Toews on Mike Duffy

[betsy]

He said, SSM will probably be brought up by the fall.

They want to raise age of consent to 16.

[geoffrey]

He said, SSM will probably be brought up by the fall.

They want to raise age of consent to 16.

Gooo Toews. Though I fear he will scare off Toronto.

[fixer1]

As far as SSM goes, I would like to think that they will do it sooner rather then later, as no matter what the outcome of the vote, there will be a very large number of people unhappy, and it is best to have it done and over before next election.

On the age of consent, I do not believe that it will deter the children from doing things with one another. But I do think that the age of consent for an adult to have sex, should be 18. There is no reason for adults having sex with younger children period. Nothing makes my blood boil more is when you see someone over twenty dating a 15 or 16 year old. While it may not be officially pedophilia, it is close enough in my books.

When it is minors among minors the present age of 14 is as good as any, only becuase it is going to be broken any way if the kids decide to do it. I would suggest maybe better family values may be more of a solution then the law.

[geoffrey]

As far as SSM goes, I would like to think that they will do it sooner rather then later, as no matter what the outcome of the vote, there will be a very large number of people unhappy, and it is best to have it done and over before next election.

On the age of consent, I do not believe that it will deter the children from doing things with one another. But I do think that the age of consent for an adult to have sex, should be 18. There is no reason for adults having sex with younger children period. Nothing makes my blood boil more is when you see someone over twenty dating a 15 or 16 year old. While it may not be officially pedophilia, it is close enough in my books.

When it is minors among minors the present age of 14 is as good as any, only becuase it is going to be broken any way if the kids decide to do it. I would suggest maybe better family values may be more of a solution then the law.

Fixer, the age of consent law is with an adult. Sex between two minors is legal.

Currently its legal for a 20-something to have sex with a 14 year old, this is what the CPC wants to change. I'm sure they'll have support for this, it'll be a tough push for any party to come out saying they support adult sex with teenagers.

Lets not have this degenerate into another NAMBLA thread though please!

[scribblet]

He said, SSM will probably be brought up by the fall.

They want to raise age of consent to 16.

Good !!!!

[betsy]

Regarding SSM, supposing opponents of SSM won in the votes, you think they'll do something to tighten and cement the definition of marriage so it can no longer be challenged in the future by any groups?

[Kincora]

I wonder how some Ontario Conservative MPs will vote on the issue if it's a free vote.

Stephen harper will be happy to keep this as a free vote, since his party will arrive at a concensus anyhow.

However, I wonder what the chance of some Ontario Conservative MPs voting for SSM would be. Ontariuo, by and large, shows support for SSM. Do you think there are some MPs that will try to win over their unsure Ontario supporters ( laying a claim on a future job ) by voting the same way as the residents of their riding feel? I wonder how much of a free vote this will actually be.

[betsy]

I wonder how some Ontario Conservative MPs will vote on the issue if it's a free vote.

Stephen harper will be happy to keep this as a free vote, since his party will arrive at a concensus anyhow.

However, I wonder what the chance of some Ontario Conservative MPs voting for SSM would be. Ontariuo, by and large, shows support for SSM. Do you think there are some MPs that will try to win over their unsure Ontario supporters ( laying a claim on a future job ) by voting the same way as the residents of their riding feel? I wonder how much of a free vote this will actually be.

There were a good number of Liberal MPs who opposed SSM that's why Martin acted the way he did.

Now, if I'm not mistaken, a good numbers of these same MPs were re-elected. Unless they changed their minds, I would imagine they'll vote the same way as to their conscience/constituents' wishes.

We'll see...

The important thing is that at least this, being a moral issue, gets a chance to be decided by votes.

If it wins and gets repealed...I hope they really cement the traditional definition so it can no longer be challenged by any groups.

[Shakeyhands]

As far as SSM goes, I would like to think that they will do it sooner rather then later, as no matter what the outcome of the vote, there will be a very large number of people unhappy, and it is best to have it done and over before next election.

On the age of consent, I do not believe that it will deter the children from doing things with one another. But I do think that the age of consent for an adult to have sex, should be 18. There is no reason for adults having sex with younger children period. Nothing makes my blood boil more is when you see someone over twenty dating a 15 or 16 year old. While it may not be officially pedophilia, it is close enough in my books.

When it is minors among minors the present age of 14 is as good as any, only becuase it is going to be broken any way if the kids decide to do it. I would suggest maybe better family values may be more of a solution then the law.

Fixer, the age of consent law is with an adult. Sex between two minors is legal.

Currently its legal for a 20-something to have sex with a 14 year old, this is what the CPC wants to change. I'm sure they'll have support for this, it'll be a tough push for any party to come out saying they support adult sex with teenagers.

Lets not have this degenerate into another NAMBLA thread though please!

I don't beleive thats correct. I believe that would constitute Statatory Rape, I THINK there needs to be less then a year or two difference in the ages, someone can perhpas clarify for us.?

[shoop]

Actually Shakey, that is correct. As long as there is no issue of "trust or dependency", i.e. a teacher or somebody in a parental role,

The Criminal Code does not now criminalize consensual sexual activity with or between persons 14 or over.

Here is the link from the Parliament of Canada Web site.

