1  2  3  4  Next

Just a quick poll on the subject of the age of consent.
I just got through reading this article and I'm not sure what the opposition is thinking. Is this simply a matter of not letting the other parties bills pass or is there some kind of reasoning behind this.

"Nina Grewal, Conservative M.P.from B.C. speaking in House of Commons: "In Canada, people cannot have naked pictures of 14 year olds on computers because it is pornography and they can be prosecuted for it, but a 50 year old man can have sex with a 14 year old and it is legal. This is nonsense." Amen[web]http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20050928/C313_ageofconsentbill_20050928/20050928?hub=TopStories[/web]

   

It is entirely possible to protect teens from dirty old men without having to raise the age of consent.

I think this is already in the works, but what can be done is to insert a provision that negates the age of consent if the age discrepancy is too great.

   

Right now, It is legal for a 50-year old to have sex with a 14-year old.

   

You are correct Hwacker. I believe the only time it's illegal is when an older person is in a position of power or authority over someone.

   

What about protecting teens from clean cut young men? Would a teen consent to sexual intercourse with a dirty old man or more likely a suave cleancut middle aged married man?

They can raise the age of consent but they sure better not cap it. Imagine having to quit at 87!

   

Well, so far we'ver heard more platitudes but no actual reason behind why this should be upheld. I understand that Trudea wanted to make "puppy love" legal but I don't think he thought this through.

   

Puppy love is the reasoning. The idea behind such a low age of consent is so that Romeo doesn't get charged with Statutory rape after meeting Juliet.

My guess as to why there weren't more provisions to safeguard teens from older predators is that when the law was passed, the internet wasn't yet in existence.

With the internet, predators can entice unsuspecting victims from the anonymity of their own homes cities or provinces away thus reducing the risk in a face to face entrapment.

   

I think it should be raised to 16. Or an age cap should be put on who can have sex with the 14 year old. Say 18, although even that seems a bit high to me.

   

Age of consent IS 14, but that 14 year old can't have sex with anyone older than 16. a 16 year old can't have sex with anyone younger than 14 or older than 18, but at 18 they become an afult and can legally have se with whomever they want. aslong as they arn't under 16. the age cap is that as a teen, we cannot have sex with someone more than two years oldere, or less than 2 years younger than us. Its suprising how many people don't know this.

   

So what would happen if a 14 year old were to have sex with a 12 year old? Would the 14 year old be charged?

   

Yes, becuase its below the age of consent.

   

Okay. I don't quite get what you think the law is, cuz what you wrote is just plain confusing, but here is what it actually means:

153. (1) Every person who is in a position of trust or authority towards a young person or is a person with whom the young person is in a relationship of dependency and who

(a) for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of the young person, or

(b) for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites a young person to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any person, including the body of the person who so invites, counsels or incites and the body of the young person,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Definition of "young person"
(2) In this section, "young person" means a person fourteen years of age or more but under the age of eighteen years.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 153; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 1.

________________


[font=Times New Roman] [/font] This is only a small part of the CRIMINAL CODE / Sexual Offences section.

The Criminal Code defines young persons as being between 14 and 18. Any adult having "consensual sex" with a 14 year old is in his rights....And that is WRONG! The age of consent SHOULD have been broght up to 16....

Did you know that, although the age of consent of sexual acts is generally 14, it is illegal for an adult to have anal sex with the kid before he/she hits 16???? Can you make ANY sense from this law...passed by the Liberals???

   

Really? How do you do that when they have the legal right to molest 14 year-old children?

I can protect children from dirty old men, but as it involves a .45, a shovel, and a 1969 Cadillac DeVille I doubt my idea would go over well in Canada.

The first step to granting sexual predators access to children was to lower the age of consent. The first step to denying them that access will be raising it.

Sorry, old boy, but any other argument on this is utter bullshit. The only reason the age of consent was lowered in the first place was to give queers access to the young boys they prefer.

Essentially, Canada legalized the rape of adolescent boys by queers.

And just to rub salt in it for you, you guys made it legal for Catholic priests to bugger boys.

   

Just when I think I'm starting to like you, you have to go and puke up some utter bullshit. Oh well I shouldn't expect much from you.

   

1  2  3  4  Next