Omar F*****G Khadr is getting $10.5 milion

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Why do they need protection?

Are you being serious?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Are you being serious?

Yes. Why are we offering people under 16 more protection than people over 16?

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

i think the next logical step is for underage sex slaves to start taking blame for their actions. if a 13 year old is talented enough to be a whore she clearly understands whats going on around her. either way ignorance is no excuse. its time for a crack down and for us to levy heavy penalties on underage sex "slaves" the world over.

The hyperbole is strong in you. There is a reason age of consent laws exist, in part to protect against situations such as these.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Age of consent is appropriate at 16 could possibly be moved higher. Your interpretation of the law in this instance seems to be skewed. The age of consent is designed to protect people under the age of 16 from sexual predators, not protect sexual predators under the age of 16

But it does also protect predators under the age of 16.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

But it does also protect predators under the age of 16.

Inadvertently, possibly. However, the spirit and intent is to protect victims under the age of 16

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yes. Why are we offering people under 16 more protection than people over 16?

Well, for the spirit and intent behind the age of consent it is to protect against adults preying on youth for a sexual puropose. I can see where you're trying to angle here.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Well, for the spirit and intent behind the age of consent it is to protect against adults preying on youth for a sexual puropose. I can see where you're trying to angle here.

What makes people under the age of 16 more uniquely susceptible to being "preyed upon" than those over the age of 16?

[blankall]

The age of consent, as per the Geneva Convention, is 15.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Well, for the spirit and intent behind the age of consent it is to protect against adults preying on youth for a sexual puropose. I can see where you're trying to angle here.

But why do young people need to be protected from coercion by adults? They are perfectly capable of acting autonomously and with complete understanding of consequences...in your opinion. So you should be able to nail a fourteen year old. Right?

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

What makes people under the age of 16 more uniquely susceptible to being "preyed upon" than those over the age of 16?

Sexually, kids are more susceptible to being preyed upon by adults than ever for societal pressures, peer pressure and access via social media. Kids are constantly bombarded by pressures these days as opposed to 5, 10, 15,20 years ago.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

But why do young people need to be protected from coercion by adults? They are perfectly capable of acting autonomously and with complete understanding of consequences...in your opinion. So you should be able to nail a fourteen year old. Right?

The fact that you at comparing a minor being sexually assaulted by an adult to a 15 year old terrorist is disgusting. You're being purposely ignorant to satisfy your narrative.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Sexually, kids are more susceptible to being preyed upon by adults than ever for societal pressures, peer pressure and access via social media. Kids are constantly bombarded by pressures these days as opposed to 5, 10, 15,20 years ago.

But why are they more susceptible to being preyed upon? Why are they more suspectible to these "pressures" or the social media, both of which exist in even greater prevelance for adults?

Do you think these pressures are unique solely to sexual activity? Do you think children are more suspectible to being preyed upon by other, non-sexual-type criminal interests?

[Amethyst]

You are 13 years old and living in Afghanistan. Your family wants you making IEDs with the Taliban. Your friends come from the people around you, so are either Taliban members or sympathizers. Despite being 13 years old, when most people still get their sense of right and wrong from parents or close friends, you have come to the conclusion that this is wrong. Your family won't help you go against what they believe in. There are no social service agencies that can help you. Any people in Afghanistan who are opposed to the Taliban are living in fear and certainly won't help you escape your family who support the Taliban. Everyone around you supports the Taliban, so if you try to make any escape plans, they will likely find out and you're dead. Maybe you are also very smart and can figure out how to get to the western forces and ask for help, but will they give it to you? And if you try and they won't help you, you're dead.

What do you do?

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

The fact that you at comparing a minor being sexually assaulted by an adult to a 15 year old terrorist is disgusting. You're being purposely ignorant to satisfy your narrative.

These are your rules. What makes a fourteen year old an innocent and deserving of protection in one case but not the other. You're completely stuck in your own narrative. Either kids are capable of complex reasoning and understanding of consequences or they are not. Your opinion in they are. I find that disgusting and stupid. But it's your opinion and you're entitled.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Inadvertently, possibly. However, the spirit and intent is to protect victims under the age of 16

You believe there was no intent for the law to protect everyone under that age? So if someone did something predatory when they were say 13, the intent was for them to now be considered legal age to give consent to sex?

[jammies]

This has to be in the running for stupidest controversy of the 21st century. Just listen to yourselves: "Let's try a 13 year old boy for treason."

Do you want fascists? 'Cause that's how you end up with fascists. It all seems like great fun until you realize the rule of law that protected and succored those you despise, also protected and succored you.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

You implied it when you said he didn't deserve the money he received as a result of it.

I never implied that but to your credit you asked for clarification and I gave it to you. Is that enough?

The legal advisors the government had working this case obviously must have felt there was a high probability of either the damages awarded would be more than $10M or that a combination of the damages and the litigation costs would be. Right or wrong they made the financially sensible route. Take the politics out of the equation, this is a legal matter, if the liberals made this decision based on the legal advice they were given then it was the right call.

A loss-cutting settlement might make eminent sense, but the whirlwind was allowed to clatter along all week without so much as a proper media briefing, an official statement, a formal explanation or even a single honest and candid answer—not even when the question was put directly to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau during a press conference in Ireland.

Absurdly, neither the payout amount nor the wording of the apology were mentioned Friday, owing to the deal’s confidentiality provisos.

Donald Trump’s White House had been “pre-informed” about the settlement, but all week Canadians have been obliged to rely on assumptions, unnamed sources and conjecture, drawing from all the usual reservoirs of prejudice and partisan bias in speculation about the political considerations that went into the deal and the political embarrassments it was intended to avoid.

An all-party apology would seem unlikely in Khadr’s case, especially in the way developments have unfolded this week. Opposition leader Andrew Scheer’s Conservatives are not in a very forgiving or apologetic mood. Not every MP in the Liberal caucus is happy about the way this has come together, either.

This is not the sort of thing that just blows over and fades away.

http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-s...ng-omar-khadr/

As for having the elected officials pay for the damages, that's not how the system works and you are smart enough to know that.

Excuse me? I'm well aware of how the system works. I merely made a suggestion/opinion that elected officals should pay.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

But why are they more susceptible to being preyed upon? Why are they more suspectible to these "pressures" or the social media, both of which exist in even greater prevelance for adults?

Do you think these pressures are unique solely to sexual activity? Do you think children are more suspectible to being preyed upon by other, non-sexual-type criminal interests?

Again, I see you angle here but I disagree on how you are trying to draw parallels between a kid having sex underage and a kid making bombs to kill soldiers of his own country. Both are reprehensible, one is deliberately targeting the state upon which he holds citizenship.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

These are your rules. What makes a fourteen year old an innocent and deserving of protection in one case but not the other. You're completely stuck in your own narrative. Either kids are capable of complex reasoning and understanding of consequences or they are not. Your opinion in they are. I find that disgusting and stupid. But it's your opinion and you're entitled.

You clearly have zero intent of acknowledging different types of crime, their severity or effect on the general populace. There is no point in arguing with you.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Again, I see you angle here but I disagree on how you are trying to draw parallels between a kid having sex underage and a kid making bombs to kill soldiers of his own country. Both are reprehensible, one is deliberately targeting the state upon which he holds citizenship.

both are reprehensible and in both cases, the minor ought to be afforded the same protections under the law.

Serious question: do you even know the details of the actual event where Speer was killed?