guyver01
Lifer
- Sep 25, 2000
- 22,135
- 5
- 61
I feel bad for the guy. I think the laws on this are stupid. I've seen girls that are 15 that could easily pass for 21+. Now if he was talking to 6 year old or something then yeah thats creepy. Wasn't that girl in that nyc video taping video from a few days ago like 17 years old? She was hot and I can't blame any guy for wanting to hit that. The laws are stupid. It should at least be lowered to 15. I know I will get flamed to no end for this.
Not defending him, as I am sure the ATOT Pedo group will do that soon, but if she is 16 and they had no real contact is that really against the law in Canada?
Was she under 16 at the time and now 16?
Was she under 16 at the time and now 16?
The Criminal Code does not now criminalize consensual sexual activity with or between persons 14 or over, unless it takes place in a relationship of trust or dependency, in which case sexual activity with persons over 14 but under 18 can constitute an offence, notwithstanding their consent. Even consensual activity with those under 14 but over 12 may not be an offence if the accused is under 16 and less than two years older than the complainant. The exception, of course, is anal intercourse, to which unmarried persons under 18 cannot legally consent, although both the Ontario Court of Appeal(3) and the Quebec Court of Appeal(4) have struck down the relevant section of the Criminal Code,,,,,,,,,, Just a note... its illegal to take out a person under the age of 16 with out her parents consent...
Luring a child
172.1 (1) Every person commits an offence who, by means of a computer system within the meaning of subsection 342.1(2), communicates with
(a) a person who is, or who the accused believes is, under the age of eighteen years, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence under subsection 153(1), section 155 or 163.1, subsection 212(1) or (4) or section 271, 272 or 273 with respect to that person;
(b) a person who is, or who the accused believes is, under the age of sixteen years, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence under section 280 with respect to that person; or
(c) a person who is, or who the accused believes is, under the age of fourteen years, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence under section 151 or 152, subsection 160(3) or 173(2) or section 281 with respect to that person.
Punishment
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Presumption re age
(3) Evidence that the person referred to in paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (c) was represented to the accused as being under the age of eighteen years, sixteen years or fourteen years, as the case may be, is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that the accused believed that the person was under that age.
No defence
(4) It is not a defence to a charge under paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (c) that the accused believed that the person referred to in that paragraph was at least eighteen years of age, sixteen years or fourteen years of age, as the case may be, unless the accused took reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the person.
2002, c. 13, s. 8.
280. (1) Every one who, without lawful authority, takes or causes to be taken an unmarried person under the age of sixteen years out of the possession of and against the will of the parent or guardian of that person or of any other person who has the lawful care or charge of that person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
Definition of "guardian"
(2) In this section and sections 281 to 283, "guardian" includes any person who has in law or in fact the custody or control of another person.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/42053.html <-- the actuall site...
Luring a child
172.1 (1) Every person commits an offence who, by means of a computer system within the meaning of subsection 342.1(2), communicates with
(a) a person who is, or who the accused believes is, under the age of eighteen years, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence under subsection 153(1), section 155 or 163.1, subsection 212(1) or (4) or section 271, 272 or 273 with respect to that person;
(b) a person who is, or who the accused believes is, under the age of sixteen years, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence under section 280 with respect to that person; or
(c) a person who is, or who the accused believes is, under the age of fourteen years, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence under section 151 or 152, subsection 160(3) or 173(2) or section 281 with respect to that person.
Punishment
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Presumption re age
(3) Evidence that the person referred to in paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (c) was represented to the accused as being under the age of eighteen years, sixteen years or fourteen years, as the case may be, is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that the accused believed that the person was under that age.
No defence
(4) It is not a defence to a charge under paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (c) that the accused believed that the person referred to in that paragraph was at least eighteen years of age, sixteen years or fourteen years of age, as the case may be, unless the accused took reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the person.
2002, c. 13, s. 8.
280. (1) Every one who, without lawful authority, takes or causes to be taken an unmarried person under the age of sixteen years out of the possession of and against the will of the parent or guardian of that person or of any other person who has the lawful care or charge of that person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
Definition of "guardian"
(2) In this section and sections 281 to 283, "guardian" includes any person who has in law or in fact the custody or control of another person.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/42053.html <-- the actuall site...
I was going to say....its a (worthy) prosecutable offense to try CONSENSUALLY hooking-up with a minor that is a whopping 12 months (or less) from the legal age of consent (which has no relationship whatsoever to the BIOLOGICAL and SOCIAL age of sexual maturity)? Aren't there real predators and criminals we should be getting off the streets?
erikistired
Diamond Member
- Sep 27, 2000
- 9,739
- 0
- 0
yes, in this case the predator was a 40 year old trying to hook up with a 16 year old. did you read the thread at all?
