Tasmanian Times

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

Media Release

Outdated, offensive wording around child sex offences needs to change

The misleading and potentially offensive use of the word “relationship” in child sexual offences contained in Tasmania’s Criminal Code should be removed and updated.

Shadow Attorney-General Ella Haddad said the offence of “maintaining a sexual relationship with a young person” needed to be altered to “persistent sexual abuse of a child” to reflect the reality and gravity of such serious crimes.

Debating the Family Violence Reform Bill today, Ms Haddad said the change would also bring Tasmania into line with New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia where this wording is used in criminal law.

“It’s misleading and offensive to imply that a relationship exists between a child sex offender and a victim and the current wording of the crime implies there is consent,” Ms Haddad said.

“Changing the name of such heinous crimes would be a strong step forward for victims to more accurately describe such offences for what they are.

“Implying a relationship exists between offenders and victims sends the wrong message.

“During today’s debate, Attorney-General Elise Archer said she also was concerned with the use of the word ‘relationship’ for this crime and committed to consulting on my suggested changes in future law reform.

“I look forward to taking part in any collaborative effort that will bring positive change for victims.”

Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Claire Gilmour

    October 17, 2018 at 4:50 pm

    I don’t understand why the wording needs debating? It should be changed pronto. I can’t believe it took so long for domestic violence to be considered a crime and the wording changed. Too many old, fat, mentally quassimodo, religious men controlling women and children zealots in parliament I guess …!! Any politician who does not publicly support the rights of women and children to rights and protection of their own bodies, does not support mental, emotional, physical and financial health and wellbeing of such should not be considered as a candidate for any public position.

Leave a Reply

To Top