Age of Consent Hearings Moving Forward

[betsy]

So in considering the age factor, a whole lot of physical damage could result in anal sex with a 14 year old.

The same applies to buttsex with a 40 year old.

But being young makes some difference since the 14 year old is under-developed physically compared to a 40 year old. Besides the 40 year old has the maturity to make a decision for himself.

[scribblet]

When you boil it all down it is simply a case of protecting our most vulnerable (young people) and keeping them safe from predators. As far as I'm concerned with the difference in age protection, we are doing the right thing. If people are opposed to this because they want easier sexual access to you people, then I know we can't be wrong. Anyway you cut, those opposed to raising it are simply reinforcing that point.

[MightyAC]

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

Can you define "exploitive"? If I have a sexual relationship with a 14 year old girl, that in iteself is not, by law "exploitive". Maybe if I'm putting her on the street or something, but otherwise I don't think so. Do you know of any case where anyone has ever been convicted under this law?

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.

Teen years are very hard for everyone, and lots of people have a hard time finding partners. But finding someone to have sex with is not a desperate necessity of life for most fourteen year olds. Certainly it's not so desperate that we, as a society, have to welcome the kindly volunteer work of forty year old gay men who want to bend the little boys over and have at them.

I believe it was Mulroney that actually lowered the age of consent to 14 in the first place

Just as in the case of your belief that it's desperately important for 14 year olds to have sex with adults, you are wrong.

So Argus read my post where I said I agree with the age of consent being changed to 16 along with a close in age exemption. In the same post I explained to Betsy, the position of EGALE as she seems hell bent on labeling all gays as pedophiles. Argus then pulls out a couple snippets of my explanation and states I believe it is "desperately important for 14 year olds to have sex with adults".

Argus I'm not sure why you are so blatantly dishonest, especially when I agree with raising the age to 16. When you take portions of a post out of context and misrepresent a position like that what do you hope to achieve? Are you hoping that most people haven't read the thread before reading you message?

As far as being wrong about the Mulroney government lowering the age of consent from 16 to 14, I have read several articles that have made that claim. If that claim is wrong please explain who did lower the age of consent to 14 from 16 in 1987.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/nov/02110405.html

http://www.c-a-s-e.net/Bill%20C313/Bill%20...nt%20%20Law.htm

http://rationalreasons.blogspot.com/2006/0...-and-order.html

[betsy]

So Argus read my post where I said I agree with the age of consent being changed to 16 along with a close in age exemption. In the same post I explained to Betsy, the position of EGALE as she seems hell bent on labeling all gays as pedophiles. Argus then pulls out a couple snippets of my explanation and states I believe it is "desperately important for 14 year olds to have sex with adults".

Argus I'm not sure why you are so blatantly dishonest, especially when I agree with raising the age to 16. When you take portions of a post out of context and misrepresent a position like that what do you hope to achieve? Are you hoping that most people haven't read the thread before reading you message?

But you take things out of context. You insist that I am, "hell bent on labelling all gays as pedophiles."

Attacking an organization that purports to "speak for all gays" (which we know is not true).....is not attacking all gays!

If you had read the old topics "Pedophiles waiting in Line", and "EGALE"....you would understand where I'm coming from. In a nutshell, when ILGA was working with pedophile groups, most notably NAMBLA....only the high offcials of ILGA knew what was happening! Majority of their members did not know that the leaders of ILGA were in bed with pedophiles!

[Black Dog]

When you boil it all down it is simply a case of protecting our most vulnerable (young people) and keeping them safe from predators.

How? It only applies if the cops find out and even then only after the fact. I wonder: would the suporters of this bill also be in favour of increased comprehensive sex education for kids 14 and under?

[Hydraboss]

Absolutely.

[kimmy]

The problem with that, as I've argued already, is that the definition of "exploitive" is said to be "broad and open to interpretation", which I suspect in practical terms means it's virtually useless.

IOW it's arbitrary. Kinda like deciding that 16 year olds are inherently more mature than 14 year olds.

I disagree. "Broad and open to interpretation" is pretty much the exact opposite of "arbitrary".

