Adelle

What an odd choice of words. They would seem to indicate a certain amount of negative reaction. It isn't really an issue of being "that desperate" or that I can go topfree in Ontario, or New York or Europe. Yes, topfreedom is legal in many places but "almost never practiced". The important thing is that women, like men, are free to make the choice of themselves, not have the choice forced upon them. We are really discussing how equal is equal, in all of Canada generally but in this little town in Quebec in particular. Adelle

Wonder what the response would be if men were told they couldn't go topless, something they have been able to do since the '30's, so that women couldn't go topless. Good point on the sun thing, though. Being fair skinned (whitey, white girl) direct sunlight and I are not best of friends. In the summer I often wear egyptian linen (gauss) so I am both cool and protected. Of course, I also don't wear anything underneath (Oh my God, she's naked under her clothes!) so if the wind is right or the thing gets wet I could be considered top free. As for the "some people shouldn't have their tops off" I assume it is because they are unfit or otherwise unattractive and has nothing to do with equality or legality. Some people shouldn't wear Speedo's either (ok, most people) but it is a matter of personal opinion, not arrest. Adelle

Ya, but I wonder what would happen if a couple of the quys and I tried to walk down main street on a hot summer day with our shirts off? How equal would I be then? Adelle

What is the chance that Ms Clinton and Mr Obama end up as Prez/Vice in 2008 and what do you thing their agenda will be. I have been hearing quite a bit about both of them and I can't see any sort of Republican win here, even if they ran Jesus and Mohamed (two very influential fellows) as candidates. Adelle

They could avoid the whole issue and make it even simpler: "Women are not to be discriminated against or abused. They are equal to men in all things." That covers everything in a nut shell. Of course, trying to live up to that could cause other problems, I suppose. Adelle

The full text is available as a link from this article by J-H Westen Dated 22 Nov 2006. This is the actual resolution: 45) Equality and Age of Consent WHEREAS the current law discriminates against unmarried same-sex couples by not permitting unmarried persons under 18 to legally engage in consensual anal intercourse; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada urge the Federal Government of Canada to bring the age of consent for anal intercourse in equal pairing with other forms of sexual activity. Liberal Party of Canada British Columbia OK, after more than a little research: The Conservative Government presented Age of Protection Legislation (Bill C-22) on 22 June 2006. This bill received second reading on 30 Oct 2006. Full information on the bill can be found here. As this bill has not yet passed 3rd reading in the House, or passed though the Senate, or received royal assent it is not yet law. Therefore the unrestricted AoC is presently age 14 which puts us in line with roughly HALF the ‘western nations', the other half being between 15 and 18 inclusive (note: the majority of US states have an AoC of 16 and, when it comes down to it, that is really the concern here.) I was wrong in believing that that AoC is, at this moment, age 16 and apologize for the error. What I described in my posts will not become law until Bill C-22 is passed. At this time, 12 and 13 yos can engage in consensual sex with persons no more than 2 years their senior, persons under 12 are not subject to prosecution and so can do whatever though you don’t want to be over 12 as their partner. Age 14 is still the unrestricted Age of Consent so by bringing anal sex into line with PRESENT law, which is what the above resolution seems to say, persons 12, 13, 14 and over 14 yo would be able to legally engage in anal sex. Of course I also have issue with the ‘exploitive sex’ clause as well, but that is another entire thread. If you re-read my posts, ignoring references to the Age of Protection, I think my opinions are still valid. There should be no reason why persons who can legally engage in sexual activity cannot engage in ALL forms of sexual activity. If a 14 yo WANTS to have sex with a 30yo, anal or otherwise, that is a matter of personal choice and is the business of those persons involved. However, the 14yo might have some explaining to do to his/her parents (parents are funny that way) and, in our present social climate, if the non-adult reconsiders after the fact then the adult may be in serious legal complications. You don't have to be guilty of a crime to be charged and dragged though the court of justice, court of media and court of public opinion. Second thoughts might be in order. Yes there are abusers, exploiters and predators out there in the world (or cyber-world) but they can target anyone, regardless of age or gender or sexual preference of either victim or victimizer. A big part of Sex Ed now deals with teaching children and youths about sexual exploitation as well as sexual responsibility and STI's. Openness in dealing with the subject of sexuality, acceptance of sexuality and sexual identity (especially in children and teens) and education regarding ALL aspects of that sexuality is the real answer regardless of the AoC. Adelle

