ILGA Feminist Declaration & Stonewall. Lowering the age of consent to 10?

The other thread is long but interesting.

I put a few comparisons between the official UN Doc which they feel has 'gaps' and the one being discussed.

It's worth reading the whole of the one being discussed.

I couldn't find a list of the 200 signatories.

The response I would have expected from orgs who have signed would be. You're right that's not clear. It needs updating so it is.

What has actually happened is a flat refusal to acknowledge any issues whatsoever with the wording, and accusations of homophobia.

For the poster upthread.

Playing into the hands of the Christian right... Eh? I'm in England. Not sure what that's about.

Mechanisms for access to abortion contraception for young people who need them have been in place for years.

The CPS guidelines are very clear that prosecuting similar age teens for consensual sex is not in the public interest.

This document is supposed to apply globally and is apparently a feminist approach. What will the result be in lowering the age of consent everywhere?

The WHO etc say it should be 18 this goes against this.

I think that might be worthy of another thread, ItsAll.

Law about HIV posted by Rowantree

“nonetheless, there is no legal obligation to disclose HIV status or to use a specific prevention method, so long as transmission doesn’t occur.”

This law seems odd.
Isn’t it like saying there is no legal obligation to not shoot a gun in someone’s direction so long as the bullet misses?

Maybe it just means you will not be prosecuted if no harm is done but who would have thought there would be no obligation.

'July 25 2011, Geneva -- With 29 votes in favour, 14 against and 5 abstentions, the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) granted today consultative status to the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA).'

More on the ECOSOC rejections:

ilga.org/gaining-the-right-to-speak-in-our-own-name-at-the-united-nations-the-ecosoc-campaign

Taken from ILGA website:

'On January 23, 2006, ILGA’s application for ECOSOC Status was rejected by the NGO Committee, as it had been on two previous occasions.
No grounds were offered for this rejection other than an impugned link between ILGA and paedophilia.'

...

'In 1994, ILGA expelled NAMBLA and two other paedophile groups at its World Conference in New York. These groups had joined ILGA at an earlier stage of ILGA’s development, at a time when ILGA did not have in place administrative procedures to scrutinize the constitutions and policies of groups seeking membership. At no time, however, did ILGA support or endorse their positions, and these groups were expelled precisely because their aims were incompatible with those of ILGA.'

ilga.org/ilga-ecosoc-status-controversy

That no-one seems to know who the Women's Rights Caucus is.

It seems the Women's Rights Caucus isn't a 'who' but rather a 'what' : it is a 'fringe' meeting that took place alongside the main UN meeting.

@EdgeOfACoin
Some people have such sort memories! Saville was not that long ago and to your point “ b) If someone unscrupulous wanted access to underage children, are they more likely to get what they want by declaring publicly 'B) an unscrupulous person who wants access to underage children' or by supporting ambiguously-worded legislation that subtly erodes the protections of children?” Didn’t the infamous David Challenor sent FOI requests to find out about children in care at Coventry?

It’s indefensible. Safeguarding is paramount!

Thanks for the Scotsman link. So many things leap out:
The way some publicly funded organisations can be so quick to police language in certain contexts and yet so cavalier about the meaning of 'adolescent', even when used in the same sentence as 'sex'.

That there seems to be no move to redraft the wording of that declaration - or if there is, I haven't read about it.

That no-one seems to know who the Women's Rights Caucus is.

This makes me feel a bit sick. Although sadly I'm not terribly surprised.

My dd is 13, she is so far from being capable of sexual consent, and she's fairly mature for her age. It's just beyond me that these large organisations can be so irresponsible.

My only hope is a stink is kicked up and more people see stonewall for the misogynistic organisation it is.

Good article, ItsAll.

Horrible to see how a whistleblower gets attacked.

'When it comes to safeguarding children, there are no free passes. To allow organisations or groups to be “beyond reproach” when it comes to protecting our children has dangerous precedents.'

Just wanted to point out that ILGA is not merely a signatory to the feminist declaration but a member of the Women's Rights Caucus (i.e. part of the group who published this) and seems to have been heavily involved in the drafting given that the declaration uses gender identity language ("people who get pregnant", "gender identity, expression and sex characteristics").

Glinner, TW Malcolm Clark tweet but with an extension....

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

Article from Lesbian and Gay news.

lesbianandgaynews.com/2021/04/the-un-ilga-stonewall-and-the-womens-caucus-jo-bartosch-investigates-calls-for-the-removal-of-laws-prohibiting-sex-with-or-between-adolescents/

Feminist groups/gender equality/capture - no issues there then. The only way to get any credibility into dropping the age of consent is to capture feminist groups and then imply safeguarding is taken care of because of who is arguing the case. Now the grey and murky waters will play into the hands of those who will campaign through the back door for a drop in the age of consent.

Hope enough fuss is made and stop this in it's tracks

Interesting reading.
31u5ac2nrwj6247cya153vw9-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Beijing-25-Feminist-declaration.pdf

Just flagging up this twitter thread

twitter.com/grroary/status/1381212229543026688?s=21

And link ti the original statement

iwhc.org/press-releases/womens-rights-caucus-issues-feminist-declaration-marking-25th-anniversary-of-the-beijing-declaration-and-platform-for-action/

It seems that there is some mistake over who wrote the original statement

The whole 'calm down, this isn't what the legislation is about' is disingenuous.

There was a lot of that during GRA2004 debates, if you check the record.

"Obviously no-one would interpret the law like this - that would be ridiculous. Stop being pedantic, everyone knows men can't really be women."

There's a degree of wilful naivety here as well.

The whole 'calm down, this isn't what the legislation is about' is disingenuous.

Ask yourself the following:

a) who would benefit from a change in legislation? Would this particular change in legislation make things easier or harder for someone with ill intentions towards children?

b) If someone unscrupulous wanted access to underage children, are they more likely to get what they want by declaring publicly 'I am an unscrupulous person who wants access to underage children' or by supporting ambiguously-worded legislation that subtly erodes the protections of children?

It's not exactly a head scratcher.

And Mumsnet too. With all its restrictions, Mumsnet remains a vital hub for collating information. No wonder it is constantly under attack.

Thank you Necessary. I am glad we have now UK political party willing to speak out on this. Also to Glinner whose links obviously mean he is now very much on the ball.

But it sounds like WHRC deserve enormous credit for bringing this into the open for discussion and sunlight.