Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Age of sexual consent climbs to 16

KIMBERLY SHEARON

The Canadian Press

Latest comment posted at 5:33 AM EDT 01/05/08

Change that begins Thursday means adults who have sex with boys or girls aged 14 and 15 years old could face criminal charges ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: The Harper government deserves very high praise for bringing this basic protection to young people. Predators, who up until now have been drawn to Canada due to lax teen protection laws, will be placed in check. I hope our secondary schools are also educating teens about social dangers.
  2. Rachel .. commenting from Hollywood North, Canada writes: Good improvement, but there is always the loophole of what is sex.

    Famous Clinton quote of the meaning of "is":

    "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."
  3. Bill G from Calgary, Canada writes: Yes indeed Emma. I am surprised pervious governments never dealt with this issue.
  4. Regina Filange from Dryden, Canada writes: It's about time! Finally, Harper government has done something that many of us have been advocating for years. As Emma pointed out above, Canada is known world-wide as the one of many countries predators visit or move to for legal access to minors. Previous governments did deal with this issue, but failed to pass the legislation. Bravo!
  5. rob womack from Canada writes:
    Yes this is completely consistent with the Conservative government's pledge to sentence 15 year olds...(and younger) as adults...if they commit a crime...
  6. ali mansur from etobicoke, Canada writes: Since when are religious conservatives consistent?
  7. Antonio San from Canada writes: Sheeps remain legal...
  8. Carbon Blob from Ontario, Canada writes: It is interesting that 100yrs ago (or less) Canadian's saw a 14yr-old as essentially an adult; potentially with adult responsibilities and maturity.

    Even when I was young in the 80’s it was fairly unusual for an adult to live with their parents past their early 20’s. Either they went off to school…never to return to the nest, they found a job and their own apartment, or they got married and started a family.

    As time marches on our young are waiting longer and longer to achieve that status. Now we have 26-yr olds graduating with their BA, and boomeranging home to sit in their parent's basement playing video-games while they wonder what to do with themselves.

    Just making an interesting observation...
  9. Johnny Canuck from Canada writes: About time. Why were the NDP & Liberal socialists against this sensible change?.
  10. Jennifer Menna from Canada writes: I don't really see the extra protection. While we will be able to charge people with a crime if there is see between a 14/15 year old and some one over the age of 19. I doubt this will stop people. The reality is that most criminals don't expect to get caught. If there were going to engage in this behaviour the fact it is a crime isn't going to stop them. Look at the US were they have Statutory Rape Laws - people still commit the Crime.

    I also question the comments about people coming here to exploit others because of a two year difference in the law. Why not just go to Asia were there is little enforcement at all and a large sex trade.

    The previous laws protected people in the cases of rape and abuse, how is raising the age by two years different. Now I have heard that the new law will make it easier to get young street walkers off the streets - which is good however it will also push the pimps underground with the girls. A better way to help these women would be to legalize the trade etc. The reality there being we will never get rid of the s e x trade.
  11. Robert Lepage from Canada writes: Johnny Canuck,

    How do you think this piece of legislation passed if the NDP and Liberals were against it? Please elucidate. If you are going to make partisan slurs and play politics, atleast do a better job at pretending you know something.
  12. Paul Thompson from Canada writes: Robert Lepage, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Johnny Canuck to come up with anything even faintly resembling a reasonable statement.
  13. Plain Jane from Toronto, Canada writes: This is a regressive law if it doesn't include a provision to lower the age of consent for anal sex from 18 to 16. Keep it fair for everyone, gay or straight.
  14. One Eye Open from calgary, Canada writes: rob womack from Canada writes:
    Yes this is completely consistent with the Conservative government's pledge to sentence 15 year olds...(and younger) as adults...if they commit a crime...

    rob, what are you talking about? Obviously you didn't read the article...
    The law makes it illegal for adults to have sex with 15 year olds. The 15 year olds are the victims, not the criminals. The pedophiles are the criminals.
  15. james cyr from Balmertown Ontario, Canada writes: This has been long overdue....
  16. by jove from Canada writes:
    During the 1990's, child prostitution had grown into a problem so large that most Canadians became aware of how ubiquitous it had become. Many Canadians outraged that both boys and girls under the age of 16 were being hired out for sex, in most cases to much older men.

    They petitioned the governments of both Chretien and Martin to do something about this outrageous problem and in debates in the House of Commons, both the Liberal party and the NDP party defended the status quo and rebuked the demands for protection of children by your average Canadian, who in all honesty couldn't care too much what party was in power. All they wanted to do was to make sure that children were not exploited by predators.

