Judge Hayden from London got into the center of the scandal, claiming that having sex with his wife is a husband's birthright. This statement has already been hooked in the British Parliament. The judge's words were called outrageous there. The Guardian newspaper writes about it.
The reason for the scandalous statements was the trial. Social protection authorities have filed a lawsuit to ban a London resident from having sex with his wife for 20 years.
The position of the authors of the lawsuit is based on the fact that the woman has learning difficulties, so she cannot decide whether she wants to make love to her husband or not. This supposedly means that there is a risk of rape.
After hearing the arguments of the parties, the judge questioned the advisability of judicial intervention in family matters. Hayden explained that a man could be in a situation where he could face jail if he breaks a court order. In addition, the police will face great difficulties. Law enforcement agencies will not be able to comply with a court decision prohibiting a love affair with one of the spouses. It violates legal norms.
“I cannot think of a more obvious fundamental human right than a man’s right to have sex with his wife,” Judge Hayden said.
The judge's words were taken up by Labor MP Tangham Debbonair. In her tweet, the parliamentarian wrote that Hayden's speech “legitimizes misogyny and hatred of women. No man in the UK has such a legal right to insist on sex. No consent = rape."
What misogyny has to do with family relationships Tangem Debbonair did not explain. Judging by the fact that she is in parliament, the Laborite did not admit in her election campaign that she would get involved in family relations.
Judging by the fact that the social security authorities did not present a single fact of the rape of a woman by her husband to the court, it never happened. The wife of the Briton was not against the fulfillment of the conjugal duty. Her inability to formulate a refusal does not mean her inability to talk about wrongdoing against her. If they were, the guardianship authorities who filed a lawsuit would find a way to get them.
The litigation itself seems to be some kind of nonsense. The law provides for the rules under which either the fact of a crime or the intention to commit it are punished. The option “may violate the law” is not subject to jurisdiction. These same London feminists have primary sex characteristics that can help them go to the panel. At the same time, no one accuses them of intending to engage in prostitution.