Bill C-2 was passed by the Liberal Government in July 2005. This quote was made by (Opposition) MP Rick Casson regarding Bill C-313 on the day before it was supposed to go before the House and is dated 27 Sept 2005. At the same time Motion M-221, a Private Members Motion from (Opposition) MP Nina Grewal was presented. Both regarded rasing the AoC from 14 to 16 and both were defeated at that time (C-313: 167 - 99 and M-221 169-100). In June 2006, when Steven Harper's Conservatives formed the Government after the last election, they again tabled a bill (C-22) to raise the AoC to 16 and this one passed. The unrestricted AoC for all sexual activity (excluding anal and exploitive which is still 18) is now 16. Both MP's mentioned were re-elected to the Governement. You really need to date your quotes and insure that they refer to the PRESENT situation and not something that existed in the past.

The article is dated 22 June 2006 and clearly states "Until the proposed Conservative bill is passed, the age of consent in Canada is 14." The bill has been passed and is now law, so Canada now goes into the 'Age 16' column as I noted. Adelle

"...with the present AoC laws, 14 yo's (male or female) would only be able to engage persons within 5 years of their age in sexual activity, anal or otherwise. Only at 16 is the age restriction removed so '30 yo old pervs' would have to make do with 16 yo partners, legally speaking. " God, did you even read my post?! If the anal law is brough in line with the AoC then 14yo's who WANT to have sex, anal or otherwise, can do so with any person UP TO 5 YEARS their senior without fear of ciminalization. If they have been exploited or abused they are already protected by law and the abuser, regardless of age, is libel to prosectuon. The Canadian AoC of 16 years old is now in line with the rest of the 'Western World', though you will find that most 'Western' nations on the below list are below 16. Age of consent around the world 12 Tonga 13 Guyana, Spain 14 Albania, Austria, , China, Croatia, Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Peru, Puerto Rico, Romania, Slovenia 15 Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Guinea, Monaco, Poland, Slovakia, Sweden, Thailand 16 Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, CANADA, Hong Kong, Dominica, El Salvador, Finland, Guam, Israel, Jamaica, Kenya, Latvia, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Tonga, Uzbekistan, United Kingdom 17 Cyprus, Ireland 20 Tunisia 16-17 Australia* 14-18 United States* *varies by state So can we put this "pedo politicos want to make 14yo's sex prey" thing to bed now? Adelle

I was pointing out that even christian's disagree on many political topics. I vote for a country where your free to believe whatever the hell you want. It's worked for all of confederation, why change it now. Just so you know, I wasn't being serious. My statement was made with huge tongue in tiny cheek. I just wanted to point out that, just because a single religion or philosophy holds sway and is supported by government action (laws) it doesn't go to say that it will be the religion or philosophy that you hold dear (ie. Christian). Sorry if there was a misunderstanding. Although a large portions of Canadian society are Christian and a number of Canadian religions hold same-sex activities to be an anomaly, it does not appear that Canadian society, in general, is intolerant of homosexuality, homosexual relationships or unions. Anglicans, Buddhists and Wiccan are three religious groups that are very accepting of such things and inclusive of the gay community. What is accepted under the law and what individuals accept may be two different things. That right to disagree is protected by those same laws. The right to promote hate is not. That means that you can disagree with a person’s lifestyle, you can choose not to share that lifestyle but you cannot discriminate on the basis of that lifestyle. That is whether we are talking about a homosexual relationship, inter-faith relationship, inter-racial relationship, inter-generational relationship, polyamorous relationship etc. These are the concern only of those persons involved in those relationships, not the government, not the law, not society-at-large, as long as these relationships are not exploitive or abusive. Deciding what is good for other people is great right up until other people decide what is good for you. Therefore, it is to societies benefit to ‘Live and let live’. I guess this is what is meant by “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”. Adelle

