Age of Consent Hearings Moving Forward

Adelle · April 18, 2007

“It is my understanding that the proposed amendment (Joe Comartin NDP) was to the Canada Evidence Act that will make information to do with internet luring non-compellable.”

“Health care workers have a great concern about this bill and the situation of those youth who are in a relationship that is greater than five years and who contract a sexually transmitted disease. Under those circumstances, because of provincial law, people who go in to get treatment and care have to disclose all of their sexual partners. Those youth who did that may very well find that the evidence would be compelled to be used in a court of law against their partner. They would not want to do that and therefore, they may very well resist going for treatment and care, according to the health care workers. I will be proposing an amendment to the Canada Evidence Act that will make that information non-compellable. There is precedent for this in our law. It would be a wise amendment. It would protect our youth. It would ensure that they got treatment if they were to contract those types of illnesses and diseases. At the same time, it would protect them in terms of the balance of the bill from being used as bait by predators.”

He seems to be talking about health care information here, not internet luring information.

guyser · April 18, 2007

I'm not a lawyer, but in terms of a 14 year old and a 35 year old, doesn't the Charter stand in the way? I mean if the law says it's ok for an 18 yr old to boink a 14 yr old, is it not discrimination according to section 15 (1) to preclude a 35 year old from doing the same? Won't this immediately run into a charter challenge?

I believe this part covers it.

"with narrow exceptions for consensual activity between young persons less than two years apart in age. " (PRB99-3E)"

ScottSA · April 18, 2007

I'm not a lawyer, but in terms of a 14 year old and a 35 year old, doesn't the Charter stand in the way? I mean if the law says it's ok for an 18 yr old to boink a 14 yr old, is it not discrimination according to section 15 (1) to preclude a 35 year old from doing the same? Won't this immediately run into a charter challenge?

I believe this part covers it.

"with narrow exceptions for consensual activity between young persons less than two years apart in age. " (PRB99-3E)"

I don't think that's what I'm getting at...where is the section you cited found? It's not in the charter, is it?

Adelle · April 18, 2007

I believe this part covers it.
"with narrow exceptions for consensual activity between young persons less than two years apart in age. " (PRB99-3E)"

Actually, that only refers to persons age 12 and 13, at present. Persons age 14 and above are not restricted as to the age of their partner age 14 to 114 (can you say necrophilia?).

guyser · April 18, 2007

I don't think that's what I'm getting at...where is the section you cited found? It's not in the charter, is it?

Oh you mean facts have relevance in this discussion? Sheesh...there goes my post.

Seriously, I do recall an age variant being involved , and I thought it to mean anyone over 12 and under 18 could have sex IF the variant were no more than 2 years. I saw in Adelle's post similar info , but failed to note the restriction (which she has shown on a subsequent post).

Fear not. All is not lost. The 14 year old daughter still has to pass "Dads Law of Rights and Freedoms" and they can be unbearingly brutal. Just ask a teenager.

Thanks for the clarification Adelle

Adelle · April 18, 2007

"a 40 something man who screws around with a 14 year old is a pedophile."

Actually, he or she is a hebophile, a pedophile is a person who is sexually attracted to a child (<14) not a youth (14-18). Presently, this is not illegal in Canada nor in a number of other nations.

Please keep in mind that sex is as much a part of developing an adult identity as anything else in a teens life. And please stop infering that teens are mindless bags of hormones that must be protected from themselves. Sure we have issues, so do adults, but we all grow through our experiances. I may regret many things I choose to do between now and the day I die (especially the thing that made me die) but I'd rather live life than second guess it all the time.

scribblet · April 18, 2007

There two proposed amendments The first amendment was to "harmonize" the age of consent for anal relations with heterosexual relations. The second amendment was to modify the Evidence Act which would have created a loophole for predators.

geoffrey · April 18, 2007

Please keep in mind that sex is as much a part of developing an adult identity as anything else in a teens life. And please stop infering that teens are mindless bags of hormones that must be protected from themselves. Sure we have issues, so do adults, but we all grow through our experiances. I may regret many things I choose to do between now and the day I die (especially the thing that made me die) but I'd rather live life than second guess it all the time.

Your right to some extent, but experiences shouldn't include exploitation by older people that should know better.

