Age of Consent Hearings Moving Forward

Canadian Blue · November 14, 2006

The ACLU went to bat for them because they believed that they deserved freedom of speech. The ACLU wasn't advocating lowering the age of consent. Even though I find what they say to be vile, they still have a right to say it. The best way to confront them is by using the same freedom's we are afforded.

gerryhatrick · 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?

Quite honestly the topic doesn't interest me as much as it does yourself.

I am aware that there are legitimate concerns from those who want to review the law. Painting them as pedophiles is intelectually dishonest.

Ricki Bobbi · November 14, 2006

Quite honestly the topic doesn't interest me as much as it does yourself.
I am aware that there are legitimate concerns from those who want to review the law. Painting them as pedophiles is intelectually dishonest.

Why Gerry?

15 and 16 year-olds deserve Government protection. Do you favour pedophiles preying on 15 and 16 year olds?

gerryhatrick · November 14, 2006

Quite honestly the topic doesn't interest me as much as it does yourself.
I am aware that there are legitimate concerns from those who want to review the law. Painting them as pedophiles is intelectually dishonest.

Why Gerry?

Because the concerns are legitimate, and painting them as pedophiles for having legitimate concerns is not intelectually honest.

betsy · November 14, 2006

Quite honestly the topic doesn't interest me as much as it does yourself.
I am aware that there are legitimate concerns from those who want to review the law. Painting them as pedophiles is intelectually dishonest.

Why is it dishonest? Actually my question is quite honest. And simple.

If they are truly only fighting for equality, what do they have against raising the consent to 16...since it will be the same for everyone?

Why don't they want it raised to 16?

Can you explain that?

betsy · November 14, 2006

Because the concerns are legitimate, and painting them as pedophiles for having legitimate concerns is not intelectually honest.

My concern is legitimate. And based on the previous association of a major Gay/Lesbian group with some pedophile groups, one of which is a group called NAMBLA, which caused ILGA to be expelled from the UN by none other than Clinton himself (for the reason of the gay group's known association with pedophiles).....plus rumours that NAMBLA members are still very much around and had only gone "underground"...and now EGALE's insistence in fightng the raising of the age of consent....is naturallly, a very serious cause for concern to some of us. And it is suspicious...and frankly sounding alarm bells.

Is EGALE receiving any public funding? I would like to be certain that we are not funding pedophiles as well.

For that would be quite a travesty indeed...when on one hand we are purporting to be fighting pedophilia....while on the other hand, we are financially supporting it.

So why don't EGALE come clean and explain why they don't want to raise the age to 16?

Will you explain it then, Gerry? Maybe there's a perfect legitimate reason for it.

betsy · November 14, 2006

At this point, I am very much concerned about those troubled youths being "counselled" by EGALE.

I am concerned about the alleged LGBT youngsters (alleged lesbian-gay-bisexuals-transgender), who are confused and troubled.

I say "alleged", for if they are confused and troubled, the confusion could very well extend to their sexuality and identities as well...especially given the ages of these kids.

I want to know what constitutes this alleged "counselling"....that it is nothing like exploitation and manipulations of an already troubled youth...to gratify any other hidden motives or agenda.

That should be a major concern for all responsible adults in this society!

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?

Quite honestly the topic doesn't interest me as much as it does yourself.

Why, you find nothing wrong with pedophilia? A legitimized pedophilia, that is. Something that should not happen behind hidden corners of the churches...but a legitimized pedophilia perfectly appropriate to be done out in the open.

Mainstream. Acceptable. Normal-lifestyle....in the same way that homosexual lifestyle had achieved!

You are deliberately ignoring a very sensible and simple question....so you seem to support EGALE's position.

Therefore, I'm asking you, WHY? Help me understand.

betsy · November 14, 2006

Quite honestly the topic doesn't interest me as much as it does yourself.
I am aware that there are legitimate concerns from those who want to review the law. Painting them as pedophiles is intelectually dishonest.

Why Gerry?

15 and 16 year-olds deserve Government protection. Do you favour pedophiles preying on 15 and 16 year olds?

Hey Ricki, if this is public funded....don't we have the right to know?

I want to make damn sure we are not unconsciously funding some pedophiles fighting to legitimize themselves by using a group such as EGALE!

MightyAC · November 14, 2006

5 posts in a row wow Betsy you're really fired up. The tone of your posts seem to suggest that you're anti-gay...you're not one of those hateful lemmings are you Betsy?

