Tories move to raise age of consent

[jolinar of malkshor]

About time this was done. It is really sick that a 40 year old and screw a 14 year old.

Tories tried to introduce this law when the Libs were in but the Libs voted it down.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/natio...e-consent.html

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

About time this was done. It is really sick that a 40 year old and screw a 14 year old.

Actually the interpretation of the law was that if the person was under 18 but 14 or over, the partner could not be more than 2 years older without parental consent. What age are the Tories raising it to? (Your link doesn't work for me)

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

About time this was done. It is really sick that a 40 year old and screw a 14 year old.

That was never true.

Still, a good move though.

[fredr123]

"Mom, Dad I know I'm only 15 but me and Old Man Fotze are in love. Do you think it would be okay if we went up to my room and made sweet love down by the fire?"

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

That was never true.

The thing is, I've heard people tell me that that the 14 year old thing was only for people 2 years older, but I could find nothing concrete to back it up. In fact, all I could find was an exclusion where the adult couldn't be in a position of trust; like a babysitter or teacher.

And I think that was where the outcry came from. From the CBC link, it indicates that the change would be to no longer allow said 40 year old to have sex with a 15 year old, but a 20 year old could.

So, under what you interpreted the law as being, this would be a step backwards.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by ken0042

The thing is, I've heard people tell me that that the 14 year old thing was only for people 2 years older, but I could find nothing concrete to back it up.

I saw a report on it on CBC a few years back when they had a special on polygamy.

[Buff]

Originally Posted by fotze

And that gets less sick the more I approach 40.

Move to Chile you filthy animal.

[ken0042]

The gov't report says nothing about a 2 year age up thing, but does mention the 5 year thing, and talks about it as being a step in "protecting our most vulnerable citizens. "

http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/...doc_31830.html

I'm sorry to say but as sick as it sounds (Fotze not withstanding), any one of us could legally have sex with a 14 year old. And I agree it's time that the law was changed. This isn't the 18th century.

I would be pleased if anybody could find something to show me that I am wrong, but I don't think I am.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

That was never true.

Still, a good move though.

Actually it is true. Under the current criminal code any person can have sex with someone 14 or older as long as they are not in a position of authority.

Please explain to me how you can make the statement "that was never true"

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Actually the interpretation of the law was that if the person was under 18 but 14 or over, the partner could not be more than 2 years older without parental consent. What age are the Tories raising it to? (Your link doesn't work for me)

Read the criminal code. There are only age provisions for sexual encounters for 12 year olds when the other is 2 years of age or under.

S. 150.1

Any person who thinks that it is illegal to have sex with a 14 year old is under a common misconception. It is legal. (currently)

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by ken0042

The gov't report says nothing about a 2 year age up thing, but does mention the 5 year thing, and talks about it as being a step in "protecting our most vulnerable citizens. "

http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/...doc_31830.html

I'm sorry to say but as sick as it sounds (Fotze not withstanding), any one of us could legally have sex with a 14 year old. And I agree it's time that the law was changed. This isn't the 18th century.

I would be pleased if anybody could find something to show me that I am wrong, but I don't think I am.

From the link you provided.

The existing age of protection of 18 years for exploitative sexual activity will be maintained.

I'm no lawyer, but it sounds to me like there is protection for people under 18 from greasy people over 18. Any adult male going for a 14 year old girl is obviously being "exploitative".

[KevanGuy]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

From the link you provided.

The existing age of protection of 18 years for exploitative sexual activity will be maintained.

I'm no lawyer, but it sounds to me like there is protection for people under 18 from greasy people over 18. Any adult male going for a 14 year old girl is obviously being "exploitative".

I think that might mean for stuff like porn. You can't have anyone under the age of 18 in there.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

From the link you provided.

The existing age of protection of 18 years for exploitative sexual activity will be maintained.

I'm no lawyer, but it sounds to me like there is protection for people under 18 from greasy people over 18. Any adult male going for a 14 year old girl is obviously being "exploitative".

Or is that in reference to child porn?

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

From the link you provided.

The existing age of protection of 18 years for exploitative sexual activity will be maintained.

I'm no lawyer, but it sounds to me like there is protection for people under 18 from greasy people over 18. Any adult male going for a 14 year old girl is obviously being "exploitative".

(As JofM furiously types a reply) Section 153 of the Criminal Code is titled Sexual Exploitation. It combines the elements of sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching with other circumstances to constitute the crime of sexual exploitation.

This offence involves a complainant who is a young person (currently between 14 and 18) and an accused who is in a position of auhtoirty or trust viz a vis that complainant.

Completely different animal than the 40 year old getting it on with the 14 year old.

[ken0042]

I thought the expoitative portion was for child prostitution, pornography, and stuff like that.

The thing is, if the current law is how you say it is, why is there a change being made?

[FlamesAddiction]

If we outlaw 14 year olds, then only outlaws will have 14 year olds!

Come on, we have to protect the west!

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by KevanGuy

I think that might mean for stuff like porn. You can't have anyone under the age of 18 in there.

Section 163.1(1) says:

In this section, “child pornography” means
(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,
(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or
(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years;
(b) any written material, visual representation or audio recording that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act;
(c) any written material whose dominant characteristic is the description, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act; or
(d) any audio recording that has as its dominant characteristic the description, presentation or representation, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by KevanGuy

I think that might mean for stuff like porn. You can't have anyone under the age of 18 in there.

I suppose it could be. Seems like common sense to me that an adult going after a 14 year-old is exploitative even if there is no money or cameras involved, so you'd think it would apply.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by fredr123

(As JofM furiously types a reply) Section 153 of the Criminal Code is titled Sexual Exploitation. It combines the elements of sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching with other circumstances to constitute the crime of sexual exploitation.

This offence involves a complainant who is a young person (currently between 14 and 18) and an accused who is in a position of auhtoirty or trust viz a vis that complainant.

Completely different animal than the 40 year old getting it on with the 14 year old.

Thanks fred

Got to it before me. Quite funny actually I was just dealing with one of those sickos.

Anyhow freddy is right.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Thanks fred

Got to it before me. Quite funny actually I was just dealing with one of those sickos.

Anyhow freddy is right.

I've seen more than my fair share over the years too. BTW, JofM, I usually am right whether you like it or not.