It was inevitable that the Natsy Post should cloak itself in self-righteousness to defend the reputation of Calgary and to lecture non-ReformaTories about The Truth©™.A girl is in hospital and a boy is in custody after an alleged sexual assault Monday afternoon in northeast Calgary that was witnessed and possibly filmed by eight other young people. [...]
What else to say? A couple weeks ago there were reports of people in Calgary driving past a dying man lying in the road after a motorvehicle accident.
Now this one. One of those youths, who cannot be named, told CBC News that everyone involved had been drinking heavily. He said the alleged victim is 12 and the boy accused of assaulting her is 16. "I didn't do nothing. I know I could have stopped it, and should have, but I didn't because I didn't want to get involved and all that," [...]
"So - we're not supposed to gawk, but we're supposed to call something in. The last time I called about a traffic accident, the 911 operator was quite rude - very annoyed that I was calling because, he said, "lots of other people had already called" and I didn't need to."
That was what "Jan" said in the comments in an article reporting the apathetic cruelty of Calgarians who simply ignored that dying man on the road. What has she taught her children if she has any?
The author of that disingenuous work of obfuscation is Kevin Libin, an ardent defender of Harper's New©™ Government. The sleazy weasel seems to suggest that the 12 year-old was asking for it, since she initiated the 'hook-up' - and she allowed the sexual assault happened in public view. "What a slut" appears to be the implicit message.
Here are some actual facts - as opposed to Natsy Post truthiness and insinuations - regarding sexual assault, as defined by the Criminal Code of Canada. From here:
The law about consent can be complicated. Basically, the legal age of consent is 16 years.
On May 1, 2008, the federal government amended the Criminal Code of Canada to raise the age of consent to sexual activity from 14 to 16 years of age.
If you are 12 or 13 years old, and you have sex with somebody more than two years older than you are, the other person can be charged with sexual assault.
Nor can the alleged sexual assailant, the 16 year-old male, use his own state of alcohol intoxication as an argument to defend his actions.
1 comment:
Calgary as the location is incidental. Kids everywhere have been getting raped since everywhen by their seniors. It's a profound dominance flaw of the human condition.
The 'wasn't a rape' kneejerk defense is same-old-same-old weirdass brohood dismissal of a sexual assault. It's like some flashback occurs in the defender, causing a blind 'coulda been me in the defendant's place' reaction. Suddenly, it becomes more important to defend the 'substitute-me' aggressor then the far more vulnerable aggressee. One is personal emotion, one is societal responsibility.
I think the story was grabbed and sensationalized without facts, but even under the 'old' age of consent, this girl was not old enough (by two years) to give an informed yes to a 16year old guy. It's just no help she was compromised by booze and whatever backstory she and he might have as individuals and acquaintances. The saddest thing is his defense *will* likely be he was drunk, DeB's assertion notwithstanding.
Anyway, I would prefer seeing far more comprehensive and blunt sex education in schools, starting at an early age. I am so sick of whining from parents about it being a 'moral' issue they should control in their homes. There are far too many families where this 'norm' of rationally informative, sexually mature parents is a myth.
Kids need to know far more about their bodies and their rights and abilities to control those bodies and remedies for interference with those rights. Male and female. How many kids under 16, or even 18, even know what 'age of consent' is? Or what comprises sexual assault?
My words are addressing a bigger picture backdrop to a specific assault, but being a local to the story, I'm irked at the water cooler idea the kids involved in the drinking party must be 'bad kids from broken/poor homes' with oh-well-what-can-you-expect-from-that-sort vibes all around. IE: not our kids. not the kids we care about. not the kids worth something. The Other.
I know 'good' people who collected at similar locales in their youth, doing pretty much the same crap. This circuitously connects back to the kids-do-stupid-things defense of the assailant. because It's Different When It's Good Kids.
Arming all the kids with practical information and teaching them in no uncertain terms forcing someone is criminal seems more constructive.
Post a Comment