betsy

"CONCERN #2: EFFECTIVENESS IN PREVENTING HARM As mentioned above, setting the age of consent is a line drawing exercise in which the goal should be to minimize harmful sex that could be prevented while avoiding the criminalization of healthy sex. EGALE would like to see evidence of the harm prevented from raising the age of consent. Has this been done in other jurisdictions, and if so, what was the impact on preventing harm? A great many 14 and 15 year olds today are having sex. It is reasonable to believe that many of them are quite capable of giving or withholding consent. Thus increasing the age from 14 to 16 will outlaw some sexual activity that is not harmful. The cost of such a constraint on sexual behaviour is not trivial. While youth must be protected, as a starting point society must accept that they are sexual beings. Denial of this fact may do more harm than good." http://www.egale.ca/index.asp?lang=E&menu=37&item=348 EGALE would like to see evidence of the harm prevented from raising the age of consent. Well I would like to see evidence of the harm done now, at this current age of consent. From prostitution and exploitation by pimps to child-sex tourism! Well at least, Canada being one of those few countries that have age of consent as low as 14, it can boast of the booming business that caters to a niche market ...what was that word again...."ebophilia?" Just imagine what this will do to boost tourism! Just like SSM had em all running to get married in Canada, connoisseurs of young meat will surely be considering our nation in their vacation plan. Good for the economy! But of course, we've got to compete with some third world countries that offers even younger and tender products! EGALE, gimme a break!

You have a responsibility as a civic minded citizen to try to protect all youths. Why are you deliberately turning a blind eye on something serious as the concern we're stating about the premise of the LGBT YOUTH SUPPORT GROUP? Worse, you're trying to twist our concern...you're trying to distract. In other words, should there be anything seriously harmful happening to any kid in that group, you are in a way abetting and encouraging it. You are, in a way, an accomplice since you are trying your damndest to dissuade us from pursuing this. I do not understand. Since obviously you're not concerned, why go to all this trouble? What's in it for you?

And what about AIDS? We know that AIDS is a soaring problem.

So what does a hapless LGBT kid who got victimized in this LGBT Youth Support Group by a predator do? To whom will he/she complain? EGALE and other well-meaning gungho EGALE supporters had already warned this kid that the police is going to beat the daylights out of him/her just because he/she's an LGBT! The source of protection was conveniently cut off. Brilliant.

"EGALE says it flat out:"Whatever the age of consent is, the Government may wish to consider increasing the window for the “close-in-age” exception.” In other words, worry less and less about that darn age gap. And we ain’t talking Demi Moore/Ashton Kutcher here. Get offa that! So-called right-wing bias is a buffer, it turns out, between kids and EGALE’s liberal Namblarism. If any kid needs to be protected from older associates, by age gap limits, surely it would be the kid who would be the most ashamed or afraid to complain to the police in the first place. " http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/columnists...nd_a_bc_pervert Hey, you can call me right-leaning anytime! Damn proud of it!

"CONCERN #3: INABILITY TO DATE PEERS LGBT youth groups provide vital support to young people struggling with their sexuality. Many LGBT youth come out at LGBT youth groups or other places where LGBT people meet. Even at a youth group they are likely to encounter people who are more than two years older than them, beyond the current “close-in-age” exception. To criminalize the primarily healthy sexual relations that ensue seems perverse, furthering the marginalization of LGBT youth. It is also possible that the youth groups themselves will fear being open to those under 16, causing them to make rules to exclude them. The harm done in cutting off access to this vital resource would be substantial. Whatever the age of consent is, the Government may wish to consider increasing the window for the “close-in-age” exception." ----------------------------- I have difficulty swallowing that statement. When EGALE talks of LGBT youth, we're talking what age here? 12...13...14...? And they're likely to encounter people more than two years older than them, beyond the current "close-in-age" exception. How old are these people that are two years older and "beyond the current close-in age exception?" 30, 40, 50, 60 years old? EGALE says, "LGBT youth groups provide vital support to young people struggling with their sexuality." STRUGGLING WITH THEIR SEXUALITY. In other words, we're talking about confused youth here....confused about their sexuality. In that state of mind, they're more vulnerable to be manipulated...to be exploited....to be corrupted. I am outraged that this is happening right under our very noses. LGBT or not...these are youths! I can't believe you guys who spout concern and disdain for un-regulated daycares...and yet you turn a blind eye on this!

