Liberal Party of Canada Policy Resolution:

[normanchateau]

I don't think the average voter treasures the right to have anal sex.

Probably the average voter does not. But the average voter probably does not need to be reminded how so-cons, given the opportunity, would be peeping through keyholes into people's bedrooms to regulate sex.

State regulation of sex is common in Islamic countries but not too popular in Canada.

This is only in your own mind. You see social conservatives around every corner it seems.

Not around every corner but unfortunately in the worse possible place...the office of the PM.

[jdobbin]

Age of consent should be a universal age that much is certain.

Why? What makes that so certain?

The concept of "age of consent" is difficult and not so cut and dried.

You think that heterosexuals and homosexuals should have different ages of consent or that there should be no age of consent?

[jdobbin]

This is great if the Liberals like being in the opposition. This shows how out of touch they are with the concerns of the common man.

I don't think the average voter treasures the right to have anal sex.

So you think anal sex should be illegal and that people should be arrested for it?

[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.

[scribblet]

The reason for the reluctance to equalize the legal age for anal sex today is mainly health issues, higher risk of anal cancer, not to mention many other well known sexually transmitted diseases, along with increased morbidy and mortality.

The current law may effectively prevent adult males from using minors for such a purpose, but hopefully we all want to see our young people protected - why wouldn't we? And why wouldn't we want to protect them from a huge increase in risking their health.

The language of the Con. bill clearly intends to protect children from advances made by adult pedophiles to engage in sexual relationships, why wouldn't we want to protect our young people.

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec159.html Can. Statutes

Criminal Code

PART V: SEXUAL OFFENCES, PUBLIC MORALS AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT

Sexual Offences

Anal intercourse

159. (1) Every person who engages in an act of anal intercourse is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Exception

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to any act engaged in, in private, between

a) husband and wife, or

) any two persons, each of whom is eighteen years of age or more,

both of whom consent to the act.

[Charles Anthony]

The reason for the reluctance to equalize the legal age for anal sex today is mainly health issues, higher risk of anal cancer, not to mention many other well known sexually transmitted diseases, along with increased morbidy and mortality.

Are you kidding?? When was that discovered???

I am sure the law predates our perception of health issues and risks.

I wonder why Calgary still requires businesses within the city to provide rails for tying up horses?

You think that heterosexuals and homosexuals should have different ages of consent or that there should be no age of consent?

Neither. I thought my example of taking advantage of a mentally retarded person person was obvious -- but obvisouly not.

I am saying that the concept of "consent" is not cut and dried.

Here is a challenge for you: do you know what consent means??

[scribblet]

The reason for the reluctance to equalize the legal age for anal sex today is mainly health issues, higher risk of anal cancer, not to mention many other well known sexually transmitted diseases, along with increased morbidy and mortality.

Are you kidding?? When was that discovered???

I am sure the law predates our perception of health issues and risks.

I wonder why Calgary still requires businesses within the city to provide rails for tying up horses?

I should have said, the reluctance 'today' is due to the health risks etc. I do expect that eventually it will be brought in line, but not to 14, only if 16 is passed.

[MightyAC]

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.

Are you sure? Because I've read many articles that say the age of consent was dropped to 14 in 1987 by the Mulroney government.

This quote is taken from the first link below.

In 1987, the Progressive Conservative Mulroney government reduced the age of consent for sex in the Criminal Code to age 14.

The last link contains Hansard excerpts, use your browsers search function to find texts containing the word Mulroney.

Anyway Adelle, it appears that you may be mistaken.

http://www.c-a-s-e.net/Bill%20C313/Bill%20...nt%20%20Law.htm

http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/index/writ...d_a_bc_pervert/

http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/artic...nr-constent.htm

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/P...E&x=1#T1520

[MightyAC]

OK, I have found what people cling to when they say the "age of consent" was not lowered to 14 by the Mulroney government. Sexual intercourse with a female that was not your wife under the age of 14 was completely illegal. However, the protection provided to females under the age of 16, 18 had qualifications attached. Sexual intercourse with females between 14 and 16 was illegal for females of "previously chaste character" .