    It took the Harper government to finally make the changes necessary and they had to threaten the Liberals with an election to get the legislation through the Senate.

    All I can say now is to thank all of the Canadians who helped drive this legislation to its successful conclusion.
  17. CD W from Canada writes: In Ontario in 1993 Justica Abela, who now sits on the supreme court authored an opinion that let a 21 year old man get away with illegal sex acts with a 14 year old because the 14 year testified that he was gay and had no gay peers. The Justice wrote the majority opinion that the 21 year old should not be found guilty as he was in a sense, "the child's peer" I guess it was due to his gayness. So the winds of change may not be "blowing" in Ontario anytime soon.
  18. Vote NDP in the next federal/ provincial election from Toronto, Canada writes: Raising the age of consent is something the NDP has supported in the past and now.

    However I want the Conservatives to go further and ensure adequate sex education in middle and high schools and ensuring that we protect victims and giving the support they need.
  19. Nancy Wilson from N.Ontario, Canada writes: This law was long overdue.I just can't figure out why is wasn't implemented years ago.
    It's a common sense law,and make may predators think twice before trying to seduce young teens.
  20. Kim Morton from Canada writes: Any one who thinks this law will stop preditors is extreemly nieve. It has always been against the law to have sex with childern but this never stopped priests. I noticed how conviently this law was placed on people who are not allowed to vote. Expect legal challenges, probably all on the taxpayers dime.
  21. I'm Not A Westerner, I Live In BC from Canada writes: Now when your 20 year old son goes to a party with drinking and such, he meets a young woman and you then you know what transpires. Only the next day her mother finds out and reveals to the police that yes she looks 17 but she's only 15 and she wants and an arrest for rape. They do and your son is now a rapist, good luck with that.
    Yes young people need to be protected from predators but this law won't help much, but it has that illusion and that is what matters the most to politicians.
  22. Dale Blackwell from Toronto, Canada writes: CD W claims that Justice Abella held that a 21 year old could "get away with illegal sex acts with a 14 year old?" Is CD W referring to R. v. M.(C.)? If so, then CD W is badly distorting that decision. The case struck down Canada's anal intercourse law.

    In fact, in that case the accused was convicted of other crimes involving the same victim - the issue in the case was whether "anal intercourse" should be treated differently by the law than other forms of sexual conduct and thereby consitute a separate crime.

    Abella J. did not find the accused to be the complainant's "peer". Nor did Abella J. say anything about whether the age of consent at the time - which was 14 - was or was not appropriate.

    I suggest that CD W go back and read the case again.
  23. Dale Blackwell from Toronto, Canada writes: One other point about CD W's comment - the case did not involve a gay couple - it was heterosexual anal intercourse. The description CD W offers of the complainant's testimony is, simply, false.
  24. John Smith from Ottawa, Canada writes: Nancy Wilson from N.Ontario, Canada writes: This law was long overdue.I just can't figure out why is wasn't implemented years ago.
    It's a common sense law,and make may predators think twice before trying to seduce young teens.

    Yeah. Now they'll try to seduce older teens.
  25. Don Adams, The Conservative Centrist from Canada writes: The pot calling the kettle black, Paul Thompson. Yepper, the pot calling the kettle black! :-)
  26. Nancy Wilson from N.Ontario, Canada writes: John Smith,
    That is likely true.
    But at least older teens will hopefully have matured enough to recognise these predators.
    There are a lot of emotional and maturity changes that occur between the ages of 14 and 16.
    As a parent of teens,I think this new law is a good thing.
    I just don't see anything negative about it.
    And it's good to see that all Parties have supported it,as they should have.
  27. Marc S from Canada writes: I'm not necessarily against the new law, but I was not aware that there was such a problem with teenage sex that we urgently needed to change it ??
  28. The Last Honest Conservative from Western, Canada writes:
    Johnny Canuck wrote:
    About time. Why were the NDP & Liberal socialists against this sensible change?.

    Johnny,
    Why did the all the Conservatives vote for age 14 in the first place ?
  29. The Last Honest Conservative from Western, Canada writes:
    Johnny Canuck wrote:
    Why were the NDP & Liberal socialists against this sensible change ?

