Age of Consent Hearings Moving Forward

[August1991]

The Conservative government introduced a bill on Thursday that would raise the age of sexual consent by two years to 16.

....

The proposed legislation includes a close-in-age exception, which means that teens who are 14 or 15 can have a sexual partner who is "less than five years older."

CBC

I think this change is long overdue but I think too that it is a little too liberal. I hope one change is made in committee. The close-in-age exception, five years, is too large. I think it should be three or perhaps four years. IMO, this change should be discussed during drafting.

Elsewhere, I have seen arguments that we should not use law to deal with social problems. That made me laugh. We use laws to forbid smoking. Here's an instance where it makes a lot more sense to use law since its purpose is to protect people who cannot properly protect themselves.

The law makes it impossible for a 25 year old to claim that a 15 year old consented to a sexual relation.

Moreover, the law does not forbid 14 year olds from engaging in sexual relations which means that the young will still have legal access to contraceptives and so on.

There is also the point that anal sex is still illegal for anyone below the age of 18. I don't think this can be construed as anti-gay. It is the practice that is forbidden, not the sex of the people involved.

----

In crass political terms, the Conservatives have introduced social legislation (part of their so-called scary secret agenda) and it appears to have met with general approval. It may even be too socially liberal. The common sense of this legislation is one piece of evidence that the Conservatives are not wild-eyed kooks.

[Big Blue Machine]

They should make it 18.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

They should make it 18.

Why don't they make it all simple and call an adult an adult...

Set an age.. be it 18 or whatever else... and allow the new adults to consent to sex, drive a car, drink a beer, and vote if they want to.... what is the point in having 'adulthood' come in stages? Does it make it any easier or just more confusing? I know I was doing all of the above listed things (other than voting) before I was 18 and the legality about any of it was irrelevant to me.

[August1991]

Set an age.. be it 18 or whatever else... and allow the new adults to consent to sex, drive a car, drink a beer, and vote if they want to.... what is the point in having 'adulthood' come in stages?

Uh, your question provides the answer. You don't wake up one morning as an adult. It comes in stages (although I'll readily admit that in some cases, it doesn't appear to come at all).

I know I was doing all of the above listed things (other than voting) before I was 18 and the legality about any of it was irrelevant to me.

I'll bet you probably had phoney ID at one time or another, which belies your point.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

Set an age.. be it 18 or whatever else... and allow the new adults to consent to sex, drive a car, drink a beer, and vote if they want to.... what is the point in having 'adulthood' come in stages?

Uh, your question provides the answer. You don't wake up one morning as an adult. It comes in stages (although I'll readily admit that in some cases, it doesn't appear to come at all).

I know I was doing all of the above listed things (other than voting) before I was 18 and the legality about any of it was irrelevant to me.

I'll bet you probably had phoney ID at one time or another, which belies your point.

Still, isn't it ironic that you can legally reproduce before you can legally drive, both of which you can do before you have any say in any level of politics... and all of this before you are even deemed fit to decide to drink or not?! It seems a bit backwards to me...

Sure you don't become an adult all at once, but are the stages of becoming an adult organized into: sex, drive, vote, drink?

Or maybe it could be sex, drive, kill (17 years old, parent's permission granted into the army), vote, drink?

I think at the very least that someone should be able to deal with alcohol before going off to fight - imagine what they will have to deal with on the field. I do, I served when I was 18 before I was legal to drink in Ontario.

I see some problems with these levels.

[August1991]

Still, isn't it ironic that you can legally reproduce before you can legally drive, both of which you can do before you have any say in any level of politics... and all of this before you are even deemed fit to decide to drink or not?! It seems a bit backwards to me...

Sure you don't become an adult all at once, but are the stages of becoming an adult organized into: sex, drive, vote, drink?

Or maybe it could be sex, drive, kill (17 years old, parent's permission granted into the army), vote, drink?

Good points, but you missed a major one. At what age should a person take responsibility for a criminal act? At present, a 17 year old criminal will be dealt with differently.

[RB]

Still, isn't it ironic that you can legally reproduce before you can legally drive, both of which you can do before you have any say in any level of politics... and all of this before you are even deemed fit to decide to drink or not?! It seems a bit backwards to me...

driving is a privilege, you have to use your brain when you drive and be responsible, which coincides with drinking & sex and being irrational

but the values of Canadians have changed, a recent Maclean's poll suggested 90% of Canadians are less likely to approve of premarital sex this was compared a while back to 77%

if anything everyone is getting busy and they have no energy left for sex, this is a likely reason to table to raise the age

also Canadian adults are not having sex, here is the statistics

24% have sex weekly

20% several times a week

12% monthly

2% daily

What's happening with 76% Canucks - no sex??

