Liberal Party of Canada Policy Resolution:

[Adelle]

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.

[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?

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.

Actually, Mulroney lowered the age of consent for females in the name of equality, to bring it into line with males. He should have raised it for the males.

Too bad you think it is sad to question why some advocate sex with 14 yr year olds, I would love to see a few Liberal candidates explain why they do so, and also explain to the voters why they think they think its perfectly fine to want to have anal sex with 14 year olds also.

[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.

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.

When you die we'll carve on you're gravestone "He yearned for the 50's".

The world has moved on without you. Single parent and same sex parent households are becomming more numerous. It is the reality and there's no indication that it's leading to societies downfall.

[Adelle]

Too bad you think it is sad to question why some advocate sex with 14 yr year olds, I would love to see a few Liberal candidates explain why they do so, and also explain to the voters why they think they think its perfectly fine to want to have anal sex with 14 year olds also.

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

[normanchateau]

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 have no problem with a free vote either. The question is why is Harper breaking yet another promise?

One theory: He fears the current legislation will be upheld. Another theory: He's decided to postpone the vote until he has a majority. Yet another theory: He sees no point in reminding the Canadian electorate that he's a so-con. Still another theory: He knows that this unnecessary promise was really aimed at his so-con, religious extremist and lunatic right supporters and those supporters aren't about to abandon Harper for the Liberals.

[jbg]

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. There needs to be laws that have teeth to protect the young from sexual predators while allowing them the freedom to grow through that period of time without being made to feel chaep or freakish. Of course the parents will be able to teachtheir children and that would never be an issue and you know that.

Exactly, Watching. I do not think the government should go out of its way to restrain homosexuality, but it should not go ouit of its way to promote it either.

[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. There needs to be laws that have teeth to protect the young from sexual predators while allowing them the freedom to grow through that period of time without being made to feel chaep or freakish. Of course the parents will be able to teachtheir children and that would never be an issue and you know that.

Exactly, Watching. I do not think the government should go out of its way to restrain homosexuality, but it should not go ouit of its way to promote it either.

How about restraining homosexuals from their right to marry or their ability to be covered by hate crimes legislation when someone advocates or promotes killing them? Harper voted against both.

[scribblet]

"This bill isn’t about sending teens to jail for doing what most teens will do regardless of the law: have sex. It’ll happen, and proponents of the bill know this and they don’t expect, nor seek to change this. The objective here is to prevent vulnerable children from being manipulated and exploited by some sick bastard who seeks only to terrorize an innocent childhood.

Personal lifestyles between those of the same age will not be criminalized."

So far I haven't heard why older people want to make it easier to have sex with 14 year olds, or would want to.

[jdobbin]

"This bill isn’t about sending teens to jail for doing what most teens will do regardless of the law: have sex. It’ll happen, and proponents of the bill know this and they don’t expect, nor seek to change this. The objective here is to prevent vulnerable children from being manipulated and exploited by some sick bastard who seeks only to terrorize an innocent childhood.

Personal lifestyles between those of the same age will not be criminalized."

So far I haven't heard why older people want to make it easier to have sex with 14 year olds, or would want to.

The law protects young people already from that happening, doesn't it? There's no change planned for that piece of legislation.

[scribblet]

How does it protect 14 year olds now and why should we continue to make it easier for 14 year olds to be preyed upon.

Bill C-2 didn't raise the age of consent, what it did was new offences of voyeurism and redefine child pornography. Under current Canadian law there is no way to prosecute adults unless they are in a position of authority or trust over the youth, in which case they can be charged with exploitation.

[jdobbin]

How does it protect 14 year olds now and why should we continue to make it easier for 14 year olds to be preyed upon.

Bill C-2 didn't raise the age of consent, what it did was new offences of voyeurism and redefine child pornography. Under current Canadian law there is no way to prosecute adults unless they are in a position of authority or trust over the youth, in which case they can be charged with exploitation.

Any 14 year old who is preyed upon is protected by law.

[scribblet]

How does it protect 14 year olds now and why should we continue to make it easier for 14 year olds to be preyed upon.

