MPs vote against raising age of sexual consent
ridenrain @ Mon Dec 05, 2005 11:46 am
IceOwl IceOwl:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Essentially, Canada legalized the rape of adolescent boys by queers.
Do you have any evidence of this actually happening on a consistent and regular basis? You must be able to find some, it's been at least 20 years.
You might sashay down to the neighborhood kitty stroll and ask about.
Not to difuse this to prostitution, but at least a higher age limit would put some restrictions on this.
Rev: Sorry to bring it up at election time but I was pretty shocked that it didn't pass. It sounded like just a big of a no-brainer as the larger penaltys for drunk driving or hit & run.. that also didn't pass.
maple_leaf1 @ Mon Dec 05, 2005 11:57 am
Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:
Considering that 16 year old boys could be hauled into court for having sex with their 14 year old girlfriends, that's exactly it. It doesn't take other circumstances into account, like a mature 14 year old and an immature 18 year old. It was a bad bill. It was defeated.
Nobody who voted against it wants to see 40 year old men doing 14 year old girls. Everybody, on both sides of the political spectrum, have expressed concerns about such relationships.
To bring this up during an election campaign in an attempt to imply that anybody who voted against the bill supports adult-teen sex is inherently dishonest...right up there with the "Paul Martin supports child porn" campaign that the CPC tried during the last election.
Nobody who voted against it wants to see 40 year old men doing 14 year old girls. Everybody, on both sides of the political spectrum, have expressed concerns about such relationships.
To bring this up during an election campaign in an attempt to imply that anybody who voted against the bill supports adult-teen sex is inherently dishonest...right up there with the "Paul Martin supports child porn" campaign that the CPC tried during the last election.
Please read the bill again.....The proposed Bill wasn't anymore specific about that than the existing law. The main difference is that consent would be raised to 16 from 14.....Where do you see a problem with that? A person is way too young to know better about sex at 13 or 14.....
BartSimpson @ Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:04 pm
IceOwl IceOwl:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
B: I was 13 when Harvey Milk and Mayor Moscone died and had no idea what 'gay' or 'queer' even meant at that time.
And, like the average 13-year who likes to call everyone a "fag" and say everything is "gay", you also don't know what it means.
That may well be true. But I have no doubts whatsoever that you have a unique and comprehensive understanding of what "gay" means.
ridenrain @ Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:10 pm
These things just keep getting better & better:
Liberals to Legalize Prostitution
Hummm... seems that the media missed this one. It's from the Liberal Party's Womens Commission, and according to their website, this was adopted as offical party policy:
link
85 -Sex Worker Rights
WHEREAS officially the sex trade is not criminal;
WHEREAS section 213 of the Criminal Code of Canada still forbids communicating for the purposes of sex trade-related acts;
WHEREAS fear of ticketing and judicial consequences incurred from section 213 drive sex trade workers into dangerous and harmful locations;
WHEREAS criminalizing acts related to the sex trade also perpetuates a negative social stigma surrounding sex trade workers;
WHEREAS the sex trade is a profession central to the subsistenceof many Canadian citizens who deserve the same workplace safety and social respect as any other member of our society;
AND WHEREAS we must never again have the tragedy of 50 women missing from Vancouver’s downtown eastside without notice;
BE IT RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada support review of Section 213 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
BE IT RESOLVED that if Section 213 of the Criminal Code is foundto be harmful to the sex trade workers, the Liberal Party of Canada reconsider the need to urge the Federal Government to remove Section 213 of the Criminal Code.
(Young Liberals of Canada)
There's a whole lot ofd other interesting stuff in there too.
Arctic_Menace @ Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:13 pm
Sure ridenrain, you can see it like that. Or, you can see it as Canada trying to become as awesome as the Netherlands. 
We came so close to decriminalising marijuana, and then they call and election 
ridenrain @ Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:19 pm
Actually, I'm pretty soft on legalization but it's a very involved problem that's got to be done with more thought than an election promise.
