|
|
Post by phil on Feb 9, 2006 12:55:13 GMT -5
Any thoughts on the govrn hiking the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16 ... ??
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Feb 9, 2006 13:08:11 GMT -5
The age of consent in Canada has been 14? Really? Granted, more and more kids are active at 14 these days, but still ...
I dunno, my knee-jerk reaction here is that 16 isn't a bad (although inherently arbitrary) number. Fourteen ... that would mean that kids concieved to Smells Like Teen Spirit could be out there making their own babies real soon ...
Where the hell did the time go?
|
|
|
|
Post by rockkid on Feb 9, 2006 13:25:23 GMT -5
I am more than 110% in favor.
For godsake people face enough as adults, kids need to be F*king kids for a while longer I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Feb 9, 2006 13:40:39 GMT -5
Age of consent in Canada has been 14 since the late 1890's ...
At the time, it was the moment puberty kicked in for most "children" ...
In the U.S. it is 17 ... France 15 ... Mexico ... ... ... 12 !!
As long as the law is not applied to minors having sexual relations
but is only to get to sexual predators ... Why not !!
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Feb 9, 2006 13:43:19 GMT -5
Actually, in the U.S. it differs from state to state. In some states it is 18, in some it is 14, and in others it is somewhere in between. I'm not sure what the average is or anything, but i'd guess probably 16 or 17. |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Feb 9, 2006 13:51:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Feb 9, 2006 13:56:28 GMT -5
kids need to be F*king kids ...
Funny choice of epithet for the subject don't you thing ...? ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Feb 9, 2006 14:09:39 GMT -5
I don’t have really strong feelings about the Conservatives’ promise to raise the age but I’m not quite sure what the point is either. They say they’re going to allow some sort of leeway for adolescent sexual activity – I think they’re talking a 3-year span. Otherwise sex between, say, a 15-year old girl and her 16-year old boyfriend would become illegal. Sexual exploitation of children by adults in positions of trust or authority is already illegal. So what situation exactly are they trying to address?
|
|
|
|
Post by rockkid on Feb 9, 2006 14:27:04 GMT -5
LMFAO now that you mention it. Unintended I assure you.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Feb 9, 2006 14:42:48 GMT -5
Sexual exploitation of children by adults in positions of trust or authority is already illegal.
So what situation exactly are they trying to address?
They want to be able to go after any adult
who have sex with a kid under the age of 16 ...
It looks like that's the bottom line ...
I agree with your post BTW ... More posturing than anything else IMO
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Feb 10, 2006 8:42:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Feb 10, 2006 9:21:16 GMT -5
PMO ... SSM ...  HÉ ! What's the matter ?? Locked the caps in and the vowels out on your keyboard again ...  |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Feb 10, 2006 9:26:05 GMT -5
About the Liberals reactions to the Emerson affair ...
All I can say is ... You didn't see any of them get all sanctimonious
when Belinda crossed the parliament floor to save their seats last year ...
|
|
|
|
Post by luke on Feb 10, 2006 9:42:07 GMT -5
I don’t have really strong feelings about the Conservatives’ promise to raise the age but I’m not quite sure what the point is either. They say they’re going to allow some sort of leeway for adolescent sexual activity – I think they’re talking a 3-year span. Otherwise sex between, say, a 15-year old girl and her 16-year old boyfriend would become illegal. Sexual exploitation of children by adults in positions of trust or authority is already illegal. So what situation exactly are they trying to address? This is EXACTLY why "consent" laws are so fucking stupid. I knew probably a baker's dozen worth of 17 year-old guys in high school who were arrested because daddy was mad that his 16 year-old daughter was getting boned. |
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Feb 10, 2006 10:39:30 GMT -5
About the Liberals reactions to the Emerson affair ...
All I can say is ... You didn't see any of them get all sanctimonious
when Belinda crossed the parliament floor to save their seats last year ...True enough that the Liberals don’t have room to talk but the fascinating thing about this is that the opposition is coming mainly from Conservative Party members. And Joe Q. Public. I don’t think we can really talk about this in relation to any past occurrence of an MP from whatever party crossing the floor. It’s really quite unprecedented. Emerson spent 8 weeks campaigning for re-election to Parliament as a Liberal. The morning after the election he’s on the phone with John Reynolds beginning negotiations to cross the floor. There was no disagreement with his former party or matter of principle. It was just 'I don’t want to sit on the Opposition benches for next year or two'. He’s perpetrated a complete fraud on the volunteers who helped get him re-elected and the voters of Vancouver Kingsway. BTW, the knock against Belinda was always that she crossed the floor purely for personal ambition and there’s not a doubt in my mind that was a good part of it. The other part of the equation though was that she was socially liberal member of a socially conservative party who had ambitions to lead that party. This brought her into conflict with Harper. There are accounts of him humiliating her publicly, in front of other caucus members. In the run up to her jumping ship they actually made a video of gaffs that she’d made during the 2004 campaign and showed it to caucus as an example of how not to campaign. No wonder that she decided to get her own back when she got the chance. PMO = Prime Minister's Office
SSM = same-sex marriage 
|
|