ScottSA · April 18, 2007

"a 40 something man who screws around with a 14 year old is a pedophile."

Actually, he or she is a hebophile, a pedophile is a person who is sexually attracted to a child (<14) not a youth (14-18). Presently, this is not illegal in Canada nor in a number of other nations.

Please keep in mind that sex is as much a part of developing an adult identity as anything else in a teens life. And please stop infering that teens are mindless bags of hormones that must be protected from themselves. Sure we have issues, so do adults, but we all grow through our experiances. I may regret many things I choose to do between now and the day I die (especially the thing that made me die) but I'd rather live life than second guess it all the time.

You have a mature outlook and well developed sense of humour for a teenager!

scribblet · April 18, 2007

To qualify harmonization, it mean to lower the age of consent for an.l sex.

The new law raises the age to 16, with a close in age exception of five years

Some committee witnesses were opposed to the bill such as: Canadian AIDS Society, Egale Canada, Canadian Federation for Sexual Health and Regroupement québécois des Centres d'aide et de lutte contre les agressions à caractère s_xuel. To read their testimony against raising the age of protection and in favour of lowering the age of s_domy: http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/committ...htm#Int-1979927

The United Nations defines a child as anyone under the age of 18 so, the least we can do is raise the age of protection to 16.

Adelle · April 18, 2007

You have a mature outlook and well developed sense of humour for a teenager!

Why, thankyou sir. I'm 18 now, so legally I am an adult (kin vote n everythin) but am still a teen for a little while.

Your right to some extent, but experiences shouldn't include exploitation by older people that should know better.

You're right, but it usually does which is how we eventually 'know better'. I disagree with exploitation or abuse of any persons at any age, and not just as regards sex. People get totally twisted about the sex thing, even when it healthy and consentual, expecially where non-adults are concerned. I've gotten in trouble for my views on that subject more than once but if we (teens/girls/women) don't stand up and be heard we could be 'protected' right into burkas and hareems (as an example).

Adelle · April 18, 2007

Regarding a previous 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.

Ah. Gays = pedophiles.

As it is, gays are no more prone to sexual offences than are hetero’s. Pedophiles and hebophiles exist across all racial, sexual and class lines. Pedo’s are generally reviled everywhere while hebo’s are more tolerated, even in the USA. What isn’t tolerated, nor should be, are violence, abuse and exploitation regardless of the ages of those involved. Not every teen sexual experience is an offence and shouldn’t be treated as such. We, as a society, need to focus our efforts to protect those who actually need and want protection. In Canada we have educated and empowered our youth regarding their sexuality, allowing us to recognize as sexual offences those things that actually are offences and concentrate on those. We neither criminalize out teens nor turn them into automatic ‘victims’. We have told out lawmakers to keep their hands off our sexuality, that it is ours to do with as WE choose, that we are not helpless and require no more or less protection than any other person.

This is what I found regarding NAMBLA:

The North American Man/Boy Love Association opposes the use of age as the sole criterion for deciding whether minors can legally engage in sexual relations. NAMBLA defends what it asserts to be the right of minors to explore their sexuality more freely and calls for "the adoption of laws that both protect children from unwanted sexual experiences and at the same time leave them free to determine the content of their own sexual experiences." Opponents argue that pre-pubescent children in particular are not capable of giving consent and that the power imbalance between adults and children makes any sexual relationship exploitative. Some gay groups, Christian groups, anti-sexual abuse organizations, law enforcement agencies and other critics see NAMBLA as a front for the criminal sexual exploitation of children. However, NAMBLA's webpage states that it does not "engage in any activities that violate the law [or] advocate that anyone else should [violate the law]." Suspicion pertaining to the group's activities led both the U.S. Senate and U.S. Postal Service to conduct investigations of the group, both of which concluded without allegations of legal impropriety. Today almost all gay rights groups disavow any ties to NAMBLA, voice disapproval of its objectives, and attempt to prevent NAMBLA from having a role in gay and lesbian rights events. Its national headquarters now consists of little more than a private mail box service in San Francisco, and inquiries are rarely responded to. More recently, media reports have suggested that for practical purposes the group no longer exists and that it consists only of a web site maintained by a few enthusiasts. It has essentially ceased to exist.

