Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Liberal Senate: "Don't You Raise that Age of Consent!"
The Liberal senate - after all, with 75% of the senators being Liberals, there isn't much point in pretending its anything otherwise - will not be moved to pass crime legislation. One of their main sticking points, according to Senator Sharon Carstairs, is raising the age of consent from 14 to 16.
Apparently, there are a ton of good reasons let adults have sex with 14 year olds.
For one thing, lots of 14 year olds make good money selling sexual services to a discriminating clientele. If we raise the age of consent to 16, those children will be deprived of major pocket change. Johns shouldn't feel like criminals for having sex with young tykes, pimps should be able to trade in spring chickens with their heads held high --- if we change the law, they'll just scurry deeper into the underground economy when what they really need are clean, regulated establishments to enjoy the pleasures of youth.
Even if they aren't prostituting, kids these days are having lots of sex. On school buses, during recess, after school on the way to piano lessons - they make rabbits blush. The fact of kids proliferate sexual interactions tells us these interactions are valuable, constructive experiences in their lives; kids really do know what's best for them. And if we are to do anything about it, raising the age of consent would be the worst thing because adults would be deprived of participating in those formative fornications.
I sometimes think our country suffers terribly from a Willy Loman disorder - our quiet desperation for attention to be paid leads us down paths of thought so perverted from their initiating principles that the conclusions look like monstrous approximations of them. Yes, raising the age of consent has the feel of a Footloose town council by-law. But sometimes, its okay to poop on the party - especially the kinds of parties where kids aren't guests. They're favors.
Apparently, there are a ton of good reasons let adults have sex with 14 year olds.
For one thing, lots of 14 year olds make good money selling sexual services to a discriminating clientele. If we raise the age of consent to 16, those children will be deprived of major pocket change. Johns shouldn't feel like criminals for having sex with young tykes, pimps should be able to trade in spring chickens with their heads held high --- if we change the law, they'll just scurry deeper into the underground economy when what they really need are clean, regulated establishments to enjoy the pleasures of youth.
Even if they aren't prostituting, kids these days are having lots of sex. On school buses, during recess, after school on the way to piano lessons - they make rabbits blush. The fact of kids proliferate sexual interactions tells us these interactions are valuable, constructive experiences in their lives; kids really do know what's best for them. And if we are to do anything about it, raising the age of consent would be the worst thing because adults would be deprived of participating in those formative fornications.
I sometimes think our country suffers terribly from a Willy Loman disorder - our quiet desperation for attention to be paid leads us down paths of thought so perverted from their initiating principles that the conclusions look like monstrous approximations of them. Yes, raising the age of consent has the feel of a Footloose town council by-law. But sometimes, its okay to poop on the party - especially the kinds of parties where kids aren't guests. They're favors.
Labels: 10 bucks says they'll want to do field research
Comments:
<< Home
Great post, Chucker.
Carstairs' whole rant on MDL was so bizarre, I was shaking my head during the whole segment. This woman is the epitome of everything I hate about the Liberal party. Absolutely revolting.
Carstairs' whole rant on MDL was so bizarre, I was shaking my head during the whole segment. This woman is the epitome of everything I hate about the Liberal party. Absolutely revolting.
Piss poor job on the editors part... the whole thing is bass ackwards...
"Carstairs said she also wants to hear from social workers about what effect lowering the sexual age of consent from 16 to 14 would have on young people living on the streets. She said she is concerned that young prostitutes may be driven underground if the age of consent is lowered and that would leave them more vulnerable to exploitation. It could also keep them away from social workers who could help them escape their plight."
Lowering it? Ummmmm, the bill is to raise the age of consent from the liberals 14 to a little more reasonable 16 is it not... perhaps they feel that they can slip this one under the radar and get people blaming the CPoC for wanting to lower it? Gotta love our MSM.
"Carstairs said she also wants to hear from social workers about what effect lowering the sexual age of consent from 16 to 14 would have on young people living on the streets. She said she is concerned that young prostitutes may be driven underground if the age of consent is lowered and that would leave them more vulnerable to exploitation. It could also keep them away from social workers who could help them escape their plight."
Lowering it? Ummmmm, the bill is to raise the age of consent from the liberals 14 to a little more reasonable 16 is it not... perhaps they feel that they can slip this one under the radar and get people blaming the CPoC for wanting to lower it? Gotta love our MSM.
