Yeah, that libel suit is looking better by the minute.

Man, I hate dignifying this crap with a response but, sadly, my hand has been forced. Here we go, from over at Free Dominion, Dick Evans once again accuses me of condoning, well, you can read it for yourself:



The salient bit as spewed by NAMBLA Dick:

During the age of consent debate, both Rob and thai-guy asserted that there wasn't a problem with legally allowing 45 year old men to have sex with 14 year old boys.

This is not the first time Dick has made that claim, and with exactly the same ages each time, 45 and 14. But, curiously, he provides no link to where I take that position and, for the life of me, I can't imagine saying such a thing since, well, I don't believe it. (As an aside, given how many times this blog has savaged the Catholic Church for that sort of thing, it would make no logical sense for me to approve of it, would it? But ... onward, as we try to puzzle this out.)

So ... Dick has made this accusation more than once but, even when I've asked, he's never provided a link to back it up. So I went a-Googling and this is what I came up with, which seems to be the basis for his babbling. Read it carefully. Take your time. There's going to be a quiz afterwards.

Done? OK, then, what was your impression of what I was trying to say? Be honest; I can handle honesty. Because the point of that post was to show how the contents of that page of the Government of Canada web site was worded in a sufficiently awkward way as to allow a pedophile to run off a copy, bring it into court, and make at least a feasible argument for that kind of sex. In fact, here's the part I reproduced for emphasis:

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.

Look carefully -- do you see a specific and explicit prohibition against the kind of behaviour Dick is talking about? Technically, no, which was the point of mocking that web page for being incomplete. I mean, for the love of God, I even closed that post by sarcastically pointing out the gaping "loophole":

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?

Now, it's possible that Dick is referring to something else I wrote. It's hard to say since he has never, ever, ever provided a link that I know of. But if he's referring to the post above, then he's horrifically deluded to think he can make a case that I'm publicly approving of that kind of behaviour when it's obvious I'm doing no such thing. And the fact that he repeated that claim today after my identity went public makes it all the more brainless.

So if Dick has corroboration for his claim from somewhere else, I'd dearly love to see it. But if he's basing his defamation on my obvious contemptuous sarcasm, I'm guessing that he's just made another unfortunate blunder.

And, yes, I have the screenshot.

DEAR CC-ITES: As you peruse the Idiotsphere and run across stuff like the above, please grab links and screenshots. I'm guessing the lawyer is going to want all of that.