Saw this while reading the news this morning. The comment thread gets a little frustrating.
This is the first time the age of consent has been raised since 1892. However, while they are raising it from 14 to 16, there is a "close-in-age exception" which allows 14 and 15 year olds to have sex with someone less than five years older than them, which I admit addresses one of the issues this had me raising an eyebrow at.
"It is now illegal for adults in Canada to have sex with a partner under the age of 16, one of the new provisions of the Tories' violent crime law that came into effect on Thursday.
The Tackling Violent Crime Act raises the legal age of sexual consent in Canada to 16 from 14, the first time it has been raised since 1892.
But the law includes a "close-in-age exception," meaning 14- and 15-year-olds can have sex with someone who is less than five years older.
The Tories said they raised the age, in part, to deal with internet predators. The new law puts Canada's age of consent in line with those in Britain, Australia and most of the United States."
What does everyone think?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Canada's Age of Consent Raised.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11547
Those age limits sound pretty reasonable. Much better than California, which I believe is 18 with no close in age exception.
What I'm wondering is, did they do any sort of research to look at ages of sexual predators and their victims? Or are these numbers just pulled out of their asses? Did they pick 5 years for their close-in-age exception for a specific reason?
The comments on the linked article are more than a little frustrating, I nearly vomited in my mouth from some of them. Internets is filled with stupids.
Sounds great to me! But ugh, I wish I hadn't read the comments on that article... >.
Sounds reasonable to me. Adults shouldn't be having sex with 14- or 15-year olds.
Sounds reasonable but I think the "Close in age" thing should be a bit different. There is a HUGE difference developmentally, physically, mentally, and sexually, between a fourteen-year-old and a nineteen-year-old.
I think the "close in age" should be changed from a five year difference to three years...
There's still a big difference between fourteen and seventeen...but it's a bit better.
18-year olds are adults. Legally anyway. I think the law draws a reasonable line - at 14 I knew girls my age sleeping with 18 year old guys. *Most* girls I knew waited a little longer and only dated guys 2-3 years older at most, but there are always outliers. They are human beings, capable of thinking for themselves. They don't magically gain more of that ability at 16, either...
I like that this allows the 14 and 15 year old girls and boys to decide for themselves "within reason". I get a little nervous and tend to think "within reason" is 3 years as well, but my definition of "within reason" doesn't match every 14-15 year old's definition.
In the great scheme of Stephen Harper's legacy this isn't really the worst thing he's done.
Although it annoys me that I don't remember hearing about it when it was put through (the article's almost a year old). It had me shocked for a second there since parliament is on prorogue and can't put anything through.
I have a hard time considering age-of-consent laws in a progressive manner because I'm pretty much against anyone having sex with teenagers (including, and especially) other teenagers. But I am not the arbiter of who should or shouldn't be having sex with whom.
I do think that the close-in-age exceptions are a good thing, though.
For the most part, it is a good law. Close-in exceptions allow teenagers to engage in lawful sexual activity. The age of consent is still 18 where one of the participants is in a position of authority. However, they left the age of consent for anal consent at 18 (instead of lowering it to 16) unless the participants are married to each other and there is no one else in the room. This should have been brought up to date too b/c courts across the country have ruled this provision as unconstitutional. Of course, the Tories have no love for the rights of gay teenage boys.
I'm still slightly troubled with this. While the law, in itself, is not a bad thing, it's still part of Harper's Conservative movement against women and against sexuality (this includes stuff like the 'secret' anti-abortion caucus, massive cuts to women's organizations, ignoring the national child-care issues). I'm just glad that they added the 'close-in-age exception' because when they originally proposed the change, it was simply raising the age of consent. I can support this law... I just don't like that it's a part the Conservative's subtle changes to control Canadian sexuality.
I'm no fan of the Conservatives and their policies either. But I don't see this as a law to control sexuality - policemen aren't going to be busting into the room of a consenting 15 year old making out with her 20 year old boyfriend. This is designed to protect, not to control.
I have a soft spot in my heart for NYRA and such groups, so I find it hard to support things like this. I think that the AOC is one of the laws that is necessary to prevent sexual abuse of children too young to realize it, but I do have a problem with the government telling anyone what they can/cannot do with their bodies. Not to mention these laws lend to the "16 year olds are on the sexual predator list for looking at porn of other 16 year olds that the second group of 16 year olds sent to them" that's been going on recently. I guess there's no real good way to settle this and it comes down to the lesser of two evils.
as much as i agree with margaret cho that shows on women's sexual and reproductive health need to be aired, i'm really glad that "dr." phil's show on women's health was not aired. most words out of his mouth reeks of patriarchy and his previous advice to women have been problematic. i would bedroom furniture not want him putting more harmful ideas into women's heads.