Bill C-2 didn't raise the age of consent, what it did was new offences of voyeurism and redefine child pornography. Under current Canadian law there is no way to prosecute adults unless they are in a position of authority or trust over the youth, in which case they can be charged with exploitation.

Any 14 year old who is preyed upon is protected by law.

Really - you still havn't told me why you think why its okay for 14 year olds to be preyed upon, and why protection from sexual exploitation should not be a priority

The last bill made iillegal for over 18 to have sex with a teenager if the relationship is deemed exploitative which is left up to a jude to determine , and leaving the teenage victims to prove they were exploited. Judges are now left to determine that.

One need not be a conservative to take issue with current law that permits 40-year-olds to have sex with 14-year-olds. In few other places in the Western world is the age of consent as low as it is in Canada, where it is legal for an adult to have sex with anyone 14 or older.

One does not, nor should not need to be conservative to support protecting children, if ideology is the reason for not supporting a measure to protect our kids - how sad for our children.

[jdobbin]

Really - you still havn't told me why you think why its okay for 14 year olds to be preyed upon, and why protection from sexual exploitation should not be a priority

The last bill made iillegal for over 18 to have sex with a teenager if the relationship is deemed exploitative which is left up to a jude to determine , and leaving the teenage victims to prove they were exploited. Judges are now left to determine that.

One need not be a conservative to take issue with current law that permits 40-year-olds to have sex with 14-year-olds. In few other places in the Western world is the age of consent as low as it is in Canada, where it is legal for an adult to have sex with anyone 14 or older.

One does not, nor should not need to be conservative to support protecting children, if ideology is the reason for not supporting a measure to protect our kids - how sad for our children.

I don't think they should be preyed on. That's why I said the law is already in place to protect from exploitation. You have basically said that you don't have faith in the law so why would a new law make any difference?

[Adelle]

Really - you still havn't told me why you think why its okay for 14 year olds to be preyed upon, and why protection from sexual exploitation should not be a priority

One need not be a conservative to take issue with current law that permits 40-year-olds to have sex with 14-year-olds. In few other places in the Western world is the age of consent as low as it is in Canada, where it is legal for an adult to have sex with anyone 14 or older.

"...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

[normanchateau]

Age of consent around the world

Tonga 12

Guyana, Spain 13

Albania, Austria, Canada, China, Croatia, Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Peru, Puerto Rico, Romania, Slovenia 14

Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Guinea, Monaco, Poland, Slovakia, Sweden, Thailand 15

Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Hong Kong, Dominica, El Salvador, Finland, Guam, Israel, Jamaica, Kenya, Latvia, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Tonga, Uzbekistan, United Kingdom 16

Cyprus, Ireland 17

Tunisia 20

Australia 16-17

United States 14-18

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/crime/ag...onsent-faq.html

[Adelle]

Age of consent around the world

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/crime/ag...onsent-faq.html

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

[scribblet]

I don't think they should be preyed on. That's why I said the law is already in place to protect from exploitation. You have basically said that you don't have faith in the law so why would a new law make any difference?

http://www.beyondborders.org/p9.shtml -

The current law is flawed and does not offer enough protection, it is vague and leaves much of to the law's discretion.

Most western democracies, namely England, Scotland, Australia, and New Zealand, set the age of 16 years to be the age of consent to sexual activity. Countries like Ireland and the U.S. set the age of consent to 17 and 16 to 18 respectively. The Dept. of Justice's position flies directly in the face of all Children's rights organizations' position across the country and the Association of the Canadian Chiefs of Police.

Alberta MP Rick Casson, who had this to say:

“The Criminal Code of Canada, as exists today, provides tacit approval for sexual relations between adults and adolescents as young as 14 as long as the sexual relations are consensual and the adult is not in a position of authority or trust over the minor. The same Criminal Code also excuses adults who have sexual relations with children as young as 12 years of age as long as the adult involved was under the impression that the minor was at least 14 years of age, the sexual relation was consensual and there was no abuse of position of authority or trust.”

There is really no reason to oppose the new bill other than the simple fact it is a CPC bill, if it were the Liberals I'm sure it would be okay.

If gays continue to oppose these changes or continue to campaign for sexual access to young boys, they can't complain about perceptions associated with those actions and choices.

