He should fit in nicely in Canada, since:
Watson's lawyer, Oscar Smukler, has accused Canadian politicians of blowing the case out of proportion for political reasons, and said the media has made him out to be a high-risk offender, when he is nothing of the sort.
"He was convicted of having kissed a young lady and touched her breast outside her clothing," Smukler said.
In Canada the age of consent is currently 14 -- although the Conservative government has moved to raise it to 16. Watson's relationship with the student would only be considered illegal in Canada if sex occurred.
Welcome to Canada, Mr. Watson! I'm sure you will find many ways to enjoy your stay.
Update: The Star reports that U.S. District Attorney Frank Clark will petition Erie County court to have his sentence served in New York. Apparently he had no idea this would cause such an uproar in Canada.
Buffalo News : Ex-teacher in sex abuse held in Ontario
CNN!
Saturday Update - Joe Warmington: Yank Walks out Back
17 comments:
It was kind of funny, when the US official was asked about it, and says "Hey, I'm not King George here, shipping all my convicts to Australia!"
Still, he should serve his probation in the jurisdiction where he has to meet his probation officer. What are they going to do if he misses an appointment? Extra-territorial bench warrant? Extradition?
There is so much that is wrong with this situation that it is difficult to know where to start.
Suffice to say that the US Judge should have known better in the first place.
It certainly doesn't do anything to improve relations with the U.S.
As outraged as I've been over this, I haven't posted on it. The reason: I can't reconcile my outrage with the fact he commited no Canadian crime. The child was fifteen, legal age of consent in Canada, fourteen. How can we complain when he wouldn't have ever been arrested if this happened on our side of the border?
This post is the first time I have seen that point mentioned.
I'm with Brian C -
its amazing to read that point about how this person is not a criminal by Canadian standards.
i just finished this mystery book: School Days by Robert Parker and it does have a subplot of a student/guidance councillor relationship. In the story, its described as pedophilia but here it ain't! unbelieveable.
Yes, Brian and Chucker, I think that is exactly the point!
That's why we need the age of consent raised. I think the Liberals are finally agreeing to this!
Can you imagine a teacher doing this with your teenager, and there was no law broken?
I think the "age of consent" should be 18, like the voting age.
The near age exemption would still apply. 40 year olds dating 20 year olds raises eyebrows, but if you're old enough to vote, you should be able to decide. But 14 year olds and 12 year olds? They shouldn't be fooling around, but they shouldn't be jailed either, so the exemption works.
L.S. - I think the "age of consent" should be 18, like the voting age.
Wow! I'm surprised to hear you say that. So, who are all those people dragging their feet on this issue? Why for example, is the Bloc so adverse to this? And the NDP?
A lot of people feel that this bill doesn't go far enough, and yet we have dissent.
Interesting that in Hong Kong, the age of consent has actually been lowered.
I think we should banish Karla Homolka to Buffalo and call it even.
Tit for tat!
A lot of people feel that this bill doesn't go far enough, and yet we have dissent.
I would 16 is more than fair. I would even support 18 as well.
As long as there is age-in-kind regulations than, I'm fine.
14 is too young. For a 40 year old man to be with a 14 year old girl, is wrong. Plain and simple.
Whew! Zac at least we agree on something!.
I think I've lost Riley forever.
;)
Here's the Star link, BTW.
I don't know why, but when I update a post, the Torstar links get messed up. It doesn't happen with any other links. Does anyone know why that would happen?
"Why for example, is the Bloc so adverse to this? And the NDP?" (age of consent)
Obviously, 40 year olds dating 14 year olds has very very little support, so I think it is reasonable that the objections of Bloc/NDP are based on some sort of unintended consequence.
They may be concerned that "age of consent" may also imply raising the age of privacy for getting birth control. If the near-in-age stuff is an "exemption" to the general age of consent, one could argue that if the age of consent is 16, why should 15 year olds be able to get condomes, since it is "illegal" to have sex in the first place? Then parents will be demanding the raised age to apply to notification laws for pregnancies and abortions (I don't know if we have such laws, but there is support for them).
L.S. I think you're throwing out a bunch of red herrings to justify any opposition to this bill. If anyone is against this legislation, I have to seriously questions their motives.
Before you start talking about whether or not 15 year olds will be able to acquire condoms, read the whole bill. There is a "close in age exemption" where the poor darling will still be able to get it on with a classmate.
Maybe we could do a better job at enforcing the laws that to exist and do address this instead of a simple sounding law that only sounds good on paper and does nothing also.
I agree with the BQ position on this - why is it that Cons are always looking for a father figure to run the worls for them....
Please elaborate.
Post a Comment