    Johnny,
    Why are you lying ?
    It make you sound like a Harperite .........
  30. The Last Honest Conservative from Western, Canada writes:

    From the article:
    But while all political parties backed the legislation and law officials welcomed it with open arms......................
  31. Wide Awake from Canada writes: Previous incarnations of this law threatened to criminalize behaviour that was considered normal in, in particular, northern Canada so leaders there and elsewhere were opposed to it.

    For the most part, consensual sex between teenagers in Inuit culture, at least, is not considered aberrant but rather normal and predictable. Without the five year age provision, most teens would have been suddenly made criminals. This provision has now made the law acceptable throughout the country.
  32. Derek Holtom from Swan River, Canada writes: Marc S from Canada writes: I'm not necessarily against the new law, but I was not aware that there was such a problem with teenage sex that we urgently needed to change it ??

    stopping sleezy adults from having sex with 14 year old - yah, you bet there was a need for this law
  33. Jay Dubya from Toronto, Canada writes: Good news - 16 is better than 14.

    I think it should be moved to 18 to prevent exploitation by adult of minors.
  34. Alastair james Berry from Nanaimo BC CANADA, Canada writes: Folly of the first magnitude!.....Kids are getting sexually mature earlier these days........Heredity,better medical care and soy hormones in the diet............In the UK the repeated sexual offenders register is populated not by old fools like me, but BOYS UNDER THE AGE OF 16! Far better to control pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases by educating kids from kindergarten on about the pleasures and dangers of sexual activity leading to pregnancy!!! It is no time at all(in biological terms) since boys were enlisted into the British Navy as Cabin Boys at age 12, for the Officers many rising up the promotion ladder to ADMIRALS!! Pages used to be boys attached to Knights and courtiers to help dress and bathe their masters! Why we even still have page boys in Parliament in Ottawa. Surely we all remember the Fairy Tale weddings of Princess Ira Von Furstenberg's wedding?? and she was 12 years old and of legendary beauty! If the founding father of the Salvation Army could buy a 13 yrs old girl to be his live in sexual partner....so what?? It is curious how sexual child abuse is far less common in Spain Italy and Portugal where the age of consent is 12 - 13 yrs.
  35. Angus S Miskers from sunny Victoria, Canada writes: What would Elvis do?
  36. Wilf Kruggel from Canada writes: Isn't raising the age of consent similar to locking the barn after the horses got out? In Cuba, girls can marry at age 13, what then if someone marries in Cuba and brings wife to Canada, will they get arrested for having sex with minors? Wilf
  37. J S from Toronto, Canada writes: "Johnny Canuck from Canada writes: About time. Why were the NDP & Liberal socialists against this sensible change?."

    They weren't. Didn't you read the article?
  38. Bill McDonald from Canada writes: Hmmmm......My wife lobbied to have the age raised to 38 so she wouldn't have to make up excuses anymore ;-(
  39. Tony . from Waterloo, Canada writes:
    A few points. First of all, those who say that this will do nothing to reduce sexual predators are 100% correct. At best this might lead to charging a few after the fact. Still, getting a few such individuals and providing them with proper counseling is better then nothing, so I think it's a good idea.

    Second point of note. "Sexual contact", as defined in the law, is pretty much everything beyond a quick pec on the cheek. It is defined VERY broadly.

    The close-in-age exception is key to this law in my mind. Without it we would have ended up seeing 99% of the people charged being other (slightly older) teenagers whom the younger youth's parents didn't like. Even as it is I still expect most cases that make use of this law to be 19 to 21 y/o males dating 15 y/o girls and the parents seeking to lay charges against their daughter's wishes.
  40. The Conservator from Canada writes: J S from Toronto, Canada writes: "Johnny Canuck from Canada writes: About time. Why were the NDP & Liberal socialists against this sensible change?."

    They weren't. Didn't you read the article?

    Posted 30/04/08 at 11:40 PM EDT
    ===

    LOL! He has comprehension difficulties.
  41. Norman Petit from Canada writes: And just like the passing of the equal marriage law, the sun will come up in the east tomorrow and traverse the sky in an orderly fashion.
  42. M Poland from Calgary, Canada writes: I am glad that we have a government which follows through on its promises. This is a good piece of legislation that is better for life in Canada. Think twice, predators! [father of two young girls]
  43. Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: FYI, the Liberals complained and complained and screamed about how awful this bill protecting children is, and acted as if they didn't want it passed. Maybe it's actually the Liberals who have an Evil Hidden Agenda (TM) ?

