Dispatches from the Creation Wars

Worldnutdaily’s Sexual Fear Mongering

Here’s a typically hysterical article from the Worldnutdaily: Canada new destination of choice for pedophiles? The article, predictably, is highly inaccurate. They’re trying to whip up some irrational fear as a result of the Canadian Supreme Court’s recent ruling that legalized group sex clubs in that nation. Here’s the CNN report on the ruling:

Group sex among consenting adults is neither prostitution nor a threat to society, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Wednesday as it lifted a ban on so-called “swingers” clubs.

In a ruling that radically changes the way courts determine what poses a threat to the population, the top court threw out the conviction of a Montreal man who ran a club where members could have group sex in a private room behind locked doors.

“Consensual conduct behind code-locked doors can hardly be supposed to jeopardize a society as vigorous and tolerant as Canadian society,” said the opinion of the 7-2 majority, written by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin…

Attorneys for Labaye and the owner of another swingers’ club in Montreal argued that consensual sex among groups of adults behind closed doors was neither indecent nor a risk to society.

The Supreme Court judges agreed.

“Criminal indecency or obscenity must rest on actual harm or a significant risk of harm to individuals or society. The Crown failed to establish this essential element of the offense. [Its] case must therefore fail,” McLachlin wrote.

All perfectly reasonable. Notice how the article mentions “consenting adults” several times. Now let’s see what the WND does with it, with the help of our old pal Judith Reisman, she of the “erototoxins rot our brains” nonsense:

Judith Reisman, a world-renowned scholar and author of four books, including “Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences,” said that since under Canadian law 14-year-olds are legally considered “consenting adults,” the court’s controversial decision “will now make Canada a sex traffic playground for pedophiles.”

A former consultant to three U.S. administrations, Reisman, who is also a WND columnist, says the court’s decision sends a clear message to pedophiles: “You don’t have to go to Asia anymore. Pedophiles can have the blond, blue-eyed kids in Canada, too.”

Except that one has nothing to do with the other. The club is for swinger couples, not for prostitution of any type. In fact, the court specifically ruled that there was no prostitution involved and that’s why it was legal. The court also certified that there was nothing non-consensual about the clubs, as is obviously the case with underage prostitution. If Canada’s age of consent was already 14, then there is no more risk of pedophilia now than there was before. The moment any such club began engaging in childhood prostitution or anything non-consensual, they would be illegal.


  1. #1 jcw
    December 27, 2005

    “…since under Canadian law 14-year-olds are legally considered “consenting adults,”
    Wow, is this true? If so is this an old law or a new one?

  2. #2 pough
    December 27, 2005

    I’m not sure how new it is, but I know it’s true. I read it myself on our government’s online criminal code. 14 less a day, to be precise. (I had a boss whose 15-year-old daughter was hanging out with a 26-year-old guy, so it was talked about.)

    I’m not entirely sure what I think of it now that I’m an adult, but I can safely say that if I had the opportunity to have sex with a 20-year-old woman when I was 14 and that opportunity was removed by some stinkin’ law, I would have devoted my life to changing it. The opportunity never arose, sadly, so it’s never been an issue for me.

    BTW, what age should it be and why? I think we keep people children for far too long. The limbo-state of neither a child nor adult that happens when all those hormones are flooding your system seems like a recipe for disaster to me. If they’re given the responsibility for their own sexuality, perhaps they’ll be more inclined to be… responsible.

  3. #3 jcw
    December 27, 2005

    I went out to a website concerning this and found some interesting information. The “consenting adults” tag is misleading because there are restrictions safeguarding 14 to 18 year olds and their contact with persons older that might take advantage of them. I know, I should have known considering the source, WND.

    As far as what age and why, I don’t know. I will say that until age 18 (or so) if my teenagers are having sex with their peers I won’t have as much a problem as if I find out they are having sex with someone outside of their age group, young or old (ie a 15 year old with a 26 year old.)

  4. #4 Treban
    December 27, 2005

    I know nothing of the Canadian law but in many states in the U.S. the age of “consent” is 16. That comes with the restriction that the adult be within a certain number of years, usualy 4 or 5. Unless I’m mistaken in Utah the age of consent is 14. My guess would be that the Canadian law is in a similar vein.

    Oddly, as I was a right little whore in my formative years, I am not huge on loose sex among teens. I do however believe that abstinence and repression are immoral. To deny the changes in ones body altogether and ignore the sex drive can easily lend itself a host of mental defitiencies. It’s telling that most serial killers had some sort of sexual reppression in their formative years.

    I would tend to think that most teens who fight to keep those horomones at bay are at the least denying themselves of a healthy enjoyment of sex in adulthood. I’m not saying that all teens need to screw but expirementation with whatever they like is a healthy, important part of growing up. The problem is that a lot of kids growing up are actively discouraged by their parents from learning how to do this safely, leading to problems with teen pregnency and disease.

  5. #5 pough
    December 27, 2005

    My guess would be that the Canadian law is in a similar vein.

    Nope, not really. There are special cases for issues of trust and authority for the ages of 14-18; consent age goes up by four years so that only those 18 and older can be sexually involved with people who have authority over them. So highschool teacher bad, university prof good.

  6. #6 Tim Makinson
    December 28, 2005

    I was amused to see Judith Reisman described as “world reknowned”. I rather doubt if more than a very few people outside the US have even heard of her. Her views are extreme, even by American standards – so she would be likely to seem a raving lunatic to the rest of the world’s press/public.

    Certainly The Guardian didn’t take her seriously in this article (under their ‘Far out’ category): http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/farout/story/0,13028,1527638,00.html

New comments have been disabled.