05-16-2023-1540 - Mass gatherings , Americas, Mass Movement, Sect, Politics, Deliberation, Caucasians, Varieties, etc. (draft)

Mass gatherings are events attended by a sufficient number of people to strain the planning and response resources of the host community, state/province, nation, or region where it is being held.^[1][2] Definitions of a mass gathering generally include the following:

• Planned (long term or spontaneously planned) event
• “a specified number of persons (at least >1000 persons).
• at a specific location, for a specific purpose (e.g. social function, public event, sporting event) for a defined period of time”.
• Requires Multi-Agency Coordination^{[citation needed]}

Mass gatherings are usually sporting events (such as Olympic Games) or religious pilgrimages (such as Kumbh Mela or Arba'een Pilgrimage). They are highly visible ^[3] and in some cases, millions of people attend them. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_gathering

A mass movement denotes a political party or movement which is supported by large segments of a population. Political movements that typically advocate the creation of a mass movement include the ideologies of communism, fascism, and liberalism. Both communists and fascists typically support the creation of mass movements as a means to overthrow a government and create their own government, the mass movement then being used afterwards to protect the government from being overthrown itself; whereas liberals seek mass participation in the system of representative democracy.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_movement_(politics)

A sect is a subgroup of a religious, political, or philosophical belief system, usually an offshoot of a larger group. Although the term was originally a classification for religious separated groups, it can now refer to any organization that breaks away from a larger one to follow a different set of rules and principles. Sects are usually created due to perception of heresy by the subgroup and/or the larger group.

In an Indian context, sect refers to an organized tradition.^[1] 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Europe

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Europeans&redirect=no

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variety

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Americans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_of_the_Caucasus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mob

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disability

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=technology+impaired+unaided&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1

 

Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) encompasses the communication methods used to supplement or replace speech or writing for those with impairments in the production or comprehension of spoken or written language. AAC is used by those with a wide range of speech and language impairments, including congenital impairments such as cerebral palsy, intellectual impairment and autism, and acquired conditions such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and Parkinson's disease. AAC can be a permanent addition to a person's communication or a temporary aid. Stephen Hawking used AAC to communicate through a speech-generating device.

Modern use of AAC began in the 1950s with systems for those who had lost the ability to speak following surgical procedures. During the 1960s and 1970s, spurred by an increasing commitment in the West towards the inclusion of disabled individuals in mainstream society and developing the skills required for independence, the use of manual sign language and then graphic symbol communication grew greatly. It was not until the 1980s that AAC began to emerge as a field in its own right. Rapid progress in technology, including microcomputers and speech synthesis, have paved the way for communication devices with speech output and multiple options for access to communication for those with physical disabilities.

AAC systems are diverse: unaided communication uses no equipment and includes signing and body language, while aided approaches use external tools.^[1] Aided communication methods can range from paper and pencil to communication books or boards to speech generating devices (SGDs) or devices producing written output. The symbols used in AAC include gestures, photographs, pictures, line drawings, letters and words, which can be used alone or in combination. Body parts, pointers, adapted mice, or eye tracking can be used to select target symbols directly, and switch access scanning is often used for indirect selection. Message generation is generally much slower than spoken communication, and as a result rate enhancement techniques may be used to reduce the number of selections required. These techniques include "prediction", in which the user is offered guesses of the word/phrase being composed, and "encoding", in which longer messages are retrieved using a prestored code.

The evaluation of a user's abilities and requirements for AAC will include the individual's motor, visual, cognitive, language and communication strengths and weaknesses. The evaluation requires the input of family members, particularly for early intervention. Respecting ethnicity and family beliefs are key to a family-centered and ethnically competent approach. Studies show that AAC use does not impede the development of speech, and may result in a modest increase in speech production. Users who have grown up with AAC report satisfying relationships and life activities; however, they may have poor literacy and are unlikely to be employed.

While most AAC techniques are reliable, two techniques (facilitated communication and the rapid prompting method) have arisen which falsely claim to allow people with intellectual disabilities to communicate. These techniques involve an assistant (called a facilitator) guiding a disabled person to type on a keyboard or point at a letter board. It has been shown that the facilitator, rather than the disabled person, is the source of the messages generated in this way. There have been a large number of false allegations of sexual abuse made through facilitated communication.

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities defines augmentative and alternative communication as forms of communication including languages as well as display of text, large-print, tactile communication, plain language, accessible multimedia and accessible information and communications technology.^[2]

The field was originally called "Augmentative Communication"; the term served to indicate that such communication systems were to supplement natural speech rather than to replace it. The addition of "alternative" followed later, when it became clear that for some individuals non-speech systems were their only means of communication.^[3] AAC users typically utilize a variety of aided and unaided communication strategies depending on the communication partners and the context.^[4] There were three, relatively independent, research areas in the 1960s and 1970s that lead to the field of augmentative and alternative communication. First was the work on early electromechanical communication and writing systems. The second was the development of communication and language boards, and lastly there was the research on ordinary (without disability) child language development.^[5] 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augmentative_and_alternative_communication

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoacoustics

 

Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty and formerly called judicial homicide,^[1][2] is the state-sanctioned practice of killing a person as a punishment for a crime, usually following an authorized, rule-governed process to conclude that the person is responsible for violating norms that warrant said punishment.^[3] The sentence ordering that an offender be punished in such a manner is known as a death sentence, and the act of carrying out the sentence is known as an execution. A prisoner who has been sentenced to death and awaits execution is condemned and is commonly referred to as being "on death row". Etymologically, the term capital (lit. "of the head", derived via the Latin capitalis from caput, "head") refers to execution by beheading,^[4] but executions are carried out by many methods, including hanging, shooting, lethal injection, stoning, electrocution, and gassing.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_mortality_event

Extinction is the termination of a kind of organism or of a group of kinds (taxon), usually a species. The moment of extinction is generally considered to be the death of the last individual of the species, although the capacity to breed and recover may have been lost before this point. Because a species' potential range may be very large, determining this moment is difficult, and is usually done retrospectively. This difficulty leads to phenomena such as Lazarus taxa, where a species presumed extinct abruptly "reappears" (typically in the fossil record) after a period of apparent absence. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction

Variety may refer to:

Arts and entertainment

Entertainment formats

• Variety (radio)
• Variety show, in theater and television

Films

• Variety (1925 film), a German silent film directed by Ewald Andre Dupont
• Variety (1935 film), a British musical film
• Variety (1935 German film), a German drama film
• Variety (1971 film), a Spanish drama film
• Variety (1983 film), an American independent film

Music

• Variety (Family Fodder album), tenth studio album by Family fodder
• Variety (Les Rita Mitsouko album), seventh studio album by Les Rita Mitsouko
• Variety (Mariya Takeuchi album), sixth studio album by Mariya Takeuchi
• Variety (Tokyo Jihen album), third studio album by Tokyo Jihen
• Variety Records, a short-lived US record label that was produced by Brunswick Records

Other uses in arts and entertainment

• Variety (magazine), an entertainment industry newspaper
  • Variety Film Reviews is the 24-volume hardcover reprint of the magazine feature film reviews
• Variety Television Network, an American former digital subchannel
• "Variety", a 2002 Oz television episode

Botany and horticulture

• Variety (botany), a formal rank, in taxonomic nomenclature, below subspecies
• Colloquially (and historically):
  • Cultivar, especially of grapes and rice
  • Hybrid (biology), more generally
  • Any form (botany) (a taxonomic rank below variety)
• Plant variety (law), a non-taxonomic term of legal recognition

Businesses and organizations

• Variety, the Children's Charity, international charity to help children with special needs
• Variety Cruises, a cruise line
• Variety (magazine), an entertainment industry newspaper
• Variety Wholesalers, a retail store owner operating in the southeastern United States

Mathematics and systems

• Algebraic variety, the set of solutions of a system of polynomial equations
• Variety (cybernetics), the number of possible states of a system or of an element of the system
• Variety (universal algebra), classes of algebraic structures defined by equations in universal algebra

Other uses

• Variety (linguistics), a specific form of a language (or of a dialect continuum)
• Variety, a term in coin collecting
• Variety Jones, pseudonym of a person closely involved with the founding of the darknet market Silk Road

See also

• Variability (disambiguation)
• Variant (disambiguation)
• Variation (disambiguation)

• All pages with titles beginning with Variety
• All pages with titles containing variety

This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the title Variety.
If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.

Category:

• Disambiguation pages

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variety

 

 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_miser#Low-information_rationality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_explosion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber_(media)

Jury nullification (US/UK), jury equity^[1][2] (UK), or a perverse verdict (UK)^[3][4] occurs when the jury in a criminal trial gives a not guilty verdict regardless of whether they believe a defendant has broken the law. The jury's reasons may include the belief that the law itself is unjust,^[5][6] that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case,^[7] that the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favor of the defendant.^[8] Such verdicts are possible because a jury has an absolute right to return any verdict it chooses.^[9]

Nullification is not an official part of criminal procedure, but is the logical consequence of two rules governing the systems in which it exists:

1. Jurors cannot be punished for passing an incorrect verdict.^[10]
2. In many jurisdictions, a defendant who is acquitted cannot be tried a second time for the same offence.^[11]

A jury verdict that is contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it. However, if a pattern of acquittals develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a particular offence, this can have the de facto effect of invalidating the law. Such a pattern may indicate public opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment. It may also happen that a jury convicts a defendant even if no law was broken, although such a conviction may be overturned on appeal. Nullification can also occur in civil trials,^[12] but (unlike in criminal trials) if the jury renders a not liable verdict that is clearly at odds with the evidence, the judge can issue a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or order a new trial.^[13] 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_device

 

A citizens' assembly (also known as citizens' jury or citizens' panel or people's jury or policy jury or citizens' initiative review or consensus conference or citizens' convention) is a randomly-selected group of people who deliberate on important public questions.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]}

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_assembly}

 

Deliberative democracy or discursive democracy is a form of democracy in which deliberation is central to decision-making. It often adopts elements of both consensus decision-making and majority rule. Deliberative democracy differs from traditional democratic theory in that authentic deliberation, not mere voting, is the primary source of legitimacy for the law. Deliberative democracy is closely related to consultative democracy, in which public consultation with citizens is central to democratic processes.

While deliberative democracy is generally seen as some form of an amalgam of representative democracy and direct democracy, the actual relationship is usually open to dispute.^[1] Some practitioners and theorists use the term to encompass representative bodies whose members authentically and practically deliberate on legislation without unequal distributions of power, while others use the term exclusively to refer to decision-making directly by lay citizens, as in direct democracy.

Joseph M. Bessette has been credited with coining the term in his 1980 work Deliberative Democracy: The Majority Principle in Republican Government.^[2] 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_democracy

This article is about decision-making as analyzed in psychology. For a broader discipline, see Decision theory. For decision-making in groups, see Group decision-making.

Sample flowchart representing a decision process when confronted with a lamp that fails to light.

In psychology, decision-making (also spelled decision making and decisionmaking) is regarded as the cognitive process resulting in the selection of a belief or a course of action among several possible alternative options. It could be either rational or irrational. The decision-making process is a reasoning process based on assumptions of values, preferences and beliefs of the decision-maker.^[1] Every decision-making process produces a final choice, which may or may not prompt action.

