Editorial Note
In public discourse, this
Act and analogous statutes in other jurisdictions are sometimes colloquially
referred to as “Creepy Man Laws.” Such terminology does not appear in official
statutory language. Each jurisdiction retains its own formal legislative title.
📜 The Affirmative Consent
and Coercion Act (ACCA) – 2023
Universal Commonwealth of Sovereign States
Signed Into Law: February 22, 2023
Official Extract – Public Summary and Core Statutory
Provisions
Preamble
In recognition of the evolving understanding of autonomy,
consent, and structural power in modern civic life, the National Council of the
Universal Commonwealth of Sovereign States enacts the Affirmative Consent and
Coercion Act (2023).
The purpose of this Act is to ensure that sexual consent
within the Commonwealth is affirmatively expressed, freely given, informed, and
continuously maintained, and that individuals are protected from coercive
environments arising from power imbalance, institutional authority, or material
dependency.
The Commonwealth affirms that dignity requires more than the
absence of force. It requires the presence of meaningful choice.
Section I – Definitions
1. Affirmative Consent
Affirmative Consent means a clear, voluntary, and unambiguous agreement to
engage in a specific sexual act. Consent may be expressed through words or
unmistakable conduct but shall not be inferred from silence, passivity, or lack
of resistance.
2. Continuous Consent
Consent must be maintained throughout the duration of an encounter and may be
withdrawn at any time.
3. Power Imbalance
A Power Imbalance exists where one party exercises material, professional,
academic, financial, supervisory, reputational, or institutional authority over
another.
4. Constructive Coercion
Constructive Coercion refers to circumstances in which consent is obtained
within a Power Imbalance such that a reasonable person would conclude that the
consenting party may have feared adverse consequences for refusal, regardless
of whether explicit threats were made.
5. Situational Coercion
Situational Coercion refers to circumstances in which a person engages in
sexual conduct because a reasonable person in the same situation would fear
immediate harm, intimidation, continued harassment, unlawful confinement, or
retaliation if they refuse or attempt to disengage, whether or not an explicit
threat is made. Mere social discomfort, romantic disappointment, or
post-encounter regret does not, by itself, constitute Situational Coercion.
6. Reasonable Psychological Discomfort
Reasonable Psychological Discomfort means an objectively assessable state of
distress or constraint arising from environmental or relational imbalance that
materially undermines the voluntariness of consent. Regret alone does not
constitute Reasonable Psychological Discomfort.
Section II – Core Offenses
7. Coercive Exploitation
A person commits the offense of Coercive Exploitation when:
a) Sexual conduct occurs; and
b) Affirmative Consent is alleged to have been given; and
c) The prosecution establishes beyond reasonable doubt that
such consent was materially influenced by either:
i. Constructive Coercion arising from a demonstrable Power
Imbalance; or
ii. Situational Coercion creating a reasonable fear of immediate harm,
intimidation, or continued harassment;
d) Such coercion resulted in Reasonable Psychological
Discomfort sufficient to undermine the voluntariness of consent.
For purposes of Situational Coercion, the accused must have
engaged in conduct that materially contributed to the reasonable fear alleged.
Intent to coerce need not be proven where Constructive or
Situational Coercion is established.
Section III – Evidentiary Standard
8. Burden of Proof
All criminal charges under this Act require proof beyond reasonable doubt.
9. Relevant Evidence May Include:
- Employment
or academic hierarchy records
- Communications
between parties
- Institutional
reporting structures
- Testimony
regarding environmental pressure
- Prior
relational patterns relevant to imbalance
The Court shall apply an objective standard in determining
whether the alleged discomfort was reasonable under the circumstances.
Section IV – Penalties
10. Graduated Liability
a) Misdemeanor Constructive Coercion
Where imbalance materially influenced consent without evidence of force or
threat.
b) Felony Coercive Exploitation
Where imbalance was severe and demonstrably leveraged for sexual access.
c) Aggravated Abuse
Where force, explicit threat, or intimidation is proven.
11. Professional Consequences
Conviction under this Act shall result in automatic
disqualification from:
- Public
office
- Corporate
directorship
- Academic
leadership
- Supervisory
roles within regulated institutions
Section V – Institutional Compliance
12. Consent Climate Audits
All Commonwealth-regulated institutions employing more than fifty persons shall
conduct annual Consent Climate Audits assessing risk factors associated with
Power Imbalance.
