Tories move to raise age of consent

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Buff

IIRC the bill was presented by the tories and defeated by the liberals when everybody was jockying for position during the vote of non confidence days. The liberals voted against it not because the didn't like it but for their own parites political agendas.

Still makes them look like a bunch of weirdo's.

[StoneCole]

Originally Posted by KevanGuy

"There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures...and the Dutch. "

Austin: Only two things scare me, and one is nuclear war.
Basil: What's the other?
Austin: Excuse me?
Basil: What's the other thing that scares you?
Austin: Carnies.
Basil: What?
Austin: Circus folk. Nomads you know. Smell like cabbage. Small hands.

[Buff]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Still makes them look like a bunch of weirdo's.

Its the Liberal Party...

[jolinar of malkshor]

I am just amazed at how long it took to change this law. Why wasn't this an issue years ago? And why have people put up with it for so long?

[Buff]

Umm... see my previous response?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Ya but the Tories where in two terms before them and nothing was changed. Also seems people are more concerned about the environment or registering long arms rather than preventing perverts from abusing little boys and girls.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Well no offense, but your friends are sound pretty creepy. Forget all the naughty aspects of a 24 year old guy dating a 14 year old girl, the guy has to have a few serious problems if he can even just hang out with girls that age.

Any grown man that thinks it's alright to date a girl who is in Grade 9 deserves a slap in the face, among other things.

NOT disagreeing with these two, fortunately any guy who's creepy enough to do that, creeps out any 14 yr old girl.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

NOT disagreeing with these two, fortunately any guy who's creepy enough to do that, creeps out any 14 yr old girl.

Unfortuantely not true.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by J pold

Having 2 younger sisters, Ahem to that

I thank God every day that I don't have any sisters, I'm over protective enough of close female friends and the ****ing *******s out there, my own flesh and blood... I'm concerned if I ever have a daughter, dunno how I'd do it

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Unfortuantely not true.

let me rephrase, with these guys it is

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I am just amazed at how long it took to change this law. Why wasn't this an issue years ago? And why have people put up with it for so long?

Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons), was passed in 2005 (by a dastardly, do-nothing Liberal gov't IIRC) to address many of these issues.

A few overviews here and here.

Under this new prohibition, courts may infer that a relationship is exploitative of the young person based on its nature and circumstances, including the age of the young person, any difference of age, the evolution of the relationship, and the degree of control or influence exercised over the young person. These factors reflect the reality that there are different indicators of exploitation of a young person. While the chronological age of the young person is one such indicator there are others including a difference in age between the young person and the other person, as well as how the relationship developed (e.g., secretly over the Internet). This new offence focuses on the wrongful conduct of the exploiter rather than on the consent of the young person to that conduct.

. . . .

Bill C-2 provides increased protection against exploitative sexual activity. It creates a new offence against the sexual exploitation of youth under 18 years where the relationship is exploitative of the young person, as evidenced by the nature and circumstances of the relationship, including the age of the young person, the difference in age between the youth and the other person, how the relationship evolved, and the degree of control or influence exercised over the young person.

Accordingly, this new offence provides youth with better protection against sexual exploitation by focusing on the wrongful conduct of the other person who exploits their vulnerability and not on whether they “consented” to be exploited.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Mike F

Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons), was passed in 2005 (by a dastardly, do-nothing Liberal gov't IIRC) to address many of these issues.

A few overviews here and here.

Under this new prohibition, courts may infer that a relationship is exploitative of the young person based on its nature and circumstances, including the age of the young person, any difference of age, the evolution of the relationship, and the degree of control or influence exercised over the young person. These factors reflect the reality that there are different indicators of exploitation of a young person. While the chronological age of the young person is one such indicator there are others including a difference in age between the young person and the other person, as well as how the relationship developed (e.g., secretly over the Internet). This new offence focuses on the wrongful conduct of the exploiter rather than on the consent of the young person to that conduct.

. . . .

Bill C-2 provides increased protection against exploitative sexual activity. It creates a new offence against the sexual exploitation of youth under 18 years where the relationship is exploitative of the young person, as evidenced by the nature and circumstances of the relationship, including the age of the young person, the difference in age between the youth and the other person, how the relationship evolved, and the degree of control or influence exercised over the young person.

Accordingly, this new offence provides youth with better protection against sexual exploitation by focusing on the wrongful conduct of the other person who exploits their vulnerability and not on whether they “consented” to be exploited.