Research about decision-making is also published under the label problem solving, particularly in European psychological research.^[2]

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision-making

 

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_democracy}

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_hierarchy_process}

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory}

 

Deliberation is a process of thoughtfully weighing options, usually prior to voting. Deliberation emphasizes the use of logic and reason as opposed to power-struggle, creativity, or dialogue. Group decisions are generally made after deliberation through a vote or consensus of those involved.

In legal settings a jury famously uses deliberation because it is given specific options, like guilty or not guilty, along with information and arguments to evaluate. In "deliberative democracy", the aim is for both elected officials and the general public to use deliberation rather than power-struggle as the basis for their vote. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberation

In parliamentary procedure, unanimous consent, also known as general consent, or in the case of the parliaments under the Westminster system, leave of the house (or leave of the senate), is a situation in which no member present objects to a proposal.

Purpose

Generally, in a meeting of a deliberative assembly, business is conducted using a formal procedure of motion, debate, and vote. However, if there are no objections, action could be taken by unanimous consent.^{[1][2][3][4][5]} The procedure of asking for unanimous consent is used to expedite business by eliminating the need for formal votes on routine questions in which the existence of a consensus is likely.^[1] The principle behind it is that procedural safeguards designed to protect a minority can be waived when there is no minority to protect.^[1]

In non-legislative deliberative bodies operating under Robert's Rules of Order, unanimous consent is often used to expedite the consideration of uncontroversial motions.^[6][7][8] It is sometimes used simply as a time-saving device, especially at the end of the session. Sometimes members do not want a formal recorded vote on the issue, or they know that they would lose such a vote and do not feel a need to take time on it.

Difference from unanimous vote

Action taken by unanimous consent does not necessarily mean that it was taken by a unanimous vote. It does not necessarily mean that every member of the body would have voted in favor of the proposal.^[9] It may mean that members feeling that it would be useless to oppose a matter would simply acquiesce.^[9]

For example, passing legislation via unanimous consent does not require that every member of a legislature, a majority of members or even a quorum of representatives to be present to vote.^[10] Unanimous consent merely requires that no representative of those present has asked to take a recorded vote or has requested quorum verification. For that reason, a claim that a piece of legislation was passed "unanimously", when it was really passed via "unanimous consent", can be misleading as to its level of support.^[11]

Unanimous consent required

Certain rights can only be waived by unanimous consent. For example, in disciplinary procedures, a single member can require the vote on the imposition of a penalty to be taken by ballot.^[12]

When an item is before the assembly for action, such as a resolution, it is the right of every member to have it read once.^[13] Another case of this requirement is the reading of the minutes. Unanimous consent is required to not do the reading. Any member can request that the minutes be read and it would have to be done.^[14]

A series of independent resolutions may be offered in a single motion. Unanimous consent is required to consider such a motion in one vote. Any member can demand a separate vote on one or more of the independent resolutions.^[15]

Procedure

Look up nemine contradicente in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Unanimous consent can be obtained by the chair asking if there are any objections to doing something. For instance, the chair may state, "If there is no objection, the motion will be adopted. [pause] Since there is no objection, the motion is adopted."^[1] In Westminster parliaments, the wording could be "There being no objection, leave is granted." On the most routine matters, such as inserting an article into the Congressional Record in Congress, the chairperson may shorten this statement to four words: "Without objection, so ordered" or even to two words: "Without objection" (Latin: nemine contradicente). Another example of this practice in the House of Representatives is when a series of votes has been interrupted by a speaker or other business. The chair will state, "Without objection, five minute voting will continue."

If no member objects, the motion is adopted. But if any member objects, the motion is not adopted and cannot be agreed to without a formal vote. Raising an objection does not necessarily imply that the objector disagrees with the proposal itself. They may simply believe that it would be better to take a formal vote.^[9]

Sometimes unanimous consent can be assumed if the chair perceives that no one would raise an objection if they formally asked.^[16] For instance, if it is obvious that the members of an assembly are absorbed in listening to a speaker who has exceeded the time limits on debate, but is about to conclude, the chair may allow the speaker to continue without interruption.^[16]

Objections are sometimes used as a delaying tactic. The objector may have no disagreement with the proposal at issue, but chooses to object in order to force a time-consuming formal vote, which may include a period of debate as well.^[9]

Consent agenda

Many deliberative assemblies (e.g. city councils) use a procedure known as the "consent agenda". Matters believed to be noncontroversial are placed on the consent agenda, and they are all adopted by a single motion. If any member objects to one or more items on the consent agenda, the items objected to are removed from the consent agenda and handled in the ordinary course.

Typical uses of unanimous consent

Unanimous consent is frequently used to approve the minutes.^[14] If no one has corrections to the minutes, they are approved without a formal vote by unanimous consent.^[17] In this special case of unanimous consent, the only way to object to the approval of the minutes is to offer a correction to it.^[17]

In an election, if there is only one candidate and the rules do not require a ballot vote in that situation, the single candidate is declared elected by acclamation, or unanimous consent.^[18] In this special case of unanimous consent, the only way to object to the election of a candidate is to nominate and vote for someone else.^[19]

A meeting could be adjourned by unanimous consent. If no one has any further business at the end of a meeting, the chair simply declares the meeting adjourned without a formal motion or a formal vote.^[20]

Leave of the house (or leave of the senate)

In parliaments under the Westminster system, leave of the house or leave of the senate is a similar concept to requiring unanimous consent. If a member asks for leave to be granted to do something that is different from the rules, a single objection can defeat the request.^[5][21]

Use in consensus decision-making

Main article: Consensus decision-making

Unanimous consent may be used as part of a consensus decision-making process. In that process, unanimous consent does not necessarily mean unanimous agreement (see Consensus decision-making § Agreement vs. consent).

See also

• Silence procedure
• Unanimity

References

1. 
   

Robert, Henry M.; et al. (2011). Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (11th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Da Capo Press. p. 54. ISBN 978-0-306-82020-5.

"unanimous consent glossary term". www.senate.gov. United States Senate. Retrieved 2015-12-27.

"Glossary (U)". www.congress.gov. Library of Congress. Retrieved 2015-12-27.

Robert Marleau & Camille Montpetit, ed. (2000). "The Process of Debate - Unanimous Consent". House of Commons Procedure and Practice. Parliament of Canada.

"Chapter 8 - Conduct of proceedings". www.aph.gov.au. Parliament of Australia. Retrieved 2015-12-27.

Robert 2011, p. 145: "Amendments are sometimes so simple or acceptable that they may be adopted by unanimous consent."

Robert 2011, p. 202: "Sometimes the mere making of a motion for the Previous Question or "call for the question" may motivate unanimous consent to ending debate."

Robert 2011, p. 289

Robert 2011, p. 55

Rybicki, Elizabeth. "Voting and Quorum Procedures in the Senate". Congressional Research Service. Archived from the original on 2009-03-25.

see, e.g., Hamilton, Marci (2015). "The Case for Evidence-Based Free Exercise Accommodation: Why the Religious Freedom Restoration Act Is Bad Public Policy". Harvard Law & Policy Review. 9: 145–146.

Robert 2011, p. 668

Robert 2011, p. 299

Robert 2011, p. 354

Robert 2011, p. 274

Robert 2011, p. 56

Robert 2011, p. 355

Robert 2011, p. 443

Robert 2011, p. 430

Robert 2011, p. 241

21. "Leave of the House". parliament.nsw.gov.au. Parliament of New South Wales (NSW). Retrieved 2015-12-26.

v t e Parliamentary procedure
Major concepts	History of parliamentary procedure Principles of parliamentary procedure Deliberative assembly Committee Session Quorum Chair Floor Recognition Motion Second Debate Main motion Order of business Minutes Voting methods in deliberative assemblies Majority Unanimous consent
Subsidiary motions	Postpone indefinitely Amend Commit Postpone to a certain time Limit or extend limits of debate Previous question Cloture Lay on the table
Privileged motions	Call for the orders of the day Raise a question of privilege Recess Adjourn Fix the time to which to adjourn
Incidental motions	Point of order Appeal Suspend the rules Objection to the consideration of a question Division of a question Consideration by paragraph or seriatim Division of the assembly Motions relating to methods of voting and the polls Motions relating to nominations Request to be excused from a duty Requests and inquiries (Parliamentary inquiry, Request for information, Request for permission to withdraw or modify a motion, Request to read papers, Request for any other privilege)
Motions that bring a question again before the assembly	Take from the table Rescind, repeal, annul or amend something previously adopted Discharge a committee Reconsider
Legislative procedures	Call of the house Hoist Motion to pass on Recall of Parliament
Disciplinary procedures	Censure Declare the chair vacant Impeach Naming
Parliamentary authorities	Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure (TSC or Sturgis) Demeter's Manual of Parliamentary Law and Procedure Riddick's Rules of Procedure Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice Jefferson's Manual Lex Parliamentaria Bourinot's Rules of Order Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms Morin code ABC of Chairmanship
Politics portal

Categories:

• Unanimity
• Parliamentary procedure

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unanimous_consent

Liquid democracy is a form of delegative democracy,^[1] whereby an electorate engages in collective decision-making through direct participation and dynamic representation.^[2] This democratic system utilizes elements of both direct and representative democracy. Voters in a liquid democracy have the right to vote directly on all policy issues à la direct democracy; voters also have the option to delegate their votes to someone who will vote on their behalf à la representative democracy.^[2] Any individual may be delegated votes (those delegated votes are termed "proxies") and these proxies may in turn delegate their vote as well as any votes they have been delegated by others resulting in "metadelegation".^[3]

This delegation of votes may be absolute (an individual divests their vote to someone else across all issues), policy-specific (an individual divests their vote to someone only when the vote concerns a certain issue), time-sensitive (an individual decides to divest their vote for a period of time), or not utilized by voters.^[2] In the case of absolute delegation, the voter situates themselves as a participant in a representative democracy, however, they have the right to revoke their vote delegation at any time.^[3] The appeal of the retractability mechanism stems from an increased accountability imposed on representatives.^[3] In policy-specific delegation, voters may also select different delegates for different issues.^[4] Voters may select representatives they feel are more equipped to adjudicate in unfamiliar fields due to elevated expertise, personal experience, or another indicator of competence.^[5] Moreover, automatic recall allows citizens to be as engaged in political affairs as the rest of their lives permit. A voter may delegate their vote completely one week but decide to participate fully another. For those who wish to exercise their right to vote on all political matters, liquid democracy provides the flexibility to retain the option of direct democracy.

Illustration of delegated voting. Voters to the left of the blue line voted by delegation. Voters to the right voted directly. Numbers are the quantity of voters represented by each delegate, with the delegate included in the count.

Most of the available academic literature on liquid democracy is based on empirical research rather than on specific conceptualization or theories. Experiments have mostly been conducted on a local-level or exclusively through online platforms, however polity examples are listed below.

