You are treading dangerous ground here, Steve. I would bet that you will not see this mentioned in the MSM. It may be interesting to take note of which groups have problems with this legislation.
enough

Posted by: enough at June 22, 2006 07:53 PM

---

Steve, please try to remember that it's not homophobia... that word was coined by the homosexual lobbies to disparage those who oppose homosexuality, it's used as in "what are you afraid of?". The correct term should be a variant of homoanathema, anathema meaning something intensely disliked or loathed as in "country music is anathema to opera aficionados"

Posted by: Andrew Spencer at June 22, 2006 08:33 PM

---

Better run for cover! The human rights commission is gonna come gunnin' for you after this post! Those "equality" groups seem to wield more power than us common folk. I'm thinking they have past equality and have zoomed ahead. SSM's,"sensitivity" classes in schools, sexual orientation in the charter, what more do they need or want? Like I've said, "they've won".
For now!!!

Posted by: Dave at June 22, 2006 08:40 PM

---

I don't have a problem with homosexuals but these excuses to have sex with children are just sick and don't represent the homosexuals I know.

Posted by: philanthropist at June 22, 2006 09:02 PM

---

Steve you made a comment that just triggered something in me.
What's the rush? If a teen doesn't have gay sex by the time he or she is 16, he or she might go straight? That's silly.

Gays should be for this legislation because they have been railing for decades that you are born gay. i.e. if these teens do not have gay sex before they are 16 they should still end up being gay. It is in nature and not nurture.

The harder Egale pushes against this legislation the more pressure they put on their nature vs. nurture argument.

Posted by: TrustOnlyMulder at June 22, 2006 09:04 PM

---

Raising the age of sexual consent to protect young people from sexual perverts is the right thing to do. Many teens are confused and vulnerable thus can be taken down what could be the wrong path for them.It's a rotten society when a minority within it can dictate what it's people can talk about or write about without being called phobic this or phobic that. Frankly some segments of society scare the bejabbers out of a lot of folks. Many, perhaps most people feel the anatomy of a sexual relationship between a man and a young boy to be repugnant and rightly so. Raising the age of consent to sixteen is a good thing.

Posted by: Old Biddy at June 22, 2006 09:12 PM

---

Homosexual activists have been publicly denying many ugly facts about their sexual practices, but have been especially vehement about denying the general approval and practice of pederasty amongst themselves.

They simply don't see what's wrong with grown men buggering teenage boys. It's how many of them "discovered their sexuality", as it were.

Posted by: Loyalist at June 22, 2006 09:22 PM

---

Steve,

I thank you making this post. I too have thought the very same thing after see the list of groups who do not support the raising of the age limit. I wish the MSM would point this out about the gay lobby. I do not understand why anyone in the country would not support the tories on this. It makes me feel 'yucky" just think about a plus 20 year old have sex with a 14 year old. But maybe that is because I have a daughter.

Posted by: Political Correct at June 22, 2006 10:20 PM

---

I am willing to acknowledge that pederasts might be attempting to hide behind gay groups to borrow some respectability. If so, we should be hearing from legitimate gay groups supporting this more protective legislation. Right? I'm listening really loud here.

The interesting conclusion one might draw is that these people don't believe that sexual orientation is fixed and genetic. Whatever they may believe retrospectively about their own orientation, their actions indicate that they believe the issue may be in doubt for young men, and early "intervention" is important to secure their prey.

They may be deluding themselves in this, of course. Orientation may be fixed and the adults may be simply rationalizing their preference for younger males by telling themselves they are aiding their development in some way. But the gentleman's story quoted above is more consonant with the idea of some homosexual tendency in youth which was solidified by his pleasurable sexual experiences. It doesn't matter whether I think (or society thinks) the issue of his orientation was in doubt: he himself seems to think so, though he would deny it.

People can't have this both ways. One cannot simultaneously maintain that orientation is immutable while simultaneously claiming that youthful initiation is developmentally important.

