(no subject)

[eliyes]

Who's up for burning Stephan Harper in effigy on Canada Day?

*yells at him* LEAVE THE NATIONAL LEGISLATION ABOUT SEX ALONE, DICKHEAD!

Comments

[kiffie.livejournal.com]

I'm up for burning anything, in general. :D

[eliyes.livejournal.com]

Honestly? So am I, but I try to control the pyro urges. XD

[serenity-ca4.livejournal.com]

See, this is what I get for not watching the news. What's he done now?

[eliyes.livejournal.com]

He wants to raise the age of consent two years.

You know as soon as he changes one clause in that legislation, it will give him leeway to change another. And not in a good way.

I mean, I don't thin it's particularly fair that lesbian sex and heterosexual non-anal sex are legal at the same age, but ANYONe wanting to engage in anal sex must be 18 and doing so with their marriage partner. That's very prohibitive! Imagine him going after getting anal sex criminalized again!

[serenity-ca4.livejournal.com]

Ah yes, now I did read about that. Honestly, I'm not quite sure what I think about it, and quite frankly, I'm rather confused about that whole thing. I knew there was a descrepency between the age of consent for vaginal sex, and the age of consent for anal sex, at least in Quebec (research for JP) though I guess this is a national thing, which I didn't realize (thought it was provincial). Anyway, found that kind of odd and silly at the time, except as a throw back to even more restrictive times. I also read somewhere that as long as the participants were within two years of each other, statutory rape could be legally argued away, but that may have been for New York.

Anyhoo, I digress. I didn't realize the age of consent was so low, and if it's a matter of someone being 14-years-old consenting to have sex with someone over 18, well, honestly I do have issue with that. I think it should be raised to 16, but if it's a matter of just denying 14-year-olds the right to have sex, well, I don't agree with that, I think 14-year-olds probably shouldn't be having sex on account of they're usually not in any position to deal with the consequences, but I don't think that gives me the right to legally deny it.

I'm not sure I've really stated my case all that well, to be honest, it's not so black-and-white is basically what I'm saying. In any case, I'm not sure denying what might be a positive change because it may foster a negative one is such a good idea either. I remember having similar arguments with a friend over the legalization of gay marriage. He didn't want gay marriage legalized (despite being a rather liberal person) on account of he's very religious and didn't want to see his church, or any, put in the position of being forced to perform gay marriages. I argued with him over it, and I think beat him down, to separating the two things, and picking his battles fairly. Don't burn this bridge because you want the next one to stand. Let this one be crossed, and fight for the next one.

So, I guess I'd have to say, independent of what Harper might do in the future, why would raising the age of consent be a bad thing now? And just as important, if not moreso, why would it be a good thing?

[serenity-ca4.livejournal.com]

Gah, stupidly long. Sorry about that.

[eliyes.livejournal.com]

It's okay. I like long comments. >:}

[eliyes.livejournal.com]

Okay, first, let me clear something up: it is in Canada where someone over the age of 14 can have sex with someone within two years age difference of them so long as that person is also over 14. So, you couldn't have a 14 year old legally boffing someone over 18 - you could have them legally boffing someone 16 and no older.

Second, anal sex has been illegal in Canada until very recently. By saying "very recently" in legal terms I mean "within my lifetime". I should note that some places might have bylaws that prohibit it still, just as in the city where I currently live, oral sex is actually illegal.

(Yes, that's right. So gay men under the age of 18 are out of luck for anything but frottage or handjobs here, which you totally would not know to look at the thriving local rainbow community and all the GLBT youth outreach programs. But then again, it's a difficult law to enforce, right?)

Another thing to note is that Quebec does have different laws regarding many things because their provincial law is rooted in Napoleonic law. Heterosexual sex is actually legal much much younger in Quebec - we're talking not old enough to have kids, here - IF the participants are married. This has always feebed me out.

With all that behind us *deep breath* and a cooler head on me, now:

I personally don't endorse very young sexual activity, but I can't deny that it happens. The proposed change is not entirely clear. I would say that as things stand currently our actual age of consent in Canada -- free and clear, you are this age and you can have consensual sex with anyone this age or older and the law is not allowed to care -- is 18. There are no piddly rules about how many years in the difference once you are over 18. 14 is our provisional age of consent. Kids that young do have sex, and keeping it there means that if a pregnancy should occur and they decide to take responsibility by getting married, it's legal.

Now, I'm not sure if Harper is proposing that the AOC be raised or lowered to 16, technically, now that I think about it. Will 16 be the provisional or actual age of consent? I think he means provisional, because I seem to recall reading in the CBC's FAQ on the thing that there will now be 5 years of leeway instead of 2, meaning that a 21 year old can legally have sex with a 16 year old. I don't see that as an improvement, frankly. Not only does it mean more adults legally fucking teens, it also means any kids who end up pregnant before 16 are shit out of luck if they want to go for marriage.

(On a personal note, this would have screwed over some people I knew growing up, yes.)

People who are 14 or 15 and married when the law passes will not be subject to legal repercussions, but after that, yes.

My main objection to the proposed change is that he really doesn't give a good reason. So far the only explanation I've seen for why he wants to do this is a mumbling vague hand-waving "the internet". Yes, Mr. Harper? What about the internet?

Given as this has been the set-up for over a hundred years, I think it's fairly obvious that people must have been having sex at the age of 14 long before the internet was invented.

Your point about burning bridges is a good one. I just can't trust him. I want more explanation on this one.

[elusivebard.livejournal.com]

I think the "internet" thing he is referring to is that older people in the states have been starting communications over the internet with 13 years olds in Canada and then driving up to Canada to have sex with them the day they turn 14. That was my impression.

[eliyes.livejournal.com]

If these older people from the States were older than 16 when they had sex with the 14 year olds, it's still illegal. Maybe harsher punishment for breaking the "two year" rule is the answer.