Age of Consent Hearings Moving Forward

ClearWest · July 1, 2006

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.

It's true, I haven't. Have you? And if so, did you raise them or did the government?

I suggested that the government shouldn't be everybody's nanny, and from that you deduced that I have never parented a teenager. So I guess someone who supports gov't raising their children for them is obviously a parent? I don't understand your logic.

Anyways, just to restate my view. I think that creating an 'age of consent' is futile, seeing as how people should be allowed to decide for themselves based on their individual circumstances. However, the part about age difference, about relationships between a 20 year old and a 14 year old--This should not be assumed wrong (even though most of us judge it to be), but if the 14 year old feels he/she is being taken advantage of (or if the parent of the 14 year old feels likewise) he or she can press charges for rape or sexual assault. It would then be looked into, not just ASSUMED to be wrong. Because, hey, there are relationships out there different from our own that work out. Arranged Indian marriages, for instance. They shouldn't have to adjust their culture and traditions to blend into ours.

It doesn't have to be any of our business unless they want it to be. That's when the law comes in in the form of a lawsuit.

Kindred · July 1, 2006

I suggested that the government shouldn't be everybody's nanny, and from that you deduced that I have never parented a teenager. So I guess someone who supports gov't raising their children for them is obviously a parent? I don't understand your logic.

You seem to assume that having control over a teenager is dependent upon the quality or quantity of "parenting" I support raising the age of consent and giving parents leverage when it comes to curbing destructive behavior of their teenagers. Right now they have none, and short of getting into a physcial confrontation and wrestling a teenager, often bigger than the parent, to the ground and locking them in their room - which is a crime - far too many parents are helpless under current laws.

Kids know that and far too many of them abuse the power the law has given them over their parents -

Its the same as it was with the Young Offenders Act, the kids know that no one can stop them, not their parents, not the police and the courts wont do a thing either. So its basically "screw you I'll do what I want to and you cant stop me ......"

Dont you know that kids rule ?

where they can't their parents can, and where the parents can't another family member or trusted person can

I said clearly you have never parented a teenager if you think its a simple matter of saying "no" and being clear about your expectations. Teenagers unfortunately have a nasty habit of not listening to and challenging their parents and anyone else who tries to tell them what to do.

Hence the additional comment in my post

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.

Its time we protected our children and that IMO also includes on REALLY cracking down on "date rape" drugs and throwing the offenders in jail for a couple of years.

I've always wondered if the Supreme Court Judges arent a bunch of pedophiles and perverts.

Kindred · July 1, 2006

It's true, I haven't. Have you?

Mine and a couple of dozen others off and on when needed.

sharkman · July 1, 2006

Anyways, just to restate my view. I think that creating an 'age of consent' is futile, seeing as how people should be allowed to decide for themselves based on their individual circumstances. However, the part about age difference, about relationships between a 20 year old and a 14 year old--This should not be assumed wrong (even though most of us judge it to be), but if the 14 year old feels he/she is being taken advantage of (or if the parent of the 14 year old feels likewise) he or she can press charges for rape or sexual assault. It would then be looked into, not just ASSUMED to be wrong. Because, hey, there are relationships out there different from our own that work out. Arranged Indian marriages, for instance. They shouldn't have to adjust their culture and traditions to blend into ours.
It doesn't have to be any of our business unless they want it to be. That's when the law comes in in the form of a lawsuit.

Please consider these comments. You are saying if a 14 year old starts a sexual relationship with a 20 year old and part way through, starts to feel she is being taken advantage of, she could press charges. That is scary for so many reasons:

1)Her feelings WILL run the gamit throughout the 'relationship'. 14 year olds don't understand their feelings, the relationship, his feelings or anything else because they have the brains of a 14 year old, a huge disadvantage.