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at June 22, 2006 10:22 PM

---

Steve, please watch out. The human rights police are watching and you are very close to the edge....this Canada...some people's rights are way more important than yours.

Posted by: Political Correct at June 22, 2006 10:22 PM

---

Ever hear of NAMBLA - the 'North American Man-Boy Love Association'? Just Google that one and dig a bit if you want to see the connections Steve is hinting at here. Here's one link (and another) to get you started, as well as a story on why the ACLU supports NAMBLA (like that's a shocker, huh?), and a recent MSM story about a member's wife. Keep digging, Steve.

Posted by: Linda at June 22, 2006 10:37 PM

---

Is it because gays generally do not have sons and daughters? I do not think any parent would not agree to a raise in the age.

Posted by: Political Correct at June 22, 2006 10:46 PM

---

I believe you will find far more 'straight' adults who prey on children than 'gay' ones, just based on probability, populations and police reports, not that there is anything 'straight' about molesting children.

I think 16 is still quite young but certainly better than 14, for heaven's sake.

I'm actually in favour of raising the age of majority back to 21, so I'm probably a bit too conservative for most people.

Posted by: Caveat at June 22, 2006 11:22 PM

---

Steve, I admire your courage to point out some obvious facts. What's the chance that the janice kennedys (feminazi writer for the Ottawa petfinder) won't go apeshit if this discussion ever went mainstream. Tread lightly my friend...

Here is another fact. The average ages between juvenile and predator is 14 and 29 respectively. That is wrong regardless of the sex of the participants. The time has come for a bit of truth surrounding these issues. Expect those afraid of the truth to attack you... we all know how intolerant the left is in this country.

This is something I have noticed and I wonder if others have also. The interim leader of the lieberals has been "outed" by a T.O. mag as someone who would be charged if the proposed legislation was in place. We have 3 declared homosexuals in the lieberal leadership race, Brison, Kennedy and Dion, with 3 others having undetermined sexual preferences. Guess what the official left wing position will be. Is there a pattern here? Just asking....

Posted by: Leslie at June 23, 2006 12:04 AM

---

"Gays should be for this legislation because they have been railing for decades that you are born gay."

This may be the undoing of the gay community itself. For if true that "you are born gay" there will be a specific gene that can be tested for.(just read there are hundreds of different DNA Tests) I'm sure MOST prosective parents, upon finding out that there fetus has the "gay" gene will be looking seriously at an abortion. And suddenly, I'm in favor of abortions unter certain circumstance.

Horny Toad

Posted by: Horny Toad at June 23, 2006 12:41 AM

---

"in favor yoMaf abortions" if the kid will be gay? Get a grip! I suppose you would be in favour of abortioons if the kid will be black cuz the mother happened to have had an affair with the black milkman!! Sheeesh!

Posted by: The Guest at June 23, 2006 01:28 AM

---

Typos galore, that's what u get when upset.

Posted by: The Guest at June 23, 2006 01:30 AM

---

These gay groups being against the proposed law make no sense! Why are they against it?

One thing this law will do is increase the number of female offenders: This because the second cohort for female on male sex assault is the 14 to 16 age group. We're not at all ready to deal with having more females arrested. We're not even a tiny bit ready to have more females arrested.

We're NOT even a little bit ready (or willing) to deal with male sex assault survivors/victims. Canada is the worst in the first world in our treatment/policy for male survivors. Hah! Many countries in the third world do a better job!

Posted by: jw at June 23, 2006 03:30 AM

---

I love watching the unknown none@hotmail email from The Guest fighting someone like HornyToad who has put up a legitimate email.

Horny Toad, thanks for quoting me. I guess you and Assisstant Village Idiot see my point on this argument and how it puts gay and lesbian groups in a catch 22.

I really am interested now in looking into the genome map to see if anything addresses this subject.

The Guest, get a grip. Typos happen when you get flustered, frustrated and angry and start pounding the keyboard.