[Adelle]

Alberta MP Rick Casson, who had this to say:

“The Criminal Code of Canada, as exists today, provides tacit approval for sexual relations between adults and adolescents as young as 14 as long as the sexual relations are consensual and the adult is not in a position of authority or trust over the minor. The same Criminal Code also excuses adults who have sexual relations with children as young as 12 years of age as long as the adult involved was under the impression that the minor was at least 14 years of age, the sexual relation was consensual and there was no abuse of position of authority or trust.”

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.

[jdobbin]

http://www.beyondborders.org/p9.shtml -

The current law is flawed and does not offer enough protection, it is vague and leaves much of to the law's discretion.

Most western democracies, namely England, Scotland, Australia, and New Zealand, set the age of 16 years to be the age of consent to sexual activity. Countries like Ireland and the U.S. set the age of consent to 17 and 16 to 18 respectively. The Dept. of Justice's position flies directly in the face of all Children's rights organizations' position across the country and the Association of the Canadian Chiefs of Police.

Alberta MP Rick Casson, who had this to say:

“The Criminal Code of Canada, as exists today, provides tacit approval for sexual relations between adults and adolescents as young as 14 as long as the sexual relations are consensual and the adult is not in a position of authority or trust over the minor. The same Criminal Code also excuses adults who have sexual relations with children as young as 12 years of age as long as the adult involved was under the impression that the minor was at least 14 years of age, the sexual relation was consensual and there was no abuse of position of authority or trust.”

There is really no reason to oppose the new bill other than the simple fact it is a CPC bill, if it were the Liberals I'm sure it would be okay.

If gays continue to oppose these changes or continue to campaign for sexual access to young boys, they can't complain about perceptions associated with those actions and choices.

The Conservatives already changed the law. You say that isn't enough? Age of consent is 16 and the exploitation laws are already in place. What exactly are you complaining about?

[scribblet]

The Conservatives already changed the law. You say that isn't enough? Age of consent is 16 and the exploitation laws are already in place. What exactly are you complaining about?

The current CPC bill to raise the age of consent to 16 passed second reading in October and went to the Justice committe, I didn't hear anything since then - as far as I know it is not yet passed into law.

[jdobbin]

The current CPC bill to raise the age of consent to 16 passed second reading in October and went to the Justice committe, I didn't hear anything since then - as far as I know it is not yet passed into law.

I was pretty sure it passed although I don't have a link for it.

That's why I keep saying that 14 year olds are protected.

[gerryhatrick]

If there was ever an example of the reluctance of this forum admin to take action when it needs to be taken, this is it.

> Liberal Party of Canada Policy Resolution:, Allow "Anal Intercourse" with 14-Year-Olds

This take on the reality is highly partisan and twisted and slanderous.

There is a rule here against insults levelled at 3rd parties, and this fits that bill.

WHY?

Because the policy resolution was not as it was described in the topic title. It is a lie. It is slander.

[normanchateau]

The bill has been passed and is now law, so Canada now goes into the 'Age 16' column as I noted.

Adelle

Do you have a link indicating that it has passed final reading?

[scribblet]

The current CPC bill to raise the age of consent to 16 passed second reading in October and went to the Justice committe, I didn't hear anything since then - as far as I know it is not yet passed into law.

I was pretty sure it passed although I don't have a link for it.

That's why I keep saying that 14 year olds are protected.

Thats the confusion I guess, I phoned Vic Toews const. office who told me it hasn't passed into law yet. I went to the Justice website but couldn't find anything, well, didn't have much time to really search. I'm 99.9% sure it is still with the justice committee.

[scribblet]

If there was ever an example of the reluctance of this forum admin to take action when it needs to be taken, this is it.

Liberal Party of Canada Policy Resolution:, Allow "Anal Intercourse" with 14-Year-Olds[/size][/b]

This take on the reality is highly partisan and twisted and slanderous.

There is a rule here against insults levelled at 3rd parties, and this fits that bill.

WHY?

Because the policy resolution was not as it was described in the topic title. It is a lie. It is slander.

I wasn't going to comment on this, but you might want to take a look at your own highly partisan and often insulting posts. Meanwhile, check out the resolution and take it up with them:

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.