Defending the Truth

Liberal Party of Canada Policy Resolution: Allow "Anal Intercourse" with 14-Year-Olds

By John-Henry Westen

OTTAWA, November 22, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In what is likely a Canadian first for a major political party, the Liberal Party of Canada is proposing lowering the age of consent for "anal intercourse" in their publicly-released book of policy resolutions.

On Monday, the Liberal Party of Canada made available the text of the policy resolutions put forth by the Party's Provincial and Territorial Associations, commissions, and National Caucus. The policy resolutions are to be debated and voted upon at the Liberal Leadership and Biennial Convention to be held from November 28 to December 2, 2006, in Montréal.

While still resolutions, the policies which have made it into the book have already been carefully considered by party faithful. "The policy resolutions represent the culmination of a nine-month grassroots policy process that began at the riding level and has worked its way up to the national Convention," says a release on the resolutions.

Sexual health experts have warned that anal intercourse is a recklessly dangerous activity which is the "riskiest form of sexual activity when it comes to the transmission of HIV/AIDS" (see coverage: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/feb/06021403.html )

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06112202.html

This is potentially misleading if you don't go to the link. The age of consent for heterosexual intercourse is 14 already in Canada; they're just trying to get anal sex to be included. If they're prepared to make regular intercourse legal at 14, then I think they should be prepared to make anal sex legal also.

It's too young for any sex to be legal for a 14-year old with adults. That's crazy. If they make it legal for 12-year olds to have sex, would that be okay with you also? 11-year olds, 10-year olds, 9, 8? Where would YOU draw the line?

I don't think you get the point.
Kat isn't really commenting on WHERE the line is, or should be drawn.

It's about the CONSISTENCY of the line. How the SAME line is applied to both the gays and the straights.

It's kind of like Texas's law against gay sodomy. One of the major questions in Lawrence v Texas is WHY does Texas make it legal for straight sodomy, but illegal for gay sodomy.

In this case, the question is WHY is it illegal for 14-year olds and sodomy, while legal for 14-year olds and straight sex.

An obvious counter, along the lines of your comment, would be to raise the age of consent for straight sex to match the age of consent for sodomy. (Or possibly raise both even higher to a different same age...)

Exactly. Thank you for making that clear, foundit.

Okay, I see your point. I think the age of consent for sex should be 18. 14 is way too young for anyone to have sex legally. 14-year-olds are way too impressionable and naive.

Eighteen seems way too old for the age of consent. You may not give your own son or daughter bidding to do so until he/she is eighteen, but we're talking about the law here. It's mostly there to protect younger children from harm. Fourteen may be too young to be doing that sort of stuff, but I think a hard punishment from their parents seems well more than enough..it doesn't seem right for them to be in trouble under the law.

It is true that they are naive and impressionable. And so are many eighteen year-olds, but I don't think it should be against the law to have sex for eighteen year olds. Fourteen year-olds are old enough to think for themselves, and indeed it's that age that they begin to rebel from their parents. They're old enough not to be emotionally harmed by exposure to sex (and most of them probably look at pornography and masturbate anyway).

Arguing for the age of consent to be at fourteen isn't saying that it's okay for them to have sex. It's just saying that such should be up to the bidding of the parents, rather than the government intruding into such private business. I can only understand when the government intrudes to prevent sex acts onto children young enough to emotionally scar them, but at around fourteen and beyond, I think it should be up to people's private families. But to me I think fifteen (maybe sixteen) is a little better of an age of consent.

In ruling the execution of minors unconstitutional the Supreme Court relied upon psychological data and scientific research that demonstrated that minors don't have the same capacities as adults to control impulses or understand the consequences of their actions. It is believed and still held to be true that their brains are still developing these bascic mechanismsand that is why we don't allow minors to vote or enter into contracts.

If this is to be accepted as true on the basis of fact required by the Court in rulings upon law, then for this reason and this reason alone, this argument must be applied to all actions regarding juveniles. Thus any state or country that changes law to allow minors or juveniles authority to decide for themselves is saying that the scientific research supporting against the death penalty is a fraud.

If we will not execute minors because they do not understand their actions or the reprecussions of their actions, then we cannot change laws that affect the age of consent or the right to abortion. If we do, then we are saying that minors do understand their actions and are aware of the reprecussions that can occur, and therefore they should also be subjected to the penalties required of adults.

Sorry but I am not going to have it both ways. You must decide what is the correct interpretation and then it must be applied equally by the law.

dmk

Your argument is self-conflicting, sgt. The fact that we don't execute minors because they don't have the same cognitive abilities as adults to consent, would mean that we shouldn't punish them for making the decision to have sex.

The two legal reasons why we still have the death penalty is for retribution and deterrence. The courts have ruled that both are equally important contributions, and if either one is void, then so is the death penalty. For this reason, the execution of the legally retarded, insane, and minors was banned; because those people have a limited reasoning and cognitive abilities. Retribution requires reasoning and cognitive premeditation as a precondition.

Because a minor's ability to make decisions on this basis are limited, then it is also reasonable to assume that their decision to have sex was also absent this cognitive and reasonable premeditation. Therefore, retribution would be void in the punishment of minors under the law for having sex.

Thus, the primary reason for age of consent, therefore, should be to protect children young enough to be emotionally scarred by engaging in sex, rather than punishment for not being moral because you had sex at fifteen. Fourteen year-olds are old enough to not be emotionally scarred (and this is why they are taught at around this age of puberty and sex ed rather than at like 10). Therefore it's reasonable to assume that the age of consent should remain at around 14 or 15. 16 is not unreasonable, but it is kind of too big for government.

I still think 14 is way to young to be having sex with an adult. Maybe 16. Anyway, if Canada has it at 14, who is to say that in another generation it will be 12, then 10. Where do you draw the line?