Arctic_Menace @ Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:20 pm
ridenrain ridenrain:
Actually, I'm pretty soft on legalization but it's a very involved problem that's got to be done with more thought than an election promise.
True.
BartSimpson @ Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:49 pm
I'm fine with legalizing drugs so long as the government provides no tax supported services to those people who are incapacitated by their willful use of drugs.
But if my tax money has to go to pay for the healthcare of potheads and crack addicts then I will oppose legalization.
maple_leaf1 @ Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:56 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
I'm fine with legalizing drugs so long as the government provides no tax supported services to those people who are incapacitated by their willful use of drugs.
But if my tax money has to go to pay for the healthcare of potheads and crack addicts then I will oppose legalization.
But if my tax money has to go to pay for the healthcare of potheads and crack addicts then I will oppose legalization.
Right on!
avro201 @ Tue Dec 06, 2005 9:35 am
I find it some what shocking that the poll results are so close here.
Like others have stated, it is legal for a 50 year old man to have sex with a 14 year old (unless they are in a position of trust or it is rape...duh)
I am sorry but at 14 years old you are not much more then a child.
Canada has one of the lowest agge of conset laws in the world.
http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm
Criminalizing puppy love? Sorry that doesn't wash. Heres why.
The government is making the law. They can put clauses, exemptions or amendmets into that law.
All you have to do is put a "near in age" clause in the law which does not make it illegall for a 14 year old to have sex witha 16 or 17 year old. (2-3 years) Problem averted.
Its that easy. If I have a daughter, I sure don't want it to be legal for her at 14 to have sex with 
a 50 year old!
maple_leaf1 @ Tue Dec 06, 2005 9:43 am
Don't worry......yes, it is disturbing to see the poll results but know one thing, it's probably the same person voting over and over under different names......
Rev_Blair @ Tue Dec 06, 2005 9:45 am
$1:
All you have to do is put a "near in age" clause in the law which does not make it illegall for a 14 year old to have sex witha 16 or 17 year old. (2-3 years) Problem averted.
Which is something that the Conservaitves didn't put in their bill.
$1:
Please read the bill again.....The proposed Bill wasn't anymore specific about that than the existing law. The main difference is that consent would be raised to 16 from 14.....Where do you see a problem with that? A person is way too young to know better about sex at 13 or 14.
So because the current law is flawed, we should keep those flaws?
No matter how you feel about 14 year olds having sex with each other, it does happen and will continue to happen. Criminalising them will do little or nothing to help it.
We need legislation to keep them safe from predators. Legislation that tries to keep them safe from themselves will fail, just as it always has in the past.
maple_leaf1 @ Tue Dec 06, 2005 9:49 am
Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:
$1:
All you have to do is put a "near in age" clause in the law which does not make it illegall for a 14 year old to have sex witha 16 or 17 year old. (2-3 years) Problem averted.
Which is something that the Conservaitves didn't put in their bill.
$1:
Please read the bill again.....The proposed Bill wasn't anymore specific about that than the existing law. The main difference is that consent would be raised to 16 from 14.....Where do you see a problem with that? A person is way too young to know better about sex at 13 or 14.
So because the current law is flawed, we should keep those flaws?
No matter how you feel about 14 year olds having sex with each other, it does happen and will continue to happen. Criminalising them will do little or nothing to help it.
We need legislation to keep them safe from predators. Legislation that tries to keep them safe from themselves will fail, just as it always has in the past.
HelloooOOOOOoooooo?!? What don't you understand? There IS NOTHING IN THE PROPOSED BILL that states two 14 yearl olds can't have sex.....And they weren't trying to criminalize it either.
![[wedgie]](./images/smilies/wedgie.gif "Wedgie")
Rev_Blair @ Tue Dec 06, 2005 10:45 am
There is nothing in the bill saying they can. It raises the age of consent to sixteen, which does prohibit them from having sex. You are now relying on the law not being enforced as written, which is just an admission that the law is flawed.