2)To base whether or not to press charges on a 14 year old's feelings is silly. They can easily be talked into feeling anything. This is why so many older men get charged for some kind of sexual trespass only to find out later it was because she was mad at him. Meanwhile, he's become a laughing stock and his wife left him and he becomes suicidal, all over a 14 year old's feelings.

3)14 year olds can easily be taken advantage of, and this new law recognizes that, and it's purpose would be to protect them from themselves, and from those who prey on them.

Melanie_ · July 1, 2006

2)To base whether or not to press charges on a 14 year old's feelings is silly. They can easily be talked into feeling anything. This is why so many older men get charged for some kind of sexual trespass only to find out later it was because she was mad at him. Meanwhile, he's become a laughing stock and his wife left him and he becomes suicidal, all over a 14 year old's feelings.

Poor old guy, he shouldn't be held responsible for the emotional upheaval his relationship brings to a 14 year old. After all, she's still going through puberty, and you know how irrational young teenagers can be at this time - thats not his fault, now, is it? And what's with his wife leaving him? He has his needs, you know, and she should be more supportive of that, not judging him all the time. No wonder he's suicidal, all these women conspire against him.

sharkman · July 1, 2006

2)To base whether or not to press charges on a 14 year old's feelings is silly. They can easily be talked into feeling anything. This is why so many older men get charged for some kind of sexual trespass only to find out later it was because she was mad at him. Meanwhile, he's become a laughing stock and his wife left him and he becomes suicidal, all over a 14 year old's feelings.

Poor old guy, he shouldn't be held responsible for the emotional upheaval his relationship brings to a 14 year old. After all, she's still going through puberty, and you know how irrational young teenagers can be at this time - thats not his fault, now, is it? And what's with his wife leaving him? He has his needs, you know, and she should be more supportive of that, not judging him all the time. No wonder he's suicidal, all these women conspire against him.

I think you miss my point Melanie. I am arguing for the new age of consent law, to protect from sad stories like this. My point being again that 14 year olds are too stupid to realize they are being used when they get into a relationship with a man in his 30s or whatever. They therefore need to be protected from these men and their own brains. The background of his marriage ending or him becoming suicidal was not to get alert readers to empathize, it was just window dressing. Any older man who preys on 14 year olds deserves what he gets. I thought that since I was arguing in support of the new law, this would be self evident.

However, an innocent family that gets ripped apart because a 14 year old accuses sexual assault when none has occurred is ripped apart for nothing, and the 14 yr old is evil.

Melanie_ · July 1, 2006

I also am in favour of raising the age of consent, but I don't see how that will protect an innocent man from false accusations. I think that is the point I missed in your post.

Rue · July 1, 2006

I really enjoyed the discussion on this one. RB''s yours was very interesting. I am sort of where Kindred is at on this. I worked in the court system as a family mediator and so I did see my share of sexually abused teens and children so I obviously was concerned and thinkt he raising of the age of consent was needed. Look I am not sure if you really can regulate sex. We have to try protect children or young teens from power imbalances in relatinships but yah from a practical point of view there are limits. The fact is that by the time the legal system gets involved its usually too late. I personally have always felt there should be strict statutory rape laws with minimum first time offenses for adults having sex with children.

Now here is the interesting thing. Yes kids at 16 can drive cars and have sex. So? The fact is that when a child reaches puberty, say from the age of about 12 or 13 to their mid 20's the frontal lobe explodes in size. While it suddenly bursts and grows the person boy or girl turning into man or woman lacks judgement and has major mood swings. Sure we call it the teenage years but there's a physiological reason for it. The brain grows and with that growth there are all kinds of hormonal changes and chemical changes to the brain and its neurotransmitters, So as much as teens think they know what they are doing when it comes to sex the fact is there judgement is distorted and they need our help and yes protection. Its not so much trying to control teens as protect them from adults trying to exploit them and protecting themselves from violence with each other or peer group pressure from one another. Yes the law itself is not the best way to do it - strong parenting, good sexual education, are two major tools. The problem is though you try being ateen today. The media uses sex to sell and pressure kids who are 6,7, 8. Its a dog's break-fast. This is a start at least. Do I want to put 2 15 year olds in jail for having sex? No. But I sure want to discourage them from having unprotected sex and for that matter having sex until they are more emotionally ready to handle it. They should feel like there are options other then sex. I got no problems with sex-I do have problems with kids feeling that they have to provide sex to gain acceptance and yah I have a major problem with adults who have to go to Thailand for vacation, etc.