Posted by: TrustOnlyMulder at June 23, 2006 07:16 AM

---

The proposed change still doesn't go far enough. Any time the subject has previously come up in conversation one simple thought has always come to mind... as a 32 year old man I can't take dirty pictures of a 14 year old girl, but I can f**k her (my apologies but the crudeness seems appropriate given the contect). Changing the age to 16 does nothing to alter that obvious absurdity. I would have to question the motives of anyone, gay or straight, opposed to the change since protecting our youth doesn't seem to be their greatest priority.

Posted by: PB at June 23, 2006 07:18 AM

---

Thank You Steve. I've been flogging this horse ever since I started blogging and it's nice to see that someone else has finally picked up on it.

To take your suspicions a step further, the current law has the age of consent for sodomous practices at 16 already so that won't change. Your friends at EGALE however have been petitioning to have that age reduced to 14 to gain pairity with the age of heterosexual consent. Here's an old link:

"From Eagle Canada Survey:
http://www.egale.ca/index.asp?lang=E&menu=102&item=408
12. Age of Consent
The Criminal Code provides different ages of consent for different types of sexual activity. The age of consent for vaginal intercourse is four years younger than the age of consent for anal intercourse. Canadian Courts have ruled that unequal age of consent laws are unconstitutional and actually undermine education efforts about the spread of HIV by driving behaviour underground and impeding young people�s access to information which could save their lives.
Q. 12: Do you support reducing the age of consent for anal intercourse to ensure an equal age of consent for all sexual activity?"

EGALE has been pushing for "equality" and now they've gotten it. Only it wasn't the equality they wanted so now they're pissed.

In regards to pedophiles thinking that they're doing something wholesome for the kids, you're exactly right. check out the comments in this thread: http://www.northamericanpatriot.com/a_north_american_patriot/2006/04/carnival_of_ped.html

Not really, it's more about enabling children, when children are given the knowledge, they have the power. I don't want to be enabling child molestors, I simply don't want to alienate and persecute people who just like kids, that's it. Some people just like to be around kids, maybe there's no sexual component involved, maybe just being around kids it's the kids that start acting sexual because they're young and experimenting and so forth. But of course an adult will tell them how to properly express their sexuality around others. With restraint, compassion and maintainance of dignity...many things adults simply can't do."

Anyway, thanks again Angry. It's good to put this stuff out there...

Posted by: Richard Evans at June 23, 2006 07:39 AM

---

Richard,

You raise a good point, but the age of consent for anal intercourse is 18, not 16.

Irregardless, it's rather disturbing that these groups are pushing for equalization by lowering the age, rather than raising...

Posted by: RL at June 23, 2006 10:01 AM

---

You're right RL, thanks for the correction.

Posted by: Richard Evans at June 23, 2006 10:17 AM

---

Great post, I can't wait to see what Bill Graham says

Posted by: Darcey at June 23, 2006 10:42 AM

---

WRT the connection between homosexuality and pedophelia:

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3

Posted by: Paul Buller at June 23, 2006 12:46 PM

---

Since the age for anal sex is 18 but for vaginal it is 16, it is understandable that Egale is still fighting for parity.

Whether on suppports that position (pun unintended!) is another matter, but it does explain why the gay rights lobby is fighting the move. Not some nepharious, pedophilia-related reason.

Personally, I agree with Egale equality is important and believe Harper should have raised the age of consent to 18 for all forms of sex (anal, oral or vaginal.)

Posted by: Kathryn in Canada at June 23, 2006 01:49 PM

---

The bit that caught my eye was the fact that Planned Parenthood gets $2.3M or 80% of its budget from the Feds. I don't have a problem that groups like this exist, but why do they have to be suckling at the public teat for their own purposes.

first thing that I'd like to see from a majority conservative government would be to stop funding for all "public interest" groups. If there's really a public interest, then they can do their own fundraising from the portion of the public that's really interested. If it really needs it, then I'd even consent to making donations to these groups tax deductible. But please, no more tax dollars direct to unaccountable radicals.