Now that the close in age exemption was added I am in favour of raising the age of consent. However, I can understand why EGALE and Svend are against the bill.

First of all exploitive sex with anyone under 18 is already illegal, so our kids are already protected. Secondly, the teen years are a very hard time for gays. They have the same sexual urges and desires as the rest of us but often face humiliation, persecution and violence if they are outed. As a result many homosexuals do not become open about their sexual orientation until they are older, thus making it very hard for teen homosexuals to find partners. They argue that since young gays are often forced to seek relationships with people in their 20's the bill treats homosexuals unfairly. I can see their point but a line has to be drawn somewhere. I prefer the line to be drawn at 16. Too many stupid young teens think it's cool to be with someone older so this bill will help the situation.

I believe it was Mulroney that actually lowered the age of consent to 14 in the first place so let's try to keep the partisanship to a minimum. I would also request that the gay bashing be turned down a bit but I realize some of the lemmings believe their God commands it.

Technocrat · November 14, 2006

5 posts in a row wow Betsy you're really fired up. The tone of your posts seem to suggest that you're anti-gay...you're not one of those hateful lemmings are you Betsy?
Now that the close in age exemption was added I am in favour of raising the age of consent. However, I can understand why EGALE and Svend are against the bill.

First of all exploitive sex with anyone under 18 is already illegal, so our kids are already protected. Secondly, the teen years are a very hard time for gays. They have the same sexual urges and desires as the rest of us but often face humiliation, persecution and violence if they are outed. As a result many homosexuals do not become open about their sexual orientation until they are older, thus making it very hard for teen homosexuals to find partners. They argue that since young gays are often forced to seek relationships with people in their 20's the bill treats homosexuals unfairly. I can see their point but a line has to be drawn somewhere. I prefer the line to be drawn at 16. Too many stupid young teens think it's cool to be with someone older so this bill will help the situation.

I believe it was Mulroney that actually lowered the age of consent to 14 in the first place so let's try to keep the partisanship to a minimum. I would also request that the gay bashing be turned down a bit but I realize some of the lemmings believe their God commands it.

well said... If your teen is having consensual sex with a person much older then they are that is their choice(as long as the person is not in a professional position of trust ie Doctor, teacher ect.). Probably not a good choice, but a choice none the less. If it is non consensual then there it is clearly a criminal issue. The right always bitches about the 'nanny state' when it comes to social services... so why the overreaching into personal lives? Im not advocating for pedophiles here... but exactly what is the problem with having the age of consent at 14? Hell when i was in school kids were sexually active at 10 or 11, many more were by the age of 14, by 16 if you were not sexually(not nessarily having sex... but other things... u can fill that in yourself) active you were definitely in the minority(cripes don't even get me started on the catholic school kids). I just don't see what problem changing the age of consent from 14 to 16 is supposed to solve. When i was in highschool i was 17, dating a 15 year old, for a brief 2 weeks i turned 18 while she was still 15, her birthday was 2 weeks after mine so she turned 16 shortly thereafter. That would have made me a criminal for those 2 weeks... thats a little silly don't you think? Arbitrary numbers applied to complicated issues and situations are not the solution in they actually created a criminal where none existed.

To be perfectly honest this seems like another thinly veiled attempt to get the government back into the bedrooms of the nation. Don't get me wrong... sexual assault is sexual assault... raising the age of consent 2 years is really not going to have a real impact.

kimmy · November 14, 2006

well said... If your teen is having consensual sex with a person much older then they are that is their choice(as long as the person is not in a professional position of trust ie Doctor, teacher ect.). Probably not a good choice, but a choice none the less. If it is non consensual then there it is clearly a criminal issue. The right always bitches about the 'nanny state' when it comes to social services... so why the overreaching into personal lives? Im not advocating for pedophiles here... but exactly what is the problem with having the age of consent at 14?

By and large, 14 year olds lack maturity.

Hell when i was in school kids were sexually active at 10 or 11, many more were by the age of 14, by 16 if you were not sexually(not nessarily having sex... but other things... u can fill that in yourself) active you were definitely in the minority(cripes don't even get me started on the catholic school kids). I just don't see what problem changing the age of consent from 14 to 16 is supposed to solve. When i was in highschool i was 17, dating a 15 year old, for a brief 2 weeks i turned 18 while she was still 15, her birthday was 2 weeks after mine so she turned 16 shortly thereafter. That would have made me a criminal for those 2 weeks... thats a little silly don't you think? Arbitrary numbers applied to complicated issues and situations are not the solution in they actually created a criminal where none existed.

