not necessitate consent for all acts. Consent is not an EZ Pass. It should be re-addressed constantly for different acts.
  • Conscious: Yeah, I want to believe I don’t have to explain this one. Bad enough I had to list it. But ok, yes, an inebriated/asleep/passed out or otherwise not fully coherent person cannot consent. There, you can’t say no one ever told you.
  • Unambiguous/Explicit: Assume all of the following to mean “no.” — “Maybe,” “I’m not sure,” “Not yet,” “Kinda,” “Wait a minute,” …I could go on.
  • Not contingent upon sexual interest nor sexual arousal: We know. Blue balls are a motherfucker. Still no excuse. Neither your NOR the expressed/implied interest of any potential partners is an invitation to any act. Also, neither your nor the (assumed) arousal of anyone you might want to have sex with is an invitation. Yes, someone might be aroused and still not want to fuck. Crazy times. I know.
  • Not compensatory: Yeah, that dinner and a movie were nice. Still not an invitation to fuck. And if you thought it was, you’re a world class asshole.
  • Not something that requires a qualifier: No one needs to explain why they are not granting you consent. No is enough.

photo

fuckyeahtoronto: Traffic officers upset with quotas in Toronto’s 31 DivisionHeads up to those driving in 31 Division because not only is there a new ticket quota imposed on Toronto Police traffic officers but a memo also states their careers may be on the line should they not meet them. It’s a shocking correspondence that has upset some officers in the northwestern Toronto division. The problem is quotas are against Toronto Police policy. While there is “a performance standard to ensure that parking folks” are “engaged in parking enforcement,” Dr. Alok Mukherjee, chair of the Toronto Police Services Board, states clearly “with respect to the issue of traffic ticket quota, I can tell you that there is no quota.” Const. Tony Vella, of corporate communications, reiterates: “Toronto Police does not have a quota system, period.” Somebody might want to tell Sgt. Wanda DeCoste. “Being a TRU officer comes with its perks; however it also means there are expectations,” says the April 25 memo. “As of this date: the enforcement officers are expected to write a book a day. The accident car officers are expected to produce at least 10 tickets/day if they have no collisions.” A book a day? That’s 25 tickets. What about a police officer’s independent discretion? And what does she mean by perks? Could it mean the return of the “25 and home” bonus game? As Toronto Sun crime reporter Alan Cairns wrote in 2006, the practice of writing 25 tickets and then being able to end the shift early was banned in 23 Division after now-retired Supt. Neale Tweedy ordered the practice off limits. “I find it is an affront to the public interest and cannot be condoned as legitimate law enforcement behaviour, where quotas and personal benefit influence the day,” Tweedy wrote, calling it “unacceptable conduct” that was “undermining discipline, undermining unit cohesiveness and contributing to a compromised management and work environment.”

fuckyeahtoronto:

Traffic officers upset with quotas in Toronto’s 31 Division
Heads up to those driving in 31 Division because not only is there a new ticket quota imposed on Toronto Police traffic officers but a memo also states their careers may be on the line should they not meet them.

It’s a shocking correspondence that has upset some officers in the northwestern Toronto division.

The problem is quotas are against Toronto Police policy.

While there is “a performance standard to ensure that parking folks” are “engaged in parking enforcement,” Dr. Alok Mukherjee, chair of the Toronto Police Services Board, states clearly “with respect to the issue of traffic ticket quota, I can tell you that there is no quota.”

Const. Tony Vella, of corporate communications, reiterates: “Toronto Police does not have a quota system, period.”

Somebody might want to tell Sgt. Wanda DeCoste.

“Being a TRU officer comes with its perks; however it also means there are expectations,” says the April 25 memo. “As of this date: the enforcement officers are expected to write a book a day. The accident car officers are expected to produce at least 10 tickets/day if they have no collisions.”

A book a day? That’s 25 tickets.

What about a police officer’s independent discretion?

And what does she mean by perks?

Could it mean the return of the “25 and home” bonus game?

As Toronto Sun crime reporter Alan Cairns wrote in 2006, the practice of writing 25 tickets and then being able to end the shift early was banned in 23 Division after now-retired Supt. Neale Tweedy ordered the practice off limits.

“I find it is an affront to the public interest and cannot be condoned as legitimate law enforcement behaviour, where quotas and personal benefit influence the day,” Tweedy wrote, calling it “unacceptable conduct” that was “undermining discipline, undermining unit cohesiveness and contributing to a compromised management and work environment.”

Following