Posted by: SPare at June 23, 2006 01:54 PM

---

This is feel-good legislation. Nothing more. It also has the added bonus of putting more people in jail and reducing freedom. Everything a social "conservative" could hope for.

Posted by: Greater Toronto Area Conservative at June 23, 2006 02:49 PM

---

Horny Toad:

Some in the homosexual community have already recognized the fact that if a 'gay gene' were isolated, then selective abortions could (and likely would) be used to eliminate homosexuality.

http://www.plagal.org/op-ed/1-20-97a.html

Posted by: MSYB at June 23, 2006 04:27 PM

---

Hey, Steve, thanks for lancing the boil on the dexter side of the body politic. Feel better now? There's something creepy here, all right, but it isn't "gay groups."

Your over-emphasis on gay sexuality is telling, even with your passing reference to middle-aged men hanging around outside Catholic high schools. EGALE's arguments aren't hot air--they make a lot of sense, actually, for both gay and straight sexual relationships. This is superfluous law, akin to the War on Street-Racing nonsense. It's playing to the gallery.

What--no comment about the different age limits for anal and vaginal sex? No mention of the fact that the age of consent is only being raised by two years? That it was fourteen up to now--and so much for references to NAMBLA and the whole Phelps-like panoply of hatred you've managed to extract?

But for a light touch, there's this. Thanks for the late-week laugh:

Anything the [sic] reduces the number of abortions in the country is something Planned Parenthood will fight vigourously [sic] against. If every pregnancy was [sic] planned by responsible and mature adults, what would Planned Parenthood have left to do?

Yup. That's why the medical establishment has had the cure for cancer for years. Don't want to put all those high-paid doctors out of business, now do we? What would oncologists have to justify their exorbitant claims on provincial health care plans?

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at June 23, 2006 06:43 PM

---

And, of course, no mention of the brave soldier who raped a 13-year-old girl and got off because a judge felt sorry for him. What, no criticism of bleeding-heart judges? No outrage?

Why, of course. It would be downright unpatriotic, criticizing one of our military. What did that kid ever do for her country?

Besides, the soldier was straight.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at June 23, 2006 07:14 PM

---

Wow dog, you sure seem to want to maintain the statusquo... Anything you'd like to share with the group?

Posted by: Richard Evans at June 23, 2006 07:21 PM

---

Dawg:

Anything that smacks of common sence or marality offends you. So--as an evil, redneck conservative american, I can only be glad that your up there!

Let me use analogy: I really like to slap the piss out of fools, poltroons and disingenuous liberals, but it is morally wrong for me to do so.
I can be punished for such things. Rightfully.
I refrain.

Is rapeing children for the benifit of their personal development somehow exempt from morality?

Or is marality and common sence just too outdated a concept?

Posted by: Redneck American at June 24, 2006 01:04 PM

---

The 'gay' agenda's greatest success has been to get the media and hence the public to buy into the homosexual activists' vocabulary to describe themselves and their concerns. Hence the word gay should go back to homosexual.

The human tendency to prefer short words for long is another reason, and so the short version 'homo' is both accurately descriptive (without prejudice) and short. So it should be referred to as the 'homo agenda'.

The homo agenda has also been successful in that it has managed to take over institutions such as BCTF in BC for example, and some say the CBC, by acting like a very focussed special interest group working together to advance in positions and preferencial hiring.

One should note, in regard to the age of consent and the pedophilic spreading of this agenda, that as soon as a homosexual became a Minister of Tony Blairs cabinet, his desire was expressed to lower the age of consent for homosexuals to 14.

Posted by: hoff at June 24, 2006 11:49 PM

---

Listen, if Planned Parenthood were successful (remember, 80% of their funding comes from us suckered Canadian taxpayers) they'd be out of business and in no more need of millions of dollars from the government, which means their workers would be unemployed. By not looking out for the protection of sexually active teens, they forever ensure their "usefulness" in the Canadian landscape and the continuing employment of their employees. 'Talk about useful idiots. The sad thing is the cost to our young people in their health and human lives. (The STD, Human Papilloma Virus, HPV, as one example, is the leading cause of cervical cancer, which is a leading killer of Canadian women.)

