While Leftists across the nation today cry out about God and the church interfering with abortion, and general health and welfare activism. The CLP in the NT have exposed a new phenomena in political paedophilia- the new age of sexual access to boys and girls.

Where once, it was acceptable for persons 18 and over to have consensual sex with an adult or another, it then became law in the NT that 16 year olds could also be accessed for the same purposes.

Recently however, the bar has been lowered even further:

'Last year the Minister told parliament that they would not investigate sexual activity in children over the age of 14 years if the children were consenting to the sexual activity. The Government has deliberately contravened its own laws on the Age of Consent, which is set at 16 years’

Source: http://www.clp.org.au/news/default.asp?action=article&ID=457

Dear Gadget.... what might shock you even more, is that the Left, and especially Dr Bob "Let the porn filth keep onnn a coming" Brown, would be quite HAPPY for the age of consent to be lowered, just like they like greater access to drugs etc.

When the idea of prohibiting XXX rated porn from being made available from the ACT was floated, I recall Bob Brown whining about 'censorship' etc.

So, I observe a serious and disgusting hypocrisy by the Left who continually demonize Bush etc, and those they perceive as capitalists. I also note a close connection between the Left and immorality, permisiveness and support for deviate sexual practices.

They are further characterized by hypocritical racism, as they support the 'divide and rule' approach to society, i.e. MultiCulturalism (code for 'keep them divided for our political advantage')

Bash Bush, but oh noooooooooooo..don't touch our precious XXX porn.
Bash Blair but oh noooooooooooo..don't touch our age of consent changes.
Bash Howard, but oh noooooooooo.. don't touch our support for deviate sexual practices.

Well, I feel like doing some verbal bashing myself. (as above)
What they and we alike should be bashing, is greed, whether it arises from the Left OR the Right, and there is plenty to go around.

We all need to repent.. Left AND Right.... and return to our Saviour in humble sorrow for our neglect of His unchanging Grace.

Boaz: "...the Left, and especially Dr Bob "Let the porn filth keep onnn a coming" Brown, would be quite HAPPY for the age of consent to be lowered, just like they like greater access to drugs etc."

More utter claptrap from Boazy. Please provide links to Greens policies that promote these, or retract the dishonest claim.

Boaz seems to "whine" alot about Bob Brown, whose sexuality seems to be an affront to Boazy's bizarre morality. I've noticed that, more often than not, when he has a rant about Brown or the Greens he's inclined to tell outright lies. When he's pulled up on it, he either ignores the correction or shrugs it off.

What will it be this time? Put up or shut up, Boazy.

cjm, how about we up the age for conscription & send Dr Bob to the deserts of iraq where he can exercise his bizarre morality & green the brown land. that might be one way of ridding this country of one of it's most annoying parasites. see if he can talk to the people who light the oil fires & convince them that that is not good for the planet. if he can do that then i'll take back every word.

What did I say? No response from our most vociferous purveyor of bulldust - just an idiotic non-sequitur from another nutter.

I won't hold my breath waiting for some evidence, or even sense, in this thread.

I'm still waiting for the attribution for that quote by Bob Brown. It's a real beauty!
Couldn't find it anywhere...

Gee Boaz (or is that BOZO) ... you didn't just make it up did you?
Isn't that just plain old deceit? Sorry, simpler words are better ... A BIG FAT LIE?

I have tried to find some evidence of the lowering age of consent too, but the only information I found was that Bob Brown pushes for equalising the ages of consent for heterosexual and homosexual sexual acts.

There is nothing wrong with removing discrimination, is there?

Celivia, who were you addressing the question at?

"There is nothing wrong with removing discrimination, is there? "

If it was who I think it was I think his post history would suggest that he might have major issues with removing discrimination. This is the guy who wants to be able to stop homosexuals from moving in next door.