Origins

In 1884, Charles Dodgson (more commonly referred to by his pseudonym Lewis Carroll), the author of the novel Alice in Wonderland, first envisioned the notion of transitive or "liquid" voting in his pamphlet The Principles of Parliamentary Representation.^[6] Dodgson expounded a system predicated on multi-member districts where each voter casts a single vote or possesses the ability to transfer votes akin to the modern concept of liquid democracy.^[7] Bryan Ford in his paper "Delegative Democracy" says this could be seen as the first step towards liquid democracy.^[8]

The first institutionalized attempts at liquid democracy can be traced back to the work of Oregon reformer William S. U'Ren.^[9] In 1912, he lobbied for interactive representation (the Proxy Plan of Representation),^[10] where the elected politicians' influence would be weighted with regard to the number of votes each had received.^[11]

A few decades later, around 1967, Gordon Tullock suggested that voters could choose their representatives or vote themselves in parliament "by wire", while debates were broadcast on television. James C. Miller favored the idea that everybody should have the possibility to vote on any question themselves or to appoint a representative who could transmit their inquiries. Soon after Miller argued in favor of liquid democracy, in 1970 Martin Shubik called the process an "instant referendum". Nonetheless, Shubik was concerned about the speed of decision-making and how it might influence the time available for public debates.^[12]

In the 21st century, based on the work of Jabbusch and James Green-Armytage,^[13] technological innovation has made liquid democracy more feasible to implement. The first online liquid democracy applications originated in Berlin, Germany following political disillusionment and the emergence of hacker culture.^[6] Since liquid democracy gained traction in Germany, variations of liquid democratic forms have developed globally in political and economic spheres (examples listed at the bottom of the article).

Delegative form

The prototypical liquid democracy has been summarized by Bryan Ford in his paper, "Delegative Democracy", containing the following principles:^[14]

1. Choice of role: Members of the democracy can either passively act as an individual or actively act as a delegate. This is different from representative democracies, which only use specific representatives. This way, delegates can be selective about their participation in different areas of policy.
2. Low barrier to participation: Delegates do not have much difficulty becoming delegates. Most notably, they do not have to win competitive elections that involve costly political campaigns.
3. Delegated authority: Delegates act in processes on behalf of themselves and of individuals who choose them as their delegate. Their power to make decisions varies based on their varying support.
4. Privacy of the individual: All votes by individuals are kept secret to prevent any form of coercion by delegates or other individuals.
5. Accountability of the delegates: In contrast to the privacy of the individuals, the formal decisions of delegates are typically made public to their voters and the broader community to hold them accountable for their actions.
6. Specialization by re-delegation: Delegates are able to have both general authorities delegated to them from individual voters and specialized authority re-delegated to them from other delegates to work on their behalf.

Variations on this general model also exist, and this outline is only mentioned here for orientation within a general model. For example, in the "Joy of Revolution,"^[15] delegates are left open to being specialized at the time of each individual's delegation of authority. Additionally, general principles of fluidity can often be applied to the concept such that individuals can revise their "vote" at any time by modifying their registered delegation (sometimes called "proxy") with the governing organization.^[16] (see also Single Transferable Vote.)

Contrasted with proxy voting

Liquid democracy utilizes the foundation of proxy voting but differs from this earlier model in the degree of scale. Unlike proxy voting, liquid democratic votes may be delegated to a proxy and the proxy may delegate their votes (individual and proxies) to an additional proxy. This process is termed "metadelegation".^[3] Though an individual's vote may be delegated numerous times, they retain the right to automatic recall.^[2] If someone who delegated their vote disagrees with the choices of their representative or proxy, they may either vote themselves or select another delegate for the next vote.^[8]

Contrasted with representative democracy

Crucial to the understanding of liquid democracy is the theory's view of the role of delegation in representative democracy. Representative democracy is seen as a form of governance whereby a single winner is determined for a predefined jurisdiction, with a change of delegation only occurring after the preset term length. In some instances, terms can be cut short by a forced recall election, though the recalled candidate can win the subsequent electoral challenge and carry out their term.

The paradigm of representative democracy is contrasted with the delegative form implemented in liquid democracy. Delegates may not have specific limits on their term as delegates, nor do they represent specific jurisdictions. Some key differences include:

1. Optionality of term lengths.
2. Possibility for direct participation.
3. The delegate's power is decided in some measure by the voluntary association of members rather than an electoral victory in a predefined jurisdiction. (See also: Single transferable vote.)
4. Delegates remain re-callable at any time and in any proportion.
5. Often, the voters have the authority to refuse observance of a policy by way of popular referendum overriding delegate decisions or through nonobservance from the concerned members. This is not usually the case in representative democracy.
6. Possibility exists for differentiation between delegates in terms of what form of voting the member has delegated to them. For example: "you are my delegate on matters of national security and farm subsidies."^[17][18]

In contrast to representative democracy, within liquid democracy, delegations of votes are transitive and not dependent on election periods. The concept of liquid democracy describes a form of collective decision-making, which combines elements of direct democracy and representative democracy through the use of software. This allows voters to either vote on issues directly, or to delegate their voting power to a trusted person or party. Moreover, participants are empowered to withdraw their votes at any time.

Voting periods can go through many stages before the final votes are computed. Also, when voters make use of the delegation option, the delegators are able to see what happened to their vote, ensuring the accountability of the system. The fact that delegators can revoke their votes from their representative, is another significant aspect of how liquid democracy can potentially refine contemporary representative democracy concepts.

By allowing to revoke votes at any time, society can replace representatives who are not providing ideal results and choose more promising representatives. In this way, voters are enabled to effectively choose the most appropriate or competent topic-specific representatives and members of a community or electorate, in real-time, can shape the well-being of their commons, by excluding undesired decision-makers and promoting the desired ones. The voting software LiquidFeedback for instance, through its connotation of liquidity, accounts to this real-time aspect, potentially providing a constantly changing representation of the voting community's current opinion.

Regarding objective-technological elements among liquid democracy software examples, it is reasonable to determine that they originally were not developed with an intention to replace the current and firmly established processes of decision-making in political parties or local governments. Based on academic research, it is significantly rather the case that liquid democracy software possesses the intrinsic function to contribute additional and alternative value to the processes of traditional elections, channels of communication and discussion, or public consultation.

Contrasted with direct democracy

Direct democracy is a form of democracy where all collective decisions are made by the direct voting contributions of individual citizens.^[19] Though often perceived to be truly direct (e.g. only self-representation), direct democracies of the past, most notably in Athens, have utilized some form of representation.^[20] Thus, the distinction between direct democracy lies not in liquid democracy's representative nature, but rather in the transitory method of delegation.^[2] Liquid democracy is a sort of voluntary direct democracy in that participants can be included in decisions (and are usually expected to be, by default) but can opt out by way of abstaining or delegating their voting to someone else when they lack the time, interest, or expertise to vote on the delegated matter. By contrast, in direct democracy, all eligible voters are expected to stay knowledgeable on all events and political issues, since voters make every decision on these political issues.^[21] Liquid democracy is said then to provide a more modern and flexible alternative to the revered direct democratic systems of ancient Greece.^[20]

Issues posed by technology

Bryan Ford explains that some of the current challenges to liquid democracy include the unintended concentration of delegated votes due to large numbers of people participating in platforms and decision making; building more secure and decentralized implementation of online platforms in order to avoid unscrupulous administrators or hackers; shortening the thresholds between voter privacy; and delegate accountability.^[22]

Another criticism made against liquid democracy is the lack of access to digital platforms by the widespread population (the digital divide). In most developing countries, not every citizen has access to a smartphone, computer, or internet connection. In some developed countries, the same is true; in the United States, for example, as of 2021, 85% of American adults own a smartphone resulting in 15% of citizens without access.^[23] This technological disparity both in access and knowledge would result in a more unbalanced participation than what already exists.^[24]

Criticism of liquid democracy

Liquid democracy may evolve into a type of meritocracy with decisions being delegated to those with knowledge on a specific subject or with required experience.^[5] Whether or not this meritocratic delegation is normatively appealing, a study by researchers Ioannis Caragiannis and Evi Micha found the idea of less informed citizens delegating their votes to more informed citizens to be positively undesirable.^[25] In issues where there exists a "ground truth" or "correct answer", Caragiannis and Micha concluded a subset of supposedly more informed voters within a larger populace would be less adept at identifying the ground truth than if every voter had voted directly or if all votes had been delegated to one supreme dictator.^[25]

Furthermore, liquid democracy as a democratic form is susceptible to oligarchic tendencies.^[5] Similar to electoral political systems, the concept of "distinction" is of central importance.^[5] Rather than empowering the general public, liquid democracy could concentrate power into the hands of a socially prominent, politically strategic, and wealthy few. Thus, liquid democracy is said to have the potential to create two classes divided by voting power inequity.^[2] Helene Landemore, a Political Science professor at Yale University, describes this phenomenon as "star-voting" and argues individuals should have the right of permanent recall whereby voters who have delegated their vote to another individual may, at any time, retract their delegation and vote autonomously.^[5] However, the ability to automatically recall one's vote regarding any policy decision leads to an issue of policy inconsistency as different policies are voted on by different subsets of society.^[2]

Finally, liquid democracy faces the issue of scale. In large nation states with millions of voting citizens, it is likely the body of "liquid representatives" (those who have been delegated other citizen votes) will be significant. Consequently, deliberation and representation become pertinent concerns. To achieve meaningful deliberation, the liquid representatives would have to be split into numerous groups to attain a somewhat manageable discussion group size.^[5] As for representation, liquid democracy suffers from a similar issue facing electoral representative democracies where a single individual embodies the will of millions.^[5] Liquid democracy has been argued as a remedy for many issues plaguing democratic systems world-wide, however, critics question the normative attractiveness of a delegative, proxy democracy.

Examples

This section's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links, and converting useful links where appropriate into footnote references. (March 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Google Votes

Google experimented with liquid democracy through an internal social network system known as Google Votes.^[26] This liquid democratic experiment constitutes one of the less common corporate examples. Users of the existing Google+ platform were the voters and built-in discussion functions provided the deliberative element.^[26] In this instance, Google Votes was used to select meal offerings.^[26] Nonetheless, researchers came away with a number of recommendations regarding future implementations of liquid democracy on online platforms including delegation recommendations based on prior choices, issue recommendations based on prior participation, and delegation notifications to inform voters about their relative power.^[26]

Pirate Parties

Pirate Parties, parties focusing on reducing online censorship and increasing transparency, first came around in Sweden in the year 2006.^[2] Pirate Parties in Germany,^[27] Italy, Austria, Norway, France and the Netherlands^[28] use liquid democracy with the open-source software LiquidFeedback.^[29]

Specifically in the case of the Pirate Party in Germany, the communication with citizens uses tools and platforms similar to conventional parties – including Facebook, Twitter, and online sites – however, they developed the "piratewiki" project. This is an open platform opened to collaborative contributions to the political deliberative process.^[30] "Liquid Feedback" was the platform used by the German Pirate Party since 2006, which allowed users to become a part of inner party decision making process.^[29][31]

Argentina

Recently, virtual platforms have been created in Argentina. Democracia en Red is a group of Latin Americans who seek a redistribution of political power and a more inclusive discussion.^[32] They created Democracy OS, a platform which allows internet users to propose, debate and vote on different topics. Pia Mancini argues that the platform opens up democratic conversation and upgrades democratic decision making to the internet era.

