Women as an identifiable group under attack?

Not only that, but look at the way the man was referring to prostitutes. It was clear he thinks they are subhuman. Don't even bother with the MacLeans comments - typical of right wing nutbars and almost all show a complete and utter distain for women. Why anyone would use that article as proof of anything is beyond me. What's next? Fraiser Institute reports?

Mark Hasiuk is a joke.   For a supposedly unbiased "reporter" he has done some rather dubious things, like showing up to a university forum on a similar topic and heckling the speakers from his seat.  I think the whole thing had to be shut down to kick him out, and his report on this "story" heavily slanted because of this.   I thought reporters were supposed to be observers, not trolls lol.   In this article he takes the time to start it with an unrelated comment about what the anti-decrim groups want.  A deliberate attempt to slant and sway the reader before they have a chance to they find out what happens at the forum.   Then he selects a very small # (2%) and waves it around like some sort of see-I-told-ya-so, when that 2% is soooo much smaller than what probably would come up if the general male population was asked have they ever physically assaulted any woman (as opposed to the john-prostitute scenario).  I would hazard a guess, based on general stats and information that is out there, that a great deal more than 2% of men have done any of the following to women:

robbed a woman, physically attacked a woman, or raped a woman.  

Yet those stats of men who buy sex show #s that are far lower than average, imo.

If the Crown prosecutor could find actual evidence then there should be charges laid.  I don't think that what you describe is a proven allegation for any specific person. So what age would you propose as the age of consent for marriage.  16, 18, 21 or maybe 30.  Personally I think that 16 has to be the age since we made it the age of consent for sex. Prior to last year the age was 14 so I think your use of the 13 year old being marriage off is likely not the facts. I would love to see the evidence that would convict abusers of children at Bountiful but despite three prosecutors looking at the circumstances they chose not to prosecute on any other grounds except polygamy.  I find that both odd and disturbing since we all "know" that the abuse is rampant, right?

If it is so rampant why can't we just charge the perpetrators with the real crimes?

I never really bought into the argument that men who buy sex are less likely to rape. The men who buy sex are as different as the women offering sex. That thinking often leads to the assumption that women "holding out" are the cause of rape (men who can't get it from a sex worker are more likely to rape because they can't get it anywhere else). It paints men as not responsible for their actions, and pretty much absolves them of responsibility. Men are just little boys unable to control themselves - which we know is not true). All the responsibility fallks back onto women (if only you women would loosen up more, have more sex partners, learn to please your man, there would be less rape).

Ditto what remind said - what are the chances of self-reporting? Then there are those who rape street walkers and don't think it is rape.

 

Fortunate, do you have the stats for that study? I'd be interested in seeing the study myself, see what methodology they used, etc.

 

 

Statutory rape is simply sex (consensual included) between a teenager and anyone who is more than 5 years older than they are.  That is why I said it was easy.  Multiple marriages are not legal, so the polygamy angle cannot be proven since no actual license can be issued.  But it is fairly easy to prove a 14 year old who has been taken into a 40 year old man's household along with 2-3 other women, and she is now pregnant, is having sex with him.  Stat rape has been charged on young men with girls who are technically too young for them, even tho their ages are much much closer than these in Bountiful and similar areas. 

Canadian laws:

In looking at Canada, all but one Province requires that a couple be 18 in order to marry without parental permission. British Columbia sets the age of majority at 19. Although a few areas will waive this requirement if there is a pregnancy, the couple may still have to have court approval.  Even with parental approval, many Provinces will require court approval when a person is 16 years of age or less.

Basically a court consent is required for anyone under 16 to marry. 

 

For sexual activity:

It is now illegal for adults in Canada to have sex with a partner under the age of 16, one of the new provisions of the Tories' violent crime law that came into effect on Thursday. The Tackling Violent Crime Act raises the legal age of sexual consent in Canada to 16 from 14, the first time it has been raised since 1892. But the law includes a "close-in-age exception," meaning 14- and 15-year-olds can have sex with someone who is less than five years older.

 

It seems very simple to apply the laws that already exist.  The girls would have to be 17, and this is not happening.  These guys would be easy to prosecute.  So again it begs the question why not.

 

Between 1998 and 2004, the B.C. Vital Statistics Agency says, 69 Bountiful girls 18 or younger had babies.

A third of those girls were impregnated by men 10 or more years older than they were. Three-quarters of the men in the fundamentalist Mormon sect who fathered children with teens 18 and younger were at least five years older.

http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/features/polygamy/story.html?id=64080dd7-ed78-4446-a795-b1b9e674fb3c

BETWEEN 1998 AND 2004 69 BOUNTIFUL GIRLS 18 OR YOUNGER HAD BABIES

46% of the fathers are 5 or more years older than the teenage mother

28% of the fathers are 10 or more years older than the teenage mother

I agree. I don't quite get these older men who go after much younger women. Makes no sense to me and it always seems creepy.

Monitoring again?