He's also someone who wrote the following

"Its as plain as dogs balls on a grasshopper that a man over 50 with existing wives and who marries again to a 9 or 15 or 18 yrs old, is going to be more sexually interested in HER than in the 'old wrinklies'." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=109#2085

I've got a nine year old son and have seen the girls in his class. While I've not quite made the 50 mark I can't see that those few years are going to alter my taste enough to give girls that young any sexual appeal let alone a hands down victory over a woman my own age. If anything the lower age of appeal is rising as I get older.

And he calls Bob Brown deviant - go figure.

R0bert

Well it's good to see some sensible posts in the thread. However, I think my point about Boaz's egregious discursive tactics in this forum has been reinforced.

Together with the bigoted opinions he posts here concerning everything from sexuality to immigration, he regularly posts bald-faced lies - as in this case. It's interesting to compare the content of his rants with those of his loopy theological cousins in the Exclusive Brethren: much of the crap that he posts here seems to be congruent with their shameful and mendacious propaganda.

Boaz is, of course, a member of the 'Open Brethren'. As far as I can tell the only factors that distinguish his modus operandi from theirs is that he's allowed to use a computer and vote in elections.

Perhaps it's the case that the Open Brethren are equivalent to the military wing of the EB - sort of like the relationship between the former IRA and Sinn Fein?

RObert, yes I was addressing BD with my question.

Thanks for your view on BD- I am still getting to know him-this speeds things up a little ;)

I suppose my question will not be answered by him in the way I expect it to be answered.
Still, I'd like to hear his answer- it might be amusing.

Euwwww BD, why would you glorify a crime like pedophilia? I thought you were big on ethics and morals.

C.J.Morgan
"Boaz is, of course, a member of the 'Open Brethren'. As far as I can tell the only factors that distinguish his modus operandi from theirs is that he's allowed to use a computer and vote in elections."
Oh funny! :+)That would explain a lot about BD's views!

I'll do some research on the "Open Brethern" as I have done on the "Exclusive Brethren" ;I find it extremely interesting to learn about such weirdo's- hard to believe that such sects even exist in 2007 AND get support from the government! I sometimes wonder how much the government is influenced by their medieval views.

Seriously, BD, are you a Brethren member?

Celivia, just in case there is any confusion on the issue I don't have the impression that BD acts on or supports those who do act on an interest in nine year old girls. I think he is fairly strongly against those who commit pedophile acts. My concern on that issue is that he seems to think that a sexual interest in them is natural and normal. At one point he even uses a biblical example to justify the view.

As for the open brethern I've not had any recent contact with them but was involved with them years ago. They came in a range of flavours (mostly fairly staid) but at the same time most were fairly decent people trying to live their lives by their understanding of the bibles teachings. Less inclined than other groups to shift church practice or theology because of social trends. The congregations that were dominated by older people tended to get somewhat extreme in silly ways internally (concern about how people dressed during services etc) but not generally given to violence. Not generally technophobes. It's possible that there has been some kind of widespread shift or that a couple of congregations have gone very extreme but generally I'd be more concerned about the charismatic mob than open brethren. Open Brethern tended to think the exclusives were fruitcakes.

R0bert

Dear C.J.
sorry for not noticing your rather malicious diatribe there.

Points in order.

Brown on

1/ XXX Porn available from ACT. I cannot provide a link to a Media interview which was a real time video thing . If you doubt my claim, ask him how he feels about "Stopping the mail order availability of XXX Porn (non violent erotica) to the rest of Australia" and by all means get back to me.

http://nsw.greens.org.au/policies/policies.php?subaction=showfull&id=1162582728&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1&

PORNOGRAPHY
18. The Greens NSW oppose the production, performance, and display of pornographic material where it discriminates against women and children by presenting them as suitable objects for violence or sexual exploitation, and valorising forms of power and pleasure achieved by disempowering and injuring women and children.