Do you actually know anything about the legislation that's being discussed? The law under discussion has a "close in age" clause that says it is not criminal to be sexually active with a 14 or 15 year old provided that you're within 5 years of their age. This legislation would not make you a criminal for getting with your 15 year old girlfriend while you were 18. Nor would it make criminals of the sexually curious highschool kids that you speak of.

To be perfectly honest this seems like another thinly veiled attempt to get the government back into the bedrooms of the nation. Don't get me wrong... sexual assault is sexual assault... raising the age of consent 2 years is really not going to have a real impact.

If by "get back into the bedrooms of the nation," you mean "discourage adults from getting with 14 year olds," then I agree...

As for how much impact this will have, that's certainly questionable... but conversely I don't see any reasonable objections to this bill that aren't addressed in the "close in age" clause.

-k

kimmy · November 14, 2006

Hopefully I will not be branded a hateful lemming for posting two in a row...

First of all exploitive sex with anyone under 18 is already illegal, so our kids are already protected.

Yeah, but the Ageofconsent.ca site claims that in Bill C-2, "the definition of 'exploitation' is quite broad and open to interpretation." Perhaps they hope that this will encourage people to believe that it could be used in situations where adults have taken advantage of gullible teens. In fact, it probably means the opposite... if the definition is "broad and open to interpretation", it's unlikely that it'll be used at all, except in the most glaring instances.

Secondly, the teen years are a very hard time for gays. They have the same sexual urges and desires as the rest of us but often face humiliation, persecution and violence if they are outed. As a result many homosexuals do not become open about their sexual orientation until they are older, thus making it very hard for teen homosexuals to find partners. They argue that since young gays are often forced to seek relationships with people in their 20's the bill treats homosexuals unfairly. I can see their point but a line has to be drawn somewhere. I prefer the line to be drawn at 16. Too many stupid young teens think it's cool to be with someone older so this bill will help the situation.

Gay teens are probably at an even higher risk of exploitation by predatory adults due to the factors you mention. There are more avenues available in the present day for them to find like-minded people of their own age. There are also more avenues available for predatory adults to contact them. I would suggest that going outside the age group is less necessary than it was when Svend was a teenager, and that since it's easier than ever for adult predators to identify and take advantage of confused kids, an additional deterent effect will be worthwhile.

I'm also somewhat disgruntled that I just used the word "necessary" in describing a 14-year olds' sex life. Since when is it "necessary", for either gay or straight kids, to find sexual partners before they're 16? I turned out to be a happy and well-adjusted person, and I wasn't sexually active until I was 18. I mean, if a gay 14 year old can't find a partner closer to his own age, is it really going to kill him to buy a jar of Vaseline and a copy of Muscle & Fitness and wait until he's 16?

-k

betsy · November 14, 2006

5 posts in a row wow Betsy you're really fired up. The tone of your posts seem to suggest that you're anti-gay...you're not one of those hateful lemmings are you Betsy?
Now that the close in age exemption was added I am in favour of raising the age of consent. However, I can understand why EGALE and Svend are against the bill.

First of all exploitive sex with anyone under 18 is already illegal, so our kids are already protected. Secondly, the teen years are a very hard time for gays. They have the same sexual urges and desires as the rest of us but often face humiliation, persecution and violence if they are outed. As a result many homosexuals do not become open about their sexual orientation until they are older, thus making it very hard for teen homosexuals to find partners. They argue that since young gays are often forced to seek relationships with people in their 20's the bill treats homosexuals unfairly. I can see their point but a line has to be drawn somewhere. I prefer the line to be drawn at 16. Too many stupid young teens think it's cool to be with someone older so this bill will help the situation.

Well I'm fired up, AC! And if posting 5 in a row makes me anti-gay...then I must be anti-gay!

And if explaining my concern for the youth makes me a hateful lemming...then I'm gladly a hateful lemming.

Now that we've cleared that part, and gotten your name-calling out of the way...I don't see what you are so fired about.

Apparently, we're both agreeable to the age 16!

From what I understand with your explanation, EGALE want 20 year old homosexuals to be able to have sex with 14 year olds? They're not satisfied with 16?

What's wrong with 16?

MightyAC · November 14, 2006

Well I'm fired up, AC! And if posting 5 in a row makes me anti-gay...then I must be anti-gay!

5, 10, 50 posts in a row doesn’t make you anti-gay, your anti-gay comments do though.