Demoex / Direktdemokraterna

The first example of liquid democracy using a software program in a real political setting involved the local political party Demoex in Vallentuna, a suburb of Stockholm: the teacher Per Norbäck and the entrepreneur Mikael Nordfors [sv] used software called NetConference Plus. This software is no longer supported after the bankruptcy of the manufacturing company, Vivarto AB. The party had a seat in the local parliament between 2002-2014, where the members decide how their representative shall vote with the help of internet votations.^[33] Since then, Demoex and two other parties have formed Direktdemokraterna.^[34]

Civicracy

An experimental form of liquid democracy called Civicracy was tested at the Vienna University of Technology in 2012.^[35] It created a council of representatives based on a continuous vote of confidence from participants, similar to modern parliaments. The relative liquidity of votes was lessened by a dampening algorithm intended to ensure representation stability.^[35] Despite extensive planning, the real-world experiment was not conducted due to a lack of favorability.^[35]

LiquidFriesland

This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: still needs to be more concise & detached from subject matter, but some improvements made May 4 2021. Please help improve this section if you can. (May 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

The district of Friesland in Germany has implemented some usage of a platform called LiquidFriesland, but it has not succeeded in radically changing the mode of governance there. The platform, designed as a form of Liquid Democracy, has achieved mixed results

The implementation and the use of the LiquidFriesland platform was clearly dominated by the bureaucratic style of communication and working procedures. The citizen participation on the platform was inscribed in the hierarchical structure, where suggestions on the platform were regarded as inputs for the bureaucratic black box, but by no means as part of the decision-making process inside it. The communication with main stakeholders – the users of the platform – was being structured according to the same logic and was not rebuilt in the course of the project.

No regulation was planned to be initially adapted to allow local politicians to conduct the process of legal drafting on the LiquidFriesland platform. As for the delegation aspect of LiquidFriesland, it has never been specified in any regulatory documents. No more than 500 citizens registered on LiquidFriesland and activated their accounts. Only 20% of the activated users logged in to the platform and only 10% have shown some activity on LiquidFriesland.

See also

• Delegated voting
• Collaborative filtering, which applies the same principle to information filtering rather than voting
• Delegate and trustee models of representation
• Direct representation
• Indirect election

References

1. 
   

Cammaerts, Bart (2019). "Revalidating Participation: Power and Pre-Figurative Politics within contemporary Left-wing Movements". In Carpentier, Nico (ed.). Respublika! : experiments in the performance of participation and democracy. Cyprus: NeMe. p. 131. ISBN 978-9963-9695-8-6. OCLC 1088563137.

Blum, Christian; Zuber, Christina Isabel (2016). "Liquid Democracy: Potentials, Problems, and Perspectives". Journal of Political Philosophy. 24 (2): 162–182. doi:10.1111/jopp.12065. ISSN 1467-9760.

Valsangiacomo, Chiara (2021). "Political Representation in Liquid Democracy". Frontiers in Political Science. 3. doi:10.3389/fpos.2021.591853. ISSN 2673-3145.

Kahng, Anson (2016). "Liquid Democracy: An Algorithmic Perspective" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 13 July 2018. Retrieved 14 April 2018.

Landemore, Hélène (2020). Open democracy : reinventing popular rule for the twenty-first century. Princeton, New Jersey. ISBN 978-0-691-20872-5. OCLC 1158505904.

Ramos, José (2015), Winter, Jenifer; Ono, Ryota (eds.), "Liquid Democracy and the Futures of Governance", The Future Internet, Public Administration and Information Technology, Cham: Springer International Publishing, vol. 17, pp. 173–191, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-22994-2_11, ISBN 978-3-319-22993-5, retrieved 4 May 2021

Dodgson, Charles (2012). The Principles of Parliamentary Representation. Nabu Press. ISBN 978-1277395686.

Bryan Ford (16 November 2014), Delegative Democracy Revisited, retrieved 11 August 2016

Jabbusch, Sebastian (2011). "Liquid Democracy in Der Piratenpartei" (PDF). Universität Greifswald. Philosophische Fakultät.

Grain Growers Guide (Canada), 7 August 1912

"Government by proxy now" (PDF). New York Times.

Paulin, Alois. "Through Liquid Democracy to Sustainable Non-Bureaucratic Government". JeDEM.

Green-Armytage, James (June 2015). "Direct Voting and Proxy Voting". Constitutional Political Economy. 26 (2): 190–220. doi:10.1007/s10602-014-9176-9. S2CID 154590189.

Bryan Ford (15 May 2002), Delegative Democracy (PDF), retrieved 11 August 2016

Ken Knabb (1997), "Representative democracy versus delegate democracy", Public Secrets, Bop secrets, retrieved 11 August 2016

Ken Knabb (1997), Public Secrets, retrieved 11 August 2016

Representative democracy versus delegate democracy, Bop secrets, retrieved 12 April 2009.

Bryan Ford (15 May 2002), "2.6 Specialization" (PDF), Delegative Democracy, retrieved 11 August 2016

Schiller, Theo. "Direct democracy". Encyclopedia Britannica, 22 Oct. 2020, https://www.britannica.com/topic/direct-democracy. Accessed 27 April 2021.

Manin, Bernard, ed. (1997), "Direct democracy and representation: selection of officials in Athens", The Principles of Representative Government, Themes in the Social Sciences, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 8–41, doi:10.1017/cbo9780511659935.002, ISBN 978-0-521-45891-7, retrieved 28 April 2021

Bryan Ford (16 November 2014), Delegative Democracy Revisited, retrieved 11 August 2016

Ford, Bryan (January 2018). "Liquid Democracy: Promise and Challenges" (PDF).

"Demographics of Mobile Device Ownership and Adoption in the United States". Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. Retrieved 11 January 2022.

"Digital Participation - the Advantages and Disadvantages". www.polyas.de. 10 May 2017. Retrieved 23 April 2018.

Caragiannis, Ioannis; Micha, Evi (2019). "A Contribution to the Critique of Liquid Democracy". Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. pp. 116–122. doi:10.24963/ijcai.2019/17. ISBN 978-0-9992411-4-1.

Steve, Hardt; R., Lopes, Lia C. (2015). "Google Votes: A Liquid Democracy Experiment on a Corporate Social Network". Technical Disclosure Commons.

Piratenpartei Berlin. "Piratenpartei revolutioniert parteiinternen Diskurs: Interaktive Demokratie mit Liquid Feedback". Retrieved 22 October 2013.

"Uitleg LiquidFeed systeem". Archived from the original on 5 September 2013. Retrieved 14 October 2013.

"LiquidFeedback - The democracy software". liquidfeedback.org. Retrieved 14 April 2018.

Gascó, Mila (2012). ECEG2012-Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on e-Government: ECEG. Academic Conferences Limited. ISBN 9781908272423.

Kling, Christoph Carl; Kunegis, Jerome; Hartmann, Heinrich; Strohmaier, Markus; Staab, Steffen (26 March 2015). "Voting Behaviour and Power in Online Democracy: A Study of LiquidFeedback in Germany's Pirate Party". arXiv:1503.07723 [cs.CY].

"Democracia en Red". democraciaenred.org (in Spanish). Retrieved 14 April 2018.

"Demoex (Sweden)". newDemocracy. The newDemocracy Foundation. Retrieved 23 April 2018.

"Historia".

35. Hainisch, R.; Paulin, A. (May 2016). "Civicracy: Establishing a Competent and Responsible Council of Representatives Based on Liquid Democracy". 2016 Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government (CeDEM): 10–16. doi:10.1109/CeDEM.2016.27. ISBN 978-1-5090-1042-4. S2CID 21101581.

External links

• Delegative Democracy by Bryan Ford
• The Joy of Revolution: Chapter 2
• Industrial Worker: October 2008 details changes to the delegate model to move towards a more representative rather than delegative model.
• Liquid Democracy In Simple Terms by Jakob Jochmann
• Through Liquid Democracy to Sustainable Non-Bureaucratic Government by Alois Paulin. Journal of e-Democracy, Vol. 6, Iss. 2 (2014)
• Ten Years of Liquid Democracy Research: An Overview by Alois Paulin. Central and Eastern European EDem and EGov Days 338 (July 2020):455-66. DOI: 10.24989/ocg.338.36.
• Liquid Democracy by Dominic Schiener
• ' 'The Social Smart Contract' ' by Democracy Earth Foundation
• Liquid governance on Kune ni povos

Software implementations:

• LiquidFeedback
• Agora Ex Machina A minimalist multilingual platform of Liquid Democracy

v t e Electoral systems

Category:

• Types of democracy

 

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy}

 

A quorum is the minimum number of members of a deliberative assembly (a body that uses parliamentary procedure, such as a legislature) necessary to conduct the business of that group. According to Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, the "requirement for a quorum is protection against totally unrepresentative action in the name of the body by an unduly small number of persons."^[2] In contrast, a plenum is a meeting of the full (or rarely nearly full) body. A body, or a meeting or vote of it, is quorate if a quorum is present (or casts valid votes).

The term quorum is from a Middle English wording of the commission formerly issued to justices of the peace, derived from Latin quorum, "of whom", genitive plural of qui, "who".^[3] As a result, quora as plural of quorum is not a valid Latin formation. In modern times a quorum might be defined as the minimum number of voters needed for a valid election. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum

 

In grammar, the genitive case (abbreviated gen)^[2] is the grammatical case that marks a word, usually a noun, as modifying another word, also usually a noun—thus indicating an attributive relationship of one noun to the other noun.^[3] A genitive can also serve purposes indicating other relationships. For example, some verbs may feature arguments in the genitive case; and the genitive case may also have adverbial uses (see adverbial genitive).  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genitive_case

Wiretapping also known as wire tapping or telephone tapping, is the monitoring of telephone and Internet-based conversations by a third party, often by covert means. The wire tap received its name because, historically, the monitoring connection was an actual electrical tap on an analog telephone or telegraph line. Legal wiretapping by a government agency is also called lawful interception. Passive wiretapping monitors or records the traffic, while active wiretapping alters or otherwise affects it.^[1][2] 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiretapping

A silence procedure or tacit consent^[1] or tacit acceptance procedure^[2] (French: procédure d'approbation tacite; Latin: qui tacet consentire videtur, "he who is silent is taken to agree", "silence implies/means consent") is a way of formally adopting texts, often, but not exclusively in international political context.

A textbook on diplomacy describes the silence procedure thus:

... a proposal with strong support is deemed to have been agreed unless any member raises an objection to it before a precise deadline: silence signifies assent – or, at least, acquiescence. This procedure relies on a member in a minority fearing that raising an objection will expose it to the charge of obstructiveness and, thereby, the perils of isolation. Silence procedure is employed by NATO, the OSCE, in the framework of the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union (EU) and, no doubt, in numerous other international bodies.^[3]

In the context of international organisations, the subject of the procedure is often a joint statement or a procedural document, a formal vote on which with the members meeting in person is deemed unnecessary. Indeed, it is often impractical to try to stage a meeting between representatives of all member states either due to the limited importance of the text to be agreed upon or due to time constraints in the case of a joint declaration prompted by recent events. Organisations making extensive use of the procedure are, among others, the European Union, NATO and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).