In the summer of 1993 the ILGA gained consultative status on the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) as a Non-Governmental-Organization, joining 3,000 organisations throughout the world. However, that status was suspended in 1994 after a campaign led by Jesse Helms focussing on NAMBLA's membership in ILGA.

Following this ILGA, by a vote of 214-30 expelled NAMBLA and two other groups in early 1994 because they were judged to be "groups whose predominant aim is to support or promote pedophilia." On December 11th 2006, ILGA-Europe (along with LSVD and LBL) were successful in being granted ECOSOC consultative status.

NAMBLA, when it existed, was working toward changing the law regarding ‘age of consent’. The right to attempt to change a law through peaceful and legal means is the right of any individual or group. NAMBLA was entitled to this right and all other rights afforded a citizen of the USA however so many people disagreed with them so strongly that they no longer exist. Democracy in action. That is also the right of every citizen. We can’t pick and choose our rights or who gets to enjoy them.

Adelle · April 18, 2007

The United Nations defines a child as anyone under the age of 18 so, the least we can do is raise the age of protection to 16.

"For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier. " (Convention on the Rights of the Child, UNHCHR)

Yes, and at the same time we can drop the Age of Majority to 16. This is what the UN is talking about, rather than the Age of (Sexual) Consent. They don't even discuss sex until Article 34 and that refers only to sexual exploitation.

"Article 34

States Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. For these purposes, States Parties shall in particular take all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent:

a. The inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity; (Child Sex Trafficing)

b. The exploitative use of children in prostitution or other unlawful sexual practices; (Child Prostitution)

c. The exploitative use of children in pornographic performances and materials. " (Child Pornography)

The part I like is:

Article 16

1. No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation.

2. The child has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

And I love this section of the Preamble:

Convinced that the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community,

Recognizing that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding,

Considering that the child should be fully prepared to live an individual life in society, and brought up in the spirit of the ideals proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, and in particular in the spirit of peace, dignity, tolerance, freedom, equality and solidarity,

geoffrey · April 18, 2007

You're right, but it usually does which is how we eventually 'know better'. I disagree with exploitation or abuse of any persons at any age, and not just as regards sex. People get totally twisted about the sex thing, even when it healthy and consentual, expecially where non-adults are concerned. I've gotten in trouble for my views on that subject more than once but if we (teens/girls/women) don't stand up and be heard we could be 'protected' right into burkas and hareems (as an example).

Absolutely, any law has to be very justified to limit anyone's individual liberty. I really have little problem with my divide by 2 add seven proposal, I really do think there is some questionable activity when a 25 or 26 year old is dating someone in their mid-teens. It goes beyond a choice on the younger person's part to some very likely coercion on the older person's part.

We don't let 14 year olds drink for a reason, unfortunately that line is arbitrary and some people are likely more mature at 14 than many of the people I see the bar in their twenties. But a line has to be drawn somewhere, preferably one that limits interference in people's free choices but still protects those vunerable from interference of those that should know better.

Adelle · April 18, 2007

I think that the single greatest weapon in a person’s arsenal is education. On my website I declared that “Knowledge is power, power is freedom”. Teens have a lot more access to information now, particularly regarding sexuality, than at any time in the past. In Sex Ed here, beginning in Grade 1, we are taught to know our bodies, know that they are OUR bodies and know when someone steps over the line. We are taught to know the difference between healthy exploration and abuse and it is made very clear that, whatever else, the fault is not ours, the shame is not ours and that we must TELL someone, anyone, in order to stop a situation we feel is abusive. When I was 14 my friend and I were both ‘goosed’ by a guy on a public street in broad daylight. He walked away limping and we reported it to police right away. I don’t know if they caught the guy but I hope our actions and our refusal to be victims made him reconsider his ‘hobby’.

Of course there is more to Sex Ed than that. Children and teens have an insatiable hunger for knowledge about our changing bodies and emerging sexuality. "Sex education classes are really good for health information. But we also need to deal with the social and relationship issues around sexuality," says Jan Selman, drama department chair at the University of Alberta. “ While more teens are having sex younger, they don't always have the skills to negotiate their boundaries and communicate effectively with one another. Amazing numbers of teens are (sexually) active to some degree and we owe it to them to make sure they're safe and prepared." As noted in the article “Sex-ed for the future” (http://lifewise.canoe.ca/SexRomance/SexFiles/2006/10/11/2000727.html) we are now using a made-in-Alberta interactive play and workshop for 14 to 16 year olds, called” Are We There Yet?” to address this as well.