I like this reasoning best for raising the age of consent that teens are becoming more and more sophisticated and making smarter choices by limiting themselves to a few or none

[gc1765]

If God didn't want us having sex, he shouldn't have made us go through puberty at 12-14 years of age. However, of course adults should not be having sex with 14 year olds, so this law is good so long as that 5 year exemption is in place.

[FTA Lawyer]

They should make it 18.

All law, including criminal law, is only valid and enforceable if the people to whom it applies are willing to follow it. Case in point...the prohibition of alcohol as a colossal failure.

Failing to recognize that young teenagers are having sex is foolish. Trying to outlaw it...futile. Putting up reasonable limits which have the effect of putting the onus and responsibility on the older, more mature person in a relationship...relatively sensible.

I am in favour of this change...mostly because, at present, our law permits a 12 year old to consent to sex (with someone who is less than 2 years older mind you). 12 is simply too young, in my view, for society to sanction sexual intercourse.

By moving the consent age up two years, I'm not convinced that it is wrong to then expand the close-in-age exception to 5 years instead of two. Under the current law, a 14 year old can legally consent to sex with a person of ANY age. A new law where a 14 year old can still consent to sex with someone up to 19 seems reasonable to me.

As for the comments about legally drinking, driving and voting...these are simply different issues. Sex is purely biological, none of the other activities are. It is a hell of alot easier to restrict access to car keys (and cars for that matter), booze, and ballots than it is to stop a kid from using their bodies which are fully equipped for sex long before most parents would like.

Other legal age limits may make sense (or not) for different reasons, but generally I support the new proposed age for sexual consent.

FTA

[Chuck U. Farlie]

Yeah, thanks FTA for bringing us back to the original point of this posting, which I strayed away from.

I do agree with the changes too, at least how you worded it.

I was not aware that the age of consent was actually that young before.

[Hicksey]

Still, isn't it ironic that you can legally reproduce before you can legally drive, both of which you can do before you have any say in any level of politics... and all of this before you are even deemed fit to decide to drink or not?! It seems a bit backwards to me...

driving is a privilege, you have to use your brain when you drive and be responsible, which coincides with drinking & sex and being irrational

but the values of Canadians have changed, a recent Maclean's poll suggested 90% of Canadians are less likely to approve of premarital sex this was compared a while back to 77%

if anything everyone is getting busy and they have no energy left for sex, this is a likely reason to table to raise the age

also Canadian adults are not having sex, here is the statistics

24% have sex weekly

20% several times a week

12% monthly

2% daily

What's happening with 76% Canucks - no sex??

I like this reasoning best for raising the age of consent that teens are becoming more and more sophisticated and making smarter choices by limiting themselves to a few or none

I know I'm nitpicking, but I only count 42% not getting any.

[Charles Anthony]

also Canadian adults are not having sex, here is the statistics

24% have sex weekly

20% several times a week

12% monthly

2% daily

What's happening with 76% Canucks - no sex??

I know I'm nitpicking, but I only count 42% not getting any.

The 2%daily are included in the 12%monthly which in turn are included in the 20%several...... get it?

[August1991]

All law, including criminal law, is only valid and enforceable if the people to whom it applies are willing to follow it. Case in point...the prohibition of alcohol as a colossal failure.

I wouldn't call it a colossal failure but I like your basic point. We should only enact rules that we can enforce. Simple rules are better than complex rules.

By moving the consent age up two years, I'm not convinced that it is wrong to then expand the close-in-age exception to 5 years instead of two. Under the current law, a 14 year old can legally consent to sex with a person of ANY age. A new law where a 14 year old can still consent to sex with someone up to 19 seems reasonable to me.

This is the key question. Should a 19 or 18 year old have sexual relations (even consensual) with a 14 year old? (I think not.) I hope the parliamentary committee examines the implications of this. For example, do we want to imprison a 19 year old involved in such a relationship?

I find it odd that this proposal has inspired less debate than same sex marriage. It seems to me that this change affects more people.

Also, does anyone know how the NDP will vote on this?

Edited June 28, 2006 by August1991

[geoffrey]

18 years old, 3 years close in exemption. That's reasonable. What business does a 19 year old have with a 14 year old? The 14 year old is obviously being coerced.

