|
Here's one for you Jay
|
View this Thread in Original format
| TO guy |
from citynews.ca
| quote: | Gov't. Introduces Bill To Raise Age Of Consent
Thursday June 22, 2006
It's stood unchanged for years, but the federal Conservatives moved to change that on Thursday, introducing a bill that will alter the age of consent in Canada.
Currently, a teen can legally consent to sex when they're 14 years of age. But under the bill introduced by Justice Minister Vic Toews, that benchmark would rise by two years to 16.
The idea isn't to keep kids from becoming sexually active at too young an age - a task that's almost impossible to legislate - but to protect youngsters from adults who might try to take advantage of their innocence.
Toews explains the change has become necessary because of a change in society - the coming of the Internet has created a virtual Wild West for pedophiles and the laws need to be strengthened to close any loopholes.
But what about young adults having relationships - and relations - with other kids? The bill prevents the criminalization of teen sex by adding in a 'near-exemption' of five years. That means a 14-year-old could still partner with a 19-year-old, while a 15-year-old could be with someone who's 20 and wouldn't be breaking the law.
Child advocates applaud the bill and hope the minority Tories can ram it through.
"Bottom line is it's going to add 14 and 15-year-olds to the mix of a no-go zone," outlines John Muise of the Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness. "So if you're a 40-year-old predator and you want to have sex with a 14 or a 15-year-old boy or girl, you can't anymore. And it's as simple as that. So it used to be 13. Now it's 14 and 15."
But the law won't completely affect some existing prohibitions. It still pins the age of protection at 18 for any sexually exploitive activity like prostitution or pornography.
How do teens feel about the idea?
"I really do think that the age of consent should be raised to 16, for the fact . I have a lot more knowledge about sex than I did when I was 14," a caller named Arthur told CityOnline. "You know, I didn't know about the sexually transmitted diseases that were out there, about any sort of protection that I would have to use."
Critics are angry at the alteration, insisting the Conservatives are simply trying to legislate morality and have no business in the bedrooms of its citizens.
Muise disagrees. "I think [the five year exemption] blows out of the water the concern that some of the people on the other side of this issue had," he concludes.
Will the bill get the aegis of consent on the Hill? Muise claims he's talked to N.D.P. MPs who have enough numbers to push any vote through. He insists they've told him they wanted the exemption and now that they've got it, they're prepared to support the bill.
What the Age Of Protection Act will do
Raise age of consent for sex from 14 to 16.
Offers 'five year exemption' for 14 and 15 year olds who engage in sex with partners less than five years older, so as not to criminalize their behaviour.
Continues to bar sexually exploitive activity until age 18.
Time limited exemption would protect 14 or 15 year olds who are legally married or living in common law relationships.
|
|
|
|
| Abercrombie |
 |
|
|
| Cosmic Fur |
| quote: | Originally posted by Abercrombie
|
Dude. Tell me your secret. where do you get these hilarious images? |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| I agree with this. I especially agree with the time exemption of 5 years. 14 year olds should not be subjected to 40 year olds etc etc. 16 is a decent age for that. They should also lower the gay consent age from 18 to 16 though. |
|
|
| MarkT |
the 5 year exemption is key to this getting through...without out, it would have been defeated in a heartbeat (and I'd 100% support that defeat). "criminalizing" sex between consenting minors is ridiculous and would have been a massive step backwards.
I still fail to see the point of the change though...it's another bill that sounds good on paper and appeases older, conservative voters. Essentially this just makes it easier to prosecute older people having sex with 14 and 15 yr. olds without the need to of showing that their was no consent on the part of the minor.
like the street racing bill, it's not "bad" legislation...but it's on the fluffy, pointless side, IMHO. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
I agree with this. I especially agree with the time exemption of 5 years. 14 year olds should not be subjected to 40 year olds etc etc. 16 is a decent age for that. They should also lower the gay consent age from 18 to 16 though. |
WHAT THE ... Captain anti-social engineering is supporting a social engineering initiative.... WHAT ABOUT INDVIDUAL LIBERTIES????
Seriously, you've really just solidified to everyone reading this fourm that you are nothing more then a conservative party hack. How can you possibly bitch about every type of social engineering policy that comes along without regard for it's merits but then support this one? Why just this one? Oh, yeah, because the CPC thought of it. You've just blown all credibility you had with me. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
i dont think protecting 14 year olds from adults is a bad thing.
you are right though, the key to this is the 5 year exemption. Without it, id be against it completely |
|
|
| Cosmic Fur |
| I think the 5 year difference should be reduced. 20 with a 15 year old? Come on. One is halfway through college and the other barely started highschool. I think 3 years is fine. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
WHAT THE ... Captain anti-social engineering is supporting a social engineering initiative.... WHAT ABOUT INDVIDUAL LIBERTIES????
Seriously, you've really just solidified to everyone reading this fourm that you are nothing more then a conservative party hack. How can you possibly bitch about every type of social engineering policy that comes along without regard for it's merits but then support this one? Why just this one? Oh, yeah, because the CPC thought of it. You've just blown all credibility you had with me. |
hahah i knew this was coming..
I have always advocated the right of ADULTS to make their own decsions. I also have always believed that children should be protected from adults in certain situations..
Nothing has changed my friend..
children should NOT have the right to drink, smoke and do other things that should be (but are not thanks to recent legislation) ADULT choices to make. However i do think that the drinking and smoking age should be reduced to 18 (the age when you are legally an adult in the eyes of the law) |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
hahah i knew this was coming..
I have always advocated the right of ADULTS to make their own decsions. I also have always believed that children should be protected from adults in certain situations..
Nothing has changed my friend..
children should NOT have the right to drink, smoke and do other things that should be (but are not thanks to recent legislation) ADULT choices to make. However i do think that the drinking and smoking age should be reduced to 18 (the age when you are legally an adult in the eyes of the law) |
Hmmm, is there any evidence to support that a 14 year old is not capable of making decisions regarding sex but a 16 year old is?
Regardless of how you justify your position you are still being inconsistant. If social engineering is bad then why is it okay so long as it's only children that we seek to control. I know, you'll say because children are incapable of making a wise decision in matters such as sex/drinking/smoking.... right? Can the same not be said about adults who are addicted to nicotine when it comes to smoking? Or alcoholics when it comes to hours of operation for taverns? Clearly none of the groups identified above can make a wise decision regarding these things. So, why is it okay for the nanny state to exist for children but not for adults who may be equally incapable of making informed and wise decisions? |
|
|
| loca |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cosmic Fur
I think the 5 year difference should be reduced. 20 with a 15 year old? Come on. One is halfway through college and the other barely started highschool. I think 3 years is fine. |
+1 |
|
|
| MarkT |
the problem here is the CPC legislating morality...the existing age of consent of 14 has been so for a century...and 15 yr. olds are a LOT more 'in the know' than they were 50 years ago (or even 20 years ago)
now, do *I* think that a 15 yr old should be sleeping with a 30 yr. old? hell no.
but do I think the gov't has any business legislating around that MORAL feeling of mine? hell no.
as with the street racing bill, we HAVE other laws in place already that address more relavant (and common) situations...the age of consent becomes 18 from 14 when the adult in question is in any kind of position of authority or trust over the minor...so teens are already protected from teachers, neighbours, employers, coaches, etc. and anyone else who could more easily coerce them into a sexual situation because of their existing relationship with them or because of their occupying a position of trust.
I'm not sure how many unsuspecting 14 and 15 yr olds are being preyed upon by complete strangers here...and isn't this an issue for PARENTS to solve? How the is your 14 and 15 yr. old getting out there to sleep with some older person anyway? |
|
|
|
|