Thanks for that, I am aware of that legislation, as you see it was only passed a year ago. Seeing since that the Libs were in power for 13 years it took them quite a bit of time, not to mention a lot of pressure from the Tories. Also this only takes into account people who actively exploit children. It doesnt and didn't stop 40 year olds doin 14 year olds.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Thanks for that, I am aware of that legislation, as you see it was only passed a year ago. Seeing since that the Libs were in power for 13 years it took them quite a bit of time, not to mention a lot of pressure from the Tories. Also this only takes into account people who actively exploit children. It doesnt and didn't stop 40 year olds doin 14 year olds.

It's typical government meandering. I don't know why you are so shocked about it. The Conservatives will do the same things.

And do some of you guys really believe that the Liberals are or look like "a bunch of weirdos" because they didn't change this law the minute they took office? Do you think the MPs were a bunch of people thinking "yeah, it's okay for a 40 year old to have sex with a teenager"?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

It's typical government meandering. I don't know why you are so shocked about it. The Conservatives will do the same things.

And do some of you guys really believe that the Liberals are or look like "a bunch of weirdos" because they didn't change this law the minute they took office? Do you think the MPs were a bunch of people thinking "yeah, it's okay for a 40 year old to have sex with a teenager"?

The conservatives have introduced more relevant legislation in the last 6 month than the liberals did the last 6 yrs. These guys are getting sh*t done.

And yes, what else were they thinking if they didnt want to change the law?

[RougeUnderoos]

Ahh yes, all hail the great Conservative Government. They've taken over and this place is going to shape right up.

I really don't know why the law stayed the same all those years, but you really don't think much of Canada if you believe we'd elect a bunch of people that think adults having sex with teenagers is okay. Maybe you can enlighten us with a history lesson on this issue, and while you are at it can you explain to me while Brian Mulroney and his Conservative majority didn't change it either. I'm sure the Liberal Satanic Pedophile Party can't be blamed for that.

[jolinar of malkshor]

If you read a few posts back I also b**ched out the Mulroney government. They could have and should ahve done it back then.

And your right, this country is going to be much better off now then it was.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Ahh yes, all hail the great Conservative Government. They've taken over and this place is going to shape right up.

I really don't know why the law stayed the same all those years, but you really don't think much of Canada if you believe we'd elect a bunch of people that think adults having sex with teenagers is okay. Maybe you can enlighten us with a history lesson on this issue, and while you are at it can you explain to me while Brian Mulroney and his Conservative majority didn't change it either. I'm sure the Liberal Satanic Pedophile Party can't be blamed for that.

ROFLMAO Rouge...puttin a stick in a hornets nest are ya? Thats as bad as me yakkin religion....

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

And do some of you guys really believe that the Liberals are or look like "a bunch of weirdos" because they didn't change this law the minute they took office?

I don't.

I think the Liberals are or look like "a bunch of weirdos" because they let playing politics, on a totally non non-confidence vote (ie: no way the gov't could be brought down), stand in the way of voting in a perfectly sensible piece of legislation.

Who cares what the legislation... if you're going to reject it because of who proposed it rather than what it contains, you look like "a bunch of weirdos" to me.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Thanks for that, I am aware of that legislation, as you see it was only passed a year ago. Seeing since that the Libs were in power for 13 years it took them quite a bit of time, not to mention a lot of pressure from the Tories. Also this only takes into account people who actively exploit children. It doesnt and didn't stop 40 year olds doin 14 year olds.

The legislation specifically sets out that a wide age disparity, such as between a 14 and 40 year old, is one factor that can establish that a relationship is exploitive, allowing the 40 year old to be charged under the relevnant sections of the criminal code. Similarly, the focus on the evolution and nature and circumstances of the relationship, eg. luring a teen through the internet, can allow an adult to be charged under the exploitation provisions even if the subsequent sex was entirely consensual.

So yes, it is capable of stopping 40 year olds from doing 14 year olds.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Mike F

The legislation specifically sets out that a wide age disparity, such as between a 14 and 40 year old, is one factor that can establish that a relationship is exploitive, allowing the 40 year old to be charged under the relevnant sections of the criminal code. Similarly, the focus on the evolution and nature and circumstances of the relationship, eg. luring a teen through the internet, can allow an adult to be charged under the exploitation provisions even if the subsequent sex was entirely consensual.

So yes, it is capable of stopping 40 year olds from doing 14 year olds.

Ya luring a kid over the internet is exploitive. No ****. Age does not determine if you can be charged. Its only one factor, there has to be more than one factor guy. It needs to be illegal plain and simple, no room for interpretation.