That is correct. It is also a Jewish, Muslim, Hindi, Budist and Wiccan sacrament, thought he details may differ. It is also a legal definition dictating, defining and protecting recognized rights and obligations under the law. This is the term that is being defined, or redifined, again. It isn't as if it is the first time this has been done. So, at a personal level, marriage can be what ever you want it to be but, in law, it is now defined as the union of two persons regardless of sexual orientation or religious blessing (ie. common law). Remember, that which eventually became the holy sacrament of marriage was organically designed to protect property rights and lines of inheritance. A woman was a mans property passed from father to husband presumably with her virginity intact so that there wouldn't be any nasty (bastard) surprises at a later date. The husband could then insure that any child born of that woman was his prodigy and therefore entitled to his goods upon his death. Often these two people even loved each other, but that was usually a concern only for the lower classes who didn't have things like clear title of noble lineage, castles, fiefs and serfs to worry about (or, when the middle class came of age, hordes of wealth). So, legally, socially and religiously, the concept of marriage has always been in a state of evolution. Adelle

Why do you think that this is a licence for 30 yo (or whatever) pervs to do anal with poor, misguided, innocent 14 yo children? For one thing, children are persons under the age of 12. Also, if this was brought in line with the present AoC laws, 14 yo's (male or female) would only be able to engage persons within 5 years of their age in sexual activity, anal or otherwise. Only at 16 is the age restriction removed so '30 yo old pervs' would have to make do with 16 yo partners, legally speaking. Note also that apparently 12yo's could still participate with persons within 2 years of their age as they, like children, are exempt from prosecution. This was to protect peer-to-peer sex. The proponents of this bill are only trying to protect youths from systemic discrimination based on age causing their personal lifestyle decisions to be criminalized. In other words, they intend to keep the government out of the bedrooms of youth as well as adults. That doesn't stop responsible adults (read parents, teachers, etc) and youth peers from attempting to impose their believe system upon impressionable and maturing young people. In other words, parental units are still free to teach their spawn how to make good choices or, at least, choices they agree with or are willing to tolerate. Adelle

I think Canada should have a single official religion, outlawing or subjugating all others, upon which all laws and traditions are based, like Saudi Arabia or Yemen or other fundamentalist countries. This would decide, without doubt or appeal, the fate of gays, libertine's, women/feminists, children/teens, etc. The various Christian sects had their chance all over Europe (History speaks) and the Muslim nations invoking Shara law can be observed in situ (my Latin sucks). Personally, I vote for Buddhism or maybe Wicca, anyone else?

I have no problem with a free vote on same sex marriage. Open it up, let everyone have their say, cross all the t's and dot the i's, vote that same sex marriage IS marriage under the law and remove ALL uncertainty, real or imagined. (I think that's a run-on sentence.) Then we can move on to topfreedom, and public nudity and polyandry, and chronophilia, and bestiality. That way everyone can be totally certain where our society stands on these issues, too. If I had to guess on how those votes would go I would say: Item 1- no prob; Item 2 - Ok, with reservations, Item 3- well, ok, maybe; Item 4 - not likely and Item 5 - "are you insane?!" . As for breaking promises, Harper has a long way to go before coming near the Liberal record. Of course, the Liberals had more time in Government and, therefore, more promises to break.

I see no reason at all why a bro and sis couldn't be considered 'married', sex included. The moral issue aside, the genetics would be a problem though. Birth control would be a must. Play safe; play happy, as they say. As for Polyamoury or Polygamy, though I have no personal experience with the last I do know "couples" who have healthy, functional polyamourous relationships. It's a damn site better than adultery and as long as it works for them and they are happy, what diff? Only the legal responsibilities and benefits would be a concern under present laws and, hopefully, these will come in to line with reality sometime in the future. Adelle

The age of consent is 18 years where the sexual activity involves exploitative activity, such as prostitution, pornography or where there is a relationship of trust, authority or dependency. For other sexual activity, the age of consent was 14 years. Although some mistakenly believe that the age of consent was lowered in the 1980s, the age of consent to sexual activity had been 14 years since 1890 when it was raised from 12 years. Apparently anal sex is exploitive. As I see it, anal sex is just another sexual technique enjoyed by consenting persons and shouldn't be treated any differently than any other element of sexual activity, whether hetero or gay. Should we compartmentise sex? Sexual touching no sooner than 10, oral sex only over 12, vaginal sex at 14, 'kinky' sex at 16 and anal at 18? Right now the age of unrestricted sexual consent is 16, which is convenient since the age of marital consent is also 16. Personally, I believe this should apply to ALL sexual activity, personal or commercial.

