yoo I thought it was something like it was 14 but now till ur 16 you can only be with someone 5 years older or something. They just raised it period?
So yo messed up situation. You turn 16 ur girl even a month younger you can get charged? LOL
is that right? because some people been saying how it 16 period.
Fucc the cons either way
So yo messed up situation. You turn 16 ur girl even a month younger you can get charged? LOL
Like you said, there is a close-in-age exemption of five years - so the 16 year old with a 15 year old partner would not be charged, nor would the 19 year old with a 14 year old partner.
Fucc the cons either way
Not just the Conservatives, every party - Conservatives, NDP, Liberals, Bloc - voted in favour. I believe the NDP even disciplined Bill Siksay for being the sole MP to vote against it.
I am surprised to see you back R_P. A_J is correct, as you were in the first part of your post. If the age difference is within 5 years - there is no crime. This law is to keep 20 year olds and older perverts away from 14 and 15 year old girls. It does not criminalize any activity between them and fellow teenagers.
And as AJ also pointed out, all parties were thankfully unanimous in regards to this important legal change.
Children across Canada have been breathing easier since Harper came to power.
Time for another thread to praise his dedication to the safety of our kiddies.
Where did I praise Harper? He is also trying to do ridiculous things like strengthening the "war on drugs". The NDP voted for it - let's praise them.
This seems pretty reasonable to me. Obviously, an 18 year old shouldn't be charged for having sex with a 15 year old. But if you're 40 years old, no way you should be sleeping with people who are 14.
16 for straight kids.
but what happens is it a minor and an adult the adult gets charged? But what if the minor is a male that makes even less sense.
But yea I see the other side still lot of dudes are rapists and pedophiles.
Oh my......tsk tsk..... 7 year age difference, when it makes a difference too, nothing like unequal power, eh!
Too bad woulda made a good cop with those kinda credentials.
Thanks for that, Bärlüer. How did you find it? I guess all four political parties will be relieved that our youth have been protected from a "predator". The judge wimped out, though, by rejecting the Crown's demand for a DNA sample and registration as a sex offender.
Found the case just by searching the CanLII database.
I wonder if it is a general policy of the Crown (in B.C., in any case) to systematically ask for a DNA sample/registration as a sex offender. Anybody knows this?
Frankly I do consider him a predator...but I agree registration as a sex offender is a bit much.
Frankly I do consider him a predator...
Interesting. No one - from his "victim" to her family to the court - agreed with that characterization.
Would you say the same if she was 16 and he was 35? Maybe the age of consent should be raised to 75.
I wish Bill Siksay would sign up here.
Actually, Unionist, just to be safe, I think only psychiatrists should be allowed to legally consent to sex.
Although... the psychiatrist who prepared a report in this case did write that the accused was a "normally-adjusted, stable person" and that he "is not a sexual predator", so even this approach might be flawed.
How old was the psychiatrist?
Frankly I do consider him a predator...Interesting. No one - from his "victim" to her family to the court - agreed with that characterization.
Don't care, she wouldn't agree, as she is a predators victim, and she won't know how much she was until much later in her life.
Courts are no friends to young women being exploited, or victimized, had thought you understood this, hmmm, seems not in the lot of cases department.
Family are no assurance of rightness of action, either.
Would you say the same if she was 16 and he was 35?
Yep
Maybe the age of consent should be raised to 75.
Personally I find nothing at all to be flip about in this equation, I know the impact of what a predator can do mentally and emotionally to a young girl by way of control and domination, in fact, I know of 1 who hung herself just a couple of years back.
If they were both in their 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's or 70's, I would not have an issue.
Invoking Bill Siksay does absolutely nothing BTW. he can hardly give a feminist perspective on this now can he?!
22yo with a 15 yo? i wouldn't say i wanted it to be illegal...but fulfilling? i would rather fill up a sexy 18/19yo if i was 22yo (23 now, so not much difference really, hehe...seeing a freshly-minted 19yo). also, girls in their late 20s are nice right about now.