If they don't have the maturity of mind to serve an adult jail sentance, they don't have the mature of mind to be dating an adult. The 5 years is too broad, that still allows a 13 year old to be with an 18 year old. Common sense would object.

[Charles Anthony]

If they don't have the maturity of mind to serve an adult jail sentance, they don't have the mature of mind to be dating an adult. The 5 years is too broad, that still allows a 13 year old to be with an 18 year old. Common sense would object.

It would make sense to me to have a criminal charge against the over-ager (18 year old) and just exempt th under-ager (13 year old) from being charged. That sounds like a simple amendement that could be made, could it not?

[theloniusfleabag]

I am inclined to agree with geoffrey's limit of 3 years rather than 5, starting at age 14. This is strictly with a view of attempting to control 'predation' (most 19 yr olds have graduated high school, while a 14 yr old could still be in grade 7 or 8). However, there must also be a consideration that morals should be instilled by parents, and not gov't legislation.

[BubberMiley]

18 years old, 3 years close in exemption. That's reasonable. What business does a 19 year old have with a 14 year old? The 14 year old is obviously being coerced.

Way back when, when we were around 20 years old, my virgin buddy and I were at the bar. A girl approached him and said (I swear), "You're cute. Do you wanna f-sharp?" (edited for family reading) This was the beginning for them of an eight-year relationship, and the end of his virginity.

Turns out she had just turned 14 at the time. But I wouldn't exactly call him a predator.

[mcqueen625]

The Conservative government introduced a bill on Thursday that would raise the age of sexual consent by two years to 16.

....

The proposed legislation includes a close-in-age exception, which means that teens who are 14 or 15 can have a sexual partner who is "less than five years older."

CBC

I think this change is long overdue but I think too that it is a little too liberal. I hope one change is made in committee. The close-in-age exception, five years, is too large. I think it should be three or perhaps four years. IMO, this change should be discussed during drafting.

Elsewhere, I have seen arguments that we should not use law to deal with social problems. That made me laugh. We use laws to forbid smoking. Here's an instance where it makes a lot more sense to use law since its purpose is to protect people who cannot properly protect themselves.

The law makes it impossible for a 25 year old to claim that a 15 year old consented to a sexual relation.

Moreover, the law does not forbid 14 year olds from engaging in sexual relations which means that the young will still have legal access to contraceptives and so on.

There is also the point that anal sex is still illegal for anyone below the age of 18. I don't think this can be construed as anti-gay. It is the practice that is forbidden, not the sex of the people involved.

----

In crass political terms, the Conservatives have introduced social legislation (part of their so-called scary secret agenda) and it appears to have met with general approval. It may even be too socially liberal. The common sense of this legislation is one piece of evidence that the Conservatives are not wild-eyed kooks.

I fully support the lowering of the age of consent, especially in these time of internet stalking. The daughter of a girl I worked with and several of her friends were stalked on the internet by a twice convicted sex offender posing as someone their age. This young girl fortunately was smart and couragous enough to tell her parents, and involved the police. This pervert was actually following the girls with a company van and then would e-mail and threaten that if they didn't meet him to have sex he would destroy their lives. He even e-mailed this girl and told her that he had seen her and some of her friends selling tickets at the mall in support of her team. The girls mother was frightened to death for her daughter because she was with her daughter that evening and saw nobody paying particular attention to the girls.

Cybercops in conjunction with others have developed an interactive game to teach youngsters how dangerous the internnet can really be, and this game was modeled after this brave young girl's experience. The game is called Mirror Image, and is being distributed to schools and clubs throughout Canada.

Unfortunately one of the girls became so frightened that this piece of s--t would carry through with his threats that she did meet and submit to sex with him. The Crown dropped the ball on this pervert and proceded with charges under summary conviction instead of inditable and the most the judge could sentence was 3 months on each charge. He hit the streets again almost before the ink was dry on the committal warrant. During the victim's impact statement this brave young girl spoke to the most frightening aspect of the whole scenario was the fact that this individual obviously knew what she looked like, but she had no idea what he looked like.

Any politician who balks at increasing the age of consent should not be serving as an MP, and should immediately be removed from not only the office of MP, but barred from ever serving on any other quasi-judicial panel again. I would definitely be suspicious of the motivations oof any adult who does not support this legislation.

[mcqueen625]

They should make it 18.

All law, including criminal law, is only valid and enforceable if the people to whom it applies are willing to follow it. Case in point...the prohibition of alcohol as a colossal failure.