So prior to the change made by the Mulroney government females between 14 and 18 had some protection but not complete protection. The Mulroney government just removed the extra protection provided to females over 14.

Over time, the Canadian criminal law also provided qualified protection from sexual exploitation for females over 14. For example, the Badgley Report notes that seduction of a girl over 12 and under 16 "of previously chaste character" was made an offence in 1886. The offence was retained in the 1892 Criminal Code, in respect of girls between 14 and 16, and remained in force until 1920, when the offence was changed to prohibit "sexual intercourse." After 1920, the question of who was more to "blame" became an issue that could lead to acquittal but the offence remained in force until 1988.

In addition to those offences reviewed above, the "seduction" of a female under 18 "under promise of marriage" was made an offence in Canada in 1886 and amended in 1887 to apply to females under 21. In 1920, the offence of "seduction" (without reference to promise of marriage) was made applicable to girls "of previously chaste character" between 16 and 18.

From this it will be seen that a complete ban on sexual intercourse never did apply to girls over 14.

This quote shows that the law preventing anal intercourse under 18, that the Liberals may push to remove, has already been struck down by the Ontario and Qubec court of appeal so it no longer applies anyway.

The Criminal Code does not now criminalize consensual sexual activity with or between persons 14 or over, unless it takes place in a relationship of trust or dependency, in which case sexual activity with persons over 14 but under 18 can constitute an offence, notwithstanding their consent. Even consensual activity with those under 14 but over 12 may not be an offence if the accused is under 16 and less than two years older than the complainant. The exception, of course, is anal intercourse, to which unmarried persons under 18 cannot legally consent, although both the Ontario Court of Appeal(3) and the Quebec Court of Appeal(4) have struck down the relevant section of the Criminal Code.

Both quotes are taken from this document http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/...bs/prb993-e.htm

[jdobbin]

Neither. I thought my example of taking advantage of a mentally retarded person person was obvious -- but obvisouly not.

I am saying that the concept of "consent" is not cut and dried.

Here is a challenge for you: do you know what consent means??

Consent is fairly cut and dried in the law. A 14 year old can consent to sex with another 14 year old but not to someone who has responsibility or influence on them such a teacher.

Quote from the discussion so far:

"The Criminal Code does not now criminalize consensual sexual activity with or between persons 14 or over, unless it takes place in a relationship of trust or dependency, in which case sexual activity with persons over 14 but under 18 can constitute an offence, notwithstanding their consent. Even consensual activity with those under 14 but over 12 may not be an offence if the accused is under 16 and less than two years older than the complainant. The exception, of course, is anal intercourse, to which unmarried persons under 18 cannot legally consent, although both the Ontario Court of Appeal(3) and the Quebec Court of Appeal(4) have struck down the relevant section of the Criminal Code."

You don't think that is cut and dried?

The area that seems open to challenge in the Supreme Court would seem to be on anal sex.

[AndrewL]

The reason for the reluctance to equalize the legal age for anal sex today is mainly health issues, higher risk of anal cancer, not to mention many other well known sexually transmitted diseases, along with increased morbidy and mortality.

The current law may effectively prevent adult males from using minors for such a purpose, but hopefully we all want to see our young people protected - why wouldn't we? And why wouldn't we want to protect them from a huge increase in risking their health.

The language of the Con. bill clearly intends to protect children from advances made by adult pedophiles to engage in sexual relationships, why wouldn't we want to protect our young people.

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec159.html Can. Statutes

Criminal Code

PART V: SEXUAL OFFENCES, PUBLIC MORALS AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT

Sexual Offences

Anal intercourse

159. (1) Every person who engages in an act of anal intercourse is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Exception

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to any act engaged in, in private, between

a) husband and wife, or

) any two persons, each of whom is eighteen years of age or more,

both of whom consent to the act.

