If they could turn back time…
The WA Liberal Party is a very strange organisation. It is not surprising that they want to wind back gay rights, but it is surprising that Colin Barnett could keep a straight face when he said this:
I don’t support any discrimination on the grounds of age, religion, sexuality, whatever.
[…]
I also happen to believe that the age of consent for homosexual relationships is 18.
I don’t support discrimination on the grounds of sexuality, but those queers just can’t be trusted with their own sex lives.
Here’s where it gets strange:
He said any changes to the age of consent would be designed to prevent predatory behaviour by older men and the law would not apply, for example, to two 17 year-old boys.
So a 17-year-old is capable of consenting to a homosexual relationship with another 17-year-old, but is not capable of consenting to a relationship with a person 18 or older?
If his argument is that we must discriminate against gay teenagers for their own good, then Barnett really ought to explain why we shouldn’t protect teenage girls from older men. There are two possible answers: either Colin Barnett is a homophobe, or he supports the right of older men to take advantage of schoolgirls.
Lock up your daughters.
(Actually, there’s a third option: Barnett doesn’t really support the policy, but has to keep the fundies happy — both within and without the Coalition. That’s why he made this announcement early and says, “I don’t think the wider community really wants to be confronted with gay issues.”)
Update: A satirical look at the article over at Not The West.
Robert, I read and enjoy your blog daily, but sometimes you confuse me as to what exactly your point is. Age of consent/statutory rape laws vary from state to state, but as a general rule, we already *do* protect teenage girls from older men. Typically, it is counted as statutory rape if you have sex with someone who is both under the age of consent and more than two years younger than you. A little judicious googling reveals that in recent years, most states have settled on an equal age of consent for heterosexual and homosexual intercourse - WA used to have a 5-year difference with the age of consent for male-male intercourse being 21 as recently as 2002.
So while Barnett is certainly indulging in “I’m not a bigot, but …” talk, what is saying is hardly new and his notion of permitting consensual sex between partners both under the age of consent is not far removed from current practice… Bigoted? Yes. Ill-informed? Yes. Woolly? Very much so. Strange? Sadly, no.
Actually, that’s not the state of the law. If a 16yo has sex with a 15yo, it is statutory rape, just as it would be if a 30yo had sex with a 15yo. A person under the statutory age of consent is deemed to be incapable of forming consent to engage in sexual conduct.
The exception is where the alleged rapist had a reasonable and sincere belief that the person was over the age of consent. For example, a man (however old) who meets a mature-looking 15yo girl in a bar would probably be found not guilty, as it is reasonable to assume that she is of legal age to be in the bar.
However, Barnett is saying that 17yo boys should be protected from (even welcome) advances from men aged 18 or over. He does not beleive that similar protection should be afforded to young women aged 16 or 17. Why not?
Oh, and when you say “we already *do* protect teenage girls from older men” — how? If the girl is 16 or 17, then it’s up to her who she sleeps with, whether he is 17, 20, 40 or 90. As it should be.
The assumption is that homosexuals could simply be ‘confused’ before adulthood, wheras a straight person cannot be, and that they are more likely to be preyed upon by an older gay man than a young girl is likely to be preyed upon by an older heterosexual man.
Unless Colin Barnett can provide the facts to prove this, it’s a law based on nothing but bigoted stereotyping. It’s not hard to wonder why he qualified it with ‘I don’t support any discrimination on the grounds of…’. Sheesh, how many times have we heard that line, followed by something blatantly discriminatory?
Indeed, it’s standard “I’m not racist, but…” rubbish. As I mentioned, Barnett probably disagrees, but he’s got people to pander to.
The assumption is that homosexuals could simply be ‘confused’ before adulthood, wher[e]as a straight person cannot be…
Exactly, and that’s where it becomes discriminatory. If I’m a 16yo male, I would be deemed capable of consenting to have sex with a 20yo woman but incapable of consenting to have sex with 20yo man. It’s ridiculous.
Essentially they’re saying that a homosexual teenager is mentally retarded.
All teenagers are a little challenged, actually thinking about it, things haven’t really changed that much for me over the years.
Do they have any clauses like that for confused people who pick innately dodgy partners??? Maybe I could get compo!
Barnet is an anal retentive wally.
In theory your argument is workable Rob, however the fact is, society doesn’t protect young girls or young boys from anyone whether it is underage fornication or violence - kids and women were obviously considered an ‘also ran’ when they were designing all legislation to govern their activities with the only consideration being how they could get the law to work for the benefit of worthwhile blokey wage earners.
Parliament has too many old men - it is not a sensible or equitable representation of the electorate.
A couple of years ago, there was a case in Kansas involving an 18-year-old boy who was caught having sex with a 14-year-old.
Kansas, like many states, has a so-called “Romeo and Juliet” law under which the statutory-rape statutes are relaxed or waived in cases where both the “adult” participant (i.e. the one who is over 18) is not significantly older than the “minor” participant.
But because both the participants in the Kansas case were male, the older one — who was 18 — got 17 years in jail, instead of the 15 months he would have received if the other one — who was nearly 15 — had been a girl.
This in a country where Britney Spears has been wank fodder ever since she sprouted breasts.
Yeah i’m a Liberal and even I think that Colin Barnett’s proposed policy is dumb & illiberal. Perhaps he could take a leaf out of John Brogdan’s book on the issue of discrimination on the basis of a characteristic (in this case - sexuality).
I think you would find though that there would be a few noticeable members of the Coalition crossing the floor of the WA parliament if this proposal ever reached the floor.
Antonio
What a fucking retard. At least Labor has a better chance against him than anyone with half a brain.
Oh Dear, Colin has just made his first big stuff up - engaging ing in some good old poofter bashing
http://www.sundaytimes.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,7034,12057142%255E2761,00.html
Barnett’s gay gibe raises hackles
By Amanda Banks and David King
26jan05
WEST Australian Opposition leader Colin Barnett has upset gay-rights groups with an “insensitive” remark about homosexuals in his first stumble of the state election.
When a journalist offered the would-be premier hairspray at an outdoor campaign launch yesterday to prevent his hair from blowing in the wind, Mr Barnett replied: “I’m not after the gay vote.”
What a stupid moron.
Keep it up Colin, the more you open your mouth, the better it is for The Government :-)