Good catch Tim! Knowing how the Liberals love special interest groups, are they being pressured by some of those "progressive" groups?
Saw the Carstairs interview.
I highly doubt the idea is to charge 14 yearolds, prostitutes or otherwise, for having sex with old men. I'd suggest the idea is charge old men for having sex with children...which apparently is lost on the Liberal senators.
I'm so sick of this shit from the left.
I did like, however, Stock's observation on mandatory sentences. Duffy noted, according to "experts" cited by the Liberals, that putting people in prisons only makes harder criminals out of them.
Stock noted in return that at least we can be sure that, while these criminals are in prison, they're not out on the street raping and/or murdering more victims.
Remember that it was Carstairs who let it slip out that C-22, the firearms bill by Rocko et al, was all about "social re-engineering" of Canada.
...I presume to Liberal Left ideals.
...ideals.
...again, "ideals".
...see afore mentioned topic.
I highly doubt the idea is to charge 14 yearolds, prostitutes or otherwise, for having sex with old men. I'd suggest the idea is charge old men for having sex with children...which apparently is lost on the Liberal senators.
I'm so sick of this shit from the left.
I did like, however, Stock's observation on mandatory sentences. Duffy noted, according to "experts" cited by the Liberals, that putting people in prisons only makes harder criminals out of them.
Stock noted in return that at least we can be sure that, while these criminals are in prison, they're not out on the street raping and/or murdering more victims.
Remember that it was Carstairs who let it slip out that C-22, the firearms bill by Rocko et al, was all about "social re-engineering" of Canada.
...I presume to Liberal Left ideals.
...ideals.
...again, "ideals".
...see afore mentioned topic.
# posted by 
: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 11:38:00 PM
: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 11:38:00 PM
Ideals which state that protecting your life in not a legitimate use of a firearm...
And we don't need a law to protect 14 yearold children from sexual predators.
Ideals, IMHO, if written on your toilet paper, you'd rather find an old Sears catalogue to use.
And we don't need a law to protect 14 yearold children from sexual predators.
Ideals, IMHO, if written on your toilet paper, you'd rather find an old Sears catalogue to use.
# posted by : Wednesday, February 06, 2008 11:58:00 PM
: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 11:58:00 PM
Chucker, Springer, et al ...
The mind boggles, when it comes to Liberal Senators...
Hopefully the whole Country, will become aware of their irrelevance,
and general stupor...
The mind boggles, when it comes to Liberal Senators...
Hopefully the whole Country, will become aware of their irrelevance,
and general stupor...
# posted by : Thursday, February 07, 2008 1:00:00 AM
: Thursday, February 07, 2008 1:00:00 AM
Actually it is to keep from labeling a whole set of teenage boys as "Predators" or "Sex Molestors etc." for humping their teen girlfriends just the same as we boomers did.
You end up with a whole group of young males that can NEVER get a job or live anywhere with this terrible tag. Many states are reevaluating these asshat "predator" laws.
They seem to have a hard time telling the difference between someone kidnapping an 8 year old against her will and raping her and the kid next door humping the cheerleader with her permission.
Sorry folks...they are NOT the same no matter if it is your cheerleader or not. And I really dont care how old the dude is either. If its with consent...sorry....a dick is a dick.
You end up with a whole group of young males that can NEVER get a job or live anywhere with this terrible tag. Many states are reevaluating these asshat "predator" laws.
They seem to have a hard time telling the difference between someone kidnapping an 8 year old against her will and raping her and the kid next door humping the cheerleader with her permission.
Sorry folks...they are NOT the same no matter if it is your cheerleader or not. And I really dont care how old the dude is either. If its with consent...sorry....a dick is a dick.
# posted by : Thursday, February 07, 2008 1:23:00 AM
: Thursday, February 07, 2008 1:23:00 AM
Actually, unless the legislation was changed, there is a MAX five year clause, where a fifteen-year-old female/male and a twenty-year-old male/female will not be considered 'criminal', but a twenty-one-year-old in the same circumstance would be...
In other words, 13-17/18 is ok, but 13-19 is not...
It is meant to alleviate the chance of 'near-age' criminalization, for what it's worth...
In other words, 13-17/18 is ok, but 13-19 is not...
