This story raises the most unusual men’s rights issue I’ve ever seen.
A man who must give police 24 hours’ notice before he has sex with a new partner has lost his battle to have the court order lifted.
John O’Neill described his latest hearing as a ‘thoroughly humiliating day’ after a judge ruled his order will be amended at a hearing next month.
North Yorkshire Police had argued the 45-year-old posed a risk to the public and should be subject to a Sexual Risk Order, even though he was acquitted of rape last year.
York Magistrates’ Court heard he admitted to his GP and a psychiatric nurse that he choked a woman unconscious, thought ‘a lot’ about killing her, and needs women ‘to be scared or I don’t respond’.
District Judge Adrian Lower said the order should remain in place, but he will change its terms.
Mr O’Neill said: ‘My main concern is I’m homeless, I cannot work, I cannot claim benefits, I need to get back into society somehow.’
He added that he can’t find a job because police are able to check how he is using the internet.
During the hearing, Judge Lower admitted the ruling that gives the police 24 hours’ notice before he starts sexual contact with a new partner was ‘frankly unpoliceable’.
The new terms will be agreed at a hearing on September 22.
To put this case in perspective, let’s recall that O’Neill was found not guilty on a rape charge. Normally, a not guilty verdict (at least in the U.S.) means that a man’s full rights are restored to him.
British law is obviously different. The questions are does the court order protect woman and is it a violation of a basic human right?
In regard to whether the order protects women, I fail to see it. It’s admitted by the judge that it’s unenforceable. I suspect that the police would once notified by O’Neill then go warn the woman O’Neill planned to have sex with that he’s dangerous. Are even convicted rapists treated this way? How about women who have a history of beating up their male partners? Are any women required to notify police before having sex?
In regard to the second question, the basic human right to be left alone by the State would include the right to have sex without telling the State. It’s none of the government’s business. This sex ban reads like something out of science fiction story set in a dystopian world.
We are not the government’s slaves even though the government views us that way. The nanny state has struck again and I’m sure some people will defend it. What’s your take on this unusual situation?