Failing to recognize that young teenagers are having sex is foolish. Trying to outlaw it...futile. Putting up reasonable limits which have the effect of putting the onus and responsibility on the older, more mature person in a relationship...relatively sensible.

I am in favour of this change...mostly because, at present, our law permits a 12 year old to consent to sex (with someone who is less than 2 years older mind you). 12 is simply too young, in my view, for society to sanction sexual intercourse.

By moving the consent age up two years, I'm not convinced that it is wrong to then expand the close-in-age exception to 5 years instead of two. Under the current law, a 14 year old can legally consent to sex with a person of ANY age. A new law where a 14 year old can still consent to sex with someone up to 19 seems reasonable to me.

As for the comments about legally drinking, driving and voting...these are simply different issues. Sex is purely biological, none of the other activities are. It is a hell of alot easier to restrict access to car keys (and cars for that matter), booze, and ballots than it is to stop a kid from using their bodies which are fully equipped for sex long before most parents would like.

Other legal age limits may make sense (or not) for different reasons, but generally I support the new proposed age for sexual consent.

FTA

I just thought of something. What are these morons on the Supreme Court going to think of raising the age of consent? It wouldn't surprise me if they rule that it is a violation of the flawed Charter to prohibit sex between an adult and a child. No asinine ruling that comes from this collection of fool's surprises me any more, and according to Paul Martin and Jean Chretien they are the final word in this country. Hence the reason and rationale to elect the judiciary to specific terms in office. At the very least it will make them accountable to the people if they know that the people have the last word not this appointed and undemocratic collection of morons.

[scribblet]

I sure hope this passes., I would have to wonder about anyone who opposes it now.

[Leader Circle]

What about there gay rights people? They were pissed that under 18 anal was not removed, don't you think they'll be up in arms about it? Considering the stroke they have these days, could they not have an effect on this bill?

[ClearWest]

These laws are created with the best intentions. We're looking out for the children, trying to protect them. But that kind of attitude carries on (as it so often does with the gov't) to everybody else. They feel like they have to protect us from everything.

The last thing we need is more and more regulation. Do we need to regulate the relationship between a 40 and 18 year old? No, they can both decide things for themselves. Can a 14 year old decide things for themselves? It's an interesting question. I think that generally people can make their own decisions, and where they can't their parents can, and where the parents can't another family member or trusted person can. No need for government to be everybody's nanny.

People mature at different ages. I felt ready to vote when I was 16. Some feel ready for drugs and alcohol when they are 14. Some feel ready for an intimate relationship when they are 15. The number is different for everyone--Whether they actually ARE ready at that age isn't for us to decide, it's a matter of opinion. That's why there should be no all-encompassing age where government finally grants you permission to do something. It should be between the individual and their parents and the people around them depending on their specific situation.

[Kindred]

IMO of major importance in raising the age limit is that the police and courts can deal harshly with the scum who force or are instrumental in involving 14 year olds into prostitution.

I read somewhere, that its illegal to give a 14 year old an aspirn without parental consent but its okay to perform an abortion and not tell her parents, in fact, under the present law you CANNOT inform them or discuss it with them. Thats pretty sad, somewhere society got pretty screwed up.

As for young offenders, IMO it should be "adult crime, adult time".. The offense should decide the sentence, not the age of the offender. Anyone over the age of about five knows right from wrong ---

[Kindred]

where they can't their parents can, and where the parents can't another family member or trusted person can. No need for government to be everybody's nanny

.

You have clearly never parented a teenager.

Further more under the current law a parent CANNOT control their 14 year old, he or she is considered an emancipated adult and can make his/her own decisions. If that is to leave home and live on the street and turn tricks or shack up with a 45 year old pervert there is nothing a parent can do about it.

This is what parents have been complaining about, legally they have no control over their own children and have to do nothing while they ruin their lives.

[ClearWest]

Further more under the current law a parent CANNOT control their 14 year old, he or she is considered an emancipated adult and can make his/her own decisions. If that is to leave home and live on the street and turn tricks or shack up with a 45 year old pervert there is nothing a parent can do about it.

This is what parents have been complaining about, legally they have no control over their own children and have to do nothing while they ruin their lives.

Well I think that parents SHOULD have more say over their children while they're living at home. It takes parents to raise a child, and their job is often taken over by gov't in the form of teachers and counsellors and psychiatrists. However, what was once a child eventually becomes his or her own person--and they can make decisions for themselves.

Hopefully I'll have time to talk more on the subject later, gotta go!