Controversy over bike sex man - criminal or not?
Rushda:
November 17th, 2007
A recent case involving a man who was caught simulating sex with a bicycle has sparked a human rights debate about the unfairness of his sentence. 51-year-old Robert Stewart has been put on 3 years probation for what has been classified as a “sexually aggravated breach of the peace,” even though he performed the act behind closed doors. The act was discovered accidentally when the room door was unlocked by the housekeeper at Aberley House Hostel in Ayr.
Despite Stewart denying the claim and pleading that it was simply because he’d had too much to drink, the cleaners were shocked when they discovered him and quickly called the police. Stewart has subsequently been added to the Sex Offenders Register for 3 years as well as being on probation.
Like many who have protested, I can’t understand the grounds upon which Stewart was sentenced. Surely had the case been in public the situation would have been different, but in Stewart’s case, despite the very unsavoury nature of his activity, he was doing it in what he thought was his own privacy with an inanimate object. It is no different, notes one internet blogger, than discovering a woman using a vibrator, and yet that would have by no means resulted in the same kind of sentence that Stewart received:
“Apart from the fact that the sex toy was manufactured for the purpose, and a bicycle wasn’t, I really don’t see that the two acts are all that different.”
Furthermore, Human rights lawyer John Scott is concerned about the conviction and has said that raises important issues about privacy. He says:
“It certainly prompts questions about what people can and can’t do behind closed doors with inanimate objects. However, the difficulty is that the man involved in this case pleaded guilty to a breach of the peace, so these issues of privacy weren’t considered by the court. The sheriff had to act on the guilty plea and make a decision about whether or not there was a sexual nature to the offence. Clearly there was, and that’s why the man has ended up on the register.”
I personally think that such situations should cause one to question their taboos, especially when they result in legal action. It is a shame that such a liberal society is still allowed to punish people for harmless activities behind closed doors. The poor man was not only shamed and humiliated by the ruling but will now suffer other consequences forsomething that didn’t harm anyone. Whether he admits to a crime or not should be independent of whether he is guilty or not.