The age limit was almost passed on consential sex

[Anjew]

Conservative MP Rick Casson



MPs vote against raising age of sexual consent

var byString = ""; var sourceString = "CTV.ca News Staff"; if ((sourceString != "") && (byString != "")) { document.write(byString + ", "); } else { document.write(byString); } CTV.ca News Staff

A Conservative MP's attempt to raise the age of consent has failed, with a resounding defeat in the House of Commons.

When Conservative MP Rick Casson's bill was put to a vote Wednesday night, 99 parliamentarians voted in favour of increasing the minimum age of consent for sex by two years, to 16.

A total of 167 MPs voted against the bill.

Under existing law, 14-year-olds can legally have sex in Canada. Casson wanted the minimum age raised to 16, in the hope that increasing the scope of the law would protect children from sexual predators.

The Lethbridge, Alberta MP had the support of his fellow Conservatives, as well as several members of the Liberal Party.

"I support it basically on the important principle that people need to be protected," Liberal MP Maurizo Bevilacqua told CTV News ahead of the vote.

And Liberal MP Dan McTeague agreed, criticizing the existing law for doing little to protect young teenagers from sexual exploitation.

"If two young people are engaged, that's fine, but my concern is when a 40-year-old and a 14-year-old is involved," McTeague said.

But in the end, their support was not enough to carry the bill.

Federal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler was among the proposed law's most outspoken critics. He says Casson's legislation -- if it became the law of the land -- would not only do little to stop predators, it would also criminalize so-called "puppy love."

And that's a step he was not prepared to take.

"We don't want to criminalize innocent sexual behaviour among teenagers and young people," Cotler said.

Casson had hoped that hurdle could be overcome by close-in-age exemptions for young people born within three or four years of each other.

According to the Attorney General, however, the Criminal Code and the pending Bill C-2 already before Parliament offers adequate protection for children.

[esoter1c]

All the old paedophiles decided not to raise the age limit.

All the old skinners protect eachother.

When they find a judge with a load of kiddie porn, nothing happens.

Sick, Sick, Sick.

I wish some righteous looney would off some of these creeps.

This sends a message to all the skinners of the world.

Come to Canada where you can screw all the kids you want.

Anybody feelin' righteous ?

[Roxxie]

all i can say is wow!!! thats just WRONG

Edit~not to mention DISTURBING and GROSS

[IntakE]

I thnk it should have been passed.
I know a situation where that could be handy, a girl I know was 14 when she first had sex with a 22 year old.
I think it's sick but nothing could be done she was 14.

[esoter1c]

Where the fuck are the parents ?

How about a Fuckin' referendum on this ?

I thought Canadians had a voice/choice in these matters ?!

[ebbomega]

JUST WHAT WE NEED! A referendum. Because those aren't costly and don't completely defeat the purpose of representative politics.

What I'd like to see happen is what they used to have: Age of consent is 16, 14 is ok as long as the partner isn't 16+. Or some variation like that. Seems like a good compromise, no?

[Roxxie]

^^^thats agreeable

[esoter1c]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

JUST WHAT WE NEED! A referendum. Because those aren't costly and don't completely defeat the purpose of representative politics.

What I'd like to see happen is what they used to have: Age of consent is 16, 14 is ok as long as the partner isn't 16+. Or some variation like that. Seems like a good compromise, no?

Representative Politics.

Sorry the only people gettin' represented here are the ped's.

Costly Referendum, compared to say oh i dunno one of their lunch's.

You really are part of the problem.

Wake up, this gov't never represents the public's opinions, if they did they wouldn't fuckin' be there in the first place.

[ebbomega]

Y'know, it looks like words, but all I'm reading is "wank wank wank wank wank wank wank"

[esoter1c]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

Y'know, it looks like words, but all I'm reading is "wank wank wank wank wank wank wank"

Get yer bf's dick outta yer face, that might help, on many different levels.

[Drazkers]

uhh yah it should be raised, 16 has a much better ring to it then 14, i recomned using this little equation, take your age, divide it in half and add seven. That should be the ULTIMATE youngest you should go, i personaly will only go a year or two younger, but thats because i find anything younger just can't relate.