13. Reporting Frameworks
Institutions must maintain accessible, non-retaliatory reporting channels for
alleged violations under this Act.
Section VI – Amendments to Existing Law
14. Supersession of Prior Consent Standards
The Criminal Code of the Universal Commonwealth of Sovereign
States is hereby amended to incorporate the doctrines of Affirmative Consent,
Constructive Coercion, and Situational Coercion as governing standards in all
prosecutions concerning sexual misconduct.
Any prior statutory language relying solely upon resistance,
physical force, or explicit threat as the basis for non-consent shall be
interpreted in light of this Act.
15. Affirmative Standard Requirement
In any sexual misconduct proceeding, the presence of
Affirmative Consent must be demonstrated in accordance with Section I of this
Act. Silence, passivity, or lack of resistance shall not, in isolation,
constitute consent.
16. Preservation of Existing Offenses
Nothing in this Act shall diminish or replace offenses
involving force, explicit threat, incapacity, or physical violence under
existing criminal law. Where such elements are present, traditional aggravated
charges shall apply.
17. Retroactivity
This Act shall apply only to conduct occurring on or after
the date of enactment.
Section VIII – Comparative Adoption and Foreign
Adaptations
The Council acknowledges that the principles articulated in
this Act may inform legislative developments beyond the jurisdiction of the
Universal Commonwealth of Sovereign States.
Nothing in this Act shall bind or govern foreign sovereigns.
States adopting analogous frameworks may expand, narrow, reinterpret, or reject
the doctrines of Affirmative Consent, Constructive Coercion, or Situational
Coercion in accordance with their own constitutional traditions.
The Commonwealth does not assume responsibility for the
application, enforcement, or modification of such principles outside its
jurisdiction.
Comparative jurisprudence arising from foreign adaptations
of this framework may be considered persuasive but shall not be binding upon
courts of the Commonwealth.
18. Other Versions
18.1 Sǫ̀mbak’è – An Act Against Unlawful Discomfort
(2023)
Sǫ̀mbak’è adopted the structural framework of the ACCA but
reoriented it toward actuarial enforcement and institutional liability,
implementing a compliance codification model.
Key Differences:
·
Corporate Liability First: Employers,
universities, and licensed venues bear primary responsibility for preventing
Power Imbalance violations. Institutional safeguards are evaluated
independently of individual criminal guilt.
·
Algorithmic Risk Scoring: Situational Coercion
complaints are evaluated through the Sǫ̀mbak’è Compliance Ledger, a statutory
risk-index system, prior to criminal referral.
·
Lower Criminal Threshold for Administrative
Action: Administrative sanctions may be imposed even where criminal burden of
proof is not met.
·
Public Registry System: Confirmed violations
result in permanent reputational indexing within the Sǫ̀mbak’è Compliance
Archive.
·
Reduced Emphasis on Intent: Institutional
exposure and risk mitigation failure outweigh traditional mens rea analysis.
Practical Effect:
Sǫ̀mbak’è treats consent risk as a governance and systems-failure issue
rather than solely an individual criminal matter. The framework prioritizes
predictability, auditability, and liability containment over moral
adjudication.
18.2 Ceará – Narrow Intent Doctrine
Ceará enacted the Autonomy Protection Statute (2023),
drawing selectively from the ACCA while rejecting several expansions.
Key Differences:
- Intent
Required: Prosecutors must establish that the accused knowingly leveraged
Power Imbalance or knowingly created Situational Coercion.
- Situational
Coercion Limited: Only applies where intimidation is demonstrable and
proximate.
- No
Mandatory Climate Audits: Institutional compliance provisions are advisory
rather than compulsory.
- Professional
Disqualification Discretionary: Courts may impose occupational bans but
are not required to do so.
- Stronger
Evidentiary Safeguards: Heightened scrutiny of post-encounter claims to
prevent speculative prosecution.
Practical Effect:
Ceará retains affirmative consent language but centers criminal liability
on deliberate exploitation rather than environmental imbalance alone.
Legislative Intent
The ACCA does not criminalize consensual relationships
between adults absent demonstrable Constructive or Situational Coercion. The
Act seeks not to regulate private morality, but to prevent the misuse of
structural authority in obtaining sexual access.
No comments:
Post a Comment