The problem here is a drafting one.
The legislation does not, on its face, prohibit explicit sexual conversations between adults and children -- it prohibits online communication with a person under 18 "for the purpose of facilitating the commission" of a sexual offence.
So, it may be that the conversations are legal so long as there is no intention to meet and engage in sexual activity, which would be an offence.
This does seem to be odd, however, it is easy enough to fix by legislation unless Parliament intended to allow explicit internet chat with juveniles so long as no real life meeting took place (that seems unlikely to be Parliamentary intent).
http://www.nationalpost.com/m/story.html?id=2092480&s=Home
Janice Tibbetts, Canwest News Service
OTTAWA - Nobody disputes that Craig Legare was being a creep when he had online sex chats with a 12-year-old girl who called herself "babystar."
But was his behaviour criminal?
The Supreme Court of Canada will weigh in on the definition of "Internet luring" Thursday when it considers whether the Edmonton man was breaking Canada's seven-year-old ban.
Mr. Legare was 32 years old when he posed as a 17-year-old in a public chat room in April 2003 and had two online conversations with the preteen, one that lasted for an hour and was "almost entirely sexual in nature," according to court records.
...
Mr. Legare maintains he never intended to meet the girl, who told him she was 13.
His appeal is the Supreme Court's first assessment of Canada's 2002 law prohibiting Internet luring, which makes it illegal to communicate online with a person under 18 "for the purpose of facilitating the commission" of a sexual offence.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
No comments:
Post a Comment