8 - Friday, January 17, 1986 - North Shore News Doug Collins © get this straight « oa NO DOUBT you came to the conclusion Jong ) ago that we are living in a looney-bin. But we are sinned against rather than sinning. It’s binkeepers who are to blame. That has been shown in myriad ways. My butcher, for example, shows his prices in pounds on the | front of those little meat- skewers he uses. Which is where the customers can see them. On the back, where 1 Ae-can see them, the prices are in metric. When his rulers ordered him to do so, you see, the poor fellow switched to metric -- at a cost of $12,000. Then he was told he could use Imperial again, which was what the peasants wanted. But he chad no wish to spend another $12,000 re- ‘converting. So the customers work in pounds and he works in metric. It’s a wonder the unfor- tunate man hasn't gone cross-eyed. Right now, thanks to our wonderful Charter and the brilliant souls in Ottawa ‘who devised it, the law looks cross-eyed. Did you know, for instance, that a |: Supreme Court judge ruled ‘in’ Prince George that A because of the sman cannot be charged with shaving sex with a girl-under 114 years of age? In the days when the laws pwere made and unmade by :parliament rather. than by judges, a guy could go to the’ cooler for quite a long :time. for. having sex with a little girl., The crime was :known as ‘statutory rape .and was covered by Section © 146 of the Criminal Code. -, No more.:Not unless-the precedent set by Mr. Justice C.R. ‘Lander’s decision is t overturned on appeal. Already, the lower courts are ‘following | the. Prince George example. In December, the defence ‘pleaded: in a Terrace case that four similar charges were unconstitutional. The | provincial court judge con- curred, Had to, with the Prince George judgment staring him in the face. “* « Decause of the | charter a man cannot ‘be charged with having sex with a girl under 14 years of lage?’’. Why such judicial nonsense? Because the idiotic Charter says that discrimination on the basis of age and sex is a no-no. So as things now stand it makes no difference that the victim of a man’s atten- tions is under 14. Nor does Charter a’ “+ was. it make any difference that she is a female. We're all persons, now, you see, so little girls who are lured into bed by men are out of luck, it seems. Their sex, at least, doesn’t come into it. Wrong is sup- posed to be wrong irrespec- tive of sex, but obviously it isn’t if their violators can't be charged. As persons, they have to take their chances. SE “We're all persons, now, you see, so little girls who are lured into bed by men are out of luck ...”’ Not being a Mister Justice, | could be asking a dumb question here. But is it now OK for a man to have sex with a five-year- old girl? We are not, remember, talking about “common rape, which by definition is committed without consent and war- rants prosecution under another . section .of Code, but about the statutory kind, which can occur with consent. A child of five can give ‘consent.. Ain't that right, my lords, ladies and gentlemen? . A friend of mine who is | familiar with the mysteries of legal matters tells me, # your honors, that what we } this glorious have in Charter is a loose cannon. And we should remember that loose cannons’ used to sink ships. _ In the Terrace case, the Crown argued that ‘‘certain people can. vote, certain people can drive, certain people can marry, and ‘others can't’’. The law as determined by parliament therefore ‘‘not in- herently discriminatory’, stated the prosecutor. Good common sense, that. But it wasn’t accepted, though the accused did end up getting 20 years for other offences. To add to our hilarity, comrades, it has been reported that one of the fac- tors in the Prince George decision was that the statutory rape ‘law discriminated against men. If’ that is correct, ain’t that just the biggest laugh? For it must mean that the statutory rape law was un- fair to men who took little girls into their beds. Pardon me, geniles all, but is this Mad Hatter Land? Or is it simply that somone is reading the labels the wrong way? the J- the §. even | COMMERCIAL bingo halls are not being encouraged in the City of North Van- couver. But they’re not being banned either. Council defeated a motion Monday to set up rules to regulate bingo halls, but it also defeated a ‘motion to prohibit the establishment of such halls, The first motion council defeated would have in- structed staff to prepare an amendment to. the zoning bylaw to regulate commer- cial bingo halls. Business licensing bylaws would have been brought forward to provide for licen- sing of commercial bingo halls with an annual fee of $500. Voting against the motion were Ald. Stella Jo Dean,: ‘Allan Blair, John Braithwaite and Mayor Jack Loucks. . A second motion to pro- hibit the use of commercial bingo, halls was defeated by Ald. Elko Kroon, Dana Taylor, Allan: Blair and Ralph Hall. 1 Edward G. Palmer NOTARY PUBLIC Still at Westview relocated due to Fire , - © Real Estate Conveyancing \ \ * mortgages * wills * statutory declarations . © powers of attorney i © affidavits 985-0541 650 Westview Shopping Centre, + (enter thru Crest Realty office) Vp in| campshirts, 12-5 North Van. We only have 2 sales a’ year. From Thursday Jan. 16 to Sunday Feb. 2, this is your chance to choose ‘from our wide selec: tion of fine imported goods and exclusive Margareta designs. All sale items at Plenty of sizes and colours in © outerwear e cozy flannel lined jumpsuits from West Germany in 100% cotton ¢ wool & cotton coordinates from Europe, sweaters, skirts, panis, jackets ° silks Speciai Sale Hours: Thurs., Jan. 16, Fri. Jan. 17, and Sat. Jan. 18 West Van and Downtown open til 9 p.m. Open Sundays 11-5 in West Van; 12-6 Downtown and West Van. 1401 Beilevue 926-2113 As usual, fantastic bargains continue at ‘our North Van store, 156 West Third 980-1665 | “4. a very - special sale blouses, skirts, camisoles. Downtown 948 Rebson 681-6612