So you think it is a good idea to imprison two 17 year olds who decide to engage in some anal sex?

Andrew

[Argus]

LifeSiteNews is into gay-bashing, nothing less. And thus this topic is a gay-bashing, flame-inducing topic.

LifeSite maintains a list of all MPs who voted for and against the legislation which made it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of homosexuals. All NDP MPs, all BQ MPs, most Liberal MPs and 50% of PC MPs voted for the legislation. Harper and all Canadian Alliance MPs voted against it.

What a shocking surprise!! You should have mentioned this before!!!

[Argus]

As far as I could tell, the age of consent is 14, yet this requires people (who would likely be gay) to be 18. It is discrimination, and should be streamlined along with all the other sex laws/ages.

The problem is that many, many homosexual culture is strongly hebephilic, and its members (pardon the pun) would most certainly be going after the 14 year olds like lions after lame zebras if they weren't afraid of going to prison for it.

[JerrySeinfeld]

As far as I could tell, the age of consent is 14, yet this requires people (who would likely be gay) to be 18. It is discrimination, and should be streamlined along with all the other sex laws/ages.

The problem is that many, many homosexual culture is strongly hebephilic, and its members (pardon the pun) would most certainly be going after the 14 year olds like lions after lame zebras if they weren't afraid of going to prison for it.

It's true. This is a great victory for NAMBLA

I'm not necessarily against it however. After all, isn't the age of consent for girls to have normal sex 14 as well?

The homos may as well be entitled to the same low standards set out by the heterosexual population lol.

The gay lifestyle is certainly more laden with promiscuity and a penchant for the young ones, however. So it might do more damage.

[MightyAC]

As far as I could tell, the age of consent is 14, yet this requires people (who would likely be gay) to be 18. It is discrimination, and should be streamlined along with all the other sex laws/ages.

The problem is that many, many homosexual culture is strongly hebephilic, and its members (pardon the pun) would most certainly be going after the 14 year olds like lions after lame zebras if they weren't afraid of going to prison for it.

The law has been struck down by both the Ontario and Quebec court of appeal and homosexuals preying on 14 year olds isn't a problem. Do you have any evidence of the homosexual community being more hebephilic?

[MightyAC]

I have yet to see any stats that show that homosexuals are more likely to prey on children that do not use the false argument that a male adult who attacks a male child is therefore a homo-sexual. Similarly an adult that attacks a child of the opposite sex is not necessarily straight.

Many of the stats used by anti-gay organizations are based some reports done by Paul Cameron in the 80’s. His reports not only include flat out falsified statements but also rely heavily on the idea mentioned above. Despite the fact that Cameron has been discredited his work is still quoted by those who really want to believe that it is true.

Here is a great resource for those interested in the subject. http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html...olestation.html

The poster Rue also seems quite knowledgeable about this subject and this post provides a good summary http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=157032

[crazymf]

After reading this whole thread, a couple things come to mind. This issue isn't a stand alone issue. Everyone is talking like there's a whole demographic of young teens all alone out there just waiting to be led to sex like lambs to the slaughter. Surely the problem can be lessened by standard two parent heterosexual households that will teach by example and remain in constant touch with their children and prevent undesirables from tainting their kids.

If not, then the age of consent is irrelevent. Our society is on an unavoidable downward spiral into a murky slop where anything goes and no one cares.

[gerryhatrick]

Surely the problem can be lessened by standard two parent heterosexual households that will teach by example and remain in constant touch with their children and prevent undesirables from tainting their kids.

Oh yeah, those standard two parent heterosexual households are the absolute last word on moral superiority.

[scribblet]

So you think it is a good idea to imprison two 17 year olds who decide to engage in some anal sex?

Andrew

Where did I say that?

When the age of consent law is passed, sodomy will be legal at 16 and will also be subject to the difference in age clause, so the problem of equality should be solved. As far as I'm concerned anyone advocating that it should be 14 is doing so for nefarious reasons.