Here's arbitrary: if you're a grown man, and you're bagging a 14 year old, you're violating the law. That's arbitrary. It's black and white. It doesn't depend on how liberal a judge's definition of "exploitive" might be, or on any particular interpretation of the youth's intentions or capability of forming "consent".

But by and large? I'd say yes, on the whole, 16 year olds are on average far more physically and emotionally and mentally mature.

I beg to differ simply because it's such a broad generalization. Kids mature physically a lot earlier hese days than they used to. A girl who's hormones have cranked up at 12 may be settled by 14, while there are other kids who haven't even hit puberty by 16.

But where's the smart money, BD? Statistically speaking, don't you think there's going to be a considerable difference, on average, between 14 year olds and 16 year olds?

The argument you're making could be (and has been) applied equally to every single age-based law in our society. Driving age, drinking age, voting age, and others... whether people are actually appropriately mature for these responsibilities varies from individual to individual. However, as a society we use arbitrary guidelines because considering every individual on a case by case is impractical. We accept the use of arbitrary guidelines, and simply do our best to place these arbitrary lines in the most appropriate place based on a number of factors.

In this instance, I think that putting the guideline for having sex with grownup people at 16 rather than 14 seems like a better place for the arbitrary line.

Like I said, it's totally arbitrary and emotionally-based. Personally, I don't care if they raise it (I don't think 14 year olds should be having sex, but then I also don't expect them to listen to me). I just don't see it doing a helluva lot. It's a lot of sizzle for very little steak.

Well, I agree that in practice the number of cases that this might actually be applied to is probably pretty small in the overall scheme of things, but I don't see that as an actual objection.

While the kids themselves might be unlikely to change their behavior in any case, this might have an effect on any adults who might be considering having sex with a young person.

How? It only applies if the cops find out and even then only after the fact.

Don't you think that this bill could have a deterent effect on adults who might be considering getting with a young person?

It seems to me that the knowledge that you'd be violating a cut-and-dried rule would be a little scarier than the knowledge that you're violating a vague guideline that's easy to weasel out of.

I wonder: would the suporters of this bill also be in favour of increased comprehensive sex education for kids 14 and under?

Personally, I would be, but that's beside the point.

Supporters of this bill at the very least have to recognize that the bill does not (and isn't intended to) deter teenagers from having sex with each other, and as such sex education remains a necessity.

-k

[Black Dog]

I disagree. "Broad and open to interpretation" is pretty much the exact opposite of "arbitrary".

Eh. NO.

Arbitrary: subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion.

Here's arbitrary: if you're a grown man, and you're bagging a 14 year old, you're violating the law. That's arbitrary. It's black and white. It doesn't depend on how liberal a judge's definition of "exploitive" might be, or on any particular interpretation of the youth's intentions or capability of forming "consent

That would be absolute, not abritrary.

But where's the smart money, BD? Statistically speaking, don't you think there's going to be a considerable difference, on average, between 14 year olds and 16 year olds?

The argument you're making could be (and has been) applied equally to every single age-based law in our society. Driving age, drinking age, voting age, and others... whether people are actually appropriately mature for these responsibilities varies from individual to individual. However, as a society we use arbitrary guidelines because considering every individual on a case by case is impractical. We accept the use of arbitrary guidelines, and simply do our best to place these arbitrary lines in the most appropriate place based on a number of factors.

Then say so. Don't coat it in specious statements about maturity. Just cop to the fact that yeah, 16 is better than 14 not because of any quantifiable factor but simply because it seems less icky.

Don't you think that this bill could have a deterent effect on adults who might be considering getting with a young person?

Maybe, but then an adult willing to have sex with a 14 year old is probably not going to be deterred and vice versa.

Personally, I would be, but that's beside the point.

Supporters of this bill at the very least have to recognize that the bill does not (and isn't intended to) deter teenagers from having sex with each other, and as such sex education remains a necessity.

I don't think its beside the point at all. Teaching kids about healthy sexual choices (ie. not fucking someone way older than you) is, IMV, a necessary corollary to this type of thing. Yet experience tells me the moralizing "think of the children" types are also generally the most oppossed to kids actually learning about sexuality.

[kimmy]

But where's the smart money, BD? Statistically speaking, don't you think there's going to be a considerable difference, on average, between 14 year olds and 16 year olds?