It is meant to alleviate the chance of 'near-age' criminalization, for what it's worth...
# posted by : Thursday, February 07, 2008 1:48:00 AM
: Thursday, February 07, 2008 1:48:00 AM
Anonymous: the last poster is correct there is a 'near-age' clause that prevents such an occurance from happening.
The point of the law, as has been made crystal clear to everyone is to prevent adults from preying on 15 year olds. I believe the 'near-age' exemption was added in on an amendment by the NDP or Liberals and was welcomed by the Tories.
The point of the law, as has been made crystal clear to everyone is to prevent adults from preying on 15 year olds. I believe the 'near-age' exemption was added in on an amendment by the NDP or Liberals and was welcomed by the Tories.
Soooo, let me see if I have this right...the chick DOES have the ability to say YES to sucking the 19 year old cock...but she doesnt have the brain power to say YES to doing the same to a 49 year old one...is that the gist of this nonsense...?
What utter BS. If they can say YES to one...then as stated they can say YES to anyone...no matter the age.
Stop the madness....just because you dont like the idea doesnt mean squat. She can either make the decision or NOT make it. Age of the guy is not pertinent in HER decision making.
What utter BS. If they can say YES to one...then as stated they can say YES to anyone...no matter the age.
Stop the madness....just because you dont like the idea doesnt mean squat. She can either make the decision or NOT make it. Age of the guy is not pertinent in HER decision making.
# posted by : Thursday, February 07, 2008 2:27:00 AM
: Thursday, February 07, 2008 2:27:00 AM
His age doesn't matter (right now), if she's 14 ...
His age still won't matter (under the new legislation), if she is now 16...
His age still won't matter (under the new legislation), if she is now 16...
# posted by : Thursday, February 07, 2008 2:41:00 AM
: Thursday, February 07, 2008 2:41:00 AM
OT: Norman Spector --- the mouse that (almost) roared...
My apologies --- this IS a 'Schreiber-Free' zone...
My apologies --- this IS a 'Schreiber-Free' zone...
# posted by : Thursday, February 07, 2008 3:14:00 AM
: Thursday, February 07, 2008 3:14:00 AM
Anonymous: The age of consent is an important function because it states that we as a society do not believe that a person beneath the age of consent have the ability to make those decisions.
Especially when you throw in the fact that it is a girl of 15 having a relationship with a person who is say 20+ years their senior it becomes very likely that the relationship will be exploitive in nature. Maturity levels are just too different. Age of consent laws are designed around this premise in order to protect younger people from exploitation.
This is the same reason that teachers are not allowed to have sex with their students. Teachers are in a position of authority and thus can more easily manipulate students. (Even above the age of consent)
Especially when you throw in the fact that it is a girl of 15 having a relationship with a person who is say 20+ years their senior it becomes very likely that the relationship will be exploitive in nature. Maturity levels are just too different. Age of consent laws are designed around this premise in order to protect younger people from exploitation.
This is the same reason that teachers are not allowed to have sex with their students. Teachers are in a position of authority and thus can more easily manipulate students. (Even above the age of consent)
Oh and anonymous, raising the age of consent is strongly supported by even the NDP. To quote Joe Comartin:
"In the existing system, where you have to prove there has been an exploitive relationship, is simply not workable."
"In the existing system, where you have to prove there has been an exploitive relationship, is simply not workable."
but its fascinating isn't?
our anonymous friend misses the point (by accident? hmmm....) -
whether the chick can say yes to a 18 yr old vs a 49 yr old isn't the point.
the 18 yr old is sufficiently young, stupid and hormonally excited to accept her consent in an erroneous but fair situation.
the 49 year old knows full well that he was manipulated a child into consenting to pleasure him.
that's the difference.
our anonymous friend misses the point (by accident? hmmm....) -
whether the chick can say yes to a 18 yr old vs a 49 yr old isn't the point.
the 18 yr old is sufficiently young, stupid and hormonally excited to accept her consent in an erroneous but fair situation.
the 49 year old knows full well that he was manipulated a child into consenting to pleasure him.
that's the difference.
Re your label -- ouch!
I don't understand the objections to raising the age of consent, given such a wide "Romeo-and-Juliet" exemption. My understanding was that the opposition's concerns were addressed with that (which I agreed with).
Go figure.
