Times article about Age of Consent, Stonewall, Alba

[Wandawomble]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/48c9ae6e-9adf-11eb-8da6-6f8eecc82ac3?shareToken=1d6c72638a41d774b21c06787d90f6d3

I know there are other threads about this but a bit of sunlight and all that...

Its campaign to reform laws limiting the right of adolescents to consent to sex is aimed at countries like Haiti and Zimbabwe that restrict sexual health services, such as contraception and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, to adolescents as old as 18 without parental consent.

Why didn't they just say that in the document? All the woolly stuff consent to sexuality etc is far too wide open to interpretation.

Thanks for the share token

Thanks OP, good to see this in the Times.

I really think Stonewall have dropped the ball a few too many times.

First there was the ' acceptance without exception' campaign which completely overlooked the Exceptions on the Equality Act which are there for a very good reason. Now this.

I am sure it was an oversight and clumsy wording rather than anything more sinister but they really need to be more careful.

I've lost all respect for them as an organisation.

This is entirely Stonewall’s fault. Either they haven’t got the due diligence or safeguarding procedures to check - to the letter - what they sign up to re age of consent or they approve it by the back door.

Either way they need to stay well away from our children.

Lloyd Melville, an SNP activist and National Communications Officer for SNP Students, said “The Alba Party is full of socially conservative, regressive bigots. The behaviour of their candidates and supporters is testament to this.

Thanks for the share op.

An interesting reaction from Communications Officer - he goes straight to insults and smears.

No actual point to make then Lloyd?

Name calling is the way to avoid discussion of a specific point.

Why are you trying to legalise child abuse?
"Socially conservative regressive bigot!!"

DARVO tactics.

Its campaign to reform laws limiting the right of adolescents to consent to sex is aimed at countries like Haiti and Zimbabwe that restrict sexual health services, such as contraception and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, to adolescents as old as 18 without parental consent.

Why didn't they just say that in the document? All the woolly stuff consent to sexuality etc is far too wide open to interpretation.

Quite. The grown up thing for Stonewall to do would be say 'This is what we thought it was but we now see it could be ambiguous. We don't support lowering the age of consent and we'll ask for the document to be made clearer to reflect the real intent'.
But, no. Instead they call everyone who raised it bigots and leave a deeply problematic campaign in place to make some kind of point.
They are not fit for purpose and should not be getting any public funding.

Well that would be sensible turtles

But hey

No

Safeguarding applies to everyone else apart from you does it Stonewall? We see you.

@UppityPuppity

This is entirely Stonewall’s fault. Either they haven’t got the due diligence or safeguarding procedures to check - to the letter - what they sign up to re age of consent or they approve it by the back door.

Either way they need to stay well away from our children.

They think they are above everyone else and aren’t held up to scrutiny - which means that they don’t check things to a high level themselves (says she generously).

Alba: "These are reputable organisations that make a positive impact on the lives of many in Scotland. If the organisations do not support what they have signed up to it is for them to say or provide clarification, it is not for women that attended our women’s conference to defend concerns that women have raised based on fact.”

Lloyd Melville, an SNP activist and National Communications Officer for SNP Students, said “The Alba Party is full of socially conservative, regressive bigots."

The contrast in tone is extremely striking, isn't it?

Women raise a safeguarding concern about a potential pressure to lower the age of sexual consent, there to protect adolescents from the kind of person who always seeks to exploit loopholes.

Yet, instead of replying that the paragraph probably needs to be re-written to strengthen the protections for children, the response is 'you are "socially conservative, regressive bigots" for raising a safeguarding concern'.

It may well be just an empty headed lack of wisdom (or a feeble attempt at political point scoring) but I am starting to think that when people or organisations are this cavalier about child safeguarding, they should also be prepared to have their hard drives checked.

Bodily Autonomy is a biggie in progressive thought. People should be allowed to do what they want, why should personal wishes be restricted by societies norms etc (its right wing libertarianism, imo). Societies norms are there to serve the patriarchy etc and there to be usurped.
You see the bodily autonomy argument used in the trans debate, often linked with abortion
I think its a difficult one to get round, not in relation to children, but in relation to right to choose and why/ how much that should be limited.

Always worth remembering Stonewall's open appointment of Aimee Challenor to their trans advisory group in the aftermath of the Verita report into the Green's appalling safeguarding failures.
As Stonewall earn do much £££ working with schools, it's surprising they were never held to account for this safeguarding failure.

@JudithButlerNot

Bodily Autonomy is a biggie in progressive thought. People should be allowed to do what they want, why should personal wishes be restricted by societies norms etc (its right wing libertarianism, imo). Societies norms are there to serve the patriarchy etc and there to be usurped. You see the bodily autonomy argument used in the trans debate, often linked with abortion I think its a difficult one to get round, not in relation to children, but in relation to right to choose and why/ how much that should be limited.

To a large extent anyone who sees themselves as even mildly progressive has been trained over the last 30 years to see choice, of any kind, as the main instantiation of freedom of the individual, and lack of choice as some kind of denial of individual autonomy.

It's reflexive and so any argument that a certain type of choice is either dangerous, or false, or whatever, immediately has to work against the instincts of the listener.

Good point SmokedDuck.

There is always a balancing act between the freedom of the individual and the good of the community. Both extremes are bad for society. We seem to have gone from acknowledging that too much suppression of the individual in favour of the community is not a good thing, to thinking that individuals should have unlimited and unfettered ability to do what they like without any consideration for the wider impact of their choices and behaviour on the rest of the community.

Societies norms are there to serve the patriarchy etc and there to be usurped.

And also that's the whole thing about Queer Theory. "Norms" are bad and so should be resisted, reflexively.

So if safeguarding or child protection is the norm, you fight against it, because norms are oppressive.

(They rely on no-one noticing the intrinsic paradox that Queer Theory could itself become an oppressive norm).

Adding this here; it's the Malcolm Clark tweet, with a part two...

grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/if-you-say-so

Graham Linehan's blog is interesting today.

Who the hell in an official position is investigating this stuff?

Who looks at safeguarding within stonewall et al?

Interesting divide between the tone of the article and the tone of the comments. (Thanks for the share token, btw!) The comments are almost universally of the same mind as this thread. Article seems to have swallowed the SNP/Stonewall line and throws out a nice little slur against Wings as well.

@NonnyMouse1337

Good point SmokedDuck.

There is always a balancing act between the freedom of the individual and the good of the community. Both extremes are bad for society. We seem to have gone from acknowledging that too much suppression of the individual in favour of the community is not a good thing, to thinking that individuals should have unlimited and unfettered ability to do what they like without any consideration for the wider impact of their choices and behaviour on the rest of the community.

Ironically individual freedom is a right wing stance.

An organisation which receives public money, with an established and "experienced education and youth team", which offers training and membership programmes to schools, should be doing way more checking into which international campaigns it signs up to. Why should Stonewall be protected from scrutiny? Shouting "bigot" is not the way grown ups or grown up organisations should behave. They should explain how and why it happened and state clearly what their position on the matter is. They get treated like a spoilt child whose parents are too terrified to deal with them.

[quote WarriorN]Adding this here; it's the Malcolm Clark tweet, with a part two...

grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/if-you-say-so[/quote]
The last part of that blog makes me want to cry. WHY isn’t anyone in the mainstream media reporting this? Those tweets are repulsive.