A good martial arts class wouldn’t be a bad idea either. We can hobble the predators all we want, but we must also work to make our children and ourselves less inviting prey. Though education (Sex ED) is VERY important and training (Martial Arts) a desirable alternative to 'stay in the herd and hope' they are only two strands of the safety net. In truth, in addition to prevention, there must also be strong deterrents and enforcement to insure the protection of children, teens and adults from abuse and exploitation.

Adelle · April 18, 2007

We don't let 14 year olds drink for a reason

No doubt, as alcohol (beer/wine/liquour) is as much drug as nicoteen (tobacco) and THC (marijuana) and can subject the user to addiction. Of course, people have started to talk about sex addiction now, too. And food addiction, which causes obesity. Fitness addiction would be good, but requires too much effort to catch on.

Though I am not much into rec drugs (especially when you have no clue as to what it really is) or smoking, moderation seems to be the key. I have been able to drink alcohol since I could hold a glass of wine. My family has a very euro outlook on the subject, were beer is considered a 'soft drink'. The thing that makes the diff is experience so that, at 18, I didn't go nuts at the bar and turn into a drooling idiot. (Just a drink, not a right of passage.) Same with sex, I learned about it, I experienced it, I explored it, I demystified it so it wasn't a big deal in my life. (No life isn't a soap and isn't about getting laid every weekend.) That strikes me as much more sensible than the alternative; stumbling into it, fumbling through it, getting prego and becoming a single mom or getting married to some guy who is as unprepared as you are. (How totally 20th Century.) Yeah, like that abstance thing (don't teach, don't learn, don't do) really works - have you seen the stats for STD's and teen pregnancies in the USA vs Cda and Europe?

Anyway, just a thought.

geoffrey · April 19, 2007

Though I am not much into rec drugs (especially when you have no clue as to what it really is) or smoking, moderation seems to be the key. I have been able to drink alcohol since I could hold a glass of wine. My family has a very euro outlook on the subject, were beer is considered a 'soft drink'. The thing that makes the diff is experience so that, at 18, I didn't go nuts at the bar and turn into a drooling idiot. (Just a drink, not a right of passage.)

Beer was never a soft drink, but wine was with most family meals, it was a way of life. Still is for me, I have a glass of wine with dinner almost everyday. I also tend to enjoy alcohol more responsibly than my friends... is it because I was always around it? I don't know. There are lots of people that don't drink at all and they seem to be doing just as good.

Yeah, like that abstance thing (don't teach, don't learn, don't do) really works - have you seen the stats for STD's and teen pregnancies in the USA vs Cda and Europe?
Anyway, just a thought.

Abstinance isn't taught in Canada as far as I know, and good for that. I don't have a problem with them making the obvious statement that not having sex is 100% safe, but sex ed must be mandatory for all kids. I don't understand why parents need to consent to that aspect of education, it's rather silly to me.

I'm not sure if that's the complete answer though Adelle. At my former high school, a teacher had a long term relationship with a student (he was married and had kids), that student did take sex ed courses. Education is a powerful tool, but the law needs to be there too to prevent things like that from happening.

Anecdotally, he got 3 months of house arrest.

scribblet · May 8, 2007

It passed with unanimous upport from all three parties!

A big thank you to all who wrote and called your MP’s office in support of this critical child protection bill over the years! You made a difference!

After four tense weeks Bill C-22 passed third reading in the House of Commons on Friday, May 4. Although some MPs were opposed to the bill, the three parties were able to reach an agreement on the bill behind the scenes prior to Friday afternoon’s vote which allowed it to pass quickly, at that point. Thus, there was no debate at third reading or a need for a recorded vote on the bill.

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/P...41#SOB-2057902)

The bill will now go before the Senate for final consideration and hopefully passage before summer.

II) Highlights of the Age of Protection Bill Read the full text of the bill here as passed at third reading:

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/P...nguage=e&Mode=1

1) Consent No Longer an Excuse – The accused can no longer use the excuse that the victim consented to the act.

