Age of Consent Hearings Moving Forward

Argus · 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:"

You'd think he would get how ridiculous this sounds. It would deny them EVER having sex with older people!

Duh, until they get older.

That's kind of the point.

So why are these "queers" upset about this?

kimmy · November 13, 2006

I'm puzzled by the objections.

(1) I have no idea how this is a gay rights issue. I don't understand why Svend Robinson and E.G.A.L.E. believe it is.

(2) I don't see any reasonable objections that aren't addressed by the "close in age" 5 years exemption. This doesn't stop younger teens from exploring their sexuality... it just prevents them from doing so with adults.

Opponents of bill C-22 have made a handy website to voice their concerns: http://www.ageofconsent.ca/

One interesting point they raise is that

Parliament passed Bill C-2 into law in 2005, which prevents anyone from engaging in an 'exploitative' sexual relationship with a person under 18. The definition of 'exploitation' is quite broad and open to interpretation. In this context, we fail to see how an increase to the age of consent is needed to protect youth.

(from the Dept Justice page promoting Bill C-2:

New Sexual Exploitation Offences: A new offence of sexual exploitation is created that will better protect young persons between 14 and 18 years of age against those who would prey on their vulnerability. Under this new prohibition, courts may infer that a relationship is exploitative of the young person based on its nature and circumstances, including the age of the young person, any difference of age, the evolution of the relationship, and the degree of control or influence exercised over the young person. These factors reflect the reality that there are different indicators of exploitation of a young person. While the chronological age of the young person is one such indicator there are others including a difference in age between the young person and the other person, as well as how the relationship developed (e.g., secretly over the Internet). This new offence focuses on the wrongful conduct of the exploiter rather than on the consent of the young person to that conduct.

That's swell in principle, but if Ageofconsent.ca is correct in claiming that "the definition of 'exploitation' is quite broad and open to interpretation" ...then it's going to be practically useless in practice. Right? I mean, we've seen two examples in the past week of judges who don't consider bludgeoning people to death with baseball bats to be murder, so why would anybody have any faith in them to make any use of a "broad and open to interpretation" definition of exploitation?

-k

Charles Anthony · November 13, 2006

Taking a look at the Age of Consent website:

Parliament passed Bill C-2 into law in 2005, which prevents anyone from engaging in an 'exploitative' sexual relationship with a person under 18

(1)
. The definition of 'exploitation' is quite broad and open to interpretation. In this context, we fail to see how an increase to the age of consent is needed to protect youth.

Only 'non-exploitative' sexual activity will be criminalized.

... this is frighteningly disturbing because it suggests that they believe that it is possible to interpret sex between an adult and a youth as NOT being exploitative.

While the government claims that the increase will protect youth, the opposite is much more likely. Studies show that youth are significantly less likely to seek sexual health information or advice if they fall below the age of consent

(2)
. With young people making up a large percentage of new HIV and STI/STD infections,

this proposal has dangerous consequences for youth education and public health.

Age of Consent

What are they talking about ? Hello?!?

If their teaching methods are in jeopardy ---- What the hell are they teaching?? and how are they teaching??

Aaaaahh!

scribblet · November 13, 2006

... this is frighteningly disturbing because it suggests that they believe that it is possible to interpret sex between an adult and a youth as NOT being exploitative.

Bingo !

I too am puzzled about it being a gay rights issue, if only leads one to believe that the 'rights' they want to see are protected, are the rights for adults to have sex with young people. They must know it comes across that way.

gerryhatrick · November 13, 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 .

Maybe if you're going to post a topic you could do a little research. Posting a title saying that a bill is moving forward and then saying in the op you really don't know what's going on with it is a little....slack.

betsy · November 13, 2006

So EGALE is still fighting it, eh? You gotta admit...they're tenacious about it, aren't they?

Looks like they can't shake off this Man-Boy Love thing!

MightyAC · November 13, 2006

The bill is in committee and should be passed eventually.

Bill C-22, first introduced in June on the last day of the spring sitting, is now before the justice committee. Progress there may be slow because the committee is "swamped" with Conservative law-and-order bills, says NDP MP and out lesbian Libby Davies.

While in committee I really hope they take their time, cross all the t's and dot the i's. Poorly written laws are a nightmare for the courts. It would be a shame to rush the bill and then have perverts, who pray on children, get an easier ride than they deserve.

Wilber · November 13, 2006

While in committee I really hope they take their time, cross all the t's and dot the i's. Poorly written laws are a nightmare for the courts. It would be a shame to rush the bill and then have perverts, who pray on children, get an easier ride than they deserve.

