As we start to examine the impact of the change, and this policy in general, to other areas of society through our anti-oppressive lens, we cannot help but look at the impact to other areas of the law. The impact of this policy change did not only effect the age of consent for sexual activity, it affected all of the areas in the Criminal Code that surround sexual activity. For example, the age of consent to observe bestiality (bestiality is always illegal, but forcing a person under 16 to observe bestiality is a crime all on its own), indecent acts, and exposure (again, exposure is always illegal, but this refers to exposure to a person under 16 as a separate crime) all used to rest at the age of 14, but have now been raised to the age of 16 due to the change in policy. Another change related to this policy is that if a person is convicted of any of these related charges (mentioned above), and later applies for a volunteer or permanent position to work with children, his or her history will be disclosed to the employer or volunteer supervisor.
While this change in policy seems to have changed and incorporated many areas of the law around sexual activity, we wondered through our anti-oppressive lens, if there were any laws that had been left out during this change. So I examined the government’s child protection act where they define what it means to fall under the category of “child”. By the government’s definition, a child is any person that is under the age of 16, or between the ages of 16 and 18 if one is mentally or physically incapacitated in a manner that means one is unable to take care of him or herself.
However, this definition of a “child” was created in 2006, and therefore existed before the change to the age of consent in 2008. Therefore, I am faced with a curiosity; was a “child” always considered someone under the age of 16 and therefore always two years above the age of consent, or was this age changed in the anticipation that the age of consent would change? If the first option is the case, then presumably if the age of consent was raised by two years, then should not the age of a child also be raised by two years to remain consistent? Or if the latter is true, then why was the government allowing people at the age of 14, who were still defined as “children”, to have sex?
These questions make me wonder further if there have been any other laws or definitions of “children” that have been left out and not changed despite the age of consent changing. If this is the case, then there is only a limited time until a loophole in the laws are found and there is the chance for a dangerous child offender to run free which could have a very damaging impact on the children in our society.
P.
While this change in policy seems to have changed and incorporated many areas of the law around sexual activity, we wondered through our anti-oppressive lens, if there were any laws that had been left out during this change. So I examined the government’s child protection act where they define what it means to fall under the category of “child”. By the government’s definition, a child is any person that is under the age of 16, or between the ages of 16 and 18 if one is mentally or physically incapacitated in a manner that means one is unable to take care of him or herself.
However, this definition of a “child” was created in 2006, and therefore existed before the change to the age of consent in 2008. Therefore, I am faced with a curiosity; was a “child” always considered someone under the age of 16 and therefore always two years above the age of consent, or was this age changed in the anticipation that the age of consent would change? If the first option is the case, then presumably if the age of consent was raised by two years, then should not the age of a child also be raised by two years to remain consistent? Or if the latter is true, then why was the government allowing people at the age of 14, who were still defined as “children”, to have sex?
These questions make me wonder further if there have been any other laws or definitions of “children” that have been left out and not changed despite the age of consent changing. If this is the case, then there is only a limited time until a loophole in the laws are found and there is the chance for a dangerous child offender to run free which could have a very damaging impact on the children in our society.
P.
No comments:
Post a Comment