[miss.myra]

um, the bottom line is if you're say over 18 and sleeping with a 14 or a 16 year old no matter if it is 'legal' you're still 'creepy'

[mapleleaf4ever]

I thought there was more to the legislation anyways like if you're over a certain age and if you're in a position of authority etc?

[Antenna_Boy]

Originally Posted by Drazkers

uhh yah it should be raised, 16 has a much better ring to it then 14, i recomned using this little equation, take your age, divide it in half and add seven. That should be the ULTIMATE youngest you should go, i personaly will only go a year or two younger, but thats because i find anything younger just can't relate.

I thought that 19 has a better age ring to it...I think that even 16 is way too young...if you have sex at that young of an age, there may be something psychological wrong with them.

[Ms.Chop]

Originally Posted by 3507321C

All the old paedophiles decided not to raise the age limit.

All the old skinners protect eachother.

When they find a judge with a load of kiddie porn, nothing happens.

Sick, Sick, Sick.

I wish some righteous looney would off some of these creeps.

This sends a message to all the skinners of the world.

Come to Canada where you can screw all the kids you want.

Anybody feelin' righteous ?

EXACTLY MY THOUGHT!#$%#@$

GROSS FOR SURE!

[Ms.Chop]

Originally Posted by IntakE

I thnk it should have been passed.
I know a situation where that could be handy, a girl I know was 14 when she first had sex with a 22 year old.
I think it's sick but nothing could be done she was 14.

actually..

i believe... if you are 14 and you have sex with someone over the age of 18 it's not considered consesual(sp?) it's considered rape...

im not sure.. but since 18 is the legal age of being an adult in canada.. and 14 is still a minor it will not be considered consesual(sp?)

not sure.

[Ryan Ross]

Originally Posted by Ms.Chop

actually..

i believe... if you are 14 and you have sex with someone over the age of 18 it's not considered consesual(sp?) it's considered rape...

im not sure.. but since 18 is the legal age of being an adult in canada.. and 14 is still a minor it will not be considered consesual(sp?)

not sure.

Yeah im pretty sure she's right. It's only 14 if that person is having sex with a person who is under the age of 18. After that its considered statuatory rape...

[galaxie]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

What I'd like to see happen is what they used to have: Age of consent is 16, 14 is ok as long as the partner isn't 16+. Or some variation like that. Seems like a good compromise, no?

That's pretty much how it works now...
I asked a police officer about this once, and he said that the law is very muddy regarding this entire issue.

[Akeel]

Originally Posted by Blunted

Yeah im pretty sure she's right. It's only 14 if that person is having sex with a person who is under the age of 18. After that its considered statuatory rape...

thats the law in the US, in canada its like this

The Criminal Code does not now criminalize consensual sexual activity with or between persons 14 or over, unless it takes place in a relationship of trust or dependency, in which case sexual activity with persons over 14 but under 18 can constitute an offence, notwithstanding their consent. Even consensual activity with those under 14 but over 12 may not be an offence if the accused is under 16 and less than two years older than the complainant. The exception, of course, is anal intercourse, to which unmarried persons under 18 cannot legally consent, although both the Ontario Court of Appeal(3) and the Quebec Court of Appeal(4) have struck down the relevant section of the Criminal Code.

[esoter1c]

Originally Posted by Akeel

thats the law in the US, in canada its like this

The Criminal Code does not now criminalize consensual sexual activity with or between persons 14 or over, unless it takes place in a relationship of trust or dependency, in which case sexual activity with persons over 14 but under 18 can constitute an offence, notwithstanding their consent. Even consensual activity with those under 14 but over 12 may not be an offence if the accused is under 16 and less than two years older than the complainant. The exception, of course, is anal intercourse, to which unmarried persons under 18 cannot legally consent, although both the Ontario Court of Appeal(3) and the Quebec Court of Appeal(4) have struck down the relevant section of the Criminal Code.

That's some vague shit.

