Tories move to raise age of consent

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

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.

Has it ever happened in Canadian history that a 40 year old guy was caught having sex with a minor and nobody did anything about it because of this "age of consent" law? Has it happened, even once, that a 40 year-old's sexual relationship with a 14 year old was deemed "non-exploitative" and he was free to go on doing what he was doing?

I've never heard of such a thing. Have you? I agree with you that this law has to change, but the way you talk it's like you think there is some free-for-all going on out there and middle-aged men are flagrantly carrying on with teenage girls and nothing can be or is done about it and all the while it was tacitly endorsed by the Liberal Scumbag Evil Party.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I agree with you that this law has to change

So why didn't the Liberal party and why aren't you asking that question? What is the need to allow for that possible exemption?

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

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.

What are you talking about? It's illegal if it is sexual exploitation, and there are a number of factors that can establish that a relationship is exploitive, with age difference being one explicitely mentioned.

Criminal Code Section 153:

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

(1.2) A judge may infer that a person is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person from the nature and circumstances of the relationship, including
(a) the age of the young person;
(b) the age difference between the person and the young person;
(c) the evolution of the relationship; and
(d) the degree of control or influence by the person over the young person

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Mike F

What are you talking about? It's illegal if it is sexual exploitation, and there are a number of factors that can establish that a relationship is exploitive, with age difference being one explicitely mentioned.

I think the point trying to be made is this:

Why does it have to depend on a Judge's judgement? Why not make it black and white?

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Has it ever happened in Canadian history that a 40 year old guy was caught having sex with a minor and nobody did anything about it because of this "age of consent" law? Has it happened, even once, that a 40 year-old's sexual relationship with a 14 year old was deemed "non-exploitative" and he was free to go on doing what he was doing?

The problem with that is you are asking us to show you proof that people not breaking the law aren't prosecuted. I think a more fair question would be "Has anybody not in a position of trust ever been convicted of having sex with a 14 or 15 year old?"

For somebody to look up how many convictions there have been is far easier than trying to look up the number of times somebody hasn't been convicted. What you are asking is like asking how many people go through a police radar gun doing 1km/h under the limit.

Like was said above, I like the fact that there is now a law that is going to be black and white.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by calculoso

So why didn't the Liberal party and why aren't you asking that question? What is the need to allow for that possible exemption?

I don't know why the didn't change it. I don't know why I'm not asking that question on a hockey message board. I guess it never occurred to me.

I do know that the Liberal party is made up of politicians though and knowing that I'm just not as shocked by foot-dragging and partisanship as some other people appear to be.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by ken0042

The problem with that is you are asking us to show you proof that people not breaking the law aren't prosecuted. I think a more fair question would be "Has anybody not in a position of trust ever been convicted of having sex with a 14 or 15 year old?"

Well it was kind of a rhetorical question. I know I've never heard of 40 year old being handed a get-out-of-jail free card because this 'age of consent' stuff. Has anyone else? Maybe it has happened, but we would have heard of it I'd think.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by calculoso

I think the point trying to be made is this:

Why does it have to depend on a Judge's judgement? Why not make it black and white?

That's not the point Jolinar was trying to make.

But to address your question, I guess the issue is whether you want a blunt black and white tool that is easier to enforce, or a more nuanced tool that looks at the actual circumstances in a given case.

For example, say you have a relationship between two individuals: as of today, one is 14 and the other 19 -- that would be legal and therefore "OK". But what happens if the second individual turns 20 two months before the 14 year old turns 15?

The easy to enforce black and white tool says that the second individual suddenly goes from "OK" to a criminal, while the harder to enforce but nuanced tool looks at the actual relationship to decide.

There's not really a right answer, IMO.

[ken0042]

If the 19 year old's birthday is before the 14 year old's, then they are more than 5 years older.

So the point is once your are done high school, you should quit cruising the Jr High schools for chicks; because not only is it wrong, but now there's a law saying you shouldn't.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by ken0042

So the point is once your are done high school, you should quit cruising the Jr High schools for chicks; because not only is it wrong, but now there's a law saying you shouldn't.

Well there goes my plans for this weekend.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by ken0042

If the 19 year old's birthday is before the 14 year old's, then they are more than 5 years older.

So the point is once your are done high school, you should quit cruising the Jr High schools for chicks; because not only is it wrong, but now there's a law saying you shouldn't.

Ok, how about this: 2 relationships identicle in every way except that in one they are born 60 months apart (i.e. 5 years) and in the other they are born 62 months apart.

