In June 2006, the Canadian government proposed a bill to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16, while creating a close-in-age exemption for sex between 14-15 year olds and partners up to 5 years older, and keeping an existing close-in-age clause for sex between 12-13 year olds and partners up to 2 years older. The initiative also maintains a temporary exception for already existing marriages of 14 and 15 year olds, but forbids new marriages like these in the future.[3]
LGBT rights activists[edit]
These activists also criticized the bill, because it does not address the issue of equality, maintaining the present Canadian age of consent for anal sex outside of marriage at 18. Hilary Cook, spokeswoman for gay rights group Egale Canada believes the bill is "an attempt to score partisan points".[14]
Lawsuit Against the Attorney General of Canada[edit]
In March 2009 a lawsuit was brought against the Attorney General as the Age of Sexual Consent increase was a direct violation of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms within the Constitution".[15]
Canadian AIDS Society[edit]
The Canadian AIDS Society has stated that "increasing the age of consent could result in young people being more secretive about their sexual practices and not seeking out the information they need. This will place youth at an increased risk of contracting HIV and other sexually transmitted infections."[16]
Canadian Federation of Sexual Health[edit]
This proposal has received criticism from different organizations and individuals. Andrea Cohen of the pro-choice Canadian Federation of Sexual Health (formerly International Planned Parenthood Federation) said the organization believes the legislation does nothing to keep youth from harm. "What it will do is infringe upon the rights of youth in terms of their ability to make decisions on their own sexuality", affirmed Cohen on TV.[17] Later (in 2007) her organization issued an official position statement.[18]
Child Welfare League of Canada[edit]
Peter Dudding, Executive Director of the Child Welfare League of Canada, criticized the bill's effect of removing judicial discretion in cases involving 14 and 15 year-olds: "When we deal with arbitrary cut-offs, we lose the flexibility to apply the law in a much more specific and individualized kind of way."[19]
