![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Low age of consent a lure for pedophiles: report
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2006/12/19/sex-tourism.html?ref=rss
This article confuses me. Back in college,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
urufudo and I, along with some other people, had a group project where we had to research sex laws in Canada. Of course, age of consent came up.
What baffles me is that I remember the age of consent being a real mess - you could technically consent when you were 12 or 13, but your partner had to be within 2 years of your age. If you were over 14 and under 18, you could only consent if your partner wasn't in a position of authority. You could also sell sex if you were 14, but no one could legally buy from you unless you were 18 or older. Oh, and this is all outside of anal sex, which has it's own set of rules completely and varies depending on province.
My sister might be able to explain it better, since her field is legal.
So, Canada's laws are a jumble and the idea that some sick minded people are abusing it pisses me right off. It seems to me that a pedophile traveling to Canada for sex screams "exploitative activity". Heck, Bill C-2 focuses on the age difference to make a call and not if consent was given. Therefore, the statement that the legal system here is powerless to prosecute these sex tourists is bullcrap, because there are laws on the books for it. That is, unless it's considered impossible to use those laws in court (again, Katie, care to clear that up?).
Now, I'm neutral on the age of consent, because it's a bit of a nonissue for me. I hate the idea of kids raising kids and given that I grew up in a rough inner city, I've seen the effects that this first hand. People dropping out of school at age 13, for example. Generally bad stuff. Now, I never had the urge to jump into bed with someone when I was that young - when I was 12, sex still seemed kinda gross - but apparently it happens. I feel rather outside of discussing the law, because it never really applied to me and I can't imagine what it would be like to have an active sexual drive at that age.
But, I don't see raising the age of consent as the magic bullet for this problem. It feels like a quick fix and, even worse, appears to put the blame on the teens and not the pedophiles. If we know that sex offenders are travelling from country to country, we need to work on an international registry or at the very least, have some sort of travel limitations at the border. I love how we know about this problem through the internet, hinting that it's probably buried deep underground. Which, in turn, makes me think that reason why they're not being charged now has to do less with consent and more with the legal loopholes in the present system and well-paid lawyers.
Because, when you get down to it, what right minded 14 year old is going to consent to sleeping with a 60 year old?
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2006/12/19/sex-tourism.html?ref=rss
This article confuses me. Back in college,
urufudo and I, along with some other people, had a group project where we had to research sex laws in Canada. Of course, age of consent came up.What baffles me is that I remember the age of consent being a real mess - you could technically consent when you were 12 or 13, but your partner had to be within 2 years of your age. If you were over 14 and under 18, you could only consent if your partner wasn't in a position of authority. You could also sell sex if you were 14, but no one could legally buy from you unless you were 18 or older. Oh, and this is all outside of anal sex, which has it's own set of rules completely and varies depending on province.
My sister might be able to explain it better, since her field is legal.
So, Canada's laws are a jumble and the idea that some sick minded people are abusing it pisses me right off. It seems to me that a pedophile traveling to Canada for sex screams "exploitative activity". Heck, Bill C-2 focuses on the age difference to make a call and not if consent was given. Therefore, the statement that the legal system here is powerless to prosecute these sex tourists is bullcrap, because there are laws on the books for it. That is, unless it's considered impossible to use those laws in court (again, Katie, care to clear that up?).
Now, I'm neutral on the age of consent, because it's a bit of a nonissue for me. I hate the idea of kids raising kids and given that I grew up in a rough inner city, I've seen the effects that this first hand. People dropping out of school at age 13, for example. Generally bad stuff. Now, I never had the urge to jump into bed with someone when I was that young - when I was 12, sex still seemed kinda gross - but apparently it happens. I feel rather outside of discussing the law, because it never really applied to me and I can't imagine what it would be like to have an active sexual drive at that age.
But, I don't see raising the age of consent as the magic bullet for this problem. It feels like a quick fix and, even worse, appears to put the blame on the teens and not the pedophiles. If we know that sex offenders are travelling from country to country, we need to work on an international registry or at the very least, have some sort of travel limitations at the border. I love how we know about this problem through the internet, hinting that it's probably buried deep underground. Which, in turn, makes me think that reason why they're not being charged now has to do less with consent and more with the legal loopholes in the present system and well-paid lawyers.
Because, when you get down to it, what right minded 14 year old is going to consent to sleeping with a 60 year old?