NOTE..."Only where it discriminates" so.. 'equality in porn' is quite acceptable, therefore, by clear implication, porn which satisfies this criteria would be quite acceptable. In fact, it gets worse, the clear meaning of those words is 'If a CHILD is portrayed in a non victimized or non objectified manner, then it is ok to portray them in porn.' This is basically NAMBLA's position

"These consensual experiences can be quite positive and beneficial for the participants, regardless of their ages."(Nambla)

AVAILABILITY OF DRUGS.
2/ http://www.nsw.greens.org.au/policies/Drugs.php
3.1.4 to regulate and remove corruption in the supply and distribution of all drugs
2.7 Prohibition. The Greens NSW recognise that the current policy of prohibition is a resounding failure:
COMMENT (the opposite of prohibition is..... availablity)

AGE OF CONSENT
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1213412.htm
ALISON CALDWELL: You're recommending lowering the age of consent for homosexuals. Why?

BOB BROWN: That was support for NSW Government legislation which simply made the age of consent for adults of both sexes the same. That's usual law now right around the world. It's simply removing a discrimination against homosexuals.

C.J. would you like to withdraw your LIAR comment now ?

RObert
. “My concern on that issue is that he seems to think that a sexual interest in them is natural and normal.”
Thanks for being clear just in case I got the wrong impression about BD. I must admit that I am concerned about that too but I also had the impression, because of his comments about the nine-year-old girls that he would be, in a way, a pedophile-apologetic but didn’t think he would commit such crime himself or support pedophilia.

I realise that I might have given the wrong impression by using ‘glorify’ that I thought BD was supportive of pedophilia.

So my excuses to BD if he feels I accused him wrongly. I didn’t think you actually support pedophilia.
But, BD, it is quite dangerous to make such comments; people would think that you make excuses for pedophiles.

RObert
About the Open Brethren- I did some reading and I believe that you are right; I found this information I was looking for:
“ ‘Exclusive Brethren’: They believe in a universal worldwide network of fellowships, with strong central leadership and a tight control of members.

‘Open Brethren’. For them, each local assembly is independent. The fellowship enjoyed between assemblies is spontaneous and spiritual, without impinging on the autonomy of the local assembly. The believers locally are themselves directly responsible to the Lord, not a human leader. This represents a major difference between the two sections of the Brethren movement.”


BD,
I am not sure whether you understand that Bob Brown is not saying that the age of consent should be lowered generally- as far as I have figured out he wants this age to remain at 16; all he is saying is that the age of consent for homosexuals should be the same as the age for heterosexuals to equal things up. In the article that Gadget put up it says that the minister told the government that he won’t bother investigate sexual activity in children over the age of 14.
This is wrong- any act with children under 16 should be regarded as crime.

continued below

BD
I assumed that Gadget is talking about this: children under 16 should be protected and sex crimes should not be ignored because ‘it’s too much trouble to follow up.’ And which minister doesn’t bother to look into this? The author of this article is not talking about Bob Brown. Or am I missing something?
May I repeat my question: What is actually wrong with equalizing the consent age for homosexuals and heterosexuals? I truly do not understand- removing discrimination is good, not?


About easier access to drugs:
I believe that legalising soft drugs will make things safer. If you look at The Netherlands- you buy soft drugs such as marijuana in smart shops and they come with health warnings, age restrictions, instructions, you get informed about the right dose- above all, people buying soft drugs do not come in contact with dodgy hard-drugs dealers who sell soft and hard drugs so the chance that people are being pushed for hard drugs is mininised.

Also, the drugs sold do have to be of a certain standard, can be, just like other drugs such as alcohol and tobacco, inspected on hygiene, weight, strength etc.
Drugs, being manufactured in clean, hygienic, inspected laboratories or factories are, in my opinion, safer than drugs being messed with in anyone’s dirty kitchen sink.

About porn:
I strongly oppose involving children in pornography; they should not be allowed to participate in pornography- ever.
Involving kids in pornography is an act of pedophilia/pedosexuality.
For adults, they can make their own decisions whereas to watch porn or not. Some people might want it in their lives; if they watch it in their own private homes and don’t push it onto others, what’s the harm?

Again: children should be shielded and protected from porn, sex and drugs.
Adults should be able to make up their own mind.

Boaz: "C.J. would you like to withdraw your LIAR comment now ?"