Teen sex is an industry in Canada, an industry that has very little to do with the actual protection of our young people. It's a "therapeutic industry" whose propaganda alleges concern and help for our young people when, in reality, it tends to aid and abet their being sexually active, which then leads to disease and dysfunction, which then leads them straight into the arms of "therapeutic" agencies such as Planned Parenthood, public health units, etc.

Gaydom is right in there, aiding and abetting sexual activity in younger and younger people, sometimes referred to as "chicken" by older members of the fraternity. Rosalie Abella is the judge who lowered the age of consensual sex from 16 to 14 in Ontario, and in her defence of the change, she specifically named the gay community as a 'recipient' of the largesse of her judgment.

It is astonishing that for three per cent (3%) of our population (Alfred Kinsey's 10% was an outright fabrication, his stats and documentation having long ago been proven to be bogus) there have been so many accommodations made in our society. Most of these accommodations, including the lowering of consensual sex to 14 (a law which, hopefully, now is going to be changed), Gay Pride Week and parades, the legalization of same-sex marriage, gay picture books in elementary schools, hate speech legislation which discriminates against anyone who would make even substantiated negative claims against the gay community, do nothing to help young people live more healthy lives.

Gay sex leads to not just HIV and AIDs but to at least 50 other opportunistic diseases, and the hard reality is, that the life span of a sexually active Canadian gay man is 49 years, whereas the life span of a Canadian male not involved in gay sex is 76. Is this a lifestyle that we want to encourage our sons, nephews, and brothers to be a part of?

It's as though our moral universe has been turned upside down: Those encouraging sexual activity only inside marriage or, at the very least, not until one’s late teens are considered wrongheaded and retrograde, whereas those encouraging earlier and kinkier sex, either heterosexual or homosexual, are considered progressive and enlightened.

"Progressive" and "enlightened" sexuality leads to nothing but disease and heartache for our young people which should be enough for our society to encourage putting an end to it, something all past generations attempted to do. But it's not going to happen anytime soon, because entrenched and everything-to-lose special interest groups like Planned Parenthood, therapeutic agencies, and the gay lobby will see to it that anyone who proposes protection of our young people from engaging in teenaged sex is labelled "homophobic," "bigoted," "overly protective," "prudish," etc.

Canadians need to wake up to the reality many of their kids are facing. Parents, in particular, need to be vigilant of the sex ed. programs their children are subjected to in their schools and to speak up about some of the very unhealthy suggestions being made to them. It’s not comfortable to be a watchdog—that’s how I found out about what is really going on in our schools, by monitoring the sex ed. materials handed out in my children’s classrooms—but your child(ren)’s present and future health depends on it.

Posted by: new kid on the block at June 25, 2006 10:53 AM

---

Here's what Leonard Cohen has to say about times like these, from his song "The Future":

...Give me crack and anal sex
Take the only tree that's left
and stuff it up the hole of your culture
Give me back the Berlin Wall
Give me Stalin and St. Paul
I've seen the future, brother:
it is murder.

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing
Nothing you can measure anymore
The blizzard of the world
has crossed the threshold
and it's overturned
the order of the soul
When they said REPENT
I wonder what they meant
When they said REPENT
I wonder what they meant
When they said REPENT
I wonder what they meant...

(CD: "The Future," Columbia, 1992)

Posted by: new kid on the block at June 25, 2006 11:17 AM

---

This one's better:

The Second Coming

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.

The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at June 25, 2006 11:31 AM

---

It's usual, Dr. Dawg, to acknowledge the author of such eloquent lines, in this case William Butler Yeats.

As to which one is "better," that's in the eye of the beholder... Certainly some rough beast, if not many, is slouching towards Bethlehem, and any way you look at the future, it's murder...

