A woman had been in a relationship with an older man. They worked in the same hospital, in the pharmacy department. Her position was precarious, and he held of position with status and authority. It has been reported that initially the relationship was consensual. However, as the relationship progressed, he began to exercise coercive control. One manifestation of this was that she signed a ‘contract, known as a ’master-pup’ agreement authorising him to commit all BDSM acts on her. He went on to subject her to numerous sexual violent assaults, humiliation and acts of torture over a number of years in the context of this contract.
She went to the (French) police, and they investigated, allegedly not very enthusiastically. He was eventually sentenced for assault and sexual harassment, and to ten months in prison. But he successfully appealed on the grounds that she had consented because she had signed the contract. He relied upon a 2005 judgment which included that “violence committed in a sexual context constitutes non-reprehensible play provided that it takes place between consenting adults.” Because of the ‘contract’, the French judicial institutions considered that there had been no rape.
So, she took the case to the ECHR and won! The judgment of the ECHR was released on 4th September. They found that the French courts decision in favour of the abuser was a violation of Article 3 of the Human Rights Act, the prohibition of torture, which states that no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The EHRC said that the French court should not have accepted the ‘master-pup’ contract as evidence of consent to ‘violent sexual practices subsequently inflicted’ and that the so-called ‘contract’ that she had signed ‘clearly constitutes one of the instruments of coercive control’.
nia was one of a number of organisations supporting the French group Osez le Féminisme (Dare to be Feminist) and including We Can’t Consent to This, who acted as voluntary intervenors in the case.
EHRC judgments have impacts beyond the jurisdiction of the country in which the case took place though the full implications remain to be seen. This case has the potential to play an important role in developing understanding that apparent consent can be obtained through coercion, rather than being freely given and therefore in reality, not consent at all.
nia’s CEO, Jodie Woodward said
‘nia works with over 2,000 women and girls every year who have been subjected to sexual and domestic violence and abuse, including prostitution. Pornography, prostitution and BDSM are clearly contexts in which violence and abuse are central.
There are huge pressures on women and girls to behave in certain ways, to do certain things or have them done to them. We have seen an increase in pressures on women and girls to engage in BDSM and so-called ‘rough sex’ practices. This case highlights the problem with the notion of ‘consent’ within the context of BDSM and coercive control. nia is proud to have supported this intervention.’
You can read a blog about the case by ‘We Can’t Consent to This’ here.
You can read a statement by Osez le Féminisme! here
