Re: Sexual Offences Act 2003, UK

Ann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:39:04 +0000:
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:25:33 +1100, "Rarin Horse"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>>
>>"Ann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> At last the new UK Act comes into force.

>>> http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/20030042.htm

>>> Ann

>>Why do you say 'at last'?

> It's been coming for ages.  I've been following its path through the
> parliamentary system seemingly for years.

>>And do you agree with all of it?

> I haven't read it all yet to see what changes have been made since the
> last time I read it but generally I think it's good.  I particularly
> like the way the rape of prepubescent children is taken more seriously
> than before.  I like that it is assumed that prepubescents can't give
> meaningful consent and any sex with them is called rape.

I dislike that fact that any and all sexual activity (like touching-up
behind the bike sheds) between under 16s is a criminal offence regardless
of consent. (Section 13, modifying sections 9 to 12).  This is monstrous,
and might well bring Britain before Human Rights courts (as these bits of
the law violate the kids' right to respect for their private lives.)

> The Act has been brought up to date in many respects particularly in
> the area of gender.  The penalty for a woman who forces a man to have
> sex with her is the same as a man forcing a woman.  This is new.  The
> laws to do with prostitution have been altered to include men and
> women too.

There are some sexual assymetries left.  It would seem to me to be lawful
for a doctor to obtain contraceptives for a girl, but not for a boy
(there is nothing corresponding to section 14(3)c along the lines
"preventing the child from impregnating a person").

> One bit I've seen and would question is why they deem it necessary to
> make it illegal for adult relatives to have sex.  I don't know what
> the rationale behind this is.  I can't see why two consenting adults
> should have any limits put on their sexual activities.  People do
> break the law in this regard and I don't see what harm it does.

Conceiving an incestuous baby is harmful.  Otherwise, I have to agree.

> I'm also wondering if the age of consent is too high and I think it
> will be lowered gradually over the coming years but I think it will
> take time.

> Now we just have to see how the courts will act and what sentences they
> give.  I don't imagine much will change there and I will disagree with
> the sentences given.  We can give them the Act but we can't force them
> to use it properly.

> Ann

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter
(like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a").