Featured Image
Justin Trudeau taking selfy during Gay Pride parade Stacey Newman /

OTTAWA, November 18, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — The Justin Trudeau Liberal government introduced legislation Tuesday to repeal the Criminal Code restrictions on anal sex.

The Liberals claim this unprecedented move is all about “equality,” but they are ignoring the government’s obligation to protect adolescent boys from predations of older men, says Gwen Landolt, vice president of REAL Women.

Moreover, by removing anal sex from the Criminal Code entirely, the Liberals could be opening the door to group anal sex and homosexual acts in public, warned Landolt, a lawyer.

“They haven’t looked at all the possible consequences to this legislation,” she told LifeSiteNews. “I don’t think they have a clue what they are doing.”

Bill C-32, introduced November 15 by Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, would repeal Section 159, which permits anal sex in private between any two consenting people age 18 and over, or between a husband and wife.

Section 159 bans anal sex between more than two people, in public, and for anyone under age 18.

“This section of the Criminal Code is discriminatory and the LGBTQ2 community has rightfully called for its repeal,” Wilson-Raybould told reporters when announcing the bill. “Our society has evolved over the last few decades and our criminal justice system needs to evolve as well.”

The practical effect of Bill C-32 would be to lower the age of consent for anal sex to 16, putting it on par under the Code with the age of consent for all other sexual activity, noted Landolt.

She stressed that repealing Section 159 leaves young male adolescents unprotected and vulnerable.

“The intent of the law has always been to protect children from exploitation by prosecuting the adults involved, which took priority over concerns about equality,” observed Landolt in a press release.

“Anal intercourse is one of the riskiest behaviors associated with the transmission of AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases,” she wrote.

“Given the interest of some adults in having sex with youngsters, which is well documented, why then are those who should be protecting them compromising children’s physical and emotional health?

Landolt noted that despite court rulings that the ban on anal sex was unconstitutional, no previous government, Liberal or Conservative, had made any move to lower the age for anal sex to 16, because the need to protect teenage boys, not to mention girls, trumped any so-called need for equality.

Indeed, Conservative justice minister and attorney general Ray Hnatyshyn noted in 1987:

Medical evidence does indicate different kinds of psychological or physical harm may attach to different types of intercourse for young persons. Medical experts are not certain at what age sexual preference is established, and many argue that the age is fixed only in the later teen years.  

Also the question here is that heightened danger of contracting Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome or other sexually transmitted disease from anal intercourse since the tissues are more susceptible to physical damage from penetration.

Repealing Section 159 far reaching effects

The repeal of the Section 159 ban on anal sex was recommended by the homosexual activist group Egale in its June The Just Society Report.

The report, co-authored by homosexual activist lawyer Doug Elliott, also calls for repeal of the “bawdy house laws” — Sections 210 and 211 of the Criminal Code.

These sections prohibit running establishments where “indecent acts” are performed, and so have been used to prosecute the running of homosexual bathhouses.

But Sections 210 and 211 could effectively have no force when it comes to homosexual bathhouses because Section 159’s repeal “washes the Code of any restrictions of homosexual acts or practices,” Landolt pointed out. “It’s very far-reaching.”

Section 197 of the Code defines a “common bawdy house” as an establishment where “indecent acts” take place, she explained. But with anal sex no longer in the Criminal Code, homosexual acts could arguably no longer be considered  “indecent acts.”

And while Section 173 of the Code bans “indecent acts” in public, again, it could be argued, with anal sex removed from the Criminal Code, that homosexual acts no longer constitute “indecent acts,” Landolt told LifeSiteNews.

And with 159 gone, and no Criminal Code provision limiting anal sex to more than two persons, group anal sex could be permissible, she noted.

$600 million lawsuit for “unjust discrimination”

While the Liberals have yet to repeal Sections 210 and 211, they have signaled they are willing to do whatever the Just Society Report asks.

That includes a government apology for what the report calls “Canada’s history of LGBTIQ2S persecution.”

The report also asks for a “reform of prosecutorial practices,” including “restricting historic prosecutions of gross indecency to ensure parity between sexual orientations” and “expunging unjust convictions.”

Indeed, Bill C-32 contains an “historical offenses” section, exempting anyone from conviction “of any sexual offense under this Act as it read from time to time before January 4, 1983” — the day Bill C-127, the Sexual Assault Act, came into effect.

The Just Society Report also asks for compensation for “unjust government action.” That includes “restoration of military and bureaucratic pensions,” as well as “compensation for unjust criminal prosecutions and convictions.”

But before the Liberals could apologize for any alleged discrimination,  Elliott on November 1 launched a $600 million class class action suit against the government on behalf of “LGBTIQ2S” persons in the military and civil service who lost jobs or were not promoted because of their sexual orientation.

(Elliott has also launched a $104 million class action suit against Christian activist Bill Whatcott and companions who as “gay zombies” handed out literature warning of the perils of anal sex. That case will be heard February 8 and 9 in Toronto.)

Special adviser on “LGBTIQ2S” issues says apology coming

Meanwhile, Trudeau has appointed openly homosexual Randy Boissonnault his special adviser on “LGBTIQ2S” issues, and the Alberta Liberal MP told the CBC that an apology is at the top of his mandate.

“We have to address the historical wrongs because the government did some terrible things to really good people,” Boissonnault said.

Landolt counters the charge of “unjust discrimination” by pointing out that the Criminal Code prohibited homosexuality — as buggery or sodomy — until 1969, at which point it was permitted under the conditions set forth in Section 159, with the age of consent initially 21, and lowered to 18 in 1989.

Homosexual persons in the military or public service were fired because “they were subject to blackmail if their sexual orientation was publicly disclosed,” wrote Landolt in a REAL Women press release.

Even after it was decriminalized, homosexuality was not widely accepted in the society or culture until very recently, and that acceptance may well be because of the efforts of the homosexual rights lobby.

“The Criminal Code prohibition against homosexuality was based on the moral law as expressed in the Judeo-Christian faith and principles,” Landolt noted. The law also functioned to protect people from the negative consequences of their actions.

“You don’t have to agree with the past law that prohibited homosexuality in the Criminal Code,” she wrote. “It may not be acceptable to everyone, but it was not unjust discrimination.”


Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.