The argument you're making could be (and has been) applied equally to every single age-based law in our society. Driving age, drinking age, voting age, and others... whether people are actually appropriately mature for these responsibilities varies from individual to individual. However, as a society we use arbitrary guidelines because considering every individual on a case by case is impractical. We accept the use of arbitrary guidelines, and simply do our best to place these arbitrary lines in the most appropriate place based on a number of factors.

Then say so. Don't coat it in specious statements about maturity. Just cop to the fact that yeah, 16 is better than 14 not because of any quantifiable factor but simply because it seems less icky.

Just because "maturity" isn't a quantifiable factor doesn't mean that there's no merit to the view that by and large 16 year olds are more mature than 14 year olds.

If you object to the idea of putting that line at 16, let me ask you this: what makes an arbitrary line at 14 any better? The argument that you're advancing-- 14 year olds have already entered puberty, there's no quanitifiable difference between 14 year olds and 16 year olds, there's individual exceptions, etc, could just as easily be applied to an arbitrary line between 14 and 13. Are you opposed to the idea of arbitrary lines in principle, or are we just bickering over where that arbitrary line should be?

Do you use public transit? Next week, try getting on a bus that stops outside a highschool at around 3:30. And the next day, try a route that stops outside a junior highschool at 3:30. And get back to me on the subject of whether you feel 16 year olds are different from 14 year olds.

Don't you think that this bill could have a deterent effect on adults who might be considering getting with a young person?

Maybe, but then an adult willing to have sex with a 14 year old is probably not going to be deterred and vice versa.

Well, that depends. A person just tempted to do it on a lark would probably think twice. A person for whom it was a compulsion might not be deterred. But, at least society would have a much more effective tool with which to deal with somebody for whom having sex with young teens is a compulsion.

I don't think its beside the point at all. Teaching kids about healthy sexual choices (ie. not fucking someone way older than you) is, IMV, a necessary corollary to this type of thing. Yet experience tells me the moralizing "think of the children" types are also generally the most oppossed to kids actually learning about sexuality.

When I said "beside the point," I meant that my opinion on the matter was beside the point, not that sexual education was beside the point.

Arguing this issue based on peoples' views on sex education strikes me as being a lot like arguing abortion access based on its opponents' views on the death penalty. Whatever Vic Toews' views on sex education are... what input does he have into provincial education curriculums?

-k

[Black Dog]

Just because "maturity" isn't a quantifiable factor doesn't mean that there's no merit to the view that by and large 16 year olds are more mature than 14 year olds.

There's emotional merit; not the kind of merit you can support with evidence. "Maturity" itself is an arbitrary and subjective term, so yeah, all we're doing is picking where to draw the line. It's the ad hoc attempts to quantify an emotional argument that rankle.

If you object to the idea of putting that line at 16, let me ask you this: what makes an arbitrary line at 14 any better?

I don't object to drawing the line at 16. I've already said I don't care.

The argument that you're advancing-- 14 year olds have already entered puberty, there's no quanitifiable difference between 14 year olds and 16 year olds, there's individual exceptions, etc, could just as easily be applied to an arbitrary line between 14 and 13. Are you opposed to the idea of arbitrary lines in principle, or are we just bickering over where that arbitrary line should be

Neither. I recognize legal and social lines are drawn willy-nilly all the time. It's a reality. All I object to is the intellectual dishonesty inherent in the rationalizations I'm hearing.

Do you use public transit? Next week, try getting on a bus that stops outside a highschool at around 3:30. And the next day, try a route that stops outside a junior highschool at 3:30. And get back to me on the subject of whether you feel 16 year olds are different from 14 year olds.

I think that would serve to prove my point, not yours. Hell, I've been on buses with kids I assumed were University students who turned put to be junior high-aged kids. And vice versa. I've seen 12 year old that could pass for 19 and 20 year olds who act like they're 13.

Well, that depends. A person just tempted to do it on a lark would probably think twice. A person for whom it was a compulsion might not be deterred. But, at least society would have a much more effective tool with which to deal with somebody for whom having sex with young teens is a compulsion.