Not necessarily. Didn't we educate and keep educating kids about unwanted pregnancy? Didn't we educate and keep educating kids about the dangers of drugs? Didn't we educate and keep educating kids about drunk driving? It's good to have those education but let's not kid ourselves. Let's face it.....that age group, they think they're invincible! And they're highly impressionable. They're easy to exploit by perverts that had mastered the art of luring and ensnaring their prey.

Why not raise it to age 30 then? You've got to be reasonable. Raising it to an unusually high age just ensures that a bunch of high school kids are going to go out and try and discover this mystical forbidden thing you're trying to keep them from. Oh don't be silly now. You know that no one is trying to raise it at an "unusually high age". There were two suggested ages...16 and 18. " For example, in its submission to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs during consideration of Bill C-27,(9) the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police urged the federal government "to define 18 years and over as the age of consent for sexual encounters with adults." Similarly, during the four-year review of Bill C-15, Citizens Against Child Exploitation argued that the age of consent for sexual activity should be raised to 16, with three years being the permissible age difference between consenting adolescents.(10)" http://doxology.blogspot.com/2005/09/age-of-consent.html I think 16 would be okay. Don't you?

I don't see your characterizations in the piece you linked. They are bringing up concerns. It is not a "rationale" for anything as you state in a later post than this, it is a list of concerns and a stated hope that those concerns be addressed by any new legislation. Yes, they are bringing up concerns. However, their introductions stating their position also seem to mirror the posted positions of ILGA and NAMBLA. Right now, I am reacting towards the particular introduction line. Due to the past controversy involving ILGA and NAMBLA...and adverse consequences should EGALE make the wrong political move...it is only natural to assume that this group is treading on eggshells....but just re-packaging the same old agenda of ILGA in such a way that would sound acceptable to society. I will have to re-read the lists of enumerated concerns.

They get nastier treatment from society today, from people such as yourself for instance. Not really, and certainly not universally. And that's the thing. Protecting children is all well and good, but right-leaning people and left-leaning people who blather on about protecting children only want to protect CERTAIN children, and leave other children to be "punished" for their "wrong" beliefs, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, political opinions, economic backgrounds, career goals, etc. You're the one who has been advancing the theory that all gays are pedophiles and that the gay rights movement is a giant cover for it, not me. It's interesting how you insist you aren't when confronted with it, but keep "accidentally" revisiting this allegation. It tells me you're far less interested in "protecting children" than you are in using the lives and welfare of kids as pieces on your political chessboard. Pretty despicable. Corrections, you're the one advancing the theory that all gays are pedophiles....by using me as a piece on your mis-guided or deliberate attempt in twisting facts. I am not "accidentally" revisiting this premise. GRM eitheir deliberately or unwittingly entangled itself with pedophile groups. In spite all that had happened, and the uproar and effects it had created....it is amazing to see that EGALE, somehow had not learned from that mistake. EGALE is passing up the opportunity to stand out and correct the negative perception on the Gay Community.

Of course not, except that the 14 year old gay kid can expect to get nastier treatment from society and even from folks like you who argue he's going to try and be a pedophile when he grows up. In what way would they get a nastier treatment from society? Why would they get a nastier treatment? Gays are already tolerated in society. Pedophiles are not. Of course pedophiles will get a nastier treatment...whether they be heterosexual, homosexual, etc., Are you trying to say that a 14 year old gay kid is more likely to become a pedophile?

Of course it does. MATURITY. It's bad enough that some adults that one would assume to be mature had acted so recklessly and irresponsibly...and we should expect more from a 14 year old? To insist that a 14 year old is at par with a full-pledged adult is ludicrous. Either EGALE is ignorant in the make-up of this age-group...or deliberately enacting in a devious way to push a hidden agenda!

