Here's how they explained it:

Jules Vasquez Reporting

Judith Alpuche - C.E.O., Ministry of Human Development, Social Transformation & Poverty Alleviation
"These amendments and the need for these amendments predate any UNIBAM, any constitutional challenge. We have been working on this - I have been in this business for 20 years. We have been working on this for at least 6 years now."

This morning the movers in the social sector made an impassioned plea to the media to even out the debate on the amendments to the criminal code.

The debate so far has been dominated by those who object to this proposed change to section 46 of the Criminal Code.

Michelle Daly - Deputy Solicitor General
"Clause 5 amends section 46 to widen the offence of rape to include penetration of a person's vagina, anus or mouth without consent."

Critics say this suggests that consent can be given to anal sex - which is prohibited by section 53 of the criminal code:

Michelle Daly
"There is the potential that people may interpret that there is an implied repeal, and therefore, what we may need to do, or what I believe we will be doing, is to revisit the provision to ensure that we remove that ambiguity, and make it expressly clear that we are neither, by implication, or expressly repealing Section 53."

Jules Vasquez
"So then, is the language that is in there, inadvertent or unfortunate in so far as it says that without that person's consent or a reasonable belief that the other persons consents, when consent really, within the ambit of this law, is not really an issue because you can't consent legally to an unnatural crime?"

Michelle Daly
"You can't legally consent to anal sex."

And these framers and initiators of the law say that as much as possible, they want to adjust the revised law:

Michelle Daly
"What we are proposing to take back from the comments that we received, is to go back and look at the provisions in the bill. And clearly, if there are capable of multiple interpretations, to ensure that we remove any ambiguity. There is no intention to legalize sodomy in any of the provisions of this bill. There is no intention to repeal Section 53 of the bill, and therefore, if it means that we need to tweak the language to make this abundantly clear, then we will need to do that before the bill is passed."

But they say it must pass because of the fundamental and urgent protection it affords to children:

Judith Alpuche
"If there is a way for us to remove any doubt about what we're trying to do, then we will ask the legal drafters to do that because we are not being preemptive. It is not our role to preempt what the Chief Justice will rule or any such thing. We are trying to protect our children. And, another thing that has been said is about the language, that the language is indelicate. Well you know what, these issues are indelicate, and we have to be very clear about what is happening. What is happening to our children includes penetration of the anus, vagina and mouth with penis and with objects also. And that is the language that we need to have - we have seen it all in the child protection sector, the level of exploitation and violation of children, and we cannot shy away from this because we're trying to be delicate. I am very sorry if this causes disquiet for some people; I think it should because we need to acknowledge the reality of what is on the ground. And we need to really think about, as a community, if we are serious about protecting children, or if we are about promoting other agendas."

Kim Simplis - Barrow - Special Envoy For Women and Children
"This is something for our children, and our children deserve this. I personally, am sick and tired of men not going to jail. They're getting a slap on the wrist just because our laws are flawed, please people. I think that for some people, they don't live our reality. They don't sit and hear the storie about these little boys when they tell us what is happening to them, how they are violated. And so we should still keep our laws the way they are, vague? No, we need to move away from it, and we need to face reality. This is our reality, and our perpetrators must be brought to justice."

The law proposes to give boys equal protection from sexual offences and to make women equally liable:

Judith Alpuche
"Recognizing that females can be, and are, petrators of sexual abuse against our children, I have personally listened to the cries of parents who say that my 14 year-old is being 'force-riped' by some 30 year-old woman. He wants to fall out of school, and he's bright, and what can I do. There is absolutely nothing that can be done. We need to protect our boys because although boys cannot become pregnant, the psychological damage that is done is the same."

Now, because of the public uproar, the matter is going to public consultations:

Kim Simplis-Barrow
"Come out on Tueday; get clarifications on whatever. Do not listen to the noise. Just do your homework. That's all we're asking. Really, if we have our children at heart, like I can personally say I do, then we will support this bill 100%, with the changes, with whatever changes that we need to make. But this bill will be supported, and it will be a day for the children when this is passed in the House."

Again, that public consultation is next week Tuesday at 1:30 pm at the UB Gymnasium in Belmopan.