In Britain an undercover police officer, Mark Kennedy, infiltrated the environmental movement and became a leading "activist" from 2003 to 2010. His job involved information gathering and acting as an agent provocateur.
During that time he had sexual relations with several women in the environmental movement. Whether his prime motivation was to have sex or to gain information, it is clear that his relationships must have provided him with information for his police handlers.
It’s an interesting point that if a woman is used to carry out a honey trap against a male the issue would rightly surround whether using a honey traps was justified in the circumstances. If the aim were merely to gather information about protest groups, it would not be.
I cannot imagine the male arguing that he was subject to non-consensual sex because he did not know the woman was a police agent.
I understand that the women is rightly angry, and if the woman met Kennedy again she might be forgiven for spitting in his face. But is is guilty or rape - or even a sexual assault - definitely not.
The Kennedy case reveals, I believe, criminal behaviour on the part of the police, but talk of rape and non-consensual sex is an irrelevant diversion.