A draft version of the text is circulated among participants who have a last opportunity to propose changes or amendments to the text. If no amendments are proposed (if no one 'breaks the silence') before the deadline of the procedure, the text is considered adopted by all participants. Often this procedure is the last step in adopting the text, after the basic premises of the text have been agreed upon in previous negotiations. 'Breaking the silence' is only a last resort in case a participant still has fundamental problems with parts of the text and is therefore the exception rather than the rule. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silence_procedure

Customary international law is an aspect of international law involving the principle of custom. Along with general principles of law and treaties, custom is considered by the International Court of Justice, jurists, the United Nations, and its member states to be among the primary sources of international law.

Many governments accept in principle the existence of customary international law, although there are differing opinions as to what rules are contained in it. Customary international law has two elements: sufficient state practice and opinio juris.

In 1950, the International Law Commission listed the following sources as forms of evidence of customary international law: treaties, decisions of national and international courts, national legislation, opinions of national legal advisors, diplomatic correspondence, and practice of international organizations.^[1][2] In 2018, the Commission adopted Conclusions on Identification of Customary International Law with commentaries.^[3] The United Nations General Assembly welcomed the Conclusions and encouraged their widest possible dissemination.^[4] 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_international_law

Implied consent is consent which is not expressly granted by a person, but rather implicitly granted by a person's actions and the facts and circumstances of a particular situation (or in some cases, by a person's silence or inaction). For example, if a person is unconscious as a result of injuries sustained during a traffic collision, medical treatment may be provided to that person, despite the unconscious person being unable to expressly grant consent for that treatment.

The term is most commonly^{[citation needed]} encountered in the context of United States drunk driving laws. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_consent

Consent occurs when one person voluntarily agrees to the proposal or desires of another.^[1] It is a term of common speech, with specific definitions as used in such fields as the law, medicine, research, and sexual relationships. Consent as understood in specific contexts may differ from its everyday meaning. For example, a person with a mental disorder, a low mental age, or under the legal age of sexual consent may willingly engage in a sexual act that still fails to meet the legal threshold for consent as defined by applicable law.

United Nations agencies and initiatives in sex education programs believe that teaching the topic of consent as part of a comprehensive sexuality education is beneficial.^[2] Types of consent include implied consent, express consent, informed consent and unanimous consent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent

In parliamentary procedure, unanimous consent, also known as general consent, or in the case of the parliaments under the Westminster system, leave of the house (or leave of the senate), is a situation in which no member present objects to a proposal.

Purpose

Generally, in a meeting of a deliberative assembly, business is conducted using a formal procedure of motion, debate, and vote. However, if there are no objections, action could be taken by unanimous consent.^{[1][2][3][4][5]} The procedure of asking for unanimous consent is used to expedite business by eliminating the need for formal votes on routine questions in which the existence of a consensus is likely.^[1] The principle behind it is that procedural safeguards designed to protect a minority can be waived when there is no minority to protect.^[1]

In non-legislative deliberative bodies operating under Robert's Rules of Order, unanimous consent is often used to expedite the consideration of uncontroversial motions.^[6][7][8] It is sometimes used simply as a time-saving device, especially at the end of the session. Sometimes members do not want a formal recorded vote on the issue, or they know that they would lose such a vote and do not feel a need to take time on it.

Difference from unanimous vote

Action taken by unanimous consent does not necessarily mean that it was taken by a unanimous vote. It does not necessarily mean that every member of the body would have voted in favor of the proposal.^[9] It may mean that members feeling that it would be useless to oppose a matter would simply acquiesce.^[9]

For example, passing legislation via unanimous consent does not require that every member of a legislature, a majority of members or even a quorum of representatives to be present to vote.^[10] Unanimous consent merely requires that no representative of those present has asked to take a recorded vote or has requested quorum verification. For that reason, a claim that a piece of legislation was passed "unanimously", when it was really passed via "unanimous consent", can be misleading as to its level of support.^[11]

Unanimous consent required

Certain rights can only be waived by unanimous consent. For example, in disciplinary procedures, a single member can require the vote on the imposition of a penalty to be taken by ballot.^[12]

When an item is before the assembly for action, such as a resolution, it is the right of every member to have it read once.^[13] Another case of this requirement is the reading of the minutes. Unanimous consent is required to not do the reading. Any member can request that the minutes be read and it would have to be done.^[14]

A series of independent resolutions may be offered in a single motion. Unanimous consent is required to consider such a motion in one vote. Any member can demand a separate vote on one or more of the independent resolutions.^[15]

Procedure

Look up nemine contradicente in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Unanimous consent can be obtained by the chair asking if there are any objections to doing something. For instance, the chair may state, "If there is no objection, the motion will be adopted. [pause] Since there is no objection, the motion is adopted."^[1] In Westminster parliaments, the wording could be "There being no objection, leave is granted." On the most routine matters, such as inserting an article into the Congressional Record in Congress, the chairperson may shorten this statement to four words: "Without objection, so ordered" or even to two words: "Without objection" (Latin: nemine contradicente). Another example of this practice in the House of Representatives is when a series of votes has been interrupted by a speaker or other business. The chair will state, "Without objection, five minute voting will continue."

If no member objects, the motion is adopted. But if any member objects, the motion is not adopted and cannot be agreed to without a formal vote. Raising an objection does not necessarily imply that the objector disagrees with the proposal itself. They may simply believe that it would be better to take a formal vote.^[9]

Sometimes unanimous consent can be assumed if the chair perceives that no one would raise an objection if they formally asked.^[16] For instance, if it is obvious that the members of an assembly are absorbed in listening to a speaker who has exceeded the time limits on debate, but is about to conclude, the chair may allow the speaker to continue without interruption.^[16]

Objections are sometimes used as a delaying tactic. The objector may have no disagreement with the proposal at issue, but chooses to object in order to force a time-consuming formal vote, which may include a period of debate as well.^[9]

Consent agenda

Many deliberative assemblies (e.g. city councils) use a procedure known as the "consent agenda". Matters believed to be noncontroversial are placed on the consent agenda, and they are all adopted by a single motion. If any member objects to one or more items on the consent agenda, the items objected to are removed from the consent agenda and handled in the ordinary course.

Typical uses of unanimous consent

Unanimous consent is frequently used to approve the minutes.^[14] If no one has corrections to the minutes, they are approved without a formal vote by unanimous consent.^[17] In this special case of unanimous consent, the only way to object to the approval of the minutes is to offer a correction to it.^[17]

In an election, if there is only one candidate and the rules do not require a ballot vote in that situation, the single candidate is declared elected by acclamation, or unanimous consent.^[18] In this special case of unanimous consent, the only way to object to the election of a candidate is to nominate and vote for someone else.^[19]

A meeting could be adjourned by unanimous consent. If no one has any further business at the end of a meeting, the chair simply declares the meeting adjourned without a formal motion or a formal vote.^[20]

Leave of the house (or leave of the senate)

In parliaments under the Westminster system, leave of the house or leave of the senate is a similar concept to requiring unanimous consent. If a member asks for leave to be granted to do something that is different from the rules, a single objection can defeat the request.^[5][21]

Use in consensus decision-making

Main article: Consensus decision-making

Unanimous consent may be used as part of a consensus decision-making process. In that process, unanimous consent does not necessarily mean unanimous agreement (see Consensus decision-making § Agreement vs. consent).

See also

• Silence procedure
• Unanimity

References

1. 
   

Robert, Henry M.; et al. (2011). Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (11th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Da Capo Press. p. 54. ISBN 978-0-306-82020-5.

"unanimous consent glossary term". www.senate.gov. United States Senate. Retrieved 2015-12-27.

"Glossary (U)". www.congress.gov. Library of Congress. Retrieved 2015-12-27.

Robert Marleau & Camille Montpetit, ed. (2000). "The Process of Debate - Unanimous Consent". House of Commons Procedure and Practice. Parliament of Canada.

"Chapter 8 - Conduct of proceedings". www.aph.gov.au. Parliament of Australia. Retrieved 2015-12-27.

Robert 2011, p. 145: "Amendments are sometimes so simple or acceptable that they may be adopted by unanimous consent."

Robert 2011, p. 202: "Sometimes the mere making of a motion for the Previous Question or "call for the question" may motivate unanimous consent to ending debate."

Robert 2011, p. 289

Robert 2011, p. 55

Rybicki, Elizabeth. "Voting and Quorum Procedures in the Senate". Congressional Research Service. Archived from the original on 2009-03-25.

see, e.g., Hamilton, Marci (2015). "The Case for Evidence-Based Free Exercise Accommodation: Why the Religious Freedom Restoration Act Is Bad Public Policy". Harvard Law & Policy Review. 9: 145–146.

Robert 2011, p. 668

Robert 2011, p. 299

Robert 2011, p. 354

Robert 2011, p. 274

Robert 2011, p. 56

Robert 2011, p. 355

Robert 2011, p. 443

Robert 2011, p. 430

Robert 2011, p. 241

21. "Leave of the House". parliament.nsw.gov.au. Parliament of New South Wales (NSW). Retrieved 2015-12-26.

v t e Parliamentary procedure
Major concepts	History of parliamentary procedure Principles of parliamentary procedure Deliberative assembly Committee Session Quorum Chair Floor Recognition Motion Second Debate Main motion Order of business Minutes Voting methods in deliberative assemblies Majority Unanimous consent
Subsidiary motions	Postpone indefinitely Amend Commit Postpone to a certain time Limit or extend limits of debate Previous question Cloture Lay on the table
Privileged motions	Call for the orders of the day Raise a question of privilege Recess Adjourn Fix the time to which to adjourn
Incidental motions	Point of order Appeal Suspend the rules Objection to the consideration of a question Division of a question Consideration by paragraph or seriatim Division of the assembly Motions relating to methods of voting and the polls Motions relating to nominations Request to be excused from a duty Requests and inquiries (Parliamentary inquiry, Request for information, Request for permission to withdraw or modify a motion, Request to read papers, Request for any other privilege)
Motions that bring a question again before the assembly	Take from the table Rescind, repeal, annul or amend something previously adopted Discharge a committee Reconsider
Legislative procedures	Call of the house Hoist Motion to pass on Recall of Parliament
Disciplinary procedures	Censure Declare the chair vacant Impeach Naming
Parliamentary authorities	Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure (TSC or Sturgis) Demeter's Manual of Parliamentary Law and Procedure Riddick's Rules of Procedure Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice Jefferson's Manual Lex Parliamentaria Bourinot's Rules of Order Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms Morin code ABC of Chairmanship
Politics portal

Categories:

• Unanimity
• Parliamentary procedure

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unanimous_consent

The sovereign citizen movement (also SovCit movement or SovCits^[1]) is a loose grouping of litigants, activists, tax protesters, financial scheme promoters, and conspiracy theorists who claim to be answerable only to their particular interpretations of the common law and believe that they are therefore not subject to any government statutes or proceedings, unless they consent to them.^[2][3] The movement, which appeared in the early 1970s, is American in origin and exists primarily in the United States, though it has expanded to other countries: the freeman on the land movement, an offshoot of the sovereign citizen movement with similar doctrines, emerged during the 2000s in Canada before spreading to other Commonwealth countries.^[4] In the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) describes sovereign citizens as "anti-government extremists who believe that even though they physically reside in this country, they are separate or 'sovereign' from the United States."^[5]

