Avengers Assemble GO
Shy Kitten
11,150 Points
-
100
-
200
-
300
Quote:
not closed minds
Peter Tatchell argues it's worth considering the benefits of changing the law
Law reform barrister Barbara Hewson has unleashed a tirade of hostility after she proposed reducing the age of consent to 13 and reforming the way child sex abuse allegations are prosecuted.
Her proposals are problematic but they merit debate, without name-calling and distorting what she said.
The age of consent, sex abuse and prosecuting policy are important human rights issues. Child protection must, of course, always be the priority. This should not, however, preclude a reasoned, informed debate, based on evidence and rational, objective argument.
Some aspects of Ms Hewson's comments, made in an article for the Spiked Online website, seem to play down the gravity of certain forms of child abuse.
She made light of what she regards as trivial sexual touching of young people by adults, saying that making an issue of it distracts people from really serious abuse, such as rape. Her view is that there are qualitatively different forms of sex abuse and they shouldn't be lumped together.
Obviously, gang rape is worse than an unwanted kiss on the lips or caress on the thigh. However, both minor and major abuse are wrong. It is possible, and necessary, to challenge both - and to defend the victims.
Although I agree with Hewson that the age of consent of 16 is too high and needlessly criminalises most young people, I think 13 is a bit too low - especially given the poor quality of sex education, which fails to adequately prepare most teenagers for sexual and emotional relationships.
Hewson should not, however, be demonised for proposing age of consent reforms or reforms in the way child sex abuse allegations are prosecuted.
Even if we disagree with what she is saying, there should be a calm, considered public debate about her proposals to remove complainant anonymity; introduce a strict statute of limitations for criminal prosecutions and civil actions; and reduce the age of consent to 13.
If there is credible evidence of sexual assault - even if it happened many years ago - abusers should be prosecuted. Nevertheless, we must not allow a legitimate concern for victims to spill over into a generalised witch-hunt of innocent people, based on mere gossip, hearsay and flimsy evidence.
Police and prosecutors should not feel that having failed to stop Jimmy Savile they must now bend over backwards the other way. Over-reaction can be as bad as under reaction.
So what about Hewson's proposal to lower the age of consent to 13?
According to the National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles in 2000, 14 is now the average age of first sexual experience (variously ranging from oral sex to mutual masturbation and full intercourse - all of which are illegal for under-16s).
Two 15-year-olds are currently criminalised under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 if they have consenting sex. They can be put on the Sex Offenders Register, alongside rapists. That's wrong.
I would support a reduction in the age of consent to 14 but only if it was accompanied by earlier, better quality sex education in schools.
This would encourage wiser, safer, more responsible and respectful sexual relationships, as I outlined in my speech to the Sex and the Law conference in Sheffield.
This education should include assertiveness training to encourage young people to say no to unwanted sexual advances and to report abusers. I do not support adults having sex with children.
Alternatively, we could keep the age of consent at 16 but institute a policy of not prosecuting sex involving young people under 16, providing there is no more than two years difference in their ages.
This would make it legal for two young people aged 14 and 16 to agree to sex, but not for a 55-year-old to have sex with person aged 14. It would reduce the criminalisation of consenting teenagers, while protecting them against predatory ******. An idea worth considering?
Peter Tatchell argues it's worth considering the benefits of changing the law
Law reform barrister Barbara Hewson has unleashed a tirade of hostility after she proposed reducing the age of consent to 13 and reforming the way child sex abuse allegations are prosecuted.
Her proposals are problematic but they merit debate, without name-calling and distorting what she said.
The age of consent, sex abuse and prosecuting policy are important human rights issues. Child protection must, of course, always be the priority. This should not, however, preclude a reasoned, informed debate, based on evidence and rational, objective argument.
Some aspects of Ms Hewson's comments, made in an article for the Spiked Online website, seem to play down the gravity of certain forms of child abuse.
She made light of what she regards as trivial sexual touching of young people by adults, saying that making an issue of it distracts people from really serious abuse, such as rape. Her view is that there are qualitatively different forms of sex abuse and they shouldn't be lumped together.
Obviously, gang rape is worse than an unwanted kiss on the lips or caress on the thigh. However, both minor and major abuse are wrong. It is possible, and necessary, to challenge both - and to defend the victims.
Although I agree with Hewson that the age of consent of 16 is too high and needlessly criminalises most young people, I think 13 is a bit too low - especially given the poor quality of sex education, which fails to adequately prepare most teenagers for sexual and emotional relationships.
Hewson should not, however, be demonised for proposing age of consent reforms or reforms in the way child sex abuse allegations are prosecuted.
Even if we disagree with what she is saying, there should be a calm, considered public debate about her proposals to remove complainant anonymity; introduce a strict statute of limitations for criminal prosecutions and civil actions; and reduce the age of consent to 13.
If there is credible evidence of sexual assault - even if it happened many years ago - abusers should be prosecuted. Nevertheless, we must not allow a legitimate concern for victims to spill over into a generalised witch-hunt of innocent people, based on mere gossip, hearsay and flimsy evidence.
If two 15-year-olds have consenting sex, they can be put on the Sex Offenders Register, alongside rapists. That's wrong.
Police and prosecutors should not feel that having failed to stop Jimmy Savile they must now bend over backwards the other way. Over-reaction can be as bad as under reaction.
So what about Hewson's proposal to lower the age of consent to 13?
According to the National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles in 2000, 14 is now the average age of first sexual experience (variously ranging from oral sex to mutual masturbation and full intercourse - all of which are illegal for under-16s).
Two 15-year-olds are currently criminalised under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 if they have consenting sex. They can be put on the Sex Offenders Register, alongside rapists. That's wrong.
I would support a reduction in the age of consent to 14 but only if it was accompanied by earlier, better quality sex education in schools.
This would encourage wiser, safer, more responsible and respectful sexual relationships, as I outlined in my speech to the Sex and the Law conference in Sheffield.
This education should include assertiveness training to encourage young people to say no to unwanted sexual advances and to report abusers. I do not support adults having sex with children.
Alternatively, we could keep the age of consent at 16 but institute a policy of not prosecuting sex involving young people under 16, providing there is no more than two years difference in their ages.
This would make it legal for two young people aged 14 and 16 to agree to sex, but not for a 55-year-old to have sex with person aged 14. It would reduce the criminalisation of consenting teenagers, while protecting them against predatory ******. An idea worth considering?
Soruce