"Effective" is the wrong word. Stricter, sure. But there's inherent enforcement issues involved with any attempt to regulate sexual activity, chief among them being the difference between an individual youth's perception of consent and the laws. To argue that raising the age makes the law more efficient or easier to prosecute sounds like another post facto rationalization.

[scribblet]

Bill C-22 is being heard by the Justice committee this week, it passed second reading on October 30, 2006, and is currently before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

This coming week on Tuesday, April 17, the justice committee will reconvene, begin to go through the bill and hear proposed amendments.

Apparantly NDP MP Joe Comartin will introduce two amendments which have nothing to do with protecting children. (Read Mr. Comartin’s comments from 2nd Reading : http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/P...=1#Int-1733032)

One expected amendment will call for the “harmonization” of the age of consent, which means lowering the age of s_domy from 18 to 16.

Some committee witnesses were opposed to the bill: Canadian AIDS Society, Egale Canada, Canadian Federation for S_xual* Health [formerly Planned Parenthood], 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

[geoffrey]

I'm a firm believer in 18 with a 4 year age rule. 17 to 21... that's reasonable... anything past that is open to some very questionable behavoir... 19 and 13? No way.

What business does a 35 year old have with someone 16? Ugh. My proposal would allow adults to make whatever choices they want, and be reasonable with not making existing relationships illegal (unless they are unreasonable to begin with).

Even better, go to a divide by 2 add 7 rule, it's what we all follow in reality right?

[M.Dancer]

I'm a firm believer in 18 with a 4 year age rule. 17 to 21... that's reasonable... anything past that is open to some very questionable behavoir... 19 and 13? No way.

What business does a 35 year old have with someone 16? Ugh. My proposal would allow adults to make whatever choices they want, and be reasonable with not making existing relationships illegal (unless they are unreasonable to begin with).

Even better, go to a divide by 2 add 7 rule, it's what we all follow in reality right?

I agree 100%

Mind you, I'm ten years my wife's senior, but I started flirting with her when she was 25

[Adelle]

Personally, I see no reason to restict anal sex to persons over the age of 18 when all other sexual positions and techniques can be engaged in at 12/14, or 12/14/16 after C-22 becomes law. For some reason, anal sex is presently considered exploitive, right up there with the sex trade. No wonder some in the gay community consider the different attitude regarding anal sex to all other forms to display an element of homophobia.

Adelle Shea

[Melanie_]

I don't understand the issue with harmonizing the age of consent. Sodomy is a sexual act, and if we are saying the age of consent for sex is 16, than it must include any sexual act a 16 year old is prepared to consent to. I see an issue here regarding the value being placed on sexual innocence - it seems like people are more concerned about protecting a homosexual boy's virginity than they are with protecting heterosexuals of either gender, or lesbians. Why?

[gc1765]

Even better, go to a divide by 2 add 7 rule, it's what we all follow in reality right?

I agree. As long as they are close in age, I don't see a problem. If there's a huge age difference, then there's a problem.

[beatenwoman2005]

I don't understand the issue with harmonizing the age of consent. Sodomy is a sexual act, and if we are saying the age of consent for sex is 16, than it must include any sexual act a 16 year old is prepared to consent to. I see an issue here regarding the value being placed on sexual innocence - it seems like people are more concerned about protecting a homosexual boy's virginity than they are with protecting heterosexuals of either gender, or lesbians. Why?

ROFLMAO, omg...... If your naked with someone it is SEX~! No matter what way you slice it Oral, anal, sideways, with an apple core, etc.... it is sex

I think it is INSANE to argue green apples and red apples, it is still an apple.

The age of consent should be 18 P-E-R-I-O-D.

Think back to all of the stupid things you did as a child, could you manage an adult relationship? How many were pushed into sex? How many felt shame, guilt, etc. when you had your first sexual act?

If your old enough to drink (18) then it should remain across the board as 18 for sex.

[geoffrey]

Personally, I see no reason to restict anal sex to persons over the age of 18 when all other sexual positions and techniques can be engaged in at 12/14, or 12/14/16 after C-22 becomes law. For some reason, anal sex is presently considered exploitive, right up there with the sex trade. No wonder some in the gay community consider the different attitude regarding anal sex to all other forms to display an element of homophobia.