The parents were fine with this? Wow. Me, I'd be homicidal.
IMO, any 22 yr old guy sniffing around a 15 yr old girl is a bottom-feeder.
Real men don't play with little girls.
apparently Barleur, what you think is a threat and what I do is a different matter.
I agree timebandit.
I know the impact of what a predator can do mentally and emotionally to a young girl by way of control and domination
But can you point to elements of manipulation and exploitation in the case at hand? You can't, because they don't exist. The guy simply posed no threat to the girl or to society.
A much more sane approach, BTW, would have been to keep the age of consent at 14, to keep the amendment to the distinct offence of "sexual exploitation" that adds the circumstance of an exploitative relationship to the offence (see portion in bold in the quote below), and to have "young person" defined as between 14 and 18 for the purpose of that offence (right now, it's between 16 and 18).
Here's the current text of the offence of "sexual exploitation":
153. (1) Every person commits an offence who is in a position of trust or authority towards a young person, who is a person with whom the young person is in a relationship of dependency or who is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person, 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.
[...]
(2) In this section, “young person” means a person 16 years of age or more but under the age of eighteen years.
dosedneurons is gone, obviously.
Barluer, there's what's legal and what's ethical. They are not necessarily the same thing. The dude is not ethical. If he were, he'd have walked away because she's still a kid and he's not.
Sorry, bud, zero sympathy from me.
My only aim here is to consider the following question: should the law consider the person in the case I've cited as a criminal?
I strongly believe it should not.
yep, he is and perhaps men will think twice about targeting girls and most likely destroying their lives for a couple of decades.
...thanks catchfire.
My only aim here is to consider the following question: should the law consider the person in the case I've cited as a criminal?
I strongly believe it should not.
And I am not troubled that they are.
Here's a real-life illustration that perfectly (and painfully) illustrates how wrongheaded it was to raise the age of consent to 16. (Click here for the full judgment.)
22-year-old guy gets romantically, and then sexually, involved with 15-year-old girl. The two have known each other for some years before this relationship developed. The relationship and acts were fully consensual. The guy was a friend of the girl's mother and also knew her father and grandparents.
Prior to engaging in the relationship, the guy consulted with a retired police officer to verify the age of consent. The police officer was misinformed and told the guy that the age of consent was 14. The guy then sought the approval of the girls' parents and grandparents before pursuing a relationship. Although the mother did express some concern about the age difference, nobody objected.
The police later receives an anonymous tip (!) The guy is charged with sexual interference of a person under 16. Neither party attempted to conceal their relationship or the fact that they had sexual relations. The two intend to pursue their relationship when the girl turns 16.
No evidence whatsoever of manipulation or exploitation exists. The guy does not exhibit any kind of psychological disorder, according to a psychiatric report.
Although he was given a lenient sentence, he WAS convicted of a criminal offence, with all the consequences that entails. (Before he was charged with the offence, he intended to become an RCMP officer.)
yep, he is and perhaps men will think twice about targeting girls and most likely destroying their lives for a couple of decades.
...thanks catchfire.
According to the law, though, 16 year olds are fair game. So why stop there? That was, I believe, the point Unionist was making by asking if the aoc should be raised to 75.
I don't accept that an un-exploitative relationship between a 15 year old and a 21 year old that won't destroy the former's life for decades is an impossibility. More often than not, it is the younger person who actively pursues the relationship. Many young people are unable to relate to peers in their age group, and we're not just talking about young girls and older guys. Many lgbt youths do look outside their own age group for romantic and sexual partners. We are criminalizing consensual relationships.
Whether these relationships are inherently exploitative or not - I agree that more often than not, they are - is not even at all relevant. Is this really the best way to deal with the issue? Criminalizing a private activity does nothing to prevent it. This will simply lead to more secrets and less communication and in fact probably won't do much to actually protect anybody at all but will make the people this law is intended to protect less safe. Never mind that this law - like every other - will not be fairly and equally applied.
edit: It is like criminalizing heroin. Has that done more harm or good for the victims of this terrible drug?