Is one really OK and the other so reprehensible that we need to automatically make the older partner a criminal?

[ken0042]

Good point Mike. I would say it probably happened something like this. Somebody said there should be a 4 year gap. That way an older Grade 12 guy could date a younger Grade 10 girl and it all still be OK. Then somebody said "what if the guy is 51 months older and not 48 months? Why is that now a crime for the sake of a few months? So then they decided on 5 years.

One could now say "What about a 62 month age difference" and then they make it 6 years, and so on, and so on. And then we are back to the 40 year old dating the 14 year old.

Bottom line is it's about making our kids safer than they are right now.

[Clarkey]

A caller on a talk radio program said that her 14 year old was having sex with a 30/40-some year old (can't remember the age) and they would phone the police but were told there was nothing the police could do about it.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

A caller on a talk radio program said that her 14 year old was having sex with a 30/40-some year old (can't remember the age) and they would phone the police but were told there was nothing the police could do about it.

Yeah, I saw a mother on CBC the other night who's 14 year-old daughter was having a relationship with a 33-year-old, and the police couldn't do anything about it because it was consentual and legal. So while this legislation would make that relationship illegal, it would be legal again in a year and a half when the girl turns 16.

I think I sliding scale is needed: if you're 14, you get a 2-year upward window (partners can be as old as 16), if you're 15, you get a 4-year window, if you're 16, you get an 8-year window (up to age 24), and if you're 17, you get a 12-year window. Such a system would give teens increasing freedoms as they mature, and would outlaw relationships between 30-year-olds and anyone under 18.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Has it ever happened in Canadian history that a 40 year old guy was caught having sex with a minor and nobody did anything about it because of this "age of consent" law? Has it happened, even once, that a 40 year-old's sexual relationship with a 14 year old was deemed "non-exploitative" and he was free to go on doing what he was doing?

I've never heard of such a thing. Have you? I agree with you that this law has to change, but the way you talk it's like you think there is some free-for-all going on out there and middle-aged men are flagrantly carrying on with teenage girls and nothing can be or is done about it and all the while it was tacitly endorsed by the Liberal Scumbag Evil Party.

Actually last night they had a mother on who's 14 year old daughter ran off with a 35 year old. The legislation at the time made it impossible for the family to do anything about it.

EDIT: Whoops old news I see.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Has it ever happened in Canadian history that a 40 year old guy was caught having sex with a minor and nobody did anything about it because of this "age of consent" law? Has it happened, even once, that a 40 year-old's sexual relationship with a 14 year old was deemed "non-exploitative" and he was free to go on doing what he was doing?

I've never heard of such a thing. Have you? I agree with you that this law has to change, but the way you talk it's like you think there is some free-for-all going on out there and middle-aged men are flagrantly carrying on with teenage girls and nothing can be or is done about it and all the while it was tacitly endorsed by the Liberal Scumbag Evil Party.

It happens every day in canada that 30, 40 and even 50 year old people are in sexual relationships with these teenagers. The age of consent law that you are talking about for 14 and 15 year olds has YET to be passed. Right now consent can be given at 14.

Age is not the sole determination if someone will be charged with exploitation. There has to be other mitigating factors to be charged under this section.

It also eliminates the need to have these children testify in court and have them prove that they were not the sexual aggressor and whether or not they consented or not. That alone should be enough.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Yeah, I saw a mother on CBC the other night who's 14 year-old daughter was having a relationship with a 33-year-old, and the police couldn't do anything about it because it was consentual and legal.

Trying to resist the urge to judge someone else's parenting skills... Can't. Do. It... Blargh!

[Maritime Q-Scout]

what ever happened to good old fashion unfortuante disappearances? I know if my 14 yr old daughter was banging some 35 yr old, the 35 yr old would mysteriously disappear, and I wouldn't even have a motive as their relationship was perfect legal, hehehe

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

what ever happened to good old fashion unfortuante disappearances? I know if my 14 yr old daughter was banging some 35 yr old, the 35 yr old would mysteriously disappear, and I wouldn't even have a motive as their relationship was perfect legal, hehehe

I know what your getting at, and I would probably feel the same way. But, just because what the guy is doing to your daughter is not illegal, doesn't mean you dont have a motive.

The police would definately be checking you out.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Trying to resist the urge to judge someone else's parenting skills... Can't. Do. It... Blargh!

What?! How is that fair? At 14, the girl ran off to the streets and hooked up with an older guy. It speaks volumes that the parents have been trying so hard to get her back home.