    Now, to be fair, they did support it in the end. But then again, they are supporting everything in the end, so these days I'm really not so sure where they stand. They complain, scream, kick up a fuss, then vote YES en masse. It's really quite disorienting. So are they for raising the age of consent or not? Who knows. They probably don't even know.
  44. The Last Honest Conservative from Western, Canada writes:
    J S from Toronto WROTE: "Johnny Canuck from Canada writes: About time. Why were the NDP & Liberal socialists against this sensible change?."
    They weren't. Didn't you read the article ?

    J S,
    Johnny Canuck is a Conservative fabricator.
    He has been exposed before ...............
  45. Slippery Slope from Canada writes: It makes sense. Now if we can only stop Canadians from going abroad to abuse little kids.
  46. The Last Honest Conservative from Western, Canada writes:
    Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada wrote:
    the Liberals complained and complained and screamed about how awful this bill protecting children is, and acted as if they didn't want it passed.

    Jimmy,
    The bill was awful and stupid .......... until the cons flip-flopped
    ........ and voted to support the opposition ammendments
  47. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: We need a sex ed course in our schools. A good and intelligent one. Funny how the crowd that is pushing for these changes to the age of sexual consent is also the same crowd that opposes proper and intelligent sexual education. Not to mention going ballistic and jihad when "non-standard" sexuality is brought to the table. And then we have the Porn debate. Once again, it is passing strange that the same crowd that is in favour of the changes to the age of sexual consent is not only opposed to proper sex ed, but has issues with the depiction of human sexual behaviour - aka PORN - in general terms. Which raises an interesting issue. Why is it that the Rabid Right Wing is oposed to pornography and the sexual exploitation of children - which are good things - but has no problem with the sexualization of children for commercial purposes? See La Senza Girl for one example - I want someone to clarify for me why pre-pubescent girls "need" lingerie. Aside from some corporate interests and "marketing" scheme. I don't see any attempt by Stevie or his religious supporters to address the real problem here. That being the sexualization of children for commercial gain. Which issue is also very closely related to child porn. If children are sexualized for commercial purposes, they are also fair game for the predators out there. But, WTF, Business interests rule. Questioning them is a horrid thing to do. Even if it involves child abuse and sexual exploitation. OOOPPSS! Another logical inconsistancy of the RRW Fascists that are - allegedly - "running the shop". Poorly.
  48. The Last Honest Conservative from Western, Canada writes:
    Slippery,
    Are you saying that Canadians travelled to Texas to have sex with those young girls ?
  49. Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: The Last Honest Conservative, after some googleing, it seems the only amendment to the bill that passed was that there is an exception for 14 and 15 year olds, expecting a child, living with an older person, in a common law relationship.

    Other than that, it's just as it was introduced at first reading. Sooo, yeah, my original comment about the Liberals adrift, lost, out to sea, and generally confused on this (and all other matters) still holds true. After the dear Liberals were done kicking up a mad fuss, the bill got unanimous support. You don't find that odd?
  50. Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: The Last Honest Conservative, I believe Slippery is referring to the illicit sex-tourism industry in certain Asian countries that caters to westerners, including Canadians, where the sick and repugnant can get away with doing things that would rightly land them in the slammer over here.
  51. dan vanman from vancouver, Canada writes: Jimmy...of coourse it was unanimous. What do you think the optics would be for any political party to vote against protecting teen age girls from ravening predators?

    Duh.
  52. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    Conservatism 1
    Social Progression 0
  53. Rhadamanthus behind the Rockies from Canada writes: Vote NDP in the next federal/ provincial election from Toronto, Canada writes: Raising the age of consent is something the NDP has supported in the past and now.

    However I want the Conservatives to go further and ensure adequate sex education in middle and high schools and ensuring that we protect victims and giving the support they need.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Good idea but you're aiming at the wrong target. Turn your view towards your provincial legislature. Harper's government has done what he can by upgrading the criminal law, but Ottawa has no business interfering in matters of provincial jurisdiction-- of which education (sex ed or otherwise) is exclusively.
  54. Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: dan vanman, well the Liberals initially didn't have a problem threatening to derail the bill in the Senate and threatening a litany of amendments to effectively kill it.