I did research this question for the "Sex and Religion" section of my site and it is defined as a union between one man and one woman for all "People of the Book" --- now. Early Jews, Muslims and some Christians were allowed to wed more than one woman under various conditions (like ability to support, personal or family obligation, etc). The Mormons are renowned in that area but polygamy should not be mistaken with cultism and it's abuses, which seems to be the case in American media. Personally, I define marriage as a declared agreement of a socially symbiotic relationship between two or more people to be terminated or modified at the discretion on those involved.

Personally, I don't have a prob with either Erotica or Pornography. I have loved erotic writings since I was 9. As for porn, the definition has changed a lot over the years. In the late 1800's "pictures of a young girl in her underwear would have been considered pornographic" (see: The 1900's House [PBS]). Now people wear less than that as street clothes. In the 50's it was topless pics, side nudity and finally 'full frontal' but even then more than one 16 year old graced the pages of Playboy, Penthouse or was a 'Page Three Girl'. In Saudi Arabia, a typical Canadian beach scene is porn. As I see it, Porn is personal choice both in the making and in the enjoyment of. Abuse can occur just as with alcohol or gambling. Some people can become addicted to all of these (pervert, predator, etc) or feed off that addiction (organized crime). That doesn't make the thing itself bad, just the treatment of it by individuals and by society.

Are you implying that our government, our representatives don't necessarily give us the 'straight goods'? That they may exaggerate or even lie? I mean, if that were the case why would be believe anything a politician said or any promises they might make? If that were the case only seeing would be believing and politicians could only expect to be judged on their actions and not on their words. What kind of political system would that be? (You may note a certain degree of sarcasm.)

The Supreme Court deals with only the legal issue in isolation, not the social or political issue that exists or may arise. These other issues not only do not concern it but also are outside its jurisdiction. People may call them ‘activist’ but they can only present their opinions and interpretations within the framework of existing laws. If a law, once it is presented to them, if found to violate a greater law or is being used incorrectly, then it is their duty to correct the problem. The people and politicians must then deal with any fall out. You would think that the lawyers that run the country could make laws that pass all three tests. Regarding health care in Quebec, I’ve tried to listen closely and it is my understanding that the problem related to using private insurance to pay for services provided by the public insurance system, thus creating a monopoly (which wasn’t providing sufficient service). If a person had the money in the bank they could, and still can, ‘jump the queue’ and get health care at a private facility (which there are many of) and in a timely fashion. The wealthy could, and can, get proper health care any time and any where they want (Mexico, US, Europe), it is only those without money that are forced to wait (because of their financial situation) and die. As I understand it, most of these medical services are amply and fully available even in Canada but the poor members of the downtrodden proletariat must way because the money isn't available in the public insurance system to pay for the procedures. Once the money for a fiscal period is spent, people have to wait till more money is allocated. The funny thing is, increasing the money allocated doesn’t seem to fix the problem, which is why the provinces (who are responsible for Health Care) are calling for restructuring and new ideas (as long as it doesn’t violate the Canada Health Act or the Federal government’s interpretation of that Act). The provinces are responsible for providing health care but the Federal government has taken on the responsibility of regulating health care and controlling the purse (to which it has contributed less and less money every year, until recent promises). If a province does something the Feds don’t like, legal or not, the provinces will be punished (via transfer payment fines, etc). Very few provinces can afford that or to take the Feds on in court (which they stacked to begin with).

Rehabilitation would be great, if our system did more than talk about it. Sure there are some head-spacing programs within the corrections system but they are not for everyone and are not always or very effective. How about reprogramming, wiping the offending identity or psychological triggers, and replace it with a more 'people friendly' program. There was a good treatment of this on Bab-5 (we have the entire series) where a Berardo type sexual abuser/killer was punished not by putting the body to death but by putting the identity to death. Not a new concept (I think) but political death to anyone who tried to make it happen. Besides, we don't have a death penalty (even if the body lives on to become a contributing member of society).