Second that.

southerncomfort · November 13, 2006

Where's Normie on this one, the silence is deafening :rolleyes:

gerryhatrick · November 13, 2006

Where's Normie on this one, the silence is deafening

Keep trolling.

scribblet · November 13, 2006

While in committee I really hope they take their time, cross all the t's and dot the i's. Poorly written laws are a nightmare for the courts. It would be a shame to rush the bill and then have perverts, who pray on children, get an easier ride than they deserve.

Second that.

Svend also wrote this:

"Many of you know my partner Max. His mother Amelia gave birth to Max when she was 15 years old. She fell in love with his father, a dashing 28 year old army officer. They were married for 27 years. Under Bill C-22, they would have been committing a crime"

Is Svend actually advocating that its okay for older guys to hang out with young girls, I can't believe I'm reading this crap.

Didn't Canada just get its knickers in a knot over that teacher married to a Canadian, given jail time in Canada, for fondling a 15 year old girl's breast. Does Svend think this is okay too...I find it hard to believe that the NDP are actually against protecting young people.

Drea · November 14, 2006

Max would be about 40 or so….?

Back in the days when his mother (the 15 year old) got married it was very common for a much older man to marry a very young girl. My mother got married at age 15 too. Dad is 11 years older than her.

IMO, 16 is the correct age of consent.

Svend is just pointing out the very obvious hipocracy of the right wing -- if it was ok for a 15 year old in 1955 why is it not ok in 2006? Hint: if it bleeds it breeds. The only choice poor young girls had back then was to get married. And better to marry an older man who could earn a decent living, no?

Makes me laugh -- they all want to revert to 1950's mentality (aka "tradition") but are unable to see how ridiculous life really was back then. :lol:

Canadian Blue · November 14, 2006

Many of you know my partner Max. His mother Amelia gave birth to Max when she was 15 years old. She fell in love with his father, a dashing 28 year old army officer. They were married for 27 years. Under Bill C-22, they would have been committing a crime

Man, thats the creepiest thing that a politician has ever said. Now why in the hell are we worried about the "dog" comment when somebody makes a comment like this. Honestly, a 28 having sex with what could have been a 14 year old. I mean, when I was 14 I was in grade 9, I don't see how anybody could have the maturity to start having sex, not to mention with somebody that is over a decade older.

Svend is just pointing out the very obviousy hipocracy of the right wing -- if it was ok for a 15 year old in 1955 why is it not ok in 2006?

Alot of things were okay in 1955 that aren't okay today. First of all a majority of girls under the age of 16 aren't mature enough to get into a sexual relationship with somebody much older then them. I think 16 is the right age since that is when teens get more responsibilities in life. Personally, I think the drinking age, and voting age should be lowered to 16 across the board.

Drea · November 14, 2006

Alot of things were okay in 1955 that aren't okay today. First of all a majority of girls under the age of 16 aren't mature enough to get into a sexual relationship with somebody much older then them. I think 16 is the right age since that is when teens get more responsibilities in life. Personally, I think the drinking age, and voting age should be lowered to 16 across the board.

And back in 1955 girls were "all grown up" by 15 -- they had the capacity to make the most important decision of their lives?

I would never advocate lowering the voting and drinking age. We have enough problems with teens drinking and driving already.

scribblet · November 14, 2006

Max would be about 40 or so….?
Back in the days when his mother (the 15 year old) got married it was very common for a much older man to marry a very young girl. My mother got married at age 15 too. Dad is 11 years older than her.

IMO, 16 is the correct age of consent.

Svend is just pointing out the very obviousy hipocracy of the right wing -- if it was ok for a 15 year old in 1955 why is it not ok in 2006?

Good grief, 1955 and its now hypocrisy, a lot of things have changed since then, different people and different parties for one thing. Children seem to be more vulnerable too what with the internet etc.

Apart from that, does Svend really want want to us not trying to protect 15 year olds from getting pregnant at 15.

Back in the 80s Svend moved a motion that: the age of consent for buggery or sodomy (set at 21 years) be reduced to age 14, allegedly to conform to the age of consent for other sexual activity. (If accepted, this, of course, would have provided access to 14 year old adolescent boys by homosexual adults.) This motion was defeated thankgoodness

Svend is same individual who at one time proposed lowering the age of consent to the age of 12. I find it very unsettling that these people don't seem to want to protect our young people

Multirec · November 14, 2006

One of the funniest things that I've seen is when sven received a good kick in the arse from an israeli soldier.

Ahh, good times!

betsy · November 14, 2006

Svend is same individual who at one time proposed lowering the age of consent to the age of 12. I find it very unsettling that these people don't seem to want to protect our young people

I wonder what's in it for Svend. :lol:

gerryhatrick · November 14, 2006

Svend is same individual who at one time proposed lowering the age of consent to the age of 12. I find it very unsettling that these people don't seem to want to protect our young people

I wonder what's in it for Svend.