2) Mistaken Age No Longer an Excuse – The accused can no longer use the defence that he was mistaken about the victim’s age (unless the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the complainant.).

3) Only Age 16, Not 18 - The United Nations defines a child as anyone under the age of 18. it is a significant step. If the bill passes the Senate and receives royal assent Canada will no longer have the lowest age of protection in the Western world.

4) Close-In-Age Exemption Loophole - The bill contains a “close-in-age” exemption so that consensual teenage relations will not be criminalized, provided that the older partner is not in a position of trust or authority over the younger teen and the relationship is not exploitative. For 12 and 13 year olds the close in age exemption is less than 2 years. For 14 and 15 year olds, the close in age exemption is less than 5 years. This means that a 13 year old could have relations with a 12 year old, and that a 19 year old could have relations with a 15 year old without being criminally charged.

5) Marriage & Common-Law Loop-hole – The Justice Committee approved one amendment regarding common-law and marriage relationships for “transitional purposes” between the previous age of consent law (14) and the new law (16). This amendment was approved by the House at third reading.

The bill creates “an exception for transitional purposes in respect of an accused who engages in sexual activity with a 14- or 15-year-old youth and who is five or more years older than the youth if, on the day on which this Act comes into force, the accused is married to the youth. The exception also applies to the accused if, on the day on which this Act comes into force, he or she is the common-law partner of the youth or has been cohabiting with the youth in a conjugal relationship for less than one year and they have had or are expecting to have a child as a result of the relationship, and the sexual activity was not otherwise prohibited before that day.”

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/P...&Mode=1&File=19 (SUMMARY)

“In those cases, the close-in-age exception does not apply and the relationship is legal regardless of the age of the older partner. Statistics Canada figures showed that in 2001 there were about 316 15-year-olds who were legally married or in common-law relationships. Most provinces ban marriage under age 16, but make exceptions when the girl is pregnant.” http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...11-eb06d01b6954

sharkman · May 9, 2007

Now let's hope the new legislation has some teeth to throw child molesters in prison with.

scribblet · May 9, 2007

The bill has go before the Senate which has a Liberal majority, it is not assured. Mind you, I think if they don't pass it will increase support for abolishing their jobs.

I'm not clear what the following means, if appears that it is an attempt to remove the age of consent alltogether for anal sex. There's nothing on his website

http://www.xtra.ca/public/viewstory.aspx?A...B_TEMPLATE_ID=3

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/may/07050708.html

NDPer Comartin, is now attempting to eliminate the requirement of an age of consent for anal sex altogether. In a private members bill introduced Wednesday Comartin seeks to strike down the Criminal Code clause restricting anal sex to those 18 and over.

sharkman · May 9, 2007

What is Comartin thinking? He's not going to win any browny points from his voters with a bill like that.

scribblet · May 10, 2007

What is Comartin thinking? He's not going to win any browny points from his voters with a bill like that.

I'm not sure, I would like to see some clarification on it. If this means doing away with the age of consent all together for this practice (which it sounds like) or equalizing it.

Shakeyhands · May 10, 2007

shouldn't the age for consent for anal sex be the same as vaginal sex? why did the CPC choose not to make these two acts equal?

scribblet · May 10, 2007

The justice committee threw the amendments out. I suppose it should be equalized now that the age is 16 (well if the senate passes it) but personally I would rather see it stay at 18.

To me the act of buggery seem to like a rather brutual attack against either male or female, but more importantly participants in that type of act are more at risk health wise, this practice can have lethal consequences. I'm not sure why anyone would want to promote this type of practice, at least at an earlier age.

Shakeyhands · May 10, 2007

The justice committee threw the amendments out. I suppose it should be equalized now that the age is 16 (well if the senate passes it) but personally I would rather see it stay at 18.
To me the act of buggery seem to like a rather brutual attack against either male or female, but more importantly participants in that type of act are more at risk health wise, this practice can have lethal consequences. I'm not sure why anyone would want to promote this type of practice, at least at an earlier age.

sounds like you are saying it wouldn't be consensual, if thats the case it wouldn't matter age of consent.

As far as health risks go, I don't think itsw any more dangerous, though precautions would need to be taken I suspect. What about oral sex? where does that fall in to the mix?