Tories move to raise age of consent

[couchcommander]

I really like how you've managed to completely twist the original topic around, until it's an entirely new one. And a blatantly false one at that.

Not every person who is against sex education is a prudish Puritan. Some simply don't want strangers promoting their agenda or idea about sexuality onto their children. The "Right" is not against Sex Education. Some are. Some are not. And for a variety of reasons. Nice of you to so completely buy into Leftist propaganda like that, though.

I only follow where the winds are blowing...

And I was trying not to harp on the "right" or the "left", or any other specific group I don't think (I apologize if it came across that way), I was simply stating that sexual education in schools is for a good reason and has done a lot of good, IMO.

What's your opinion on the topic anywho Mr. Paracowboy?

 

[paracowboy]

What's your opinion on the topic anywho Mr. Paracowboy?

on Sex Ed? For the most part, I'm for it. By the time my, or any of my friends' parents got around to The Talk, we'd already picked up everything and were starting to experiment, ourselves. So, I can imagine there are parents out there who are too uptight to teach their kids at all. Or too self-involved to care. And, when you throw in the Religious wackos, the demented, and the plain-ignorant...it's probably good to have some sort of base-line.

The only real con I can recall of it, it's too focussed on the physical aspects, and not enough on the psychological. Tells kids "This is how you do it." Not "This is what happens to your psyche". It does teach abstinence, as well as other forms of birth control/STD prevention, but didn't teach anything about what the act, and its' consequences, can do to developing young minds.

Personally, I think that there is no replacement for parents, in a matter this serious to their child's welfare. Screw the damn village, it takes parents to raise a child.

 

[canadianblue]

In the end, out of my own curiosity, why would you not want to allow your child to be exposed to this beneficial information?

I'd let my kids go to sex ed if I had any, my parents let me go to sex ed classes and their pretty devout christians, as well as conservative.

 

[boots]

I agree that psychological aspects should be included as well. Did everyone else have to do the egg thing? I painted mine

I think that society has a responsibility to offer sex ed. If individual parents want to opt out, they should be able to. But I hope they do it cause they plan to do it themselves, not because they are uptight and assume that ignorance leads to good choices

I also think it's kind of sad that both the right and the left all get painted with the same brushes that are used for the extremists on each end. Us centrists never get much attention, cause we don't tend to have so many crazy controversial points of view

 

[zipperhead_cop]

I'm really not seeing this as a sex ed issue, since the predators are pretty clear on how things work  :
Okay, into the big book of zipperhead_stories:
There is a guy that lives in Windsor (East Moor in the Villages, ask the neighbors for the specific address if you are in the area).  There are no less than twenty calls there, involving children.  This is the guys MO.  He has made it plain that run away children can find safe haven in his house, and by safe haven I am meaning they get supplied with weed, booze and ecstasy.  The last call I did there involved a 14 year old MHA girl trying to commit suicide in his bathroom.  She was also a run away, as were the two strung out boys (15 yrs old both) that I found in the basement.  This guy is the same one I dealt with last year at a near by skateboarding park, offering three twelve year old girls weed to go for a ride with him.  In searching the rest of the house, we found dozens of used weed pipes, foil, baggies etc.  During the animated "chit chat" that the guy and I had some facts came out.  He is 24 years old, and "likes to help people".  He admitted that he is in a sexual relationship with the MHA girl, but indicates "she just doesn't seem that young, so I just don't think about it".  Very convenient.  In speaking to the neighbors, they are at their wits ends.  They have reports of kids OD'ed on their lawns, dozens of kids watching through the kitchen window as the suspect had sex with a girl on his table in plain view.  They are about ready to lynch the guy, and I have to admit I didn't really do to much to talk them out of it.  While I was still in the house, this POS actually says "I thought the age of consent was 14?". 
THESE are the people the law is designed for.  Even if you don't trust your police to not lock up teenagers hooking up with teenagers, we have the judges ever-available to strike down anything that seems too "mean".  There is the law, then there is the discretion to enforce it.  I realize it kills some people dead to count on the concept of discretion, but it actually works in real life.  There are some truly wretched people among us. 
BTW, with regards to the actual age of consent, it isn't always 14.  In the case of sexual exploitation, from the Code:

153. (1) Every person commits an offence who is in a position of trust or authority towards a young person, who is a person with whom the young person is in a relationship of dependency or who is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person, and who
(a) for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of the young person; or
(b) for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites a young person to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any person, including the body of the person who so invites, counsels or incites and the body of the young person

As far as a person in a position of trust or authority:

(1.2) A judge may infer that a person is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person from the nature and circumstances of the relationship, including

(a) the age of the young person;

(b) the age difference between the person and the young person;

(c) the evolution of the relationship; and

(d) the degree of control or influence by the person over the young person.

Definition of “young person” (2) In this section, “young person” means a person fourteen years of age or more but under the age of eighteen years.



There is just no good reason to argue against this.  I have to imagine that the people that rail against this thing don't have kids.