Ah. Gays = pedophiles. Very nice betsy.

betsy · November 14, 2006

Svend is same individual who at one time proposed lowering the age of consent to the age of 12. I find it very unsettling that these people don't seem to want to protect our young people

I wonder what's in it for Svend.

Ah. Gays = pedophiles. Very nice betsy.

Well?

What am I supposed to think?

I mean why doesn't EGALE just agree to raise the bloody thing to 16...if equality is truly the issue...and not the license to diddle 14 year old boys? And lower?

Why do they insist on opening the doors for the pedophiles?

To think that they'd want to erase the shadow of NAMBLA. This "odd" reaction of EGALE only strengthens my suspicion that NAMBLA is still very much around....hiding under the skirts of EGALE.

Melanie_ · November 14, 2006

Back in the 80s Svend moved a motion that: the age of consent for buggery or sodomy (set at 21 years) be reduced to age 14, allegedly to conform to the age of consent for other sexual activity. (If accepted, this, of course, would have provided access to 14 year old adolescent boys by homosexual adults.) This motion was defeated thankgoodness

The law at the time provided access to 14 year old adolescent girls by heterosexual adults. Why should we be invested in protecting one gender and not the other? I support the age of consent being set at 16 for both heterosexual and homosexual activity; no double standard.

betsy · November 14, 2006

For some reason, the number 14 seems to be very important to Svend and EGALE.

What's wrong with 16?

gerryhatrick · November 14, 2006

Svend is same individual who at one time proposed lowering the age of consent to the age of 12. I find it very unsettling that these people don't seem to want to protect our young people

I wonder what's in it for Svend.

Ah. Gays = pedophiles. Very nice betsy.

Well?

What am I supposed to think?

I mean why doesn't EGALE just agree to raise the bloody thing to 16...if equality is truly the issue...and not the license to diddle 14 year old boys? And lower?

Why do they insist on opening the doors for the pedophiles?

To think that they'd want to erase the shadow of NAMBLA. This "odd" reaction of EGALE only strengthens my suspicion that NAMBLA is still very much around....hiding under the skirts of EGALE.

I didn't realize there was a NAMBLA shadow on gays.

And I haven't seen any doors opening for pedophiles in the legitimate objections raised by opponents.

Oh well.

betsy · November 14, 2006

And I haven't seen any doors opening for pedophiles in the legitimate objections raised by opponents.

maybe they're all worried about the GAG LAW...you know, that famous law of...guess who? SVEN!

betsy · November 14, 2006

Anyway Gerry...I'm really curious.

What's wrong with 16?

It would've been the same for everyone...gays or hetero. Equality achieved.

So, why fight it?

scribblet · November 14, 2006

Well?
What am I supposed to think?

I mean why doesn't EGALE just agree to raise the bloody thing to 16...if equality is truly the issue...and not the license to diddle 14 year old boys? And lower?

Why do they insist on opening the doors for the pedophiles?

To think that they'd want to erase the shadow of NAMBLA. This "odd" reaction of EGALE only strengthens my suspicion that NAMBLA is still very much around....hiding under the skirts of EGALE.

Be interesting to find out, it appears on the surface they are strictly funded by sick pedophiles. Also have to wonder why they are allowed to be in business.

I know in the U.S. the ACLU has gone to bat for them

http://billoreilly.com/show?action=viewTVShow&showID=52

# Factor Follow Up Segment

NAMBLA & Canada

The notorious North American Man-Boy Love Association is on the defensive in the United States, but apparently finds Canada less threatening. John Henry Westen of LifeSiteNews.com explained the current situation. "In Canada there are two organizations that are offshoots of NAMBLA, men who want to have sex with young boys." According to Westen, this is one more indication of Canada's liberal social trends. "Society seems to be moving in this direction. We have an age of sexual consent of 14, one of the youngest in the world, but at the same time you have to be 18 to buy cigarettes. And folks who have conservative moral values are being squelched."

He mentions two, but only names one, wonder who the offshoot is.

This has some info on it, but nothing I can see related to Canada, again inolvment with the ACLU

http://optymyst.blogspot.com/2006/04/why-nambla-why-now.html

Many people believe that NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) is an urban legend or a South Park cartoon joke. It's not a joke. It is a group with activists who are very real, and currently involved with various groups that fight for a wide variety of causes and "struggles." They have been known to claim not-for-profit status to increase their cash flow, to intermingle funds from their list of "doing business as" companies, and there is suggestion within investigations that funds from some of the activist groups in which they operate may be diverted to their cause. Their goal is to "normalize" sexual relationships between children and adults and have these relationships accepted in the eyes of the mainstream public.