The concern for raising the age of consent is for children and youth protection. We've got a lot of problems to contend with around this issue...child pornography, child prostitution, AIDS and other STD are just some that comes to mind right now. If EGALE truly bellieves that there ought to be equality and protection for the youth, then they ought to act on it. The rationale EGALE gave are quite flimsy for comfort. Btw, as far as I'm concerned, there's no difference from a 14 year old heterosexual to a 14 year old LGBT. Both can be exploited. Both can be coerced. Both needs protection.

Well, then how come EGALE won't support raising the age of consent? That would've made it uniform for everyone....heterosexual or not! Equality would've been achieved! The stance of EGALE on resisting a proposed legislation that would make everyone equal under the law is what we are questioning here. After all, isn't "un-equality" what they are bleating about?

Please keep in mind that suspicion and doubts are the reasons why there is so much resistance and accusations being hurled at gays in general. Yes, in general. Because groups like EGALE is purporting to represent and speak for all gays. Just for the sake of comparison and argument, I have to re-post these on this topic. ILGA's current positions on man/boy love and pedophilia are explicit: -- In 1985, ILGA adopted a position on "Age of Consent/Paedophilia/ Children's Rights" that urged member organizations to "lobby their governments to abolish the age of consent law" so long as there is "adequate protection for youth from being sexually abused without the age of consent law." -- In 1986, ILGA adopted a position that says the group "supports the right of young people to sexual and social self-determination." -- In 1988, ILGA declared "this conference recognizes that existing same-sex age-of-consent laws often operate to oppress and not to protect; that in many countries, existing laws on sexual coercion and rules of evidence also often operate to oppress and not to protect; that therefore member organizations are urged to consider how best children, adolescents, and people of all ages can be empowered and supported against both sexual coercion and sexual oppression and to work towards that end." -- In 1990, ILGA "calls on all members to treat all sexual minorities with respect and to engage in constructive dialogue with them. In another position adopted that year, ILGA declared that it "supports the right of every individual, regardless of age, to explore and develop her or his sexuality." ILGA has also taken strong stands against sexual coercion. NAMBLA helped write these positions, and our delegates supported them in the General ----------------------- Pederasty and Homosexuality by David Thorstad Speech to the Semana Cultural Lesbica-Gay, Mexico City, June 26, 1998. More than 600 people showed up for the talk: standing room only, and many had to be turned away. [This is an English translation of the speech, which was given in Spanish] "Our movement today stresses the liberation and empowerment of young people. Instead of pedagogy, democracy. Rather than a Greek love mentor-relationship, the companionship of independent and autonomous individuals. In place of male supremacy, a vision of sexual, economic, and political liberation for all. Freedom is indivisible. The liberation of children, women, boy-lovers, and homosexuals in general, can occur only as complementary facets of the same dream." http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/...1/pederasty.htm -------------------------------- That introductory line of EGALE somehow echoes the policies of the ILGA and NAMBLA. The words had been re-hashed...the agenda seems to have been "re-packaged".

The Homosexual Community must wake up. I firmly believe that most gays are decent and do not even know what's afoot here. They are collectively getting tarnished by a group that is supposedly speaking for them.

I have read EGALE’s submission on Age of Consent to the Department of Justice Canada dated March 30, 2000. However, just reading its introductions, I came across some statements that were rather unsettling. "While EGALE supports the goal of protecting vulnerable persons from sexual abuse, we are concerned about the efficacy of raising the age of consent. In addition, EGALE has serious concerns about adverse impacts, including the impact on the goals of fostering autonomy, empowering youth and providing them with the tools to make informed decisions. The setting of an absolute age of consent is an inevitably imperfect line drawing exercise. No matter where the line is drawn, some otherwise healthy sexual activity will be criminalized and some harmful activity will be permitted. Both effects are of concern, and both should be considered." http://www.egale.ca/index.asp?lang=E&menu=37&item=348 "The setting of an absolute age of consent is an inevitably imperfect line drawing exercise. No matter where the line is drawn, some otherwise healthy sexual activity will be criminalized and some harmful activity will be permitted. Both effects are of concern, and both should be considered." Does this paragraph suggests that there should be no absolute age of consent? That this is a subtle way of saying let's abolish the age of consent law? Does "autonomy" means sexual and social self-determination?