Given your belated and weaselly response to being caught out yet again, no. You haven't substantiated your original outrageous claims about Bob Brown at all - rather, you've qualified them by reference to an unsourced video, a spurious comparison between the NSW Greens' policy on pornography and NAMBLA, distorting Greens policy of regulating the supply of recreational drugs, and a deliberate conflation of removing discrimination against homosexuals and the lowering of the general age of consent.

Further, this is a pattern of consistently dishonest discourse in which you have been engaged in this forum for some years now, e.g. :

29/11/2005 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3876#21640

22/05/2006 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4488#42334

13/10/2006 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=141#2562

22/11/2006 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5187#62754

7/12/2006 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=280#5108

11/12/2006 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=304#5308

There's plenty more, but I really couldn't be bothered wading through more of Boaz's tripe. Whether or not his consistent mendacity is intentional or pathological may perhaps be relevant, but it's obvious that Boaz has little compunction in posting bulldust and half-truths to further his agendas.

Speaking of dishonesty - do tell us about your association with the Open Brethren, and the congruence of many of your anti-Green porkies
with those of the Exclusive Brethren. Why do you conceal your Open Brethren membership?

C.J. thanx for all that. I'm uplifted that you would take me seriously enough to wade through so many posts.

Speaking of half truths, you neglected to refer to Kalwebs post after one of my apologies complementing my sincerity.

I always learn from negative feedback, and yours is appreciated.

Open Brethren ? what on earth are you on about ? I've said clearly I worship in that tradition, its not set in concrete, I'm happy worshipping in a variety of protestant traditions. My views are my views, and probably not reflective of many in my own tradition.
But...I'm working on it.
Hopefully with your obviously well intentioned continued criticism I should be finely honed by the time I do have to encounter bigger fish than you :)

And now for something completely different! Back to the topic.

I'm working on the assumption that the rational behind having an "age on consent" is to provide some protection for children because of the significant impacts which sexual acts can have on us.

The second assumption is that some kids will experiment regardless of any age on consent, our goal should be to get them through that with a mimimum of long term consequences.

The other assumption is that there are two main issues
- Protecting kids from themselves. Sexual experimentation even with "consent" can be a roller coaster ride especially if you are dealing with issues of identity and the like. Society recommends that kids leave certain sexual acts until they are a through that stage.
- Protecting kids from predators. Older people who for a variety of reasons prey on younger people as sexual partners.

I suspect that we need both an age of consent and then an incrementing scale of how large an age difference there can be between partners.

What helpful options can we use when underage sexual activity occurs? Maybe a few sessions with a child psychologist to ensure the kids are dealing with the issues OK and know how to protect themselves against the physical risks.

As an initial proposal
Assuming that the age on consent stays a 16
- Under 16 - advised against sexual activity and support services to minimise the harm. Some official sanctions against partners more than 2 years older than the other, keeping in mind that the goal is helping the kids not harming them.
- Age 16 - partners between 16 and 18. Support available if required. Partners older than 18 refered to police.
- Age 17 - partners between 16 and 20. Support available if required. Partners older than 20 refered to the police.
- Age 18 and up - old enough to vote, go to adult jails etc so the rest of us butt out.

R0bert

Lowering the age of consent comes down to one solemn and disgusting ideal that no one can honestly say isnt in the back of thier mind. Some homosexuals are only interested in boys and that is what its all about, Bob Brown should swing, the thought of homosexual sex with a child under 18 repulses me and so it should to any decent human. Homosexual sex with a child of 16 should rightly be aggravated rape with mandatory sentences of 10-15yrs in general population.

Just more of the moral corruption by the left for its woolly agenda on ding dong land.

WHY ARE THEY INTENT ON RUINING AUSTRALIA?
WHERE DID IT ALL GO SO WRONG?
HOW DO WE STOP THEM?

SCOTTY, whats the issue for you? A dislike for homosexual sex or a dislike of children being taken advantage of by adults?

I'm hoping that most decent people are disgusted by any adult involved in sexual activity with children (hetro or homo).

