World Wide Age Of Consent List.

[Tukaram (Tim)]

A 15 year old is a kid, And is more likely to have sex without protection, They do not think of the consequences, And can be taken advantage of, They are a kid no matter what anybody says,,,,Having sex with my 15 year old Daughter, I would cut the guys balls off.

 

I know a lot of 40 and 60 year olds that don't use protection either.  Age does not bring wisdom. 

 

My main concern is too many busybodies trying to tell other countries what to do.  Right now America is one of the worst at sticking their nose into everyone else's business.  Let each country decide for themselves. 

[Bruce]

 

A 15 year old is a kid, And is more likely to have sex without protection, They do not think of the consequences, And can be taken advantage of, They are a kid no matter what anybody says,,,,Having sex with my 15 year old Daughter, I would cut the guys balls off.

 

I know a lot of 40 and 60 year olds that don't use protection either.  Age does not bring wisdom. 

 

My main concern is too many busybodies trying to tell other countries what to do.  Right now America is one of the worst at sticking their nose into everyone else's business.  Let each country decide for themselves. 

 

 

Correct! However you need to take is a step further and note that MY (and your) tax dollars are being used to support other countries, many of which want to kill off the US and UK et al and this age of consent issues with the US throwing grant money at other countries to chase a rather small problem and make it into a much larger issue than it is (by the numbers) and fund it and then as a negative side effect, create an ongoing business of fake prosecutions all in an attempt to get more money from the US.

 

If the US stopped worrying about this sex stuff and the other wasted tax money spend in other countries, the US would be financially sound and out SS system fully funded. If we were to list all the problems / issues the US has (real or created) in order of importance, I believe the Philippine age of consent would be about 7/8ths of the way down the list......  

[samatm]

 

 

The Philippines used to be 12 -14-15 depending on local customs. It was George W. Bush who started all this sex trafficking and minimum age issues. If he did not demand a legal age minimum of 18 and then bribed the Philippines with millions to fight under age sex, the Philippines would be in a much better position. This is what happens when 'someone' says that sex / prostitution is wrong... but has no real plan on how to replace the lost money for the families when prostitution is made illegal.   

 

 

Whoa now.   This is a very complex issue  and one I won't try to solve.  However, I don't think any US intervention made prostitution in the Philippines illegal.     Prostitution may have been legal back during pre Spanish era.. I do not know.     Trafficking includes much more than sex trafficking it also includes  human trafficking, child labour, and indentured servitude.      I think it is honourable that US would  take the lead in the efforts to help police the dishonourable actions  and harm its citizens inflict upon a disadvantaged poverty stricken fringe class in a poor country.    The US basically said look we are ashamed our people  come to your country for to take advantage of  defenceless children however we can't  help you prosecute and stem the flow until you decide to change your own laws.  The Philippines is totally responsible for changing its own legal code, not Geo Bush or Tony Blair  contrary to popular thought.     

Edited June 5, 2013 by samatm

[Bruce]

 

 

 

The Philippines used to be 12 -14-15 depending on local customs. It was George W. Bush who started all this sex trafficking and minimum age issues. If he did not demand a legal age minimum of 18 and then bribed the Philippines with millions to fight under age sex, the Philippines would be in a much better position. This is what happens when 'someone' says that sex / prostitution is wrong... but has no real plan on how to replace the lost money for the families when prostitution is made illegal.   

 

 

Whoa now.   This is a very complex issue  and one I won't try to solve.  However, I don't think any US intervention made prostitution in the Philippines illegal.     Prostitution may have been legal back during pre Spanish era.. I do not know.     Trafficking includes much more than sex trafficking it also includes  human trafficking, child labour, and indentured servitude.      I think it is honourable that US would  take the lead in the efforts to help police the dishonourable actions  and harm its citizens inflict upon a disadvantaged poverty stricken fringe class in a poor country.    The US basically said look we are ashamed our people  come to your country for to take advantage of  defenceless children however we can't  help you prosecute and stem the flow until you decide to change your own laws.  The Philippines is totally responsible for changing its own legal code, not Geo Bush or Tony Blair  contrary to popular thought.     

 

 

 

What? Where have you been hiding? "Take advantage of defenseless children'??? The whole point is MONEY. US money. And these 'defenseless children' are rather few and far between..... So much so that the Philippine Government passed a BROADER LAW back in March to reclassify what 'is' a victim... because there are NOT enough victims to qualify for future US funds......