The sovereign citizen phenomenon is one of the main contemporary sources of pseudolaw: adherents to its ideology believe that courts have no actual jurisdiction over people and that the use of certain procedures (such as writing specific phrases on bills they do not want to pay) and loopholes can make one immune from government laws and regulations.^[6] They also regard most forms of taxation as illegitimate and reject the use of such things as Social Security numbers, driver's licenses and vehicle registration.^[7] Sovereign citizen arguments have no basis in law and have never been successful in court.^[3][6]

The movement may appeal to people facing financial or legal difficulties, or wishing to resist perceived government oppression, and looking for a mechanism that will solve their problems. As a result, it has grown significantly during times of economic or social crisis.^[8] Most schemes promoted by sovereign citizens involve means to avoid taxes, ignore laws, eliminate debts or extract money from the government.^[3]

American participants in the movement claim that the United States federal government is illegitimate.^[3] They argue the concept of individual sovereignty in opposition to the idea of "federal citizens", who, they say, have unknowingly forfeited their rights by accepting some aspect of federal law.^[9] Their foreign analogues hold similar beliefs about the government of their own countries. The movement can be traced back to American far-right groups like the Posse Comitatus and the constitutionalist wing of the militia movement.^[10] But while the sovereign citizen movement was originally associated with white supremacism and antisemitism, it now attracts people of various ethnicities, including a significant number of African Americans.^[3] The latter sometimes belong to self-declared Moorish sects.^[11]

The majority of sovereign citizens are not violent^[2][12] and many will use pseudolegal tactics in attempts to ignore certain rules, to get out of debt, or to avoid having to pay license fees and traffic tickets. However, the methods advocated by the movement are illegal and warrant prosecution; sovereign citizens notably adhere to the fraudulent schemes promoted by the redemption "A4V" movement. Many sovereign citizens have been found guilty of offenses such as tax evasion, hostile possession, forgery, threat against public officials, bank fraud or check fraud, as well as various degrees of traffic violations.^[3][5][13] Two of the most important crackdowns by U.S. authorities on sovereign citizen organizations have been the 1996 case of the Montana Freemen and the 2018 sentencing of "Judge" Bruce Doucette and his associates.^[14]

Also, because some have engaged in armed confrontations with law enforcement,^[2][15] the FBI classifies "sovereign citizen extremists" as domestic terrorists.^[16] Terry Nichols, one of the perpetrators of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, subscribed to a variation of sovereign citizen ideology.^[13] In surveys conducted in 2014 and 2015, representatives of U.S. law enforcement ranked the risk of terrorism from the sovereign citizen movement higher than the risk from any other group, including Islamic extremists, militias, racist skinheads, neo-Nazis and radical environmentalists.^[17][18] The New South Wales Police Force in Australia has also identified sovereign citizens as a potential terrorist threat.^[19] 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement

In criminal law, consent may be used as an excuse and prevent the defendant from incurring liability for what was done.^[1]

Defences against criminal liability

A defence against criminal liability may arise when a defendant can argue that, because of consent, there was no crime (e.g., arguing that permission was given to use an automobile, so it was not theft or taken without owner's consent). But public policy requires courts to lay down limits on the extent to which citizens are allowed to consent or are to be bound by apparent consent given.

As an application of parens patriae, for example, minors cannot consent to having sexual intercourse under a specified age even though the particular instance of statutory rape might be a "victimless" offense. In the case of adults, there are similar limits imposed on their capacity where the state deems the issue to be of sufficient significance. Thus, for example, an individual domiciled in a common law state cannot give consent and create a valid second marriage. The second ceremony will do no more than expose the prospective spouse to a charge of bigamy. Similarly, no consent can be given for an incestuous relationship nor for relationships that expose one of the parties to excessive violence (e.g. most states have a rule that an abusive husband can be prosecuted even if the wife does not co-operate and give evidence to rebut the husband's defense that the wife consented).

In English law, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 removes the element of consent from the actus reus of many offences, so that only the act itself and the age or other constraints need to be proved, including:

children under 16 years generally, and under 18 years if having sexual relations with persons in a position of trust or with family members over 18 years; and persons with a mental disorder that impedes choice who are induced, threatened, or deceived, or who have sexual relations with care workers.

Most states have laws which criminalize misrepresentations, deceptions, and fraud. These are situations in which a victim may have given apparent consent to parting with ownership or possession of money and/or goods, or to generally suffering a loss, but this consent is treated as vitiated by the dishonesty of the person making the untrue representations. Thus, while the criminal law is not generally a means of escaping civil obligations, the criminal courts may be able to offer some assistance to the gullible by returning their property or making compensation orders.

Consensual activity

See also: Sexual consent in law

The problem has always been to decide at what level the victim's consent becomes ineffective. Historically in the UK, the defense was denied when the injuries caused amounted to a maim (per Hawkins' Pleas of the Crown (8th ed.) 1824). In R v Donovan (1934) AER 207 in which Swift J. stated the general rule that:

No person can license another to commit a crime, if (the jury) were satisfied that the blows struck ... were likely or intended to do bodily harm ... they ought to convict ... only if they were not so satisfied (was it) necessary to consider the further question whether the prosecution had negatived consent.

However, consent is valid in a range of circumstances, including contact sports (such as boxing or mixed martial arts), as well as tattooing and piercing. But in the context of sadomasochism, Lord Mustill in R v Brown (1993)^[2] has set the level just below actual bodily harm. R v Wilson (1996), which involved a case where a husband branded his wife's buttocks, upheld that consent can be a valid defence. The act was considered comparable to tattooing, whilst Brown applied specifically to sadomasochism.^[3]

The issue of consent in the course of sado-masochistic sexual activity was considered in R v Stein (2007), a case in which a participant died as a result of being gagged. The court held that, even if the victim had consented to a being restrained and gagged, his consent was invalid because there was no way for him to communicate its withdrawal once the gag was in his mouth.^[4]

For sado-masochism, R v Boyea (1992) 156 JPR 505 was another application of the ratio decidendi in Donovan that even if she had actually consented to injury by allowing the defendant to put his hand into her vagina and twist it, causing internal and external injuries to her vagina and bruising on her pubis, the woman's consent (if any) would have been irrelevant. The court took judicial notice of the change in social attitudes to sexual matters, but "the extent of the violence inflicted… went far beyond the risk of minor injury to which, if she did consent, her consent would have been a defence". In R v Brown, the House of Lords rejected the defense on public policy grounds (see below). This is an application of the general rule that, once an actus reus with an appropriate mens rea has been established, no defense can be admitted, but the evidence may be admitted to mitigate the sentence.

This decision was confirmed in the ECHR in Laskey v United Kingdom (1997) 24 EHRR 39 on the basis that although the prosecution might have constituted an interference with the private lives of those involved, it was justified for the protection of public health. In R v Emmett (unreported, 18 June 1999), as part of their consensual sexual activity, the woman allowed her partner to cover her head with a plastic bag, tying it tightly at the neck. On a different occasion, she agreed that he could pour fuel from a lighter onto her breasts and set fire to the fuel. On the first occasion, she was at risk of death, and lost consciousness. On the second, she suffered burns, which became infected. The court applied Brown and ruled that the woman's consent to these events did not provide a defence for her partner.

The general rule, therefore, is that violence involving the deliberate and intentional infliction of bodily harm is and remains unlawful notwithstanding that its purpose is the sexual gratification of one or both participants. Notwithstanding their sexual overtones, these cases are considered to be violent crimes and it is not an excuse that one partner consents.

Maouloud Baby v. State of Maryland was a 2007 case in the Maryland Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, which determined that a person may withdraw sexual consent after having given it, and that the continuation of sexual activity after the withdrawal of consent constitutes rape.^[5]

Alzheimer's disease or similar disabilities may result in a person being unable to give legal consent to sexual relations even with their spouse.^[6]

Ability to consent

See also: Sexual consent in law

According to Rule 70 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (published in 2002) of the International Criminal Court (which rules on military conflicts between states), in cases of sexual violence:^{[7]: 24–25}

a. Consent cannot be inferred by reason of any words or conduct of a victim where force, threat of force, coercion or taking advantage of a coercive environment undermined the victim's ability to give voluntary and genuine consent;
b. Consent cannot be inferred by reason of any words or conduct of a victim where the victim is incapable of giving genuine consent

In Australia, if a sexual partner was asleep, unconscious or a jury decides that a complainant was unable to consent, sexual contact is considered rape. In New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory, consent is not possible when the complainant was asleep or unconscious. In Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory, there is no consent where the complainant is so affected by alcohol or other drugs as "to be incapable of freely agreeing" to the sexual activity. In the Australian Capital Territory, the effect of alcohol or other drugs is less qualified; there is no consent if it is caused by "the effect of intoxicating liquor, a drug or anaesthetic". In NSW, there may be no consent where a complainant was "substantially intoxicated by alcohol or any drug". This formulation adopts the view expressed in the 2010 Family Violence – A National Legal Response report of the Criminal Justice Sexual Offences Taskforce and Australian Law Reform Commission that the degree of intoxication and whether it was such that a person was "unable to consent" are matters for the jury.^[8]

Consent obtained by deception

In R v Clarence (1888) 22 QBD 23, at a time when the defendant knew that he was suffering from a venereal disease, he had sexual intercourse and communicated the disease to his wife. Had she been aware, she would not have submitted to the intercourse. The defendant was convicted of inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. On appeal the conviction was quashed. Mr Justice Willis said "...that consent obtained by fraud is no consent at all is not true as a general proposition either in fact or in law".

Mr Justice Stephens had said (at p. 44) "...the only sorts of fraud which so far destroy the effect of a woman's consent as to convert a connection consented to in fact into a rape are frauds as to the nature of the act itself, or as to the identity of the person who does the act. Consent in such cases does not exist at all because the act consented to is not the act done. Until recently, the case has never been challenged, but its current status was complicated by the then general assumptions that "infliction" required some act of violence, and that non-physical injuries could not be inflicted and so were outside the scope of the Offences Against the Person Act.

Now the ruling in R v Chan-Fook [1994] 1 WLR 689, which held that psychiatric injury could be actual bodily harm, has been confirmed by the House of Lords in R v Burstow, R v Ireland [1998] 1 Cr App R 177. These cases overrule the implicit ratio decidendi of Clarence that non-physical injuries can be injuries within the scope of the Offences Against the Person Act and without the need to prove a physical application of violence, Lord Steyn describing Clarence as a "troublesome authority", and, in the specific context of the meaning of "inflict" in section 20, said expressly that Clarence "no longer assists".

This left the issue of fraud. In R v Linekar [1995] QB 250, a prostitute stated the fact that she would not have consented to sexual intercourse if she had known that her client was not intending to pay, but there was no fraud-induced consent as to the nature of the activity, nor was the identity of the client relevant.

In R v Richardson [1998] 2 Cr App R 200, the patient believed that she was receiving dental treatment which otherwise would have given rise to an assault occasioning actual bodily harm, from a dentist who had in fact been struck off the register. The Court held that the identity of the defendant was not a feature which, in that case, precluded the giving of consent by the patient. In R v Navid Tabassum (May, 2000).^[9] The three complainant women agreed to the appellant showing them how to examine their own breasts. That involved the appellant, himself, feeling the breasts of two of the women and using a stethoscope beneath the bra of the third woman. Each of the three women said that they had only consented because they thought the appellant had either medical qualifications or relevant training. He had neither. There was no evidence of any sexual motive. He was convicted on the basis that the complainants had only consented to acts medical in nature and not to indecent behaviour, that is, there was consent to the nature of the act but not its quality.