R0bert

Scotty
"Homosexual sex with a child of 16 should rightly be aggravated rape with mandatory sentences of 10-15yrs in general population."

The age of consent for both homosexual and heterosexual partners is already legally equal in all states except in Queensland. (I only found that out today).
If you re-read the posts and article, you can figure that Bob Brown is just about taking away discrimination against homosexuals particularly in Queensland (as far as I understand it).
There is no need to bash Bob Brown for wanting to set this right.

I'd more concerned about our minister not bothering to investigate sexual activity of 14 and 15 year old kids. This is what this thread basically is about (or should be).

>Age of consent
(Source: http://www.afao.org.au/view_articles.asp?pxa=ve&pxs=170&pxsc=177&pxsgc=&id=579 )
This briefing paper provides a comparison of State and Territory laws relating to age of consent.
The age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual sex is 16 years of age in the ACT, NSW, NT, Victoria and WA, and 17 years of age in South Australia and Tasmania. Of all the Australian states and territories, only Queensland retains a discriminatory age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual sex.<

RObert,
your initial proposal looks fair enough and seems very natural.
It's probably only a minority of teenagers who would go outside these sensible guidelines.
But that's from my own observations, not from statistics. If I look at my own kids and their friends, I am pleased to see that there are a lot of sensible teenagers around.

Hi Robert,

Your outlines seem reasonable, but I'm unsure that the 17 - 20 year old one would work. 17 is traditionally the age most teenagers leave school and start working or start university. As they're being placed in an adult environment and being asked to make adult decisions, it's not realistic to suggest they might not form adult relationships.

I fail to see the problem with equalising the age of consent for hetero and homosexual sexual intercourse. To suggest that there should be a difference plays into the patronising idea that children are somehow swayed into homosexuality rather than able to identify with it from a young age. Having the same age of consent is one of the basic measures you can take to demonstrate that homosexuality is recognised as a legitimate sexual preference in Australia - both legally and morally. Obviously there are some that don't agree with the morality of it, but from a legal standpoint you cannot have rules for one and rules for the other.

As for Scotty's ridiculous suggestion of encouraging those nasty gay pedophiles, it's a basic fact that the majority of sexual assaults on children occur in the home and from adult male to girl child. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexual males are naturally inclined towards sex with children, and to suggest as such is both incorrect and offensive.

As for Boaz, the connection between the Greens' stance on pornography and NAMBLA isn't even spurious, it's entirely non-existant. There is no way that children can be involved in pornography without exploitation - as the Greens stand against this, it follows that they are against child pornography. What they are not against is the invasion of consenting adults homes by the moral watchdogs that would seek to dictate to them what legally produced products it is they can and cannot access. Do try to leave your extreme moralising at the door when dealing with legal facts and potential defamation.

Porn and drugs....I love the Greens for exactly the same reasons that Boaz dislikes them...

Boaz: here's a simple solution - if you're not a fan of porn and drugs, may I recommend you pay no attention to it? I'm not a fan of today tonight, my way of dealing with that is...not watching it! I mean, its not like, if hypothetically, the Greens were in power, you would be forced to engage in activities you don't like.

You bang on about how freedom is under threat, do you honestly fail to see the double standard?

...stupid question, really.

Audrey, thanks for the feedback. My proposal was intended as a staring point for discussion - a different starting place for thinking about the idea of "age of consent". I've not had a great do to do with 17 year olds recently, the point you make is worth hearing.

Any thoughts on the general idea of treating sexual activity between peers differently to sexual activity between youth and older adults?

Do other have ideas on how we can better protect kids from predators as they go through the difficult stages of understanding their own sexuality and identity?

Encouraging abstenance is clearly an often tried approach with limited success. Would encouraging abstenance work better combined with a more realistic acceptance that some will choose otherwise (and providing help for them to protect themselves as much as possible - contraception, disease minimisation, counselling etc) and free of the attempts of some to label it as sin?

Does abstenance provide better long term outcomes than exploration free of judgement and attempts to to impose guilt or visa versa?

R0bert