    The NDP didn't have a problem tieing this sexual consent bill with another issue of deleting the sodomy provisions in the Criminal Code, which obviously need to be done, but really is the kiss of death for an age of consent bill which otherwise could be a slam dunk with unanimous support. The only reason it passed is because somehow the bill made it to vote without all the other nonsense attached.
  55. Paul Thompson from Canada writes: Of course CC/Don Adams (and I might have known you 2 dolts were one and the same) it is clear that your idea of somebody presenting a clear and reasonable argument would be someone whose postings resembled your own spewings of mental flatulence.
  56. dan vanman from vancouver, Canada writes: Jimmy...because a few MP's wanted their ten minutes in front of the cameras, for their version of events, most likely.

    If the Libs and NDP had REALLY wanted the things you purport to have happened, they would have attached an amendment before it made it to vote.

    Thats why it passed unanimously, unchanged.

    But the NDP should have attached something to kill those sodomy stautes. Those are more at home in Arkansas, not a supposedly enlightened society like Canada.

    My guess is that they are saving that little nugget to attack the Cons in the next election.

    I am sure there are neighborhoods like the West End in Vancouver across the urban landscape where that message will play very well.

    Peace.
  57. The Last Honest Conservative from Western, Canada writes:
    Jimmy K wrote:
    The Last Honest Conservative, after some googleing, it seems the only amendment to the bill that passed was that there is an exception for 14 and 15 year olds, expecting a child, living with an older person, in a common law relationship.

    Jimmy,
    Thats right .......... the bill was amended.......... just like I said

    GET OVER IT
  58. R L from Canada writes: Wilf Kruggel from Canada I didn't know that you could marry a Cuban and get your spouse out of Cuba unless they were a member of the Cuban Secret Service, ask Svend. If they could get out any other way they wouldn't be riding innertubes across the Florida Strait.
  59. The Last Honest Conservative from Western, Canada writes: dan vanman from vancouver wrote:
    "Thats why it passed unanimously, unchanged."

    dan,
    you and Jimmy K need to get your lies co-ordinated:

    Jimmy K from Toronto wrote:
    only amendment to the bill that passed was that there is an exception for 14 and 15 year olds, expecting a child, living with an older person, in a common law relationship............
  60. hossein hajiagha from Victoria, Canada writes: lets go have sex before Thursday boy....this is funny, 16 years old looks kids, Are you happy your 16 years old daughters go and sleep with ?????stupid guy because they buy Barby for her ....or chocolate
    should be 18 years or older. not 16 ...look to me canada is haven to rip the kids, legally and this is ashamed ,
  61. hossein hajiagha from Victoria, Canada writes: I do not understand this law?
    a 50 years old man can bring roommate or have sex with 16 years old girl? ??? some one please explain this to me how works here?
  62. The Last Honest Conservative from Western, Canada writes:
    Michael Sharp wrote:
    Ever notice it's mostly Liberals that vacation in Bangkok?

    No Michael,
    and I bet you didn't notice it either.

    in fact, Rush Limbaugh is a conservative........... very conservative
  63. Rhadamanthus behind the Rockies from Canada writes: hossein hajiagha from Victoria, Canada,

    The idea is that the new bill raises the age from 14 to 16, an improvement.

    But to use your example of a 50 year old going after a 16 year old, no we likely won't criminalize that. After all we cannot criminalize everything we find distasteful, otherwise we have to start building many more prisons.

    Societal pressure against such behavior will have to suffice and such a man as you describe would not be respected in Canadian society.

    But, and someone else jump in if you have the answer, I believe the bill prevents those who are in a position of trust or authority from claiming consent even when the teenager is 17-19? So if that's correct then that provides more protection against dirty 50 year old men. Am I right?
  64. Rhadamanthus behind the Rockies from Canada writes: The Last Honest Conservative from Western, Canada,

    Oh enough already! I'm a resolutely secular conservative and I enjoy poking fun at those amongst us who are religious, but you're way out of line. Religious does not equal pedophile as you seem to be trying very hard to impress upon people. You've passed out of humor and into bigotry. Withdraw before you cannot find your way back.
  65. The Last Honest Conservative from Western, Canada writes:
    Rhadamanthus,
    ............ prove it
  66. The Last Honest Conservative from Western, Canada writes:
    Rhadamanthus,
    Everything I said is true.