In R v Cort [2003] 3 WLR 1300, a case of kidnapping, the complainants had consented to taking a ride in a car, but not to being kidnapped. They wanted transport, not kidnapping. Kidnapping may be established by carrying away by fraud. "It is difficult to see how one could ever consent to that once fraud was indeed established. The 'nature' of the act here is therefore taking the complainant away by fraud. The complainant did not consent to that event. All that she consented to was a ride in the car, which in itself is irrelevant to the offence and a different thing from that with which Mr Cort is charged".

A paper on the website The Student Lawyer examined the basis for fraud as grounds for negating consent, in the context of the decision not to charge officers involved in the UK undercover policing relationships scandal. It concluded that the issues which might arise if this was a legal basis to negate consent, could be far wider than might be first appreciated. Examples given by the author included:^[10]

Andrew is secretly having an affair but denies this to his wife; they later have sex; Barney exaggerates his financial success and pretends to like the same music and films as his date in order to impress her; they later have sex; Charlie dyes his hair and pretends to be in his mid-30s on a dating website when he is really in his 50s; he later has sex with someone he meets online; Derek is unhappy in his marriage and is considering whether to leave his wife; he does not mention his misgivings before they have sex. In each case, their sexual partners would not have consented had they known the truth and a reasonable person might be expected to realise this.

Sexual transmission of disease

In 1998, the Home Office issued a consultation paper entitled Violence: Reforming the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 rejecting the Law Commission's recommendation that there should be offences for the intentional or reckless transmission of disease. The Government "[was] particularly concerned that the law should not seem to discriminate against those who are HIV positive, have AIDS or viral Hepatitis or who carry any kind of disease". It did, however, accept that society should have criminal sanctions for use against "evil acts", and that this might include people who transmitted diseases causing serious illness to others with intent to do them such harm, adding that "this aims to strike a sensible balance between allowing very serious intentional acts to be punished while not rendering individuals liable for prosecution of unintentional or reckless acts or for the transmission of minor disease" (see paras 3.13-318)

In 2000, the government repeated that view in a consultation relating to the law on manslaughter, "The Government remains wholly committed to this approach." This has since been considered in R. v Dica, which deals with the transmission of HIV, holding that it was not necessary to prove that the transmission had involved an assault for the "inflicting" of the disease. The judgment rejects the rule in Clarence as tainted by the then presumption of a wife's marital consent to sexual intercourse, although Clarence was still being applied after the criminalisation of rape within marriage. The more modern authorities involving the transmission of psychological conditions and in other sexual matters, reject the notion that consent can be a defence to anything more than a trivial injury.

Yet this is not without its difficulties. If it is proposed to criminalise the consensual taking of risks of infection by having unprotected sexual intercourse, enforcement is impractical. The community prefers that sexual relationships are a private matter between the individuals involved and if adults were suddenly to be liable to prosecution for taking known risks with their health, this would represent a significant interference with personal autonomy. Further, the law cannot expect people suddenly to become honest with each other and to counsel the use of condoms, and there may be negative consequences if HIV was to be disclosable, because those who ought to take medical advice and undergo tests, might be discouraged from doing so.

Consequently, the Appeal Court decided that had the women known of his infection, their consent to unprotected sexual intercourse would have been a valid defence. In this regard, they overturned the ruling of the original judge. In R. v Konzani, the defence argued that by consenting to unprotected sexual intercourse with the defendant, the women were impliedly consenting to all the risks associated with sexual intercourse which included infection with HIV. In cross-examination two of the three women had explicitly acknowledged that, in general, unprotected sexual intercourse carried a risk of infection.

However the Appeal Court judges ruled that before the complainants' consent could provide the appellant with a defence, it had to be an informed and willing consent to the specific risk, here the risk of contracting HIV, rather than the general one of contracting something. The same court held that a person accused of recklessly transmitting an STI could only raise the defense of consent, including an honest belief in consent, in cases where that consent was a "willing" or "conscious" consent. In other words, the court distinguished between "willingly running the risk of transmission" and "willingly consenting to the risk of transmission."

This suggests that consent will only operate as a defense – in all but the most exceptional of cases – where there has already been prior disclosure of known HIV positive status. Judge LJ. summaries the situation at para 42: In the public interest, so far as possible, the spread of catastrophic illness must be avoided or prevented. On the other hand, the public interest also requires that the principle of personal autonomy in the context of adult non-violent sexual relationships should be maintained. If an individual who knows that he is suffering from HIV conceals this stark fact from his sexual partner, the principle of her personal autonomy is not enhanced if he is exculpated when he recklessly transmits HIV to her through consensual sexual intercourse. On any view, the concealment of this fact from her almost inevitably means that she is deceived. Her consent is not properly informed, and she cannot give an informed consent to something of which she is ignorant. Equally, her personal autonomy is not normally protected by allowing a defendant who knows that he is suffering from HIV which he deliberately conceals, to assert an honest belief in his partner's informed consent to the risk of the transmission of HIV.

Silence in these circumstances is incongruous with honesty, or with a genuine belief that there is an informed consent. Accordingly, in such circumstances the issue either of informed consent, or honest belief in it will only rarely arise: in reality, in most cases, the contention would be wholly artificial. Baker (2009) in "Moral Limits of Consent" 12(1) New Criminal Law Review argues even if the consent in Konzani was genuine, that it like Brown was rightly decided, as Baker is of the view that a person cannot consent to irreparable harm of a grave kind without also degrading his or her humanity in the Kantian sense.

Baker also argues that the Harm Principle provides an important constraint, as it prevents the consenter from being criminalized because it is only harm to others that is criminalisable under the Harm Principle—not harm to self. Therefore, it is only those who rely on consent to inflict grave harm on their fellow humans that are criminalized under Baker's proposals. However, Baker points out that R v. Brown is more borderline, as the harm in that case was reversible and is not too different from having unnecessary plastic surgery that is no longer benefiting the patient—that is numerous surgical procedures which are clearly having a disfiguring rather than beneficial cosmetic effect.

Preventing breaches of the peace

In R v Coney (1882) 8 QBD 534, members of the public who attended an illegal prize fight in a public place were convicted of aiding and abetting an assault. They were cheering on the boxers whose conduct was likely to and did produce a breach of the peace, so any mutual consent given by the fighters was vitiated by the public nature of the entertainment irrespective of the degree of injury caused or intended. Hence, the principal offence was committed and, since it would not have taken place had there been no crowd to bet and support the fighters, the secondary parties were also liable.

Consent as an effective defence

In properly regulated sport, there is a legal right to cause incidental injury. This is a criminal law version of the civil law principle volenti non fit injuria (Latin for consent does not make an [actionable] injury) and the victim consents to run the risk (not the certainty) of injury arising within the rules of the game being played. This does not give sport a license to enact rules permitting acts that are clearly, excessively and maliciously violent. Even professional sport should have an element of fun while the players are, in the more extreme cases, given criminal as well as civil law protection (see R v Johnson (1986) 8 Cr App R (S) 343 and R v Lloyd (1989) CLR 513 dealing with injuries inflicted on the rugby field in "off the ball" incidents). Thus, the consent in licensed boxing events is to intentional harm within the rules and a blow struck between rounds would be an assault.

Horseplay

Where the culture supports the playing of practical jokes and active physical interaction as a form of "fun", those who become a part of that culture must accept the local standards of contact and the injuries that might result. Thus, in R v Aitken and Others [1992] 1 WLR 1006, the victim was a serving member of the Royal Air Force and the fact that he had participated in practical jokes played on his companions was accepted as evidence that he had consented to become a victim when it was "his turn".

Legal right to cause, or consent to, injury

• Doctors and all health professionals have a general right to assume a patient's consent for necessary treatment (per Denning LJ in Bravery v Bravery (1954) 3 AER 59). So if a person is brought into a hospital unconscious, surgery to preserve life will not be unlawful. But, if the health authorities have actual notice that the patient does not consent, even necessary treatment will be unlawful unless either it becomes urgently necessary to take action to avoid death, or consent is given either by a spouse or relative, or by a court. There have been cases, for example, where it was not to be an assault for prison hospitals for force-feed a prisoner on hunger strike, but such cases are not of general application. When in doubt, consent should be sought from the courts. In any event, treatment will only be lawful if it is of therapeutic rather than cosmetic value. Similarly, tattooing, ear piercing and other cosmetic procedures will be lawful if there is actual consent.
• Parents and others who are in loco parentis have a limited right to administer reasonable parental punishment: see A v UK (1998) CLR 892 and H (2002) 1 Cr. App. R. 59, but teachers are prohibited from administering corporal punishment: s548 Education Act 1996: Williams v Secretary of State for Education and Employment (2005) 2 All ER 1.
• In the UK, in Operation Spanner, three men who consensually agreed to engage in consensual sadomasochism, were convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The resulting House of Lords case (R v Brown, colloquially known as "the Spanner case") ruled that consent was not a valid legal defence for wounding and actual bodily harm in the UK, except as a foreseeable incident of a lawful activity in which the person injured was participating, e.g. surgery. The convictions are seen as controversial^{[11][12][13][14]} due to issues of whether a government or one's self is justified to control one's own body in private situations where the only harm may be temporary, and to volunteering adults who gave informed consent to the types of acts involved.

See also

• Rough sex murder defense
• Consent (BDSM)
• Sexual consent
• Sexual consent in law
• Informed consent
• Age of consent
• Operation Spanner
• Medical law
• R v Brown
• Hudson v. Craft

References

1. 
   

For a more general discussion, see Dennis J. Baker, "The Moral Limits of Consent as a Defense in the Criminal Law," 12(1) New Criminal Law Review (2009); Dennis J. Baker, The Right Not to be Criminalized: Demarcating Criminal Law's Authority Archived 13 October 2011 at the Wayback Machine (Ashgate, 2011); see also consensual crime.

2 All ER, page 103

"Law Teacher.net - Free Case Law Database, Essay Marking and Custom Essay Writing". Archived from the original on 31 January 2008. Retrieved 27 January 2008.

R v Stein [2007] VSCA 300, Court of Appeal (Vic, Australia).

Wyatt, Kristen (16 April 2008). "Md. Court Rules Women Can Withdraw Sexual Consent". Washington Post.

Pam Belluck (22 April 2015). "Iowa Man Found Not Guilty of Sexually Abusing Wife With Alzheimer's". The New York Times. Retrieved 23 April 2015.

"Rules of Procedure and Evidence" (PDF). International Criminal Court. 2013. Retrieved 2 May 2020.

"Family Violence – A National Legal Response (ALRC Report 114)". Criminal Justice Sexual Offences Taskforce and Australian Law Reform Commission. 11 November 2010. Retrieved 9 May 2020.

"Consent Tabassum (2000)". 19 December 2003. Archived from the original on 19 December 2003. Retrieved 2016-09-18.

"Sex, Lies and Undercover Cops". The Student Lawyer. 9 October 2013. Archived from the original on 6 January 2017. Retrieved 18 September 2016.

