The Never-ending Debate on the Age of Consent - a Countdown.

15

 

John Ashton

 

Call to lower age of consent to 15

 

"He claims that lowering the age would make it easier for 15 year-olds to seek contraception and sexual health advice from the NHS and would "draw a line in the sand" against sex at 14 and younger. "My own view is there is an argument for reducing it to 15 but you cannot do it without the public supporting the idea and we need to get a sense of public opinion about this," he said in the interview."

 

 

 

14

 

Peter Tatchell

 

The Current Age of Consent of 16 Doesn't Protect Young People, It Criminalises Them

 

"The existing consent at 16 law was introduced over 100 years ago in a puritanical Victorian era. Since then, society has moved on to more informed and enlightened attitudes about sex. Most importantly, the average age of puberty and sexual arousal has fallen dramatically to around ten to 11. In the light of new evidence, the issue should be revisited and re-examined."

"Any review of the consent laws should be premised on five aims. First, ending the criminalisation of consenting relationships between teens of similar ages. Second, protecting young people against sex abuse. Third, empowering them to make responsible sexual and emotional choices. Fourth, removing the legal obstacles to earlier, more effective sex and relationship education. Fifth, ensuring better contraception and condom provision to prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortions and to cut the spread of sexual infections like HIV."

 

 



 

13

 

Luke Bozier

 

Sex and the Law - Some ideas for debate



 

"Lower the Age of Consent to 13, which is the current average age of puberty onset + 2 years. This standard should be tested every ten years, with the Department of Health being required to produce a standard definition of the average age of puberty each decade."

 

 

 

Barbara Hewson

 

Age of consent should be 13

 

"As for law reform, now regrettably necessary, my recommendations are: remove complainant anonymity; introduce a strict statute of limitations for criminal prosecutions and civil actions; and reduce the age of consent to 13."

 

The past few months have seen quite a few news articles concerning the existing age of consent in the UK, and calls for it to be lowered. Firstly by Barbara Hewson back in May, then in the past couple of weeks by John Ashton and Peter Tatchell. In amongst these three, the gem of a blog by Luke Bozier in which he discusses legalising prostitution for anyone over the age of consent (ie 13 in his ideal world), redefining "child pornography" (his words not mine), and legalising necrophilia (with prior consent of both parties prior to death) - not going into this though, you'll have to read his blog if you want to find out more.

 

Now, regarding the ever present AoC debate, why is it continually being brought up on a regular basis? What is the problem with leaving it as it is - ie 16?

 

In all the above articles, the underlying reasons for this call to lower the age of consent seems to be the fact that teenagers are having their first sexual experience when they are under 16. In my opinion, just because teenagers are experimenting prior to the age of consent is not a good reason for lowering it.

 

So, questions -

 

• Using this methodology then, shouldn't we be reducing the age of consent for alcohol and tobacco to maybe 13 or 14 as well? After all, a lot of teenagers are drinking and smoking as well. What's the difference? Just because teenagers are experimenting prior to the age of consent is not a reason for lowering it. Thoughts anyone?
• Peter Tatchell implies in his article that teenagers are "being criminalised" and are ending up on the Sexual Offenders register and getting criminal records for this - "being lumped together with paedophiles and rapists". Over the past decade in the UK, exactly how many teenagers have been criminalised in this way? Rather than generalising in this manner & (deliberately?) scaremongering, perhaps Mr Tatchell could provide accurate figures for this as I don't know of any that I have seen.
• Three out of the four people above have purely called for the age of consent to be lowered. No indication of whether plans would be put in place to protect 13-16 year olds from child abusers and paedophiles. Only Mr Tatchell has indicated putting measures in place to protect this age group by having a two tiered system similar to other countries. The other three have basically opened to door to exploitation and abuse - and therefore cannot and should not be taken seriously in any way.
• Regarding the above statement, and although he has indicated a two tiered system, I disagree with Mr Tatchells argument as although it seemingly closes the door to the potential exploitation by older predators, it opens the door to the pressure of having sex at an earlier age. I would imagine that there are plenty of teenagers of 14 or 15 who use the age of consent as a valid argument - a reason for them not to be pressured into having sex by slightly older peers until they are 16. I would also imagine that this reason does work in a lot of cases. By lowering the AoC to 14, this removes this protective barrier and will result in more pressure for youngsters.
• Professor Ashton indicates in his article that "lowering the age would make it easier for 15 year-olds to seek contraception and sexual health advice from the NHS and would "draw a line in the sand" against sex at 14 and younger". Has professor Ashton never heard of Brook here and here? I am sure there are other equally good organisations that offer the same advice as Brook does. Poor argument in my opinion.
• The other underlying justification in the articles is that teenagers are reaching puberty at an earlier age. Is this a good enough reason? What about emotional and mental readiness - are younger teenagers developing earlier mentally and emotionally as well as physically?
• Lastly are there any other reasons such as more peer pressure, the greater accessibility of pornography and the sexualisation of youngsters, drinking etc that are contributing to teenagers having sexual experiences at an earlier age than they might have been years or decades ago? If there are, is this a good enough reason to just lower the AoC on this basis?