It didn't work to well for Russia (and other SSR's) so I can't see it working too well here either. Besides, do you really think the US would stand by and let the Canadian Soviet Socialist Republic develope? Regardless of how 'left wing' it might really be (ie. not quite communist), they already have serious ideological problems with our policies (or lack thereof). It would be a lot of their business we would be nationalizing. Speaking of business, we wouldn't have any. Who'd start one? If they were willing to mess with Central America on behave of Dole, I have no doubt they would have something to say about this. Unless you intend to SERIOUSLY boost military spending, Dakota could take us over. Ok, Dakota and the New England states, just to make things go quicker.

Well, I tried to stay out of the discussion, but I guess I have to stoke the fire. Re: Theocratic Democracy. What you say is quite true, however a democracy with an established religion could be considered a Theocratic democracy. This could be of a type where ONLY members of the priesthood are allowed to be members of government and are elected by the general populous (usually members of said religion) or it could be that only members of the established religion could run for office. I see Theocracy to be a government of priests (this is usually a patriarchal system) whose position is given or taken away by the head priest, something like a monarchy of priests except that higher priests might also be elected to their positions by a council as in the recent election of the Pope. England went through a process after Henry-of-the-many-wives that dictated that only members of the established church could hold or be granted office (though some special allowances were made). This switched back and forth for a while causing a lot of hardship, death and destruction. At the beginning this was a strict, near-absolute Monarchy but eventually developed into a Parliamentary Monarchy but which still held to religious restrictions, though things stopped flipping between Catholic and Anglican after William III (I say Anglican instead of Protestant as many protestant sects were also restricted prior to Wm). Democracy was a long process as the King didn’t trust the Estates (creating a long running battle between absolute monarchy and parliamentary monarchy) and the Estates didn’t trust each other. To add to the confusion, the members of the various Estates were also members of different religions and sects and also members of different national groups. In modern times, Iran seems to be changing from a Theocracy to a Theocratic Democracy with religion and democracy fighting for dominance. The Mullahs like being in power and having things ordered as they like it while the people don’t like being pious all the time (similar to England in the 1660’s). I guess a little bit of sin (free expression) is good for a society. Anyway, absolute monarchy didn’t work so well for England, France or Russia ending in bloody revolutions. The Austrian and Ottoman Empires (historical and religious enemies) survived until they lost WWI. Various representative democracies were tried based upon the Republics that rose and fell in Italy during and after the Renaissance including English Commonwealth (based upon Puritan, Protestant religion), the Dutch Republic (which still had an aristocracy and was a collection of city states) and the United States of America (which took great pains to separate ‘Church and State’ and ‘State and Military’ so that it didn’t go the way of Cromwell’s Republic). One of the types of democracy not often discussed, but often assumed, is Totalitarian Democracy or ‘majority rule’. Once the majority has decided, the minority has a choice of submitting (hoping to increase their numbers) or emigrating to live as they see fit. Unfortunately the majority sometime decides that a minority idea that has been voted down is therefore illegal and continuing to present that idea, even in private, may also be illegal (i.e. The heterosexual majority decides that practicing homosexuality is illegal but also decides that saying homosexuality is anything other than a deviance is also illegal). This has sometimes occurred in the US but was more pronounced in ‘Iron Curtain’ countries and certain supposed democracies in Africa, Arabia and Asia and often ends up with the minority (or minorities) and the majority trying to destroy each other (Iraq, the Balkans, Rwanda, etc). All of this is a simplification of the research I’ve done so far.

No doubt that would explain the yearly ceremony at their shrine. Sorry, I confused 'apologized' with 'compensated victims'. Yes, as regarded Slavs, Jews, Negros, Arabs, Occidentals and Orientals (Jews shouldn't count as they are a religion, not a race, but try telling that to a bigot). Personally, I think we have to get beyond this. It happened some 40 years before I was born and both the Japanese and the Germans have grown beyond what they were. The Communist Russians weren't saints, either. Hopefully we are learning from our mistakes (as a species) and will not repeat them, something that people that live in the past are doomed to do. Events occur every day in Africa and the Middle East that make me wonder (events that DON'T involve the US).