Friday, July 18, 2008

Yeah, those 14-year-olds are looking pretty good from here.

Matttbastard lets us know what he thinks about the recent Calgary "rape" case, and you'll never guess who makes a guest appearance:

And of course we can't have a post on rape without a rape apologist (or minimizer, anyway) showing up in comments: Meet upstanding Canadian conservative Dickie Evans:

uummm... This took place back in 2005. If memory serves, the age of consent wasn't raised from 14 to 16 until the spring of 2008. Back then it was completely legal for this pig to have sex with that little girl after getting her drunk.

For that, you have to blame the [Liberal Party of Canada] and [New Democratic Party of Canada] because it was their opposition to a raise in the age of consent that had things held up for so long. Had the issue been addressed by the other parties, back in 1999, when it was brought up by Reform Party MP's, the subject of your post could have been charged and convicted with statutory rape instead of walking away with a simple slap on the wrist...

Blame the pig, yes, but save a little blame as well, for the left half of the political spectrum who thought that it was "OK" for the age of consent to remain at 14. Because of them, the pig was able to do what he did legally.

Fuckin' A, Dick! Those creepy leftists hung those kids out to dry, and it took the morally upstanding Stephen Harper Party of Canada to finally protect our precious young'uns. Which you'd think would be cause for right-wing bragging unless you actually went looking for that information:

Um ... whoops, how's that again?

The age of consent is 18 years where the sexual activity involves exploitative activity, such as prostitution, pornography or where there is a relationship of trust, authority or dependency. For other sexual activity, the age of consent is 14 years.

Well, isn't that awkward? 'Cuz if I was a sexual predator and got caught bonking a 15-year-old, I'd make damned sure my lawyer brought a screenshot of that web page to court. Because if you can't trust your own government's web site, hey, who can you trust?

Your Conservative Party of Canada: Protecting statutory rapists everywhere by giving them a gift-wrapped loophole on an official government web page. Is that cool or what?


MgS said...

Actually, if you pay close attention to the Justice website, you will find that there's a little disclaimer that they don't guarantee that the statues posted there are "up to the minute" accurate relative to recent legislative changes.

So, in this case, you'd have to correlate the LEGISINFO status for recent legislation with what's on the Justice website.

That said, Evans is being his usual obnoxious self - neither news nor significant.

The Seer said...

A technical but important point:

You have parliamentary supremacy in Canada; not website supremacy.

Parliament speaks through its duly enrolled bills, which have been accorded royal assent, not through Department of Justice web pages.

Letting you bring a screen shot of a web page into court would be the equivalent of admitting a "mistake of law" defense, which I seriously doubt any judge in Canada is going to let you do.

CC said...

Yes, I'm guessing that the contents of that web page wouldn't, technically, be a legal defense.

But it is amusing to note how the Cons were so gosh-darned proud of their "Tackling Violent Crime Act," yet can't be bothered to update their own web pages to reflect the new legislation.

I imagine they were too busy running around adding the word "New" to everything in sight to be bothered.

liberal supporter said...

Did they leave the age of consent for prostitution and porn at 18?

Frank Frink said...

I don't know that speculating on (and linking to) a facebook account is such a great idea if there's any chance, you know, that it isn't the same guy.

I'm thinking back to the poor consultant guy in Waterloo that some speculated was CC.

Just sayin'.

Ti-Guy said...

I think Facebook itself is a bad idea.

I read an interesting article in this month's Harper that addresses the intersection between privacy and exhibitionism.

Why on Earth would anyone think anyone would want to see photos of his sexual assault?

CC said...

Yeah, I deleted the comment with that link. We don't really need to be emulating Dick or Twatsy here, do we?

Frank Frink said...

I think Facebook itself is a bad idea.

Considering its origins I would agree to a significant extent, although I do see value in its networking aspects. I have some concrete results in that regard.

Certainly, in the case of children and adolescents some amount of parental oversight and control would be advised.

Overall, another online time-waster.

Mike said...

Uhm, I would expect that a woman of ANY age could not consent to sexual activity if they were that drunk. That she was 14 at the time is certainly an aggravating factor, but the point is that this dude had sex with her without her explicit consent. That is rape.

I certainly hope the Crown appeals that.

Gawd Evans is obsessed with having sex with 14 year-old isn't he? Methinks the lady doth protest too much.