Kindred · July 2, 2006

sad stories like this

Very sad - a 40 something man screwing around on his wife with a 14 year old who has "led him on" and then got mad at him and pressed charges. Give me a break, a 40 something man who screws around with a 14 year old is a pedophile. They choose girls that age for that reason and because children are easily manipulated and bullied and controlled.

You suggest we should have sympathy for such a person? IMO He should do jail time.

I want to see more teeth in the law to deal with EXACTLY this 40 something male and others like him, including, and I cant state this more empathically - child prostitution. I want the teeth to sink into the johns and the pimps ... :angry:

I also want the police to be able to pick up a runaway and take them some place safe, most of them belong at home and ran away because they didnt want to make their beds and do the dishes - yes some ARE abused but the greatest number just dont want to follow their parents rules and curfews --

sharkman · July 2, 2006

sad stories like this
Very sad - a 40 something man screwing around on his wife with a 14 year old who has "led him on" and then got mad at him and pressed charges. Give me a break, a 40 something man who screws around with a 14 year old is a pedophile. They choose girls that age for that reason and because children are easily manipulated and bullied and controlled.
You suggest we should have sympathy for such a person? IMO He should do jail time.

I want to see more teeth in the law to deal with EXACTLY this 40 something male and others like him, including, and I cant state this more empathically - child prostitution. I want the teeth to sink into the johns and the pimps ... :angry:

I also want the police to be able to pick up a runaway and take them some place safe, most of them belong at home and ran away because they didnt want to make their beds and do the dishes - yes some ARE abused but the greatest number just dont want to follow their parents rules and curfews --

Since you quoted my phrase, I assume you are directing at least part of your comments to me. You're preaching to the choir, pal.

But I still say that a 14 yr old who charges sexual assault when none has occured is evil.

FTA Lawyer · July 4, 2006

Its time we protected our children and that IMO also includes on REALLY cracking down on "date rape" drugs and throwing the offenders in jail for a couple of years.
I've always wondered if the Supreme Court Judges arent a bunch of pedophiles and perverts.

A good point totally blown by the idiocy that follows it...

FTA

Kindred · July 4, 2006

Then explain to me the rationale behind wanting the age of consent set so low? It doesnt seem to benefit anyone other than those who wish to escape prosecution for messing with kids .......

FTA Lawyer · July 4, 2006

Then explain to me the rationale behind wanting the age of consent set so low? It doesnt seem to benefit anyone other than those who wish to escape prosecution for messing with kids .......

The post of yours that I criticized makes an incongruous statement that suggests Supreme Court Justices are a "bunch of pedophiles and perverts". How exactly does the current government's proposal to raise the age of consent (which above I demonstrate my support for) translate into the Supreme Court bench being pedophiles????!!!!????

If the age of legal consent is brought up to 16, then I don't see it as "so low" especially when a significant percentage of kids today will already have had a sexual encounter by then (I have no stats...just anecdotal).

This early onset of sexual activity is precisely the reason for keeping an exception in the law for a 14 year old (within a certain number of years to their partner). If we do not allow this exception, we are ignoring the reality of society's current level of acceptance of sexual behaviour and unduly criminalizing otherwise natural and legal activity.

Keep in mind, the current state of the law is that a 14 year old can fully consent to sex with anyone of any age. The exception is for as low as a 12 year old to consent to sex with someone who is no more than 2 years older than them.