    .............. pedophiles exploit the weak and gullible.
  67. Nancy Wilson from N.Ontario, Canada writes: Bill McDonald,
    It's really a "myth" that it is the wife that doesn't want sex.
    It's usually the husband,that may get bored with the same old "skin"
    Quite often,if the wife still loves her husband ,she will be the one craving sex,and intimacy.
    I believe it's a fallacy to believe otherwise.
    "Sex" isn't routed quite so much much,in simple terms as body image and appeal, for women,like it is for many men.
    It is more about "closeness, communication,,family unity,"and love for all of those things.
    In other words,most,but not all,women,are are less superficial.
    Of most of the women that I have known,it is not them,but their husbands that have lost interest in sex with them.
    If the woman still knows that her husband has an attraction to her,and shows an appreciation for all that she has contributed to her husband and family,she will likely be quite willing to take care of herself,and also the needs of herself,as well as her husband's needs.
  68. Marc S from Canada writes: Derek Holtom from Swan River, Canada writes stopping sleezy adults from having sex with 14 year old - yah, you bet there was a need for this law
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Yeah, now they can only have it with a 16 year old , I see how that solves everything ????????
  69. Rhadamanthus behind the Rockies from Canada writes: Marc S from Canada writes: Derek Holtom from Swan River, Canada writes stopping sleezy adults from having sex with 14 year old - yah, you bet there was a need for this law
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Yeah, now they can only have it with a 16 year old , I see how that solves everything ????????
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No, but rarely does a single law ever "solve everything," that's not the point. The point is that now we can lock up those slimeballs who used to go after 14 and 15 year olds.
  70. Ricky for a Centrist Canada from Canada writes:
    Leave it to the Harpercrites to criminalize teenage nookie.
  71. Marc S from Canada writes: Michael Sharp from Victoria............you're a putz ! Everything is Liberals fault or Liberal conspiracy.......perhaps you should take note .........the world does NOT revolve around your puny con mind.....DO YOU GET IT ????? Perhaps I can type slower ????
  72. Paul Thompson from Canada writes: Sorry Marc S, but Michael Sharp's ears are stuffed with the cotton of prejudice.
  73. Marc S from Canada writes: How else can we build more prison's ? First it was the no smoking in the prison's ..........then the crime bill with more penalties for smoking pot..........now teenage sex..........boy no teens in Canada high while having sex.......NOW I feel safe don't you
  74. Paul Thompson from Canada writes: Now being in a hard-core prison where everybody had just been forced to quit smoking, that is the stuff of nightmares. Ordinary people can be bitchy enough after quitting smoking, let alone the more violent type.
  75. Randy D from Canada writes: Amazing how many poeple find it within themselves to criticize this law. Just how many degenerates and perverts are there in this country. Bring back the lash for people convictedof exploiting children.
  76. The Wight from Canada writes: Michael Sharp:

    "Prove there isn't a God."

    Prove that the world doesn't run on fairy magic created from the breeding and squashing of fairies in a fairy engine at the center of the Earth. Oh ... you can't DISPROVE it? Must be true, then.
  77. The Last Honest Conservative from Western, Canada writes:
    hossein hajiagha from Victoria wrote:
    I do not understand this law?
    a 50 years old man can bring roommate or have sex with 16 years old girl ?

    well hossein,
    everyone in Bountiful votes Conservative.
    and everyone in Colorado City votes Republican.
  78. Brian Dell from Alberta, Canada writes: "I still expect most cases that make use of this law to be 19 to 21 y/o males dating 15 y/o girls"

    Why do so many Canadians think our Crown Prosecutors are so totally devoid of discretion that we must always "expect" that they will press charges on absolutely everything?

    Fact is, prosecutors have judgment. If a 40 year old internet lurer is taking advantage of a 14 year old, I don't think it should be automatically "case closed" if the 14 year old thinks that perhaps it was consensual and believes that she shares responsibility for what happened. What else is she going to say? The very fact he lured instead of kidnapped suggests there was at least superficial consensus, but that doesn't mean the guy isn't a social problem.

    Prosecutors need a tool to warrant continued investigation in exploitive circumstances and shouldn't be denied that tool just because many Canadians "expect" that the tool will be applied without any sense of proportion. Provide some evidence too many charges would be laid before just assuming that.
  79. The Last Honest Conservative from Western, Canada writes:
    Bert Russel,
    Why did the Conservatives all vote for age 14 in the first place ?
  80. Marc S from Canada writes: Brian Dell from Alberta.............Have you seen what has been going on south of the border for evidence of what can happen when you politicise the justice dep't ????
  81. Bert Russell Paradox, BC from Canada writes:
    Robert LePage: Robert, why is it the Liberals didn't take action on this when they were in power?
  82. Ghabbar Singh from Chambal Forest, India writes: Finally something sensible from the Harper government!!! They should have increased it to 18 though.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

<