Here's something I just found out about and have to wonder about.
In the province of New Brunswick, Canada, our laws allow boys and girls, children, to have sex starting at 12 years of age as long as their partner is no more than five years older than they are. At the age of eighteen the individual may have sex with whomever they please as long as their partner is no younger than 13 years of age. (So a 17 year old young person is legally allowed to have sex with a 12 year old child or anyone up the age of 22; an 18 year old with a child as young as 13 and anyone older; a 19 year old with a child as young as 14, etc., etc.)
THIS IS ABSOLUTE INSANITY!!!
I can only guess that the courts were over-burdened with cases and the only way to keep people from breaking the law, thereby easing the case load, was to change the law so that it could hardly be broken. God defend us from the kind of thinking that puts expediency before what's right. Oh, wait now. We're already doing that with things like abortion on demand; sacrificing our unborn children on the alter of expediency, convenience, or even pleasure. I'm not saying that all abortion is bad or wrong, but I am saying that unnecessary abortion (abortion that isn't done to save the life of the mother) is wrong,... and bad.
My thought is this: If it's legal for twelve year old children to have sex, why is filming and taking pictures of children between the ages of twelve and seventeen against the law? I am not saying that I believe it should be legal. Quite the contrary. I'm saying that it should be illegal, with heavy and decisive penalties. Penalties that make the crime not worth the risk.
Personally, I think our parents had it right 50 and more years ago when the law in Canada said that the age of majority was 21, female or male. That is, one was not considered to be an adult until they were 21 years of age. Not old enough to vote, drink alcoholic beverage or engage in sexual activity. Sexual violators of this law were considered to be immoral and stiff penalties ensued. These offenders didn't do well in prison since most inmates would never otherwise conceive of the morally depraved standard of those who molest and rape children.
Call me old fashioned, but the morality legislation of the 50's and before seems to be more in line with the needs of children and young people of today, considering their level of immaturity at these early ages. I believe that if we're going to legislate morality it should be with a keen sense of what is right and what is wrong, rather than a sense of what makes folks uncomfortable and what's going to offend the fewest bleeding hearts. The only ones I'd be concerned about offending are our children and young people (they may be taking care of us soon), and God Himself.
Here's another thing. How can we make a valid argument for laws against child pornography if the children are allowed to have sex and not even need their parents'/guardians' consent?
I don't listen to the news casts very much, but I've heard of more child pornography cases in New Brunswick since I moved here 5 years ago than I did in my previous 5 years in Ontario, where the population of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge alone is greater than the population of New Brunswick. I wonder why that is.
If someone does film or photograph children engaged in sexual activity, they're certainly not going to ask for permission to post them on porn sites. These predators are probably not going to tell the kids that they're filming or taking pictures, and even if they do they'll tell the kids that it's ok, nobody else will see them, they just want it for their own personal use; and the kids, who probably don't have the discernment that their parents should have taught them, are just glad to have the attention. It's no wonder child pornography is rampant in New Brunswick. Maybe it wasn't such a good idea to move to New Brunswick.
Bruce Dobson,
Matt. 6: 33
No comments:
Post a Comment