Posted on 12/10/2002 4:53:48 AM PST by Clive
Ottawa's proposed legislation to toughen child pornography laws is ripe for another constitutional challenge.
On the one hand, the new category of sexual exploitation doesn't go far enough in protecting teens because the age of consent remains 14. On the other, the government's revamped efforts to crack down on kiddie porn are so broad that fantasy is considered as dangerous as the actual abuse of children. What were our legislators thinking?
In rejecting calls to raise the age to 16, justice officials argued that would criminalize sex between teens close in age.
Nonsense. All Ottawa had to do was establish a peer exemption for sexually active younger teens. The Criminal Code already permits kids younger than 14 to have sex as long as their partners are less than two years older.
The Liberal government wimped out. In the proposed legislation, introduced last week, it will be up to the courts to decide whether a relationship is exploitive based on its nature and circumstances.
(Currently, only those in positions of trust, such as teachers, are banned from having sex with 14- to 17-year-olds.)
Raising the age of consent to 16 would have drawn a clear legal and moral line in the sand. Instead, we are likely to see sexual predators let off the hook because they're given the benefit of the doubt in court.
When there's no public consensus on an issue - and people's views differed widely on this one - the government should promulgate law that best protects the rights of potential victims.
Ottawa failed miserably on the age-of-consent matter. By not having the guts to do the right thing, our politicians have needlessly put young, impressionable teens at risk. For shame.
As for the changes to the child pornography provisions, they continue to criminalize works of the imagination. Civil libertarians are right that our courts have no place punishing people for what goes on in their minds, no matter how sick.
Under the proposed legislation, the definition of child pornography will still include fictional depictions of children engaged in sexual activity.
Such fantasies may be vile and reprehensible but the state has no business chasing people down because of it.
Surely our police and court resources would be better used going after the perverts who abuse real children.
Ottawa has also stubbornly stuck with a definition of child porn that prohibits photos and videos of people who are just pretending to be under 18.
Justice Department officials defend their position, arguing that stories about sex with kids and videos using, say, an 18-year-old dressed as a 12-year-old, can be used by perverts to seduce young kids.
Even if the subjects in stories, photos and videos are pretend children, it's risky because of the potential for harm to real kids, according to one department lawyer.
Fictional depictions of the abuse of youngsters send the message that children are legitimate sexual objects, she says.
Perhaps so, but I doubt it will stand up in court. Prosecute the people molesting real children, for heaven's sake. Forget about hunting down people because of their fantasies.
Remember that in the John Robin Sharpe child-porn case two years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada carved out two exceptions to the law.
The ban on kiddie porn doesn't include self-created works of the imagination for private use. It also doesn't include recordings of lawful sexual activity that are for private use only.
You can expect, then, that it won't be long before the new child-porn law is challenged in court on the grounds that it violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
People who abuse children should be punished severely. Don't let them get away with the "artistic merit" excuse if it means children are exploited. If they want to trade sick stories, let them wallow in each other's filth. But bring the wrath of society down on those who cross the line from imagination to exploitation.
Now I know why they are starting explicit sex ed to kids in elementary school.
Wouldn't it be easier to just raise the age of consent on a national level (both in Canada AND in the US) to 18, and to vigorously prosecute those who would have sex with minors?
Just a thought.....
So you consider a 19 year old guy with a 15 year old girl who is very willing to be a child molester? Just curious where you've got those lines drawn.
Ever heard the term "jail bait"?
How can a 15 year-old give consent to a 19 year-old but not a 30 year-old? It's the same girl.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.