by PATRICK LEJTENYI

One of the first things new federal Justice Minister Vic Toews said he’d do when Parliament reconvenes in April is raise the age of consent for sexual intercourse from 14 to 16. On the surface, this doesn’t seem like too radical a proposal. The justification, Toews said last week, was to protect kids, especially from online predators. Quebec Family Minister Carole Théberge said she liked the idea, as did the Canadian Professional Police Association. Plus, it’s a socially conservative move that the new Conservative government can push through without polarizing the country in the way tampering with same-sex marriage or abortion laws might.

But some people—and not just horny teenagers—aren’t happy with it. Some experts in youth sexuality feel that imposing increased restrictions on adolescent behaviour is not only wrong-headed, but ominous.

Criminal hormones

For one thing, online pedophiles won’t be deterred by the new law, according to Montreal sex educator Stephanie Mitelman. “If what you’re after is protecting children, you should have harsher penalties for online predators,” she says. “But if you’re trying to curb pedophilia, it’s not going to have much of an effect because pedophiles have a preference for pre-pubescent youths anyway.”

Head & Hands, the NDG youth outreach and sex education organization, issued a statement last week voicing their opposition to the proposed law, saying, “This is a conservative response to youth protection issues that indicates a slippery slope in policy making where youth could be increasingly treated as individuals without autonomy over their own sexual selves.” The statement also says “the existing legislation provides enough protection,” and that “criminalizing youth behaviour” is not the answer.

Currently, the existing law, originally enacted in 1890 and codified in the 1892 Criminal Code, forbids any sexual contact with girls under 14, although it has been updated since. There were, for instance, prohibitions against sexual intercourse with girls between 14 and 16 “of previously chaste character” and against seduction of females under 21 “under promise of marriage,” dating from 1887. In 1920, seduction became an offence, although without reference to marriage, when applicable to girls between 16 and 18 of “previously chaste character.” In 1988, Bill C-15 amended the Criminal Code to prohibit adults from engaging in sexual activity with boys or girls under 14, and “sexual exploitation” of youths between 14 and 18 by an adult in a position of trust or authority was criminalized.

In a telephone interview, Head & Hands executive director Marlo Turner-Ritchie expressed further reservations about raising the age of consent because of the significant grey area concerning teen dating. Under the current legislation, there is a two-year age exemption for teens engaging in sexual activity. It’s hardly ever enforced, but Patrick Charette, Toews’ spokesman, says it’s something to be examined when drafting the law.

“It’s a slippery slope because teens won’t have power over their own behaviour,” says Turner-Ritchie. “The decision-making rights about their own sexual selves could be compromised.”

Regulating hormonal activity is futile anyway, says Mitelman. “Dating between 15- and 19-year-olds has been going on for a long time, and I’m not sure the new law will persuade teens that much,” she says. “Other factors tend to be more important.”

New legal battlelines

Meanwhile, national gay advocacy group EGALE Canada isn’t happy with the legislation because it doesn’t address anal sex. EGALE’s executive director Gilles Marchildon says existing legislation forbids anal sex under the age of 18, a law he calls discriminatory and archaic.

“In our view, the issue is treating everyone fairly,” says Marchildon. That means, if the government is going to address the issue, they need to do some “housekeeping,” he says, to bring the laws up to date.

Charette, however, says the Minister won’t be introducing any omnibus bill that risks being shot down in Parliament over one or several contentious aspects. Rather, he says, the agenda will be “considered one step at a time. We’re approaching this on a stand-alone basis because it’s easier to get a consensus around individual proposals.”

Head & Hands, meanwhile, will be consulting their lawyers, and EGALE’s Marchildon says they may file a brief, if necessary, as well. “It’s possible that we may mobilize around this,” says Turner-Ritchie. “We use the term ‘slippery slope’ very deliberately because it’s a conservative response to youth protection and youth well-being. But what we’re really concerned about is what’s next. That’s the big question mark.”