And if explaining my concern for the youth makes me a hateful lemming...then I'm gladly a hateful lemming.

No, having concerns for youth don't make you a hateful lemming. However, if your hatred of homosexuals stems from your religious views then you may just be a lemming.

Now that we've cleared that part, and gotten your name-calling out of the way...I don't see what you are so fired about.
Apparently, we're both agreeable to the age 16!

From what I understand with your explanation, EGALE want 20 year old homosexuals to be able to have sex with 14 year olds? They're not satisfied with 16?

What's wrong with 16?

Right I agree with 16, plus a close in age exemption. However in a previous post you asked "why don't EGALE come clean and explain why they don't want to raise the age to 16". I gave you their explanation and it's not a secret like you seem to imply. It took me 5 minutes to find an article explaining their position. It seems to me you like to accuse any politician or organization that lobbies on behalf of homosexuals as pedofiles.

I'm not sure if it is part of Bill C-22 but the old law that forbids anal sex until the age of 18 should also be abolished. If that's not a part of the bill right now hopefully it is corrected in committee.

FTA Lawyer · November 14, 2006

I'm not sure if it is part of Bill C-22 but the old law that forbids anal sex until the age of 18 should also be abolished. If that's not a part of the bill right now hopefully it is corrected in committee.

For housekeeping purposes, I agree with you that the Criminal Code section against anal sex until 18 [s. 159] should be formally repealed, but the fact of the matter is that it was declared unconstitutional in 1995 by the Ontario Court of Appeal, and in 1998 by the Quebec Court of Appeal, and I highly doubt you can come up with one instance of a charge being laid (no pun intended) under s. 159 since then.

FTA

scribblet · November 15, 2006

Betsy's posts show she's anti pedophilia, not anti Gay, big difference.

Anal sex is confined to age 18 under the law, for both male and female for good reason. We know that sodomy brings a higher medical risk with it for sure.

gerryhatrick · November 15, 2006

Betsy's posts show she's anti pedophilia, not anti Gay, big difference.

Actually, she continuously makes the implication that gays are pedophiles.

That is a hateful attack on gays, imo.

betsy · November 15, 2006

Betsy's posts show she's anti pedophilia, not anti Gay, big difference.

Actually, she continuously makes the implication that gays are pedophiles.

That is a hateful attack on gays, imo.

Nope. I do not say all gays are pedophiles. In fact, in several previous posts from other threads I had explained clearly that I do not believe all gays are pedophiles.

I had clearly stated that in another thread that I do not think EGALE is representing the whole gay community. I've always directed my tirade towards the leaders of EGALE! And had stated in another thread that EGALE could be hurting the gay community as a whole!

Gerry, we've had the same skirmish for so long now, in numerous threads. Yet you continuously refuse to understand....or deliberately ignore what I had clearly stated before....and insist on twisting my concerns and statements to mean otherwise.

I know you can be really stubborn and strong-willed with your view (as shown with your known opinion of Harper)......but this subject is beyond partisanship. It should be beyond partisanship. You should know by now that I do not care if you label me a bigot, an anti-gay or any other ugly name you could throw at me.

But I do question why you would do that...unless you want to intimidate me, to shut up.

And why would you want me to shut up? After all, you want to fight pedophilia and sexual abuse of minors....don't you? Am I right in assuming that of you?

gerryhatrick · November 15, 2006

Nope. I do not say all gays are pedophiles.

On page two you made the implication, and I said:

Ah. Gays = pedophiles. Very nice betsy.

To which you replied:

Well?
What am I supposed to think?

betsy · November 15, 2006

Well I'm fired up, AC! And if posting 5 in a row makes me anti-gay...then I must be anti-gay!

5, 10, 50 posts in a row doesn’t make you anti-gay, your anti-gay comments do though.

And if explaining my concern for the youth makes me a hateful lemming...then I'm gladly a hateful lemming.

No, having concerns for youth don't make you a hateful lemming. However, if your hatred of homosexuals stems from your religious views then you may just be a lemming.

Now that we've cleared that part, and gotten your name-calling out of the way...I don't see what you are so fired about.
Apparently, we're both agreeable to the age 16!

From what I understand with your explanation, EGALE want 20 year old homosexuals to be able to have sex with 14 year olds? They're not satisfied with 16?

What's wrong with 16?

