Skip to main content

The Criminal Code was amended last week to raise the age of consent to 16 from 14.

In Canada, children and teenagers under the age of 16 can no longer consent to sexual activity. No kissing, no copping a feel, no oral sex, no sexual intercourse.

But there is an important exception. The "close-in-age" rule means that teens can have sex with peers who are within five years of their age without facing prosecution.

Despite the new law, a 14-year-old can still consent to sex with an 18-year-old, and a 12-year-old can consent to sex with a 15-year-old, just as they can now.

(Anal sex, however, remains illegal for all Canadians under 18, an anomaly that reeks of hypocrisy and homophobia. Is it really the state's role to regulate the use of specific orifices?)

The real target of consent laws is adults. An adult who has sex with a person under the age of 16 - with few exceptions, such as marriage - risks criminal prosecution and a penalty of up to 10 years in prison.

Perhaps we should rejoice.

Nobody wants old perverts sexually exploiting young girls and boys. Nobody wants lechers surfing for prey on Facebook and tricking them into sex.

But is upping the age of consent the way to do it?

We already have laws that prevent sexual exploitation by those in positions of authority. High-school teachers cannot have sex with their students regardless of age. An 18-year-old hockey coach cannot have sex with a 14-year-old player.

We already have laws that protect against luring and adults who pose fraudulently as teenagers. We have a raft of laws that make non-consensual sex illegal, regardless of age.

So what problem is really being solved by changing the age of consent?

There are those who claim that Canada is a haven for pedophiles - a dubious claim. But will pedophiles now change their evil ways because the age of consent is 16?

The children who are in desperate need of protection from sexual exploitation, the 12-, 13- and 14-year-old sex workers on the kiddie strolls in Canada's big cities, will no more be protected by an age of consent of 16 than they were by an age of consent of 14.

In the general population, are there a lot of 14- to 16-year-olds having consensual sex with people five years or more older than them? If so, will criminalizing this improve their lives?

According to the Sex Information and Education Council of Canada, the median age of first intercourse in Canada is 16.5 years. That means half of 16-year-olds have never had sex.The popular media-fuelled image of rutting adolescents and kids having sex at younger and younger ages is not borne out by the facts. Most teens who have sex in high school have only one partner, perhaps two. The number of "promiscuous" teens, those with six or more partners, is actually down from a generation ago.

An appropriate age of consent is a moving target; individuals reach physical and psychological maturity at different times, and exploitation often depends on context.

Criminal law needs to strike a balance between protecting teens from sexual abuse and permitting young people to express themselves sexually as they mature into adulthood.

Raising the age of consent is an example of legislation that is well-intentioned but has little practical value.

If the Conservative government wants to fulfill a campaign promise and present itself as the protector of the chastity of the nation's teenaged daughters, that's fine. That's politics.

But what is unfortunate about the new legislation is that it risks having truly negative effects on the health of the young people whose welfare it is supposed to protect.

If teenagers interpret the new law as meaning that having sex before age 16 is illegal, it won't stop then from having sex. But it may well discourage sexually active teens from being responsible about their sexual behaviour and from seeking help when they need it.

Will horny 15-year-olds hesitate to buy condoms, fearing they will get busted?

Will a 14-year-old with a steady partner opt not to get a prescription for the Pill and end up pregnant instead?

More worrisome still is: Will the legislation - or the perception of its meaning - stifle discussion and questioning?

In the hypersexualized world in which they live, teenagers have more questions than ever.

Ready access to online pornography does not make them wiser, only more confused.

Yet, sex education programs in our schools remain, for the most part, lame and inadequate, with too much emphasis on plumbing and too little attention to decision-making, the meaning of consent and the positive and pleasurable aspects of sexual relationships, along with the potentially harmful consequences of poor decisions.

To the vast majority of young people, the debate surrounding the age of consent is largely irrelevant and the new law meaningless.

Today's teens need education, not legislation, to ensure their sexual health.

Interact with The Globe