S Bottomley & S Bronitt, Law in Context (3rd ed, Sydney: The Federation Press, 2006), Chapter 11.

http://www.stjosephs.s-tyneside.sch.uk/resources/Law/lawExtraReading/A2/Unit5/Consent.doc^{[permanent dead link]}

Giles, M. (1993). Criminal law in a nutshell. Sweet & Maxwell. p. 121. ISBN 978-0-421-47440-6. Retrieved 21 February 2011.

14. "Uncorrected Evidence m407". Publications.parliament.uk. Retrieved 23 April 2011.

Further reading

• Whisnant, Rebecca (July–September 2016). "Pornography, humiliation, and consent". Sexualization, Media, and Society. SAGE. 2 (3). doi:10.1177/2374623816662876. Pdf.
• Anderson, Jack. "Mens Sana in Corpore Sano? Violence in Sport and the Criminal Law." Irish Student Law Review.[1]
• Dennis J. Baker, The Right Not to be Criminalized: Demarcating Criminal Law's Authority, (Ashgate: (2011) ISBN 978-1-4094-2765–0); Dennis J. Baker, "The Moral Limits of Consent as a Defense in the Criminal Law," 12(1) New Criminal Law Review (2009)
• Clarke, "Law and Order on the Courts: The Application of Criminal Liability for Intentional Fouls During Sporting Events", (2000) Vol. 32 Arizona State Law Journal, 1149.
• McCutcheon, J. Paul. Sports Violence, Consent and the Criminal Law, (1994) 45 N. I. L. Q. 267.
• The Law Commission: Consultation Paper No. 134 Criminal Law – Consent and Offences against the Person; A Response on the Issues for Sports and Games' by the Central Council of Physical Recreation, submitted by Peter Lawson, General Secretary, (1995) 3 Sport and the Law Journal 4
• www.savcalgary.ca/get-the-facts.html – a website outlining laws of consent around sexual assault in Canada.

v t e English criminal law
Classes of crimes	Indictable Either way Summary Regulatory (lowered mens rea) Statutory Common law
Elements of crimes	Actus reus Causation Mens rea Intention (criminal law) Intention in English law Recklessness Criminal negligence Corporate / Vicarious / Strict liability Omissions
Doctrines	Lesser included offences Concurrence Ignorantia juris non excusat
Inchoate offences	Encouraging or assisting a crime Conspiracy Accessory Attempt Common purpose
Defences	Self-defence Duress Necessity Loss of control Consent inc. participation in a sporting event Medical procedures Prevention of crime Lawful excuse Insanity Diminished responsibility Intoxication Category:Criminal defences
Offences against the person	Homicide (Murder / Manslaughter / Corporate manslaughter / Infanticide) Unlawful killing concealing stillbirth or an infanticide Child destruction Wounding or causing grievous bodily harm Assault occasioning actual bodily harm Common assault Attempting to choke, &c. in order to commit any indictable offence Assault with intent to rob Robbery Assault with intent to rape Assault with intent to resist lawful apprehension Assaulting a constable in the execution of his duty Battery Kidnapping Child abduction False imprisonment Harassment Offences Against the Person Act 1861 Treason
Sexual offences	Rape Sexual assault Sexual Offences Act 2003
Public order offences	Riot Violent disorder Affray Unlawful assembly Fear or provocation of violence Harassment, alarm or distress intent aggravates Public Order Act 1986 Incitement to ethnic or racial hatred Nuisance Causing Public nuisance Outraging public decency Effecting a public mischief Keeping a disorderly house Preventing the lawful burial of a body Breach of the peace Rout Forcible entry Accessory (legal term) Misconduct in a public office Misfeasance in public office Abuse of authority Perjury of oath Dereliction of duty
Offences against property	Arson Dishonesty Cheating (law) Burglary Robbery Theft Criminal damage Squatting Trespass Taking without owner's consent Deception Handling stolen goods Misappropriation of funds Blackmail Extortion Cybercrime Theft Act 1968 Theft Act 1978 Fraud Act 2006 Fraud by abuse of position Conspiracy to defraud Fare evasion Webcam blackmail
Forgery, personation and cheating	Forgery Cheating the public revenue Uttering
Offences against justice	Bribery Perjury Perverting the course of justice Witness intimidation Witness tampering Misprision of treason Jury tampering Assault with intent to resist lawful apprehension Assaulting a constable in the execution of his duty Harboring a fugitive Encouraging or assisting a crime Escape from lawful custody Obstruction of justice Obstruction of a police officer Wasting police time Refusing to assist a constable Sedition Espionage Contempt of court Fabrication of false evidence Rescuing a prisoner
Other common law areas	Contract Tort Property Wills Trusts and estates Evidence Criminal procedure
English law portal For obsolete aspects see History of English criminal law table

Categories:

• Criminal defenses
• Criminal law
• Sexuality and age
• Consent

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_(criminal_law)

 Uttering is a crime involving a person with the intent to defraud that knowingly sells, publishes or passes a forged or counterfeited document. More specifically, forgery creates a falsified document and uttering is the act of knowingly passing on or using the forged document. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uttering

"Deception" was a legal term of art used in the definition of statutory offences in England and Wales and Northern Ireland. It is a legal term of art in the Republic of Ireland.

Until 2007, in England and Wales, the main deception offences were defined in the Theft Act 1968 and the Theft Act 1978. The basic pattern of deception offences was established in the Theft Act 1968, and was then amended in the Theft Act 1978 and the Theft (Amendment) Act 1996 which addressed some of the problems that had arisen in the enforcement of the law. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deception_(criminal_law)

 

Treason is the crime of attacking a state authority to which one owes allegiance.^[1] This typically includes acts such as participating in a war against one's native country, attempting to overthrow its government, spying on its military, its diplomats, or its secret services for a hostile and foreign power, or attempting to kill its head of state. A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor.^[2] 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason

 

Civil registration is the system by which a government records the vital events (births, marriages, and deaths) of its citizens and residents. The resulting repository or database has different names in different countries and even in different subnational jurisdictions. It can be called a civil registry,^[1] civil register (but this is also an official term for an individual file of a vital event),^[2] vital records, and other terms, and the office responsible for receiving the registrations can be called a bureau of vital statistics, registry of vital records and statistics,^[3] registrar, registry, register, registry office (officially register office), or population registry. The primary purpose of civil registration is to create a legal document (usually called a certificate) that can be used to establish and protect the rights of individuals. A secondary purpose is to create a data source for the compilation of vital statistics.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_registration

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Abstracts_Service

In Australian rules football, deliberate out of bounds is the common name for a rule which results in a free kick against a team who puts the ball out of bounds with insufficient intent to keep the ball in bounds. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberate_out_of_bounds

 

A shot clock is a countdown timer used in a variety of games and sports, proving a set amount of time that a team may possess the object of play before attempting to score a goal. Shot clocks are used in several sports including basketball, water polo, lacrosse, poker, ringette, korfball, tennis, ten-pin bowling, and various cue sports. It is analogous with the play clock used in American and Canadian football, and the pitch clock used in baseball. This article deals chiefly with the shot clock used in basketball.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_clock

A silence procedure or tacit consent^[1] or tacit acceptance procedure^[2] (French: procédure d'approbation tacite; Latin: qui tacet consentire videtur, "he who is silent is taken to agree", "silence implies/means consent") is a way of formally adopting texts, often, but not exclusively in international political context.

A textbook on diplomacy describes the silence procedure thus:

... a proposal with strong support is deemed to have been agreed unless any member raises an objection to it before a precise deadline: silence signifies assent – or, at least, acquiescence. This procedure relies on a member in a minority fearing that raising an objection will expose it to the charge of obstructiveness and, thereby, the perils of isolation. Silence procedure is employed by NATO, the OSCE, in the framework of the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union (EU) and, no doubt, in numerous other international bodies.^[3]

In the context of international organisations, the subject of the procedure is often a joint statement or a procedural document, a formal vote on which with the members meeting in person is deemed unnecessary. Indeed, it is often impractical to try to stage a meeting between representatives of all member states either due to the limited importance of the text to be agreed upon or due to time constraints in the case of a joint declaration prompted by recent events. Organisations making extensive use of the procedure are, among others, the European Union, NATO and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).

A draft version of the text is circulated among participants who have a last opportunity to propose changes or amendments to the text. If no amendments are proposed (if no one 'breaks the silence') before the deadline of the procedure, the text is considered adopted by all participants. Often this procedure is the last step in adopting the text, after the basic premises of the text have been agreed upon in previous negotiations. 'Breaking the silence' is only a last resort in case a participant still has fundamental problems with parts of the text and is therefore the exception rather than the rule. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silence_procedure

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deception

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inevitable

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_Uncertain_Unknown

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit

 

Free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) is aimed to establish bottom-up participation and consultation of an indigenous population prior to the beginning of development on ancestral land or using resources in an indigenous population's territory.^[1] Indigenous people have a special connection to their land^{[citation needed]} and resources^{[citation needed]} and inhabit one fifth of the earth's surface^{[citation needed]}. Such areas are environmentally rich in both renewable and non-renewable resources.^[2] The collective ownership style of most Indigenous Peoples conflicts with the modern global market and its continuous need for resources and land. To protect Indigenous Peoples' rights, international human rights law has created processes and standards to safeguard their way of life and to encourage participation in the decision-making process. One such method is the process of FPIC. There is criticism that many international conventions and treaties require consultation, not consent, which is a much higher threshold. Without the requirement for consent, indigenous people cannot veto government projects and developments in their area that directly affect their lives and cultures. FPIC allows Indigenous Peoples to have the right to self-determination and self-governance in national and local government decision-making processes over projects that concern their lives and resources.

Examples include natural resource management, economic development, uses of traditional knowledge, genetic resources, health care, and education. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free,_prior_and_informed_consent

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_Tactic_Maneuver

Collective ownership is the ownership of property by all members of a group.^[1][2] The breadth or narrowness of the group can range from a whole society to a set of coworkers in a particular enterprise (such as one collective farm). In the latter (narrower) sense the term is distinguished from common ownership and the commons, which implies open-access, the holding of assets in common, and the negation of ownership as such. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_ownership

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_ownership

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiteration

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics

 

In engineering, redundancy is the intentional duplication of critical components or functions of a system with the goal of increasing reliability of the system, usually in the form of a backup or fail-safe, or to improve actual system performance, such as in the case of GNSS receivers, or multi-threaded computer processing.

In many safety-critical systems, such as fly-by-wire and hydraulic systems in aircraft, some parts of the control system may be triplicated,^[1] which is formally termed triple modular redundancy (TMR). An error in one component may then be out-voted by the other two. In a triply redundant system, the system has three sub components, all three of which must fail before the system fails. Since each one rarely fails, and the sub components are expected to fail independently, the probability of all three failing is calculated to be extraordinarily small; it is often outweighed by other risk factors, such as human error. Redundancy may also be known by the terms "majority voting systems"^[2] or "voting logic".^[3]

A suspension bridge's numerous cables are a form of redundancy.

Redundancy sometimes produces less, instead of greater reliability – it creates a more complex system which is prone to various issues, it may lead to human neglect of duty, and may lead to higher production demands which by overstressing the system may make it less safe.^[4] 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redundancy_(engineering)