I don't understand the objections to raising the age of consent, given such a wide "Romeo-and-Juliet" exemption. My understanding was that the opposition's concerns were addressed with that (which I agreed with).
Go figure.
Anonymous said...
"Actually it is to keep from labeling a whole set of teenage boys as "Predators" or "Sex Molestors etc." for humping their teen girlfriends just the same as we boomers did."
Actually, my theory is that Gol and Springer never got laid as young men, which accounts for much of their current perverted state of mind.
Particularly the paranoia that they are about to get fucked, again.
To wit:
Joanne (True Blue) said...
"Carstairs' whole rant on MDL was so bizarre, I was shaking my head during the whole segment. This woman is the epitome of everything I hate about the Liberal party. Absolutely revolting."
And then this from the Fundamentalist Fanatic in Ontario:
"This is the same reason that teachers are not allowed to have sex with their students. Teachers are in a position of authority and thus can more easily manipulate students. (Even above the age of consent)"
Today in Red Deer, a 14 year old minor has been brought to trial for "sexual molestation" of a younger boy.
So much for the theory of "protecting minors" (from other minors?)
As for Ms Joanne, she is frothing so bad, that she is incoherent. Just what was it that Ms. Carstairs said that was so "bizzare"???
But the nuttiest of all comes from Southern Ontario. This guy is so misguided that he does not even understand the nature of the law, as it relates to professional "trust" in relation to "clients, patients, and students".
All these right wing whack jobs has "perfect answers" to all political questions.
For example, what policy should be followed on health care? Answer - Don't get sick. (US Senator Dole).
Answer to dropping education standards where teachers are abandoning the profession in droves - "No Child Left Behind" (which perhaps would read better as "No Child Allowed to Get Ahead")
Teenage Pregnancy??? Nancy Reagan's answer --- "just say no".
If you wonder why "neocons" are not taken seriously, its because they all demonstate no real world experience. Like Gol and Springer for example, who never got laid as teenagers.
"Actually it is to keep from labeling a whole set of teenage boys as "Predators" or "Sex Molestors etc." for humping their teen girlfriends just the same as we boomers did."
Actually, my theory is that Gol and Springer never got laid as young men, which accounts for much of their current perverted state of mind.
Particularly the paranoia that they are about to get fucked, again.
To wit:
Joanne (True Blue) said...
"Carstairs' whole rant on MDL was so bizarre, I was shaking my head during the whole segment. This woman is the epitome of everything I hate about the Liberal party. Absolutely revolting."
And then this from the Fundamentalist Fanatic in Ontario:
"This is the same reason that teachers are not allowed to have sex with their students. Teachers are in a position of authority and thus can more easily manipulate students. (Even above the age of consent)"
Today in Red Deer, a 14 year old minor has been brought to trial for "sexual molestation" of a younger boy.
So much for the theory of "protecting minors" (from other minors?)
As for Ms Joanne, she is frothing so bad, that she is incoherent. Just what was it that Ms. Carstairs said that was so "bizzare"???
But the nuttiest of all comes from Southern Ontario. This guy is so misguided that he does not even understand the nature of the law, as it relates to professional "trust" in relation to "clients, patients, and students".
All these right wing whack jobs has "perfect answers" to all political questions.
For example, what policy should be followed on health care? Answer - Don't get sick. (US Senator Dole).
Answer to dropping education standards where teachers are abandoning the profession in droves - "No Child Left Behind" (which perhaps would read better as "No Child Allowed to Get Ahead")
Teenage Pregnancy??? Nancy Reagan's answer --- "just say no".
If you wonder why "neocons" are not taken seriously, its because they all demonstate no real world experience. Like Gol and Springer for example, who never got laid as teenagers.
Of course the Cons want to sell the Crime bill on shit like the age of consent but it also includes mandatory min sentences of 6 months in jail for growing a single pot plant. These guys can't help themselves, they are just pure desperate to lock up poor people and help out organized crime. Because thats all that policy will accomplish. It raises the stakes for people who are growing their own or for friends so that it will increasingly be the crime lords and the HA that are in charge of the marijuana market. Anyone who smokes the odd joint and supports this bill is a COMPLETE AND TOTAL hypocrite!!
Post a Comment
# posted by : Saturday, February 09, 2008 3:55:00 PM
: Saturday, February 09, 2008 3:55:00 PM << Home
