Equalise the age of consent
The NSW Wood Royal Commission recommendation that age of consent laws in the state be set at 16 years for both heterosexual and homosexual sex has flushed out many a conservative moralist and homophobe.
Justice Wood's recommendation seeks to remove the absurd and discriminatory premise in existing law that a 16- or 17-year-old man who has sex with another man is a child, the subject of paedophilia charges, while a 16- or 17-year-old man who has sex with a woman is a full adult.
Equalising age of consent for homosexual and straight sex is a long overdue democratic reform in NSW. Current law both criminalises very common practices between teenagers and stigmatises gay sexuality. It also lags behind most other states: in Victoria, the ACT and South Australia the age of consent is a uniform 16, and in Tasmania it is 17.
The Northern Territory laws are the same as in NSW. In Western Australia, the age of consent for heterosexual sex is 16, but for homosexual sex it is 21: homosexuals in WA can have voted, served in the armed forces, drunk in bars, for five years before they can legally have sex!
Many other countries' laws are more liberal. In Denmark, Poland, Sweden and Greece, among others, the age of consent is 15. In Belgium, Italy, Germany, Finland and the Netherlands it is 16, and in a range of countries it is 14.
NSW Labor Party MLC Franca Arena has protested against the recommendation, saying it will result in "a lowering of the age of consent to 15 and 14 effectively". Labor Premier Bob Carr refuses to take a public position on the issue. The ALP's refusal to advocate and protect homosexual rights is formalised in the conscience vote it allows MPs.
Equal age of consent laws, says NSW Liberal leader Peter Collins, will "send the wrong message" and "widen the scope for paedophilia". Collins implicitly equates homosexual sex with paedophilia and relegates gay men to the status of immature sexual beings. If Collins' argument is not a covert call for all homosexual sex to be criminalised again, then it is a call for raising the age of consent for heterosexual sex. Either way, it's reactionary.
Equality in law is the most basic of rights in a democracy. That homosexuals have not yet won that right reflects the strong resistance of the rulers of this society to any challenge to the nuclear family ideal. The whipping up of homophobia and the quashing of every challenge to traditional gender roles are necessary if the elite are to maintain a sexual division of labour which renders women's work super-exploitable and super-profitable.
Age of consent laws are necessary, though the precise age at which they are set will vary according to prevailing social, economic and cultural factors. Society has a responsibility to protect children — who are economically dependent and powerless — against sexual coercion, exploitation and abuse.
But age of consent laws that discriminate on the basis of gender or sexual orientation allow the persecution, punishment and social control of particular individuals and groups by a state (police, courts, governments) whose main purpose is to uphold the unequal status quo. While the law under capitalism is never "equal" — it is written and enforced selectively — a lack of formal equality makes the potential for injustice much greater.
The commission's recommendation has provided a good opportunity for lesbian and gay activists, feminists and the left to campaign strongly for and win equal age of consent laws. We must not throw it away.