 

[17thRecceSgt]

How the heck do we let POS's like that exist in our society?

If what you wrote it true Zip (which I know it is), then this law is long overdue and doesn't quite do everything that needs to be done then, does it?

 

[zipperhead_cop]

How the heck do we let POS's like that exist in our society?

If what you wrote it true Zip (which I know it is), then this law is long overdue and doesn't quite do everything that needs to be done then, does it?

I'll wait and see what the big brains come up with in the way of wordings when the third reading comes around.  However, you are right.  Something has to be done. 
Also recall, it wasn't all that long ago the age was dropped from 16.  Another thing you can thank your local Lieberal MP for (if they still have a riding).

 

[17thRecceSgt]

Unfortuneately where I am yes it is a panzy Liberal MP.  Wonder if he has any teenager daughters he would like to keep sicko's and perv's away from??

 

[Derka Derka Jihad]

I can only hope that this bill passes unanimously in the House.  Having the age dropped to 14 was horrible.

It used to be 12 years and was raised to 14 in 1890.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060623.CONSENT23/TPStory/National

 

[zipperhead_cop]

From the Fed:


http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/prb993-e.htm
In summary then, except for the offences of buggery and gross indecency, the age of consent for sexual activity has at no time been set higher than 14 in Canada, although prior laws did make men vulnerable to prosecution for sexual intercourse with a girl under 16, 18, or even 21 in certain qualified circumstances. As noted above, the 1988 amendments to the Criminal Code repealing those provisions were contained in Bill C-15, which was introduced by the then Justice Minister, Ramon Hnatyshyn. Although a bill introduced in 1981 by previous Justice Minister Jean Chrétien had also proposed the repeal of the seduction offences, it would have retained a broader, gender-neutral version of the prohibition against sexual activity with a young person between 14 and 16. However, Bill C-53 was never passed and a later version, in the form of Bill C-127,(2) brought about significant changes to the criminal law in the area of sexual offences but did not specifically address the sexual exploitation of young persons.
So I guess it is a bit of a misinterpretation with regards to the age being lowered in the 80's.  I stand corrected 
However, the age still needs to be hiked up, or at least provide severe penalties for predators who try to board young kids. 

 

[Derka Derka Jihad]

I concur completely.

 

[paracowboy]

I concur completely.

read your private messages

 

[GAP]

There is just no good reason to argue against this.  I have to imagine that the people that rail against this thing don't have kids.

I'm probably out in left field, but if he is so generous as to take in these kids under these false pretenses, then is he not acting as a guardian, thus violating the code by taking advantage of them when he is the guardian?  ???

 

[The_Falcon]

I'm probably out in left field, but if he is so generous as to take in these kids under these false pretenses, then is he not acting as a guardian, thus violating the code by taking advantage of them when he is the guardian?   ???

Not a lawyer but from my experience (well my friend's experiences), you actually have to go through some paperwork and actually be appointed as a guardian (by a JP I would imagine) to be considered one.  Simply "looking after" the kids does not make some one a "legal" guardian.

 

[GAP]

But it does make them the responsible adult, therefore it could be argued that they are the de facto guardian, and have violated that responsibility.  Well...it's an argument, probably wouldn't hold up in court, but would like to see someone take a run at it, if only to diminish that defense that "I was just helping out"

 

[The_Falcon]

But it does make them the responsible adult, therefore it could be argued that they are the de facto guardian, and have violated that responsibility.  Well...it's an argument, probably wouldn't hold up in court, but would like to see someone take a run at it, if only to diminish that defense that "I was just helping out"

I would like to see some take a run at it as well, but I can understand if the police in a situation like this would be reluctant to charge, given that the crown attorney would probably laugh in their face and/or they would probably get some nasty verbal lecture from some bleeding-heart "forward-thinking" lib-left JP/Judge, right before they toss the charges.

 

[Sheerin]

Like I said...be witness to a little girl (13-14) being torn from ear to ear during childbirth and then tell me that's on.
The female body changes (in most cases) significantly between 14 and 16...it's called puberty and some females don't start to menstruate until they are 16...there are other growth & development issues as well.

HL

I can understand that.  I went to school in peterborough where it seemed everyother teenage girl was pregnant (or had an infant).  Now what i really want to know is how many of those 14 year old girls you've seen being split ear to ear were impregnated by someone who was more than 5 years older than them?  And how many were 10 years older etc?  I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of the fathers were within a few years of the girls age.  How is this law going to prevent those girls from getting pregnant?  Wouldn't it be smarter to invest in proper sexual education and give the girls greater access to birth control and education and STI testing, than to make what they're doing a crime? 

Oh and please accept my apologies for the delay in my reply... been busy these past couple weeks.