So here is the simple solution. Leave it at 16. Why the need to change it? Personally I think that we have it about right here in the UK.



Jurassic Park, 2013

 "Aiveepeeosauros" - Not a newly discovered species of dinosaur, but one that is becoming ever more prevalent throughout the 21st century.

As if Barbara Hewson's article in May's "Spiked Online", in which she argued the age of consent be lowered to thirteen (yes, thirteen!) was not bad enough, again she has shown herself to be totally on the side of perpetrators and completely anti-victim.

An "AVP Dinosaur" is a very apt way to describe her views (thank you Shy Keenan for this phrase - never has it ever been so apt as in this case).

Never mind the fact that in her previous thoughts, she has stated that the age of consent should be lowered to thirteen to "end the persecution of old men", (a veritable paedo-charter), the end to complainant anonymity, (how to really stop anyone ever coming forward to disclose), and a strict statute of limitations (get away with your crimes after a period of time - how long she doesn't say that I can see), she actually Laughed (yes, laughed, believe it or not) at the claims of victims.

In the above interview, when asked about Savile and satanic ritual abuse, she laughed, admitted she found it funny, and said "Satanic ritual abuse doesn’t exist, it’s like alien abduction.”. Later in the interview, she also said "it’s pointless to conduct an investigation of this kind into someone who is dead, as they can’t answer".

Sorry Barbara, but who the hell are you to make statements like this?

How do you know what exactly Savile did?

Did victims not try to come forward when he was alive?

How were they treated then?

Your attitude is inexcusable - do you really truly believe this nonsense that you say?

As if this isn't bad enough, Barbara then goes on to describe Stuart Hall's assaults as "misdemeanours", that were "displacement tactics" to make up for the fact that Savile was not alive.

Really?

Please don't forget, that paedophile, Stuart Hall's offences included the abuse of a nine year old girl - and Barbara, you describe this as a "misdemeanour"? 

How can you possibly describe predatory paedophile crimes as "misdemeanours"?

Disgusting in the strongest sense of the word.

No wonder victims find it so hard to come forward, and disclose abuse that they have had to endure, when people have attitudes like you have. I only hope that your views are a minority one, what hope if most Barristers have the same views as yourself.

And statutes of Limitations. Just how far back that Barbara Hewson is suggesting as a cut off is a bit of a mystery - there isn't anything that I have found to indicate a timescale.

So, how far then?

20 years?

30 years?

40 years?

According to the above clip, she states "I don’t agree with historic prosecutions".

Does this mean all "historic" prosecutions then?

What about very recent ones from only a few years ago?

Again, no wonder victims are reluctant to come forward - many I am sure would rather keep their abuse to themselves rather than have to relive it to someone who wouldn't take them seriously, that would dismiss them as "historic" and not worth pursuing. Better to live in a life of turmoil and keep it to yourself, than to relive it all in graphic detail to someone like yourself.

And as for the infamous May "age of consent" argument and the "I’m just simply saying the age of consent in this country at the moment is too high.”?

Imagine if the age of consent really was 13 (as opposed to the "unofficial" 13 year old "consent" )?
Imagine if it was legal for a 30, 40 year old plus to be able to use and abuse their position of power to target, groom and abuse children of 13? I presume that Barbara Hewson is not just talking about teenagers of 13 plus experimenting and having sex with each other (as they do), but the age of consent to be 13 full stop. What a disgusting and scary thought. Has she really thought about the implications of this?

The NSPCC may have stated her views as "ill informed" , but I reckon her views go far further than this. Her views, are in my opinion, part of the reason why abuse like Savile's and Hall's is allowed to go on unchecked for so long, and more than part of the reason why victims of "historic" (not that I like this description) abuse are so wary of coming forward, so wary of disclosing because they won't be believed.

"AVP dinosaur" Barbara Hewson's (and no doubt others) views are the problem that needs to be sorted out to allow victims to get proper justice, truth and closures.