Right I agree with 16, plus a close in age exemption. However in a previous post you asked "why don't EGALE come clean and explain why they don't want to raise the age to 16". I gave you their explanation and it's not a secret like you seem to imply. It took me 5 minutes to find an article explaining their position. It seems to me you like to accuse any politician or organization that lobbies on behalf of homosexuals as pedofiles.

I'm not sure if it is part of Bill C-22 but the old law that forbids anal sex until the age of 18 should also be abolished. If that's not a part of the bill right now hopefully it is corrected in committee.

So I ask again....what is wrong with the age 16? You and I agree on that it seems. I agree for the reason that it achieved the equality EGALE had been fighting for...and it satisfy those of us who think 14 is just too young. So everyone should be happy, right?

I do not accuse any politician or organization that lobbies on behalf of homosexuals as pedophiles.

BUT let's just say I do not completely trust EGALE...due to the unsavory history of a major gay/lesbian group that was found to have been working alongside pedophile groups. I do not know if you had read an old topic titled "Pedophiles waiting in line" and another old topic called "EGALE". In those two topics I had explained my position and provided sources that backed up my position.

If you think that is an anti-gay comment....hey, what can I say. I know that it is not....but that's your opinion.

I think we should not hesitate to question or point out or give our insights....just because somebody else might think what we say is anti-this or anti-that! We live in a democratic society after all.

betsy · November 15, 2006

Nope. I do not say all gays are pedophiles.

On page two you made the implication, and I said:

Ah. Gays = pedophiles. Very nice betsy.

To which you replied:

Well?
What am I supposed to think?

Gerry, why didn't you post my entire reply? You left things out to make it sound like the way you want it to sound. You were trolling with your silly little innuendo! Obviously you know I was talking of EGALE!

Here is the complete post:

"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"

scribblet · November 15, 2006

The NDP are hypocrites, they pay lip service to the issue of protecting children then refuse to support a law which will help keep sexual predators away from our children. Anyway they spin this, NDP and EGALE come off as if they really want to have easier access to our children.

MightyAC · November 15, 2006

The NDP are hypocrites, they pay lip service to the issue of protecting children then refuse to support a law which will help keep sexual predators away from our children. Anyway they spin this, NDP and EGALE come off as if they really want to have easier access to our children.

Considering their entire focus is to represent the issues of homosexuals I think EGALE makes some valid points. However, I can't understand why the NDP would oppose it though. Most Canadians want this bill, it protects far more people than it inconveniences and I'd guess that the majority of their supporters are straight.

mcqueen625 · November 15, 2006

5 posts in a row wow Betsy you're really fired up. The tone of your posts seem to suggest that you're anti-gay...you're not one of those hateful lemmings are you Betsy?
Now that the close in age exemption was added I am in favour of raising the age of consent. However, I can understand why EGALE and Svend are against the bill.

First of all exploitive sex with anyone under 18 is already illegal, so our kids are already protected. Secondly, the teen years are a very hard time for gays. They have the same sexual urges and desires as the rest of us but often face humiliation, persecution and violence if they are outed. As a result many homosexuals do not become open about their sexual orientation until they are older, thus making it very hard for teen homosexuals to find partners. They argue that since young gays are often forced to seek relationships with people in their 20's the bill treats homosexuals unfairly. I can see their point but a line has to be drawn somewhere. I prefer the line to be drawn at 16. Too many stupid young teens think it's cool to be with someone older so this bill will help the situation.

I believe it was Mulroney that actually lowered the age of consent to 14 in the first place so let's try to keep the partisanship to a minimum. I would also request that the gay bashing be turned down a bit but I realize some of the lemmings believe their God commands it.

First of all I believe, but correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't law now allow adults to develop relationships with anyone over the age of 14 years, and the exception only kicks in if that adult happens to be in a position of trust, IE: preacher, councellor, teacher, police officer, probation officer, etc. It does not presently prohibit the ordinary adult from presuing such a relationship with anyone over the age of consent, which presently happens to be 14. I'm all for raising the age of consent to at least 16, the exemption of the 5 year clause. This will legally put a stop to any adult from manipulating or otherwise coericing a child into such a relationship. It won't prevent it from happening, but it will allow those caught to be prosecuted, unless one of our moronic, appointed, unaccountable judges rules off the wall as they do more often than not in this country.

I see that the Justices of teh Supreme Court do not want the police to have any say in appointments to the bench. I wonder why, are they afraid rthey may be held accountable for some of their asinine rulings, that they actually be answerable to someone other than themselves in their ivory castles?