Liberal Party of Canada Policy Resolution: Allow "Anal Intercourse" with 14-Year-Olds seems silly in face of the age of consent being raised to 16.

By John-Henry Westen

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06112202.html

OTTAWA, November 22, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In what is likely a Canadian first for a major political party, the Liberal Party of Canada is proposing lowering the age of consent for "anal intercourse" in their publicly-released book of policy resolutions.

-snip-

Sexual health experts have warned that anal intercourse is a recklessly dangerous activity which is the "riskiest form of sexual activity when it comes to the transmission of HIV/AIDS" (see coverage: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/feb/06021403.html )

Nevertheless, a Liberal Party policy resolution, attributed to the British Columbia branch of the Party, calls for lowering the age of consent for such activity to 14-years of age. Policy no. 45 reads: "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." The age of sexual consent for heterosexual intercourse in Canada is 14.

[gerryhatrick]

"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."

What's wrong with that?

What is wrong with having the age of consent equalized?

[crazymf]

Surely the problem can be lessened by standard two parent heterosexual households that will teach by example and remain in constant touch with their children and prevent undesirables from tainting their kids.

Oh yeah, those standard two parent heterosexual households are the absolute last word on moral superiority.

YES, THEY SURE AS HELL ARE!!! when compared to a one parent home or a homo home with 1 or more queers at the helm. Give your head a shake buddy. Be part of the solution, not the problem.

[Adelle]

Anyway Adelle, it appears that you may be mistaken.

Actually, I took the quote right from the governments website. But I see you clarified nicely later. Nice bit of research, BTW. I like it when people get their facts straight and have the links to prove it. Opinion is one thing, but it is nice to have some facts to back it up.

I think that Mr Harper &co will go with the Liberal bill, for the most part. They did well on the Age of consent thing with a 5 year window for those over 14, no charges for those 12 and 13 as long as they stay in a 2 year range and full consent over 16. Eventually they might even get the rest of it down to 16.

Adelle

[scribblet]

Just a question here: why would any old men want to make anal sex (or any other kind) with 14children legal. This begs the question of motive here.

Besiodes, who would support a a law that gives sexual predators easier access to our children?

[MightyAC]

Just a question here: why would any old men want to make anal sex (or any other kind) with 14children legal. This begs the question of motive here.

Besiodes, who would support a a law that gives sexual predators easier access to our children?

That's not a new question and it has already been answered many times over. The law you're referring to has already been struck down by the Ontario and Quebec court of appeal. It is not protecting anybody right now because it is not even being used.

Your attempt to imply there is some sinister conspiracy to attack young people is pretty sad. If you want to question motive you may want to start asking why the Mulroney government removed the laws protecting 15 and 16 year old girls.

[normanchateau]

LifeSiteNews is into gay-bashing, nothing less. And thus this topic is a gay-bashing, flame-inducing topic.

LifeSite maintains a list of all MPs who voted for and against the legislation which made it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of homosexuals. All NDP MPs, all BQ MPs, most Liberal MPs and 50% of PC MPs voted for the legislation. Harper and all Canadian Alliance MPs voted against it.

What a shocking surprise!! You should have mentioned this before!!!

It's never too late to remind people where our beloved Prime Minister stands on this issue!!

I wonder if he'll re-visit the issue as he plans with same-sex marriage. On the other hand, he seems to have forgotten his promise to re-visit same-sex marriage legislation this fall:

"Commons to revisit same-sex vote

Last Updated: Saturday, June 3, 2006 | 6:22 PM ET

CBC News

Members of Parliament will be asked this fall whether or not they wish to reopen the debate on same-sex marriage, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Friday.

During the election campaign, Harper promised to hold a free vote in the House of Commons on whether Parliament should revisit the issue."

link:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/06/02/...er-samesex.html

Another promise broken!! Surely not!!