tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post5399594646511413326..comments2024-03-28T03:54:21.932-04:00Comments on Canadian Cynic: Yeah, those 14-year-olds are looking pretty good from here.CChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11406057201126015750noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-89517673109286499012008-07-18T13:49:00.000-04:002008-07-18T13:49:00.000-04:00Uhm, I would expect that a woman of ANY age could ...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.<BR/><BR/>I certainly hope the Crown appeals that.<BR/><BR/>Gawd Evans is obsessed with having sex with 14 year-old isn't he? Methinks the lady doth protest too much.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06941875334878452635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-87749461128069099892008-07-18T13:46:00.000-04:002008-07-18T13:46:00.000-04:00I think Facebook itself is a bad idea.Considering ...<I>I think Facebook itself is a bad idea.</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Certainly, in the case of children and adolescents some amount of parental oversight and control would be advised. <BR/><BR/>Overall, another online time-waster.Frank Frinkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05727863730658037306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-89990856419387224282008-07-18T13:34:00.001-04:002008-07-18T13:34:00.001-04:00Yeah, I deleted the comment with that link. We do...Yeah, I deleted the comment with that link. We don't really need to be emulating Dick or Twatsy here, do we?CChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11406057201126015750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-13493864771506237802008-07-18T13:34:00.000-04:002008-07-18T13:34:00.000-04:00I think Facebook itself is a bad idea.I read an in...I think Facebook <I>itself</I> is a bad idea.<BR/><BR/>I read an interesting <A HREF="" REL="nofollow">article</A> in this month's Harper that addresses the intersection between privacy and exhibitionism.<BR/><BR/>Why on Earth would anyone think anyone would want to see photos of his sexual assault?Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-51107131503125628432008-07-18T13:00:00.000-04:002008-07-18T13:00:00.000-04:00I don't know that speculating on (and linking to) ...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.<BR/><BR/>I'm thinking back to the poor consultant guy in Waterloo that some speculated was CC.<BR/><BR/>Just sayin'.Frank Frinkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05727863730658037306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-86975407662299122702008-07-18T12:00:00.000-04:002008-07-18T12:00:00.000-04:00Did they leave the age of consent for prostitution...Did they leave the age of consent for prostitution and porn at 18?liberal supporterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01129945625510633921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-78871066661796117582008-07-18T11:49:00.000-04:002008-07-18T11:49:00.000-04:00Yes, I'm guessing that the contents of that web pa...Yes, I'm guessing that the contents of that web page wouldn't, technically, be a legal defense. <BR/><BR/>But it <I>is</I> 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.<BR/><BR/>I imagine they were too busy running around adding the word "New" to everything in sight to be bothered.CChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11406057201126015750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-19948753758411174512008-07-18T11:18:00.000-04:002008-07-18T11:18:00.000-04:00A technical but important point:You have parliamen...A technical but important point:<BR/><BR/>You have parliamentary supremacy in Canada; not website supremacy. <BR/><BR/>Parliament speaks through its duly enrolled bills, which have been accorded royal assent, not through Department of Justice web pages. <BR/><BR/>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.The Seerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09115651806512267553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-26210648272208414832008-07-18T10:39:00.000-04:002008-07-18T10:39:00.000-04:00Actually, if you pay close attention to the Justic...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.<BR/><BR/>So, in this case, you'd have to correlate the LEGISINFO status for recent legislation with what's on the Justice website.<BR/><BR/>That said, Evans is being his usual obnoxious self - neither news nor significant.MgShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11183962674882855323noreply@blogger.com