 

While no one is saying it never happens, there really is a shortage of victims (in the Philippines). The real trafficking areas are ****** countries, but it is a part of their culture and as such, the US goes after 'soft targets' like the Philippines rather than face a backlash of discrimination claims from the *******. In reality, the few cases of sex trafficking against the ******* have resulted in the defense claims that it is their culture and 'we' the west have no standing to bring a case..... I mean WHERE ELSE can you LEGALLY have sex with a 9yr old? (google or youtube the term 'thighing'... enjoy the trip into WTF Land..... )

 

The issues in the Philippines revolve around the lack of enough real kiddy porn style victims to get future US money so they expand the law to try to 'catch' more so called criminals..... they go after the older teens and try to make fake cases and fake raids and then claim they are rescuing the 'children.

 

In reality, these rescues are rescuing people who are openly not cloaking themselves in victimhood and have often aggressively sought out older foreigners for support. This is the real issue. The US, paying the Philippine government to conduct fake prosecutions which does ZERO good for the girl or her family.  

 

Prostitution may not be YOUR 1st or 2nd or 3rd choice to make money... but then we are not talking about you, now are we?  'We' Americans need to get off our high horses and stop passing judgement on the poor women of the world.  

 

Here is a thought for you..... The US has given MILLIONS to the Philippine government to fight this loosing battle. Most of this money has been 'diverted' using hiring schemes and imaginary names of imaginary rescued victims to get MORE money! IF instead, the US took those millions of USD and set up a fund to pay school fees / college fees and left the sex trafficking imaginary games to the police to use the existing laws to fight it.

 

Do not buy into the PR crap that is given out to try to justify this witch hunt. Ask other forum members..... how many members have DIRECT knowledge of real sex trafficking? And then add up the information, deduct multiple reports of the same thing and see what is left. Do research of the press articles.... See just how FEW cases there are of REAL sex trafficking or kiddy porn. The numbers just do not add up. In the Philippines that is......

 

I work with prostitutes..... I talk to them and I ask questions. NEVER have I been asked if I was interested in 'kids'. When I ask about what they know, they say mostly the same thing in that there is too much money with far little risk with 18-25 yr old women for the bars to hire under age girls. Women are lined up looking for bar jobs! All legal! I have been traveling to the Philippines for 4 years..... Never been offered a kid. Why? If you listen to the press articles and CNN crap, there are sleazy men on almost every corner selling kids..... But when you open your eyes and see for yourself..... It just does not add up.

 

If you really want to search out kids... do what the real pedos do... go to THAILAND! The Philippines, a catholic country... has very few real kiddy sex issues... Really!

 

I am not interested in stopping prostitution. Nor do I give a damn if a Kano comes to the Philippines to go on a dive trip or to spend his time and money chasing bar girls. Not my business. I AM in the charity business of providing medical help and school help and a few other things for the poor of the Philippines. If some teenage girl wants to get into the sex business to help her family or work her way through college...... not my business. Her body her choice. I do not judge, just offer help when I can....    

 

The Philippines is a GREAT place to vacation in or live in if you have a limited budget. All this sex trafficking crap is nothing more than money driven witch hunts. The majority of the people in the Philippines and the travelers coming into the Philippines are not into KIDS... no matter what the US ambassador says...... Remember a year ago or so when he claimed that 40% of all US travelers were sex traffickers? Well when people asked for the evidence to back up that claim... be started back pedaling quick! When the (New York) Village Voice did an in depth look at the DOJ (US) numbers, what they found was very very low numbers of arrests and victims and more of a PR spin to justify their sex trafficking budget.  

[JJReyes]

The US basically said look we are ashamed our people come to your country for to take advantage of defenceless children however we can't help you prosecute and stem the flow until you decide to change your own laws. The Philippines is totally responsible for changing its own legal code, not Geo Bush or Tony Blair contrary to popular thought.

 

One issue is the definition of innocent, defenceless "children," which the United States government considers to be anyone below the age of 18 years. The day before you are a child. On your birthday you are magically transformed into an adult. At least that is the legal definition. If you commit a crime before 18 years, it's juvenile prison until you turn 18 years. There are exceptions. You can be tried and convicted as an adult at a young age.

 

18 years and under is the age group that President George Bush and his Attorney General John Ashcroft wanted to protect based on their personal, religious convictions. Protection included against all forms of pornography. This was their stated priority at the start of the Bush II administration. What diverted their attention was 9-11.

 

The Bush II administration wanted to punish Americans for crimes committed outside the United States. This wouldn't make sense if in the country where the incident occurred, the act was not considered a crime. To make it effective, they had to convince countries like the Philippines to change their laws. In other words, conform to US standards. Money talks and enough of it resulted in the Philippines making changes to please the American government.

 

If an American used a gun to commit a robbery in the Philippines, the crime is punishable under Philippine law. Yet the American won't be punished again in the United States for the same crime. Worse, if released to the custody of the American government, the robber cannot be tried in US court because the crime was not committed in American soil.

 

If a member of the American military commits a serious crime in the Philippines, the crime can be harshly punished under Philippine law. Yet the American government will insisted that military personnel be tried only under American law and the punishment is usually very light by comparison.

 

Is there a double standard?

Edited June 5, 2013 by JJReyes

[jon1]

 

The US basically said look we are ashamed our people come to your country for to take advantage of defenceless children however we can't help you prosecute and stem the flow until you decide to change your own laws. The Philippines is totally responsible for changing its own legal code, not Geo Bush or Tony Blair contrary to popular thought.

One issue is the definition of innocent, defenceless "children," which the United States government considers to be anyone below the age of 18 years. The day before you are a child. On your birthday you are magically transformed into an adult. At least that is the legal definition. If you commit a crime before 18 years, it's juvenile prison until you turn 18 years. There are exceptions. You can be tried and convicted as an adult at a young age.

 

18 years and under is the age group that President George Bush and his Attorney General John Ashcroft wanted to protect based on their personal, religious convictions. Protection included against all forms of pornography. This was their stated priority at the start of the Bush II administration. What diverted their attention was 9-11.

 

The Bush II administration wanted to punish Americans for crimes committed outside the United States. This wouldn't make sense if in the country where the incident occurred, the act was not considered a crime. To make it effective, they had to convince countries like the Philippines to change their laws. In other words, conform to US standards. Money talks and enough of it resulted in the Philippines making changes to please the American government.

 

If an American used a gun to commit a robbery in the Philippines, the crime is punishable under Philippine law. Yet the American won't be punished again in the United States for the same crime. Worse, if released to the custody of the American government, the robber cannot be tried in US court because the crime was not committed in American soil.

 

If a member of the American military commits a serious crime in the Philippines, the crime can be harshly punished under Philippine law. Yet the American government will insisted that military personnel be tried only under American law and the punishment is usually very light by comparison.

 

Is there a double standard?

 

They passed some laws around 2004 allowing the US to arrest you for committing a crime abroad that is illegal in the US but not where the crime was committed. This was specifically targeting the sex tourism. 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/us/us-is-now-pursuing-americans-who-commit-sex-crimes-overseas.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

 

The US Miiltary has always had a double standard. You can be tried for things that are not illegal in the US (Sodomy (consensual), Adultery). A military member falls under the Uniformed Military Code of Justice (UCMJ). This precludes all civil laws on military reservations, battlefields and countries that have no judicial system with a Status of Forces Agreement or Visiting Forces Agreement in place (i.e. Iraq in the first few years).

 

On what you said about the US taking precedent over the punishment, you are incorrect. The offending US Military member will be prosecuted under Philippine law if a Philippine law was broken (i.e. The Smith case). The ONLY thing that the US has the legal standing to do is ensure that the offender's living conditions are sufficient (has the right to maintain custody of the US Military member) and his rights are being observed. These are all spelled it in the VFA between the Philippines/US (usually a SOFA agreement in other countries, but without US Bases, they have a VFA instead). If convicted, once all appeals are complete, the US Military person will be transfered to Host nation custody to serve their sentence. This is how it works all over the world. There are plenty of former military in Japanese jails. 

Edited June 5, 2013 by jon1

[MikeB]

On what you said about the US taking precedent over the punishment, you are incorrect. The offending US Military member will be prosecuted under Philippine law if a Philippine law was broken (i.e. The Smith case).

 

It depends on the agreement between the host and visiting military's countries. In the Philippines, the agreement gives the US government jurisdiction over crimes committed in the Philippines by active duty military:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RP%E2%80%93US_Visiting_Forces_Agreement

 

I didn't find anything on specifically why Smith was tried by a Philippine court unless it was under the "particular importance to the Philippines" part of the agreement. That would seem to give wide latitude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subic_rape_case

[i am bob]

Is there a double standard?

 

Actually there is a triple, and sometimes a quadruple standard at play here.  

[jon1]

 

On what you said about the US taking precedent over the punishment, you are incorrect. The offending US Military member will be prosecuted under Philippine law if a Philippine law was broken (i.e. The Smith case).

 

I didn't find anything on specifically why Smith was tried by a Philippine court unless it was under the "particular importance to the Philippines" part of the agreement. That would seem to give wide latitude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subic_rape_case

 

Basically, politics come into play. If it makes the US look bad, they will bend and turn over someone to the local justice system. The reality is that all the Embassy will do for you is make sure that your rights are not violated and try to get you a fair trial.