Adelle Shea

Agreed, there no real justification for the difference. I think that my suggestion would limit possible exploitation of an already vunerable population (society does put unusual pressures on gay individuals, no?), and be equitable amongst all people regardless of their sexual preference.

Even better, go to a divide by 2 add 7 rule, it's what we all follow in reality right?

I agree. As long as they are close in age, I don't see a problem. If there's a huge age difference, then there's a problem.

I honestly think if people were given all the options possible, the majority would find my divide by two add seven rule to be the most fair, equitable and one that strikes a balance between reasonable limitations to prevent exploitation and individual freedom.

Most of all, it's what society expects. It's difficult to uphold a law that society doesn't morally agree with. I know I'd give a questionable look to a 28-16 couple or something along those lines. Societies moral compass is already aligned with my proposal.

The age of consent should be 18 P-E-R-I-O-D.

What of two people under 18. What of a 19 year old and a 17 year old. What of an 18-17 year old couple... on the elder's 18th birthday, sex instantly becomes illegal? Silly.

Think back to all of the stupid things you did as a child, could you manage an adult relationship? How many were pushed into sex? How many felt shame, guilt, etc. when you had your first sexual act?

If your old enough to drink (18) then it should remain across the board as 18 for sex.

Laws are in place to prevent exploitation or unreasonable activities that are perceived to be harmful to society... not to enforce your moral beliefs upon others.

In an ideal world without sexual predators and creepy older people in general, I'd be fine with no laws on the subject. But unfortunately that's not the world we live in.

If people are having sex, and aren't emotionally up to it, then that's a bigger issue than the law can ever deal with. Pushing sex underground, especially in a truly responsible relationship is destined to be far more destructive than allowing people to make their own choices. Would you make condom purchasing illegal for those under 18? How about the pill?

[scribblet]

I understand that the two proposed amendments Bill C-22 were ruled out of order, which was challenged by some members of the committee but a majority voted to uphold the chair's ruling, as they agreed that these amendments were out of order.

The first amendment was to "harmonize" the age of consent for an_l relations with heteros_xual relations. The second amendment was to modify the Evidence Act which would have created a loophole for predators.

Understanding “Age of Protection” (from Department of Justice Website)

http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/2006/doc_31832.html

The age of protection, or age of consent as it is also called, refers to the age at which the criminal law recognizes the legal capacity of a young person to consent to sexual activity. Below this age, all sexual activity with a young person, ranging from sexual touching to sexual intercourse, is prohibited. The current age of consent is 18 years old when the sexual activity involves exploitative activity. This applies to such cases as prostitution, pornography, or where there is a relationship of trust, authority, dependency or any other situation that is otherwise exploitative of a young person. Under the current law, the age of consent for non-exploitative sexual activity is 14 years old.

Under the current law, young people aged 14 and over can consent to sexual activity, no matter the age of their sexual partner. The current law does not provide sufficient protection for vulnerable young people, as recent examples of luring for sexual purposes has demonstrated. Sexual relationships between adults and children are unacceptable.

Currently, without the Age of Protection Bill, at 14 years of age, Canada’s age of sexual consent is out of step with the international norm, which is at least 16 years of age. It is also inconsistent with Canada's legal definition of “child” and that contained in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, as every person under the age of 18 years.

[Remiel]

Under the proposed reforms, an additional time-limited exception would be available for a 14 or 15 year old youth whose sexual partner is more than five years older but with whom, when the new age of protection comes into effect, the youth is already legally married or living in a common-law relationship, as defined in the Bill.

From that same website... huh? Are they trying to tell me that it is legal to get married when you are 14 or 15 in this country? Hell, look at that common law business. You do not have the right to move away from your parents until you are 16, so how the hell could you have a common law relationship?

Also, you seem to be suggesting that the law already contains provisions for homosexual relations, and that the whole anal thing is just for relationships between male and female... To clear things up, is that true, scriblett?

Also, what was this amendment that would of created a loophole?

[scribblet]

Under the proposed reforms, an additional time-limited exception would be available for a 14 or 15 year old youth whose sexual partner is more than five years older but with whom, when the new age of protection comes into effect, the youth is already legally married or living in a common-law relationship, as defined in the Bill.

e whole anal thing is just for relationships between male and female... To clear things up, is that true, scriblett?

