[DerbyX]

Lemmy Lemmy:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Was her BF prostituting her or in a position of authority?

It doesn't matter. He's more than 2 years older than her.

It does matter. The age of consent is 16.

$1:

The age of consent for sexual activity is 16 years. It was raised from 14 years on May 1, 2008 by the Tackling Violent Crime Act.

However, the age of consent is 18 years where the sexual activity "exploits" the young person -- when it involves prostitution, pornography or occurs in a relationship of authority, trust or dependency (e.g., with a teacher, coach or babysitter). Sexual activity can also be considered exploitative based on the nature and circumstances of the relationship, e.g., the young person's age, the age difference between the young person and their partner, how the relationship developed (quickly, secretly, or over the Internet) and how the partner may have controlled or influenced the young person.

It says nothing about a 2 year difference. Those factors apply to those 15 and younger. The age of 18 applies in certain circumstances as quoted above. Curtman and I were debating whether the drug dealing aspect counted or not.

[Curtman]

DerbyX DerbyX:

A legal case might be in that as her drug dealer AND BF it constituted making it an illegal act no different then if he was her doctor (which disregards age).

No. Her doctor would not tell her to take the more addictive drug with worse consequences. And he wouldn't give it to her after she was done the treatment. The crack dealer gave her heroin instead.

[DerbyX]

Curtman Curtman:

DerbyX DerbyX:

A legal case might be in that as her drug dealer AND BF it constituted making it an illegal act no different then if he was her doctor (which disregards age).

No. Her doctor would not tell her to take the more addictive drug with worse consequences. And he wouldn't give it to her after she was done the treatment. The crack dealer gave her heroin instead.

You misunderstand the argument. Her doctor could not have sex with her because it is a position of authority as outlined in the legal code.

Our debate is whether or not the fact he supplied her with drugs (assuming she wouldn't just get them from somewhere else) constituted the same type of "position of authority/exploitation" as outlined in the law.

[Curtman]

The debate should be if prohibition is working. This is the result of it. Violence increasing. This thread is a good parallel to the Supreme Court weighs merits of legal injection clinic thread. Insite deals with these addicts at the end of the cycle when they are looking for help. This girl was in the midst of it, and nobody would help her parents get her out of it. Remove the profit for the gangsters, and there's no reason to push harder drugs on her.

[Lemmy]

DerbyX DerbyX:

It does matter. The age of consent is 16. It says nothing about a 2 year difference. Those factors apply to those 15 and younger. The age of 18 applies in certain circumstances as quoted above. Curtman and I were debating whether the drug dealing aspect counted or not.

You're looking at a statute without the relevent case law, which is meaningless. The age of consent is 16 only if the partner is a maximum of 2 years older.

[DerbyX]

Lemmy Lemmy:

DerbyX DerbyX:

It does matter. The age of consent is 16. It says nothing about a 2 year difference. Those factors apply to those 15 and younger. The age of 18 applies in certain circumstances as quoted above. Curtman and I were debating whether the drug dealing aspect counted or not.

You're looking at a statute without the relevent case law, which is meaningless. The age of consent is 16 only if the partner is a maximum of 2 years older.

Can you cite the law?

[Gunnair]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Lemmy Lemmy:

DerbyX DerbyX:

It does matter. The age of consent is 16. It says nothing about a 2 year difference. Those factors apply to those 15 and younger. The age of 18 applies in certain circumstances as quoted above. Curtman and I were debating whether the drug dealing aspect counted or not.

You're looking at a statute without the relevent case law, which is meaningless. The age of consent is 16 only if the partner is a maximum of 2 years older.

Can you cite the law?

Curious too.

[Lemmy]

No, I have no idea what the case law is. I've heard it termed the "Romeo and Juliet" clause. But are you suggesting that when the age of consent was 14, a 14 year old could consent to sex with a 20 year-old?

[DerbyX]

Lemmy Lemmy:

No, I have no idea what the case law is. I've heard it termed the "Romeo and Juliet" clause. But are you suggesting that when the age of consent was 14, a 14 year old could consent to sex with a 20 year-old?

If you have no idea then how can you post with such certainty? The age of consent is 16. Yes when it was 14 a 14 year old could have sex with a 20 year old legally except in cases outlined under the law.

As I cited it is 16 except in the situations cited above. For them its 18.

Curtman and I were debating whether or not his being a drug dealer made it a case of exploitation making the relationship illegal.

If he was just a 24 year old working as a Timmies employee would it still have been illegal? Not under the law.

[Lemmy]

Well, I'm certain you're wrong.

[DerbyX]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Well, I'm certain you're wrong.

Isn't that like Andy disputing you over economic matters?

It should be simple to cite specific law supporting your position. I cited law supporting mine.

[DerbyX]

The Criminal Code protects 16 and 17 year olds against sexual exploitation, where the sexual activity occurs within a relationship of trust, authority, dependency or where there is other exploitation. Whether a relationship is considered to be exploiting the 16 or 17 year old will depend upon the nature and circumstances of the relationship, e.g., the age of the young person, the age difference between the young person and their partner, how the relationship developed and how the partner may have controlled or influenced the young person. As well, 16 and 17 year olds cannot consent to sexual activity that involves prostitution or pornography.

There has to be a provable condition as bolded for it to be illegal. A simple age difference does not count. That is why they call 16 the age of consent. At that age you can consent to sex.

The age difference exceptions apply to those younger then 16.

The Criminal Code provides "close in age" or "peer group" exceptions.

For example, a 14 or 15 year old can consent to sexual activity with a partner as long as the partner is less than five years older and there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or any other exploitation of the young person. This means that if the partner is 5 years or older than the 14 or 15 year old, any sexual activity will be considered a criminal offence unless it occurs after they are married to each other (in accordance with the "solemnization" of marriage requirements that are established in each province and territory, governing how and when a marriage can be performed, including the minimum age at which someone may marry).

There is also a "close-in-age" exception for 12 and 13 year olds: a 12 or 13 year old can consent to sexual activity with another young person who is less than two years older and with whom there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or other exploitation of the young person.

[Curtman]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Curtman and I were debating whether or not his being a drug dealer made it a case of exploitation making the relationship illegal.

If he was just a 24 year old working as a Timmies employee would it still have been illegal? Not under the law.

If he gave her free Timmies for sex it would be.

[DerbyX]

Curtman Curtman:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Curtman and I were debating whether or not his being a drug dealer made it a case of exploitation making the relationship illegal.

If he was just a 24 year old working as a Timmies employee would it still have been illegal? Not under the law.

If he gave her free Timmies for sex it would be.

An argument at trial but I think you'll find that it wouldn't hold water if they were in a relationship any different then you telling your GF you'll help her sister move if she'll "give you a little something extra in bed".

The age of consent in Canada is 16. That is the age you can legally consent to have sexual activity with anybody regardless of age. The 16-18 exceptions have been listed.

That is the law in Canada.

[Lemmy]

Here's something, a little old, but read it.

$1:

Parliament may prefer to retain an exemption from liability for those engaging in consensual sex with persons under the legal age of consent, where the difference in age is less than two years.

It specifically mentions maintaining the two year age differential clause when altering the age of consent. Are you telling me that that didn't happen when the age was moved to 16? Becuase you may be right on that count, but you're definitely wrong about it being a free-for-all when the age was 14. If I'm wrong, I only recently became wrong.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/researchpublications/prb993-e.htm