The new proposal would mean that a teen would have to be 16 before they could consent to sex with anyone of any age, with an exception for as low as 14 to consent to sex with someone as old as 19. This close in age exception is what much of the early part of this thread was debating about...i.e. is 5 years too broad.

Another thing to remember is that what we are talking about is consent in law or de jure...meaning at what age is it legally possible for a teen to consent to sex. It is another question altogether to determine whether there is consent in fact or de facto...meaning, any 40 year old claiming that his 14 year old partner was involved in consensual sex (devoid of any unlawful coercion or influence) is going to have a damn hard time convincing a judge or jury.

Anyway, my point in all of this was, I think you make some good points about needing to use the law effectively to protect children and then lose all credibility for your viewpoint by spouting off about how Supreme Court judges are pedophiles and perverts...it is really unwarranted and has no logical or persuasive value.

FTA

cybercoma · July 4, 2006

Firing squad is the only obvious answer.

scribblet · November 3, 2006

I believe this bill should be coming forward for voting very soon, havn't heard much on it lately, does anyone know if it is being stalled somewhere? Last I heard was that Egale is opposing it .

geoffrey · November 3, 2006

I believe this bill should be coming forward for voting very soon, havn't heard much on it lately, does anyone know if it is being stalled somewhere? Last I heard was that Egale is opposing it .

I think it's going to be passed between the CPC and Liberals from what I read previously. I can't find a link to back up that statement.

scribblet · November 4, 2006

Bill C-22 passed second reading and was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, despite opposition from the NDP. Looking good !!!

To read the Hansard debate:

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/P...784#OOB-1733963

Shakeyhands · November 4, 2006

Bill C-22 passed second reading and was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, despite opposition from the NDP. Looking good !!!
To read the Hansard debate:

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/P...784#OOB-1733963

Oh sure!!!! THAT made it on to the Hansard!!! :lol: :rolleyes:

Carry on.

Ricki Bobbi · November 4, 2006

Oh sure!!!! THAT made it on to the Hansard!!!
Carry on.

Shakey you're a left-wing nutbar, but at least you have a good sense of humour! :lol:

White Doors · November 4, 2006

Wow. I can't believe that the NDP opposed this.

scribblet · November 13, 2006

At last weekend's NDP federal council, delegates passed a resolution recommending that the NDP caucus oppose any legislation to increase the age of consent.

Svend Robinson also wrote a letter to the federal NDP caucus urging them to vote against an increase to the age of consent.

I find this hard to believe, and don't understand the opposition as a close in age clause is included.

Ricki Bobbi · November 13, 2006

At last weekend's NDP federal council, delegates passed a resolution recommending that the NDP caucus oppose any legislation to increase the age of consent.
Svend Robinson also wrote a letter to the federal NDP caucus urging them to vote against an increase to the age of consent.

It is definitely f*cked up. Everybody cries and howls about socons, but there is no valid reason to oppose this since the close-in-age clause was added. Talk about being out of step with average Canadians...

scribblet · November 13, 2006

Well as usual, Svend is pushing his opposition to it as as " American-style agenda for criminal law changes" playing on the anti American theme again.

Argus · November 13, 2006

Well as usual, Svend is pushing his opposition to it as as " American-style agenda for criminal law changes" playing on the anti American theme again.

Svend spent years in parliament, doggedly pushing a private members bill to lower the age of consent down, supposedly to equalize the consent age between homos and hetros. I'm not sure how he's justifying his opposition - or how the NDP is justifying their opposition to raising the age of consent to heterosexual laws. But then, the NDP don't usually bother themselves much with things like logic or common sense.

scribblet · November 13, 2006

From Svend's letter. http://www.queercaucus.ca/

"What the Bill IS about is very clear: it would deny 14 and 15 year old youth in Canada the right to ever legally consent to sex with anyone over 19 or 20 years of age. EVER. Surely this cannot be right. I pointed out two glaring examples of the absurdity of this law during the debate at Federal Council:"