Posted by: new kid on the block at June 25, 2006 11:44 AM

---

I thought everybody knew who wrote that poem. Damned socialist education these days...:)

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at June 25, 2006 01:35 PM

---

The government had better define the laws on the protection of children from all forms of sexual abuse. There seems to be a lot of confusion out there. The new law states age of sexual consent is 16. The law for sodomy, anatomically, anal intercourse is supposedly 18. Unbelievably there are people saying these laws are against human rights, who's human rights ? It sure isn't against the children's human rights so we know where that cry is coming from......Perverts, pedophiles and the likes of recruiters like EGALE. Sickening.

Posted by: Liz Jackson at June 25, 2006 07:22 PM

---

With institutions like the 'Liberal' appointed courts and education unions and academic departments under the effective power of the 'sexual identity' groups, it is an uphill battle to return so some semblance of social sanity in Canada. Consider 'Gale BC' (check the website) and that any educator crossing this lobby will be persecuted, and government does nothing to protect such a teacher's presumably enshrined human rights, consider the millions wasted by the Surrey School Bd and the amounts BCTF spent forcing the BD to do so, and you will appreciate that this agenda is not a sideline, but is a leading part of the 'Liberal' mindset and social engineering affecting the transformation of the canada we once knew and thought our own.

When Gale BC through their people in both administration and union break the law, the law cannot be enforced because the union retains the 'sole representation power' over all teachers in BC. Canada is not a democracy where essential human rights of due process are followed and unions are not held to their fiduciary duties by the state. Canada is a scam made for Gale BC etc to hold ultimate powers over ordinary normal people.

Posted by: hoff at June 25, 2006 11:09 PM

---

From the inside, I can tell you that teachers' unions exist only for the comforts and 'privileges' of the teachers. I haven't heard one thing, once, at a union meeting, about the needs of our children/students. Just the incessant whining that we don't have enough prep time, equity with such and such a board, yada, yada, yada.

Teachers' unions are mouthpieces for the beast that is slouching/lurching towards Bethlehem, for the social engineers in the Librano Party, the Dippers, the feminists, the gay lobby, you fill in the blanks.

Canada is a Banana Republic, and one can only hope that PMSH and the CPC aren't too late to turn the whole sorry mess around. As Yeats put it so well:

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Canada's problem is not so much that the majority wants to see this social engineering become the norm; the majority doesn't. Our problem is that we have been so cowed by political correctness and so bullied by "the powers that be" (the academic, political, and media elites) that we've become a nation of wimps.

Wimps of Canada arise. You've nothing to lose but your chains.

If you don't stand up NOW, your children and grandchildren are doomed to a life of servitude.

Is this what our fathers, mothers, grandfathers, and grandmothers fought for in the two World Wars?

Posted by: new kid on the block at June 26, 2006 04:22 PM

---

Yes, "new kid", they do not represent the majority. Our quasi-democratic electoral system ensures that. Most 'one party state' 'Liberal' governments are elected by 40 percent of actual voters. Many are not on voters list. Of those who are on list, 60 percent have given up after a century of one party rule. Hence, all these 'social engineering from on high' policies skewing our country are passed by a 'majority' representing perhaps 20 to 25 percent of potential voters.

Like most virtual one party states, Canada has a state media organ, the CBC, that skews the information in often subtle, and when in crisis, not so subtle ways. The way Preston Manning was mocked by the CBC as a caricature of himself over ten years is but one example. Stirring up false conflicts that allow the 'Liberals' to emerge as 'the reasonable middle ground' is another.

A Byzantine bureaucratic and official ruling caste does not rule a country like Canada or Mexico for so long without having some expertise and some institutional levers in its favour. Undemocratic one party states and attendant ruling castes with control of the Justice system always use 'stability' and self-identification with 'the national identity' to justify their undemocratic and manipulative strategies and tactics. Also, they alway extract an incredible price in terms of wasted billions spent on their caste.

Posted by: hoff at June 27, 2006 02:37 PM

---

This is very interesting site

Posted by: sonia at July 5, 2006 04:40 PM

---