This is ATOT there are plenty of quasi-pedos here. Look above at the guy saying legal age should be dropped to 15.
erikistired
Diamond Member
- Sep 27, 2000
- 9,739
- 0
- 0
yeah i chose to ignore that one. i only took one psych class in college, not nearly enough to deal with that sort of mentality.
there was also the guy who said "at least he'll get out due to overcrowding" like that's a good thing.
- Oct 10, 1999
- 31,382
- 12,868
- 136
A new Supreme Court decision came out yesterday on Internet Luring. Here is the link: http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009/12/04/12033376-sun.html
error162: this site explains it better:
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/clp/faq.html
error162: this site explains it better:
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/clp/faq.html
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
as long as you are referring to those that like 6 year olds and sh*t, thats bent.
but the pedo hysteria has gone a lot farther....its the difference between bad judgement and heinous perversion thats gone missing here.
Luring a Child (section 172.1) - no person may use a computer system, such as the Internet, to communicate with a young person...
OK so since the age of consent in Canada is 16 then would the 16 year old still be called a "young person" or "child" and what is the legal def. of "young"? That and if 16 is still a child by Canada laws, then their law says having sex with a child is ok?
Again not trying to protect the Pedos but in the US this law would be struck down as vague.
Anubis
No Lifer
highland145
Lifer
- Oct 12, 2009
- 43,973
- 6,340
- 136
The issue is that he is 40 and she 16. That would be a moral not legal problem. Not condoning at all but if he was 18, no problem, right?
The pedos need a bullet.
Beev
Diamond Member
- Apr 20, 2006
- 7,775
- 0
- 0
I feel the same way about fat people.
Also, it's pedophiles, and you actually mean child molesters.
highland145
Lifer
- Oct 12, 2009
- 43,973
- 6,340
- 136
- Oct 10, 1999
- 31,382
- 12,868
- 136
yes. similar to statutory rape in the US.
The charges are laid and the court decides who's guilty of a sexual offense.
Ahh I did not read the whole thing to the other part as I thought that was going on about teachers, parents, etc...
So even though it says 16 the 18 year old part below it, again, is so vague that anybody could be charged if the person is under 18 the way it is writen.
Why not just make it 18 with a +/- of 2 years of age. Instead they have that long winded thing that makes it look like 16 is ok but if a local DA does not like you and the girl is 17 then they can still charge you.
But I now see how he is being charged. Even though in the US I could see this getting tossed out.
Last edited:
Krazy4Real
Lifer
- Oct 3, 2003
- 12,221
- 55
- 91
- Oct 10, 1999
- 31,382
- 12,868
- 136
laws and rights here are different than in the US.
There is an age relation stipulation too. Its a little confusing, but the take away would be to avoid banging chicks under 18.
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
edro
Lifer
- Apr 5, 2002
- 24,326
- 68
- 91
I really wish they would start differentiating people who prey on 16 year olds and those who prey on 6 year olds.
If you argue against the current pedophile frenzy, you are labeled a bleeding heart liberal or a pedophile.
It just seems wrong that you are considered a pedophile for attempting to hook up with a 17 year old female, who looks like a full grown woman.
Do you think they cared about being 18 100 years ago?
I understand that our society has changed and now deem the age 18 as being a cutoff point of being an adult.
If we can try 12-14 year olds as adults for crimes, I think there should be consideration for "pedophiles" who "prey" on 16-17 year olds as well.
I'm not saying it should be legal, but I think the punishment should be less.
If you argue against the current pedophile frenzy, you are labeled a bleeding heart liberal or a pedophile.
It just seems wrong that you are considered a pedophile for attempting to hook up with a 17 year old female, who looks like a full grown woman.
Do you think they cared about being 18 100 years ago?
I understand that our society has changed and now deem the age 18 as being a cutoff point of being an adult.
If we can try 12-14 year olds as adults for crimes, I think there should be consideration for "pedophiles" who "prey" on 16-17 year olds as well.
I'm not saying it should be legal, but I think the punishment should be less.
TehMac
Diamond Member
- Aug 18, 2006
- 9,976
- 3
- 71
Wow, that makes this whole thing sound like a joke. A pedophile, your friend, really???
I know the socialists turned Canada into a police state, with everyone's consent of course, but 16 is the age of consent in Canada, so he's definitely not a pedo, not legally or biologically.
edit: your friend is 40??? ummm...hrm...maybe this isn't a joke. Idk, maybe the girl is the next Hayley Mills
Last edited:
See what Iron Woode posted above. The 2nd part is so vague that if the persin is under 18 you could still be charged.
So the 16 year old part is weakened by the othr part of the law and that is how the OPs friend is being charged.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter