While reading an interesting post on Diotima discussing the controversy surrounding a Little Miss Hooters contest [via Sekimori] for girls 5 and under [not officially sponsored by the restaurant chain], I found this link to a news story on some disturbing news of legislation from New Zealand:

The Crimes Amendment (No 2) Bill is designed to repeal [New Zealand's] outdated sex laws but critics are furious at a new section that would allow sex between [sub-]teenage couples.

The new law would decriminalise consensual sex for children as young as 12, provided their partner is no more than two years older than them. It would allow a girl as young as 12, and a boy aged 12-14, to have sex with impunity. Parents and police would be powerless to act if the relationship was not condoned. The change would give New Zealand the dubious reputation of having the most liberal stance on sex in the developed world. Most western countries set the age of consent at 16, except France where it is 15.

Critics say the new law would send the wrong message to children, with New Zealand already ranked third in the world for teenage pregnancies. They don't accept 12-year-olds are capable of understanding the consequences of sexual experimentation. The bill, which passed its first reading in March and is now before the law and order select committee, updates laws regarding sex crimes that were passed in 1961.

A site, Ageofconsent.com, details New Zealand's sex laws and their associated legal penalties. Not that I think that 12-to-14 years olds should be having sex, but I don't believe imposing criminal penalties on children for sexual activity or experimentation is the right course of action. It's important to note that the new law fortunately would not decriminalize sexual contact between adults or older teens and children down to age 12. Widespread medical evidence shows that girls (and some boys) are reaching puberty at increasingly earlier ages, but it does not follow that children's emotional and social readiness for sexual activity with others is in step with their physical maturation.

But the crux of the problematic language of the new law is this:

Parents and police would be powerless to act if the relationship was not condoned.

While I don't generally see why police would need to be called in to prosecute kanoodling "tweeners," I do find it hard to justify a law that takes away parents' ability to raise, discipline and control their children as young as age 12. This runs counter to the concept that children are unable to fully understand right from wrong - and to thereby be fully responsible for criminal acts, or to entering contracts - at such a young age.

Parents guide their 12-year-old children's life choices in a variety of domains. Why should control over the appropriate expression of sexuality in a child's life be exempt from this normal parenting role? There are many activities, while not codified as "illegal," that are certainly not appropriate for 12-year olds' participation without adult supervision and consent: handling hazardous substances, using power or farming tools, or operating a firearm, for example.

Certainly some 12-year-olds perform these tasks without coming to harm, but they do so at considerable risk; and the risks involved with sexuality can be very high indeed for children or the emotionally unprepared. Are 12-year-olds capable of fully comprehending and negotiating the intricacies of preventing sexually transmitted infections, contraception, and pregnancy and parenting? I think not. These revisions of New Zealand's laws, outdated though they may be, seem ill-advised in the extreme.

---