Also, what was this amendment that would of created a loophole?

I wasn't 'suggesting' anything, just posted what is happening. I believe the whole anal thing is for all relationships as far as I know.

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. (section 172.1 luring a child) if the proposal was accepted and passed I believe it would make it harder to prosecute predators and sure wouldn't help the most vulnerable. Two Liberals also voted against the amendments.

[Adelle]

Age of Consent in Canada.

"Canada has a long history of prohibiting sexual intercourse with young females, regardless of their consent. (However) a complete ban on sexual intercourse never did apply to girls over 14. Only girls under 12 were absolutely unable to consent to sexual intercourse until 1890, when the age limit was raised to 14. With the advent of the Criminal Code in 1892, the strict prohibition against sexual intercourse was retained for girls under 14 (not married to the accused) and the law was strengthened to make an accused’s belief about the young woman's age irrelevant. That age limit has not changed and remains in place today, with narrow exceptions for consensual activity between young persons less than two years apart in age. " (PRB99-3E)

"The Criminal Code does not now criminalize consensual sexual activity with or between persons 14 or over, unless it takes place in a relationship of trust or dependency, in which case sexual activity with persons over 14 but under 18 can constitute an offence, notwithstanding their consent. Even consensual activity with those under 14 but over 12 may not be an offence if the accused is under 16 and less than two years older than the complainant. The exception, of course, is anal intercourse, to which unmarried persons under 18 cannot legally consent, although both the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Quebec Court of Appeal have struck down the relevant section of the Criminal Code." (PRB99-3E)

With Bill C-22, the government intends to raise the unrestricted AoC to 16. However, the "close in age exemption" will still exist for persons 12-15: two years for 12-13, five years for 14-15. Having corresponded with the PMO on the subject I will quote the Justice Minister's response: "Our intent is to protect youth more effectively from adult sexual predators while not criminalizing sexual activity between consenting young persons." Also, it is expected that anal sex will no longer be considered an "exploitive sexual activity" as it is considered that doing so violates the Charter.

[Adelle]

“Canada’s age of sexual consent is out of step with the international norm”

The median seems to range from 14 to 16 years, but laws stating ages ranging from 12 to 21 do exist. Some jurisdictions forbid sexual activity outside of legal marriage completely.

In the US, for the purposes of age of consent, the only Federal provision applicable is {Chapter 109A, 18 U.S.C. 2243(a)}. 2243(a) refers to situations where such younger person is under the age of 16 years, has attained 12 years of age, and the older person is more than 4 years older than the 12-15 year old. This most likely reflects Congressional intent to not unduly interfere with a state's age of consent law, which may vary between 16 and 18. States, counties and municipalities seem to be able to make something illegal locally which is considered legal by the higher authority as long as it doesn’t violate the Bill of Rights. This law is also extraterritorial in nature to US Citizens and Residents who travel outside of the United States. So having sex with a 14yo might be legal here, but when you get back home you are going to jail.

The unfettered age of consent in Mexico is 18. In Mexico, criminal legislation is shared between the Federal Government and regional states. Federal law may allow relations between young persons as low as 12, however, there may be local state laws that override the federal law.

Europe seems to be split down the middle with roughly half above 16 and half below 16.

[ScottSA]

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?

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

[Adelle]

“Canada's legal definition of “child” and that contained in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, as every person under the age of 18 years.”

As far as sexual activity is concerned, the definition of ‘child’ in the criminal code varies by section.

For the majority of Part V, CoC, ‘child’ seems to be defined as a person under the age of 14. This includes consensual/non-consensual sexual activity and bestiality. In section 153, Part V, CoC, "young person" means a person fourteen years of age or more but under the age of eighteen years.

For the purposes of section 172, Part V, CoC, "child" means a person who is or appears to be under the age of eighteen years. This section includes corrupting and luring of a child. This definition also seems to apply to anal sex, prostitution, pornography and other exploitive activity.

In some cases, this puts 12-13 in a grey area, which is an ironic reflection of reality.

United Nations' Committee on the Rights of the Child generally defines a child as any person under the age of 18, unless an earlier age of majority is recognized by a country's law. However, age of majority and age of consent are not necessarily the same thing.