I also wonder if there really is an epidemic of older men going after young girls?  But of course I suppose it all depends on your perspective.  I'm sure many here would say one 25 year old sleeping with a 14 year old is an epidemic, while others would say it isn't. 
I've been thinking about this for a while and I think my main problem with it is that the Federal government is trying to legislate morality.  And that once they start here what are they going to go after next?  If its wrong for a 15 year old to sleep with a 25 year old, then will it someday be wrong for a 17 year old to sleep with a 27 year old?  And what it really boils down to  is what exactly is the difference between a 14 year old and 16 year old, or more accurately a 15 year old and 16 year old?

 

[GAP]

I also wonder if there really is an epidemic of older men going after young girls?  But of course I suppose it all depends on your perspective.  I'm sure many here would say one 25 year old sleeping with a 14 year old is an epidemic, while others would say it isn't. 
I've been thinking about this for a while and I think my main problem with it is that the Federal government is trying to legislate morality.  And that once they start here what are they going to go after next?  If its wrong for a 15 year old to sleep with a 25 year old, then will it someday be wrong for a 17 year old to sleep with a 27 year old?  And what it really boils down to  is what exactly is the difference between a 14 year old and 16 year old, or more accurately a 15 year old and 16 year old?

At present, as long as the girl is 14 and is supposedly consenting, the police have no tools to deal with it. This gives them the tools to deal with the pedophiles.

As to what the difference between a 14 year old and a 16 year old....maturity. For the most part, the 16 year old will not base her decisions on the same criteria as the 14 year old. It's amazing what the 2 years does for decision making.

The law is not intended to make moral judgements on young people having consensual sex. Its' focus is to stop much older men or women from taking advantage of the immaturity of a 14 or 15 year old.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

But it does make them the responsible adult, therefore it could be argued that they are the de facto guardian, and have violated that responsibility.  Well...it's an argument, probably wouldn't hold up in court, but would like to see someone take a run at it, if only to diminish that defense that "I was just helping out"

A person in a position of trust and authority can be many things.  A baby sitter, a step parent, a doctor, a coach, a priest.  They don't have to be living together, just the young person has to perceive that the older person has an authoritative influence over them. 

I can understand that.  I went to school in peterborough where it seemed everyother teenage girl was pregnant (or had an infant).  Now what i really want to know is how many of those 14 year old girls you've seen being split ear to ear were impregnated by someone who was more than 5 years older than them?  And how many were 10 years older etc?  I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of the fathers were within a few years of the girls age.  How is this law going to prevent those girls from getting pregnant?  Wouldn't it be smarter to invest in proper sexual education and give the girls greater access to birth control and education and STI testing, than to make what they're doing a crime? 

This isn't an issue of sex education or unwanted births.  Those are issues, but not this issue.  The question at hand is one of exploitation.  Sex ed and birth control are social support concerns.  We are talking about law enforcement. 

I also wonder if there really is an epidemic of older men going after young girls?  But of course I suppose it all depends on your perspective.  I'm sure many here would say one 25 year old sleeping with a 14 year old is an epidemic, while others would say it isn't. 

I take it the only time you use your computer is for this site?  And you don't read the paper or watch TV?  There is most certainly an epidemic of older men trying to get into young girls (and boys too).  Chat rooms are crammed with creeps trying to groom children over the internet for sexual purpose. 

I've been thinking about this for a while and I think my main problem with it is that the Federal government is trying to legislate morality.  And that once they start here what are they going to go after next?  If its wrong for a 15 year old to sleep with a 25 year old, then will it someday be wrong for a 17 year old to sleep with a 27 year old?  And what it really boils down to  is what exactly is the difference between a 14 year old and 16 year old, or more accurately a 15 year old and 16 year old?

You are really going to argue "slippery slope" against protecting children from sexual predators?  I'm not even going to try to rebut that. 

 

[couchcommander]

I've been thinking about this for a while and I think my main problem with it is that the Federal government is trying to legislate morality.  And that once they start here what are they going to go after next?  If its wrong for a 15 year old to sleep with a 25 year old, then will it someday be wrong for a 17 year old to sleep with a 27 year old?  And what it really boils down to  is what exactly is the difference between a 14 year old and 16 year old, or more accurately a 15 year old and 16 year old?

Sheerin,

A close read of the legislation would do you well. They have taken considerable measures to ensure that adolenscents within the same age range (i.e. +/- 5 years) will not be criminalised. What they are preventing, however, is an act which most of us have been socialized to perceive as being deviant - which is the basis of most of our laws.

You'll be hard pressed to find firm "moral" grounding in anything we do, you'll just have to accept it's a normative decision, one which I, and a vast majority of people support. Thus, in the sense that society has declared it such, it is the "moral" action - but for no other reason than the people with the biggest stick think it is (kind of the basis of all "morality").

In the end, various theories on cognitive development don't really support the distinction between a 14 year olds decision making capacity and a 16 year olds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget). My girlfriend tells me (she's into developmental psychology) that many people will never reach the highest levels of reasoning, and that further most people cannot even begin to fully comprehend the consequences of their actions until their twenties (your brain just isn't developed enough). If we were to base our legislation on the research, sex, drinking, or any other really risky action should be differed to our guardians until such time.