The Conservatives plan to make provisions for those close in age. With that provision attached it will be pretty tough for *any* member to object to this proposal.

I don't beleive thats correct. I believe that would constitute Statatory Rape, I THINK there needs to be less then a year or two difference in the ages, someone can perhpas clarify for us.?

[tml12]

Actually Shakey, that is correct. As long as there is no issue of "trust or dependency", i.e. a teacher or somebody in a parental role,

The Criminal Code does not now criminalize consensual sexual activity with or between persons 14 or over.

Here is the link from the Parliament of Canada Web site.

The Conservatives plan to make provisions for those close in age. With that provision attached it will be pretty tough for *any* member to object to this proposal.

I don't beleive thats correct. I believe that would constitute Statatory Rape, I THINK there needs to be less then a year or two difference in the ages, someone can perhpas clarify for us.?

It is not going to stop 15 year-olds from having sex with people like Bill Graham anyway (sorry but I had to throw that in...it is quite relevant).

If a 15 year old boy or girl has a thing for his friend's sister or brother, etc. it is going to go on in someone's home. It is not going to be on the evening news.

There should be a law, no doubt, to protect internet predators. But it will not criminalize consensual sex.

[Spike22]

NAMBLA come on betsy/mad dog start the flame wars already...

[Shakeyhands]

Actually Shakey, that is correct. As long as there is no issue of "trust or dependency", i.e. a teacher or somebody in a parental role,

The Criminal Code does not now criminalize consensual sexual activity with or between persons 14 or over.

Here is the link from the Parliament of Canada Web site.

The Conservatives plan to make provisions for those close in age. With that provision attached it will be pretty tough for *any* member to object to this proposal.

I don't beleive thats correct. I believe that would constitute Statatory Rape, I THINK there needs to be less then a year or two difference in the ages, someone can perhpas clarify for us.?

I found the section I was refering to... I think!

http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/cc/cc.150.1.html

it refers to those under 14... thanks for clarifying Shoop.

[betsy]

NAMBLA come on betsy/mad dog start the flame wars already...

I guess I've vented already, Spike....I'm now suffering from Nambla fatigue syndrome.

[geoffrey]

Do you think politicans could seriously look at something like a 2 year maximum difference until the younger partner is 18?

[shoop]

There haven't been any numbers bandied about, the phrase I think I heard was "close in age". Two years sounds like a reasonable age difference under those guidelines.

It would be 16 not 18 with the law the CPC has talked about.

This is a very good issue for the CPC to move forward on. It appeals to their base, and will be very hard for opposition parties to oppose. The opposition to the private member's bill that failed in the fall was that it didn't have the "close in age" provision attached.

Do you think politicans could seriously look at something like a 2 year maximum difference until the younger partner is 18?

[Shakeyhands]

do you all think, with all the other problems out there... that this issue is that important?

[shoop]

Some people do Shakey. tsk, tsk, tsk sad isn't it. You lose the election and you are no longer driving the agenda.

do you all think, with all the other problems out there... that this issue is that important?

[Shakeyhands]

ok.. perhaps I should have added why into my post... why is it so important to you? did something happen that I am not aware of?

[geoffrey]

ok.. perhaps I should have added why into my post... why is it so important to you? did something happen that I am not aware of?

Because too many children are being taken advantage of in this country and it needs to be stopped with legal means.

The police assocations strongly support this move too.

And for you lefties, think about it this way. If the pedophiles get arrested and put in jail, it saves them from the fathers out there that'd love to kill some of these freaks.

[Durgan]

I'm queer and I'm here -get used to it. I promise not to move to Alberta.

If parliament is smart they will have a shout vote like the Ontario Legislature did and no record. Stephen and his philes will cover their ass, and the sun will come up in a day or two and all will be forgotten.

The issue will be met in the good old wimpy Canadian way with no blame on anybody.

Simple.

Durgan.

[geoffrey]

I'm queer and I'm here -get used to it. I promise not to move to Alberta.

If parliament is smart they will have a shout vote like the Ontario Legislature did and no record. Stephen and his philes will cover their ass, and the sun will come up in a day or two and all will be forgotten.

The issue will be met in the good old wimpy Canadian way with no blame on anybody.

Simple.

Durgan.

What the hell are you talking about?

[lonewolf]

I am no Conservative by far, but on this issue Toews is right on the money on this one. I hope it does get pass for all of our kids' sake.

[shoop]

shakey you are a pretty reasonable dude so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But, why are you making light of a thread that is discussing changes to the criminal code with the aim of cracking down on child predators?

This is important to me because I think the safety of our children should be a priority for all Canadians. (And not a priority just in the Paul Martin sense of the term.)

No, I was never preyed upon by a molester. Than again, I don't think I would be posting about it on an anonymous message board if I had been.

ok.. perhaps I should have added why into my post... why is it so important to you? did something happen that I am not aware of?

[Shakeyhands]

I too think the safety of our children is of utmost importance, I have 4 myself, two of which are now 18, a 7 year old and a 4 year old... I just don't see this as such a huge issue. If one of my 18 year olds (both of whom are girls) had any thought as to being with someone that was old enough to be of concern, well they wouldn't, because of home, not because of a law.

I really just don't see this as sucha pervasive issue as to garner the attention, but as I say I might have missed some news story or something...