For those who are curious about ILGA's positions. Positions that NAMBLA claimed to have helped in writing. ILGA's current positions on man/boy love and pedophilia are explicit: -- In 1985, ILGA adopted a position on "Age of Consent/Paedophilia/ Children's Rights" that urged member organizations to "lobby their governments to abolish the age of consent law" so long as there is "adequate protection for youth from being sexually abused without the age of consent law." -- In 1986, ILGA adopted a position that says the group "supports the right of young people to sexual and social self-determination." -- In 1988, ILGA declared "this conference recognizes that existing same-sex age-of-consent laws often operate to oppress and not to protect; that in many countries, existing laws on sexual coercion and rules of evidence also often operate to oppress and not to protect; that therefore member organizations are urged to consider how best children, adolescents, and people of all ages can be empowered and supported against both sexual coercion and sexual oppression and to work towards that end." -- In 1990, ILGA "calls on all members to treat all sexual minorities with respect and to engage in constructive dialogue with them. In another position adopted that year, ILGA declared that it "supports the right of every individual, regardless of age, to explore and develop her or his sexuality." ILGA has also taken strong stands against sexual coercion. NAMBLA helped write these positions, and our delegates supported them in the General Assembly, contrary to what the ILGA secretariats imply. http://www.qrd.org/qrd/orgs/NAMBLA/nambla....lga.secretariat

I wonder what the waiting list is like for that. Imagine, when time is really crucial to fight it. Just the mental torture of waiting....and the stress for the whole family. This is one of those reasons why I agree with Harper's healthcare plan. Today, they were talking about average 1 month waiting period in some provinces (but I think it was not specifically about cancer).

EGALE's position: To be fair with EGALE, let me take a look, then I'll get back to you on this. If I do have any important questions regarding EGALE, I'll post it as a separate topic. This topic is getting too long and convoluted. I need some time on this.

Consent my foot! When you're talking about pubescent or young teens....it wouldn't take much seduction to convince those raging hormones and natural curiousity for sensuality to make consent very possible! And coercion is highly likely! Predators go where they have easy access to prey. Usually, authority comes with their position....

If you really think so then why do you single out the homosexual community (whatever that is)? If They're no more responsible than the rest of us why focus on gays? Why reinforce the false association? A Hermit, you're giving me a head-ache. Kindly scroll back and re-read.

You're right! Not too many people knew about NAMBLA. I accidentally found out about it when it was referred to casually in an article at the height of the priest scandal. I looked it up online...and the whole thing just floored me! Then I accidentally discovered something when I started going into forums. Never mention the word "NAMBLA." Uttering that word will bring down the wrath, big-time. I got into vicious debates in US forums...and funny thing, there seems to be a "uniform-style" of the way gays and supporters of the movement handle the NAMBLA incident. Furious sweeping denial! But you see...there's a character flaw in me. I'm tenacious and stubborn...when I know I'm onto something right. I agree with you that a lot of people do not even know such a thing as NAMBLA exists. Well, that's something we ought to rectify.

But I don't care if NAMBLA has only one member. No matter the size of this organization, the fact remains that it managed to get Clinton to take notice and issue a threat towards ILGA to get booted out of the UN. Now why would this sazzy Democrat Prez be driven to that point, I wonder? Why would he even bother to waste a moment to demand that ILGA drop NAMBLA? Do presidential adminstrations normally waste their time doing that kind of thing? Black Dog, you're having a hard time arguing on this one simply because what I say is simple fact.

Which article. The one on National Post? It's not the same one that Black Dog's talking about. There were no cops involved about this one that I'm talking about. It was just a descriptive essay/article that talked about this new gay bar with the "slurp" rails or holes. But it was sexually explicit...and was on the front page, alongside the headlines. No, that one had nothing to do with pedophilia. We just got side-tracked on that one because we talked about the media' bias and its role in pushing for the acceptance of gay culture.