From the cited report:
"Further on in the report on page 8, Dr. Ley states:
As I have noted above, Ms. B.'s commentary to the police makes it clear that she was "consenting" to a dating relationship and sexual involvement with [DGP], although she cannot legally consent to such a relationship. That said, there is no indication that[DGP] has been manipulative, exploitative or sexually aggressive in his relationship with Ms. B. He is not a sexual predator. To the contrary. In my opinion, despite his greater age, he has been respectful and kindly towards her. [DGP] is very committed to Ms. B., and seemingly that attitude and the emotional bond that underpins it is mutual. [DGP] is not a so-called "womaniser"or "ladies man." Despite the age difference, [DGP] considers their relationship to be an egalitarian one. Seemingly, once Ms. B.reaches the age of 16 years, this relationship will continue. Based on the information available to me, it does not appear that the relationship between [DGP] and Ms. B. is a transient, superficial one."
Criminalizing this is a nonsense. The age spread, at that particular age, carries us away from the norm, whatever that is, but in practical terms so what? Both parties and the court appointed shrink who presumably errs on the side of safety in such contentious matters deem the relationship, which will continue when she is of (the new) age wholesome. End of story.
Ya and how would it be if a 21 year old woman was going after a 15 year old boy?
men seem to think this is dandy fine, whilst women, not so much, eh....
anyhow am outta this thread as really it is too sickening.
Criminalizing this is a nonsense. The age spread, at that particular age, carries us away from the norm, whatever that is, but in practical terms so what? Both parties and the court appointed shrink who presumably errs on the side of safety in such contentious matters deem the relationship, which will continue when she is of (the new) age wholesome. End of story.
This matter illustrates an inherent problem with laws that apply absolute rules to a broad range of subjective circumstances.
The purpose of age-of-consent laws is to protect children from circumstances in which they are not prepared to make good judgments. But, these laws are often expressed in absolute terms (e.g., an individual who is 15 is not able to legally consent while another individual who is 16 is able to legally consent - even if the individuals' calendar ages are, literally, separated by only a matter of days). When we apply an absolute rule to a broad variety of subjective cases, we will sometimes get just and reasonable results and other times we will get precisely the opposite results.
In this specific context, the only way a person can logically argue that an absolute age-of-consent law will always produce reasonable and just results would be if all individuals matured at exactly the same rate - which is simply not the case.
That is exactly it, Sven. Probably about half of 16 year olds are more mature than half of 15 year olds. This law will do nothing to protect anyone from exploitation. To use the example above, since the couple in question have every intention of continuing their relationship when the younger turns 16, does anyone really believe they won't have or haven't had or aren't having sex before that date on a clandestine basis? These couples are not who I am worried about. There was full disclosure in their case. The children under 16 that I am worried about are the ones who know their relationship is illegal and keep it a secret.
Remind's inference that women agree with this law while men don't is just nuts as this law has been condemned by just about every group that advocates for youth rights and by the Canadian AIDS society, EGALE, the Canadian Federation of Sexual Health and many more groups - anybody who lives in the real world and looks at this issue from the perspective of what effects laws are likely to have in the real world can see what the problems are.
This is from the Canadian AIDS Society, four years ago.
[quote]The average age of first sexual intercourse is 14.1 years for boys and 14.5 years for girls as reported in the Canadian Youth, Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Study (2003) by the Canadian Council of Ministers of Education. In 2000, 29% of all positive HIV tests in Canada were reported by youth ages 15-29. Young people between the ages of 15 and 19 already have the highest rate of sexually transmitted infections in Canada.
The Canadian AIDS Society believes that the Canadian government should be focussing their efforts on promoting consistent, comprehensive HIV/AIDS and sexual health education across Canada. The best way to protect and support youth is to ensure that education and services are available to inform them about their rights and options, and the risks and benefits of engaging in sexual activity. Educating youth to make informed choices that are right for them is better addressed through parental guidance and comprehensive sexual health education than by using the Criminal Code.