[Akeel]

^
yeah, whats really stupid is that we have very clear child pornography laws that state material showing people under the age of 18 nude is considered child porn and illegal, which u can get charged for possesing and thrown in jail....but u can still have sex with em if they consent and u dont take pictures.....wtf?

[Ree Fresh]

I think it was right the first time around when it was ok at 14, but not with someone over the age of 16. The way I notive ppl's morals in society have changed and think it's ok to sleep with anyone at any age, therefore are taking advantage of the law. Although theres also the issue of young kids lying about there age, especialy girls these days days try to dress so much older than they are... but hey even I fell for a lying 16 year old.

Originally Posted by 3507321C

Get yer bf's dick outta yer face, that might help, on many different levels.

Best debate ever, your clearly stating your point!

btw: about your point regarding "where are the parents" It seems all ppl do is blame one another. We cant do much about parentes becuse the way the economie is going... its nearly impossible not to have both parents wroking full time. I think alot of the problem has to do with moral teaching and the way society looks at issues like a 22 year old sleeping with a 14 year old. Its sad that its not that big of a shock anymore.

[fable]

btw: about your point regarding "where are the parents" It seems all ppl do is blame one another. We cant do much about parentes becuse the way the economie is going... its nearly impossible not to have both parents wroking full time. I think alot of the problem has to do with moral teaching and the way society looks at issues like a 22 year old sleeping with a 14 year old. Its sad that its not that big of a shock anymore

HA! don’t put more pressure on parents (the legal guardian of such children and what they do up until they are the age of 18) but rather look at such ambiguous terms as "moral teachings" and "how society looks at issues"??

Where did you find this bullshit - the Christian right handbook??

Please explain to me, how one goes about addressing societal issues, and notions of morality without focusing on the paramount individuals themselves, a la the parental systems and respective children?

I do agree that parents are under more pressure to, well "parent" at a specific level, the challenge being compounded with our ideals of what "successful" parenting is these days. Throw in massively expensive post secondary tuition’s, , a break down in the school systems at the executive board of trustees level, and of course the daily bombardment of capitalistic rooted cosumerligion(yes I know its not a real word, but it works!)

You cant research a society without looking at the specifics. Common sense says that the legal age should be older, why isn’t it? Like 343u953295 mentioned before, why don’t factions of parents have a say? Why is it that they are being represented by school board trustees that make more money than corporate lawyers? Why isn’t the judicial system and amendments available to parental interest groups to take an active participatory role?

Some one shat on the idea of a referendum? Why the fuck are you bringing up terms of dollars when we are talking about the legal age of consent of OUR children? Give me a fucking break, what cloud city do you live in to think that even the most basic concerns of the general population mean a goddamn thing to our "elected representatives" You say it breaks down our system of elected representatives - I ask you when the last fucking time you voted for someone you wholeheartedly believed would represent the concerns of working/poor classes vs., voting for the lesser of two/three evils?

I say fuck yeah to referendum, and take the initial hit to our collective wallets, and then backbill the government when everyone wises up to the fact that, bitching about "costs" in regards to holding a referendum in regards to a complete lack of judgment at the legislative level involving our young, and yet being completely ignorant to the fact our military budget is currently 12.8 billions is the straight I-R-O-N-Y!!! to the billionth degree!

representative politics.

what does this term actually mean to you in a realistic sense?

Because when I look at that phrase all I see is HYPOCRISY?

it may hurt the wallet, but in the world outside of fantasyland where mp's and mla's don’t just run smokescreens for the premiers and prime minister, opting to actually voice the collective concerns of their respective riding members, we only have a few tools to essentially give our government a bitchslap, one of those few ways is a referendum, which I agree are costly, but what happens when we hold a referendum on our national budget, or governmental members expense accounts, or full disclosure on campaign contributions/transfers of funds. Its time we stop with the Band-Aids.

We cant do much about parentes becuse the way the economie is going...

To just say this is a fucking MASSIVE understatement, would you care to eloborate? The "economy" is a very broad sector kick some religion for the heads who aint in the know-

[fable]

The exception, of course, is anal intercourse, to which unmarried persons under 18 cannot legally consent,

but! "IF IT DONT FIT, YA GOTTA EQUIT!"