Times article about Age of Consent, Stonewall, Alba

Clause14.ais very obviously about eliminating the criminalisation and punishment of young people for engaging in sexual activity

So you don't believe a 19 year old should be criminalised for engaging in sexual activity with a 10 year old? Interesting.

"Clause14.ais very obviously about eliminating the criminalisation and punishment of young people for engaging in sexual activity" (transsafety.network/posts/alba-whrc-conspiracy). Or "it's quite clearly referring to access to sex/sexual/reproductive health services" (yeahbutnaw). Take your pick.

Only a homophobic bigot would deliberately misconstrue it as meaning what it says.

Mark McLaughlin (the "journalist")

Has just posted this in the comments:

The signatories of the declaration are calling for the repeal of laws that limit adolescents' legal capacity to consent to sex.

For example, if you set the age of consent at 16 [the legal capacity] do not forbid them from buying condoms, or visiting a sexual health clinic, or seeking an abortion, until they are 18 [laws that limit the legal capacity].

I must be stupid because I genuinely do not understand what he is trying to say. Can someone smarter than me translate?

The moderation has been relaxed considerably. There are now posts being published that would not have had a hope yesterday or earlier today. Something is happening behind the scenes.

Complaint drafted and sent. I believe he is in breach of sections 1(i) and (iv) of the Editor’s Code.

I just find the whole thing completely bizarre. He’s been on at this for three days and is allowed to say exactly what he likes in the comments, which is generally just parroting the same lines, when people who pay for The Times are struggling to get anything approved. It’s all a bit like a personal crusade.

I commented on today’s article too. I found the same two replies by the journalist to pretty much all comments mind boggling. Putting in a small section from a terminology guideline and then using it as a basis for rights - I don’t understand it. I don’t understand why it’s not possible to say - yes, that is vague and can be interpreted in various ways.

Yes. I will be making a complaint this evening. He has made no attempt to present a balance of opinions, and three articles in a row looks like a pretty relentless attack on Margaret Lynch - an impression that has been more than confirmed by his conduct BTL. Activism is for the opinion sections of a newspaper of record, and this isn’t even good activism. He has shown zero curiosity about the context of the declaration and the debate, and has worked unbelievably hard to twist words away from their natural meaning so that they conform with the press release from Stonewall. His responses to commenters are nothing but gaslighting.

He actually operating as a PR while being paid by The Times and being given free range to use The Times as a mouthpiece.

ANewCreation that point has been made countless times to Mark McLaughlin and it just goes straight over his head and he just parrots the same thing again. He doesn't deserve the title of journalist.

This is extraordinary. There's a tweet on the McLaughlin twitter thread which purports to analyse the "trajectory of an anti LGBT conspiracy". It talks about this issue. There are actually no arguments in the analysis. It's as if the writers are actually unable to parse text. I'm so gobsmacked that I've used "actually" twice. I feel like a mouse in a maze being prodded by experimenters. Despite me saying very clearly to the experimenters "let me out of this maze, or explain why I'm here" they just keep prodding.

The best way for organisations - any organisation - to ensure that there is no link to paedophilia imputed is to ensure that there is no conceivable link to paedophilia.
👏👏👏👏👏👏

apnews.com/article/c64e816cac5b0fa1194dd40f576813b2

Hans Hjerpekjon, secretary-general of the Brussels-based ILGA, said NAMBLA joined the association about 15 years ago, when it was a loose network with no rules for admission. Hjerpekjon said many in ILGA would like to see NAMBLA expelled but the group cannot take up a resolution to oust a member until its next meeting, in July in New York.

″Under our constitution, there will have to be an 80 percent vote in favor of expelling the group,″ he said in an interview from Norway. ″And of course, that can be hard to obtain on any issue, but our intention certainly is to expell them and I am hopeful we will reach that goal.

Hjerpekjon said ILGA has been concerned about its association with NAMBLA since the late 1980s and has urged the group to resign. In 1990, at the behest of member organizations from Scandinavia, Australia and New Zealand, ILGA adopted a resolution denouncing pedophilia, he said.

″I guess the groups, especially the Norwegian group who had been working to get this resolution passed, thought it would be self-evident that NAMBLA and people who thought likewise would resign,″ Hjerpekjon said.

But they did not.

Gay people deserve much better than being constantly being the target of misinformation campaigns related to pedophilia

Agreed.

Which is why when ILGA were approached by an organisation called the North American Man/Boy Love Association they should not have needed to 'see their constitution' etc to know that NAMBLA were a very bad thing. I am not sure what the other 2 paedophile organisations which also had to be banned were.

And when ILGA put out a statement on Monday saying that they have never been associated with paedophilic organisations (an obvious lie) and then a journalist quotes their statement but omits the last lie, it is entirely appropriate that they are called out.

The "other groups" affected by laws limiting legal capacity to provide consent to sexual activity in the UK are children, family members (incest), persons who have sex with a person in a position of trust, persons with a mental disorder and 16 and 17 year olds engaged in prostitution.

Who among these other groups should have their legal protections removed and why?

The best way for organisations - any organisation - to ensure that there is no link to paedophilia imputed is to ensure that there is no conceivable link to paedophilia.

Unless of course they actually meant "sex services or sexual/reproductive health services"

The usual interpretation of "sex services" would of course be prostitution...

People would have interpreted the document as intended (it's quite clearly referring to access to sex/sexual/reproductive health services)

If it was ''quite clearly'' referring to sexual health services, there would be no need for the word OR to be there after the word sex. ''... provide consent to sex or sexual and reproductive health services ''.

If they ''clearly meant'' sexual/reproductive heatlhcare, it should just read ''... provide consent to sexual/reproductive health services ''.

There's obviously a massive difference between the two.

1. People would have interpreted the document as intended (it's quite clearly referring to access to sex/sexual/reproductive health services)

If it is a matter of interpretation clearly the document is ambiguous and should be redrafted.

2. People would have targeted concerns to the Women's Caucus rather than at gay organisations.

The LGBT+++ orgs were not targeted. They were the organisations that were members of ILGA and funded by the Scottish Government. Being LGBT+++ was irrelevant.

If you have a list of the members of the women's caucus that would be great, no-one has been able to identify the members.

3. People would have listened to the clarifications and moved on.

Sadly, clarifications were not made. Orgs stated that they did not support lowering the age of consent to 10, and that safeguarding concerns were homophobic bigotry. No-one has clarified the wording of the document.

Remember ladies, don't believe your eyes if they're telling you the wrong things. Words are unreliable and it's best you not try to understand them for yourself. Wait until an adult comes along to tell you what they mean.

Gay people deserve much better than being constantly being the target of misinformation campaigns related to pedophilia.

If we lived in a remotely tolerant society:

1. People would have interpreted the document as intended (it's quite clearly referring to access to sex/sexual/reproductive health services)
2. People would have targeted concerns to the Women's Caucus rather than at gay organisations.
3. People would have listened to the clarifications and moved on.

But instead, here we are. 161 messages in and you're still blaming gay organisations for something that they didn't do. Because you believed some rando Alba candidate.

Absolutely brilliant, thanks for sharing.

That's a brilliant thread.

This twitter thread sums it up I think

twitter.com/Leyanelle/status/1382005270373670912?s=19

These are my last tweets re the ILGA situation & how that has played out in Scotland since the weekend, I think the following is important to say.

If we lived in a country with a remotely healthy political landscape & one not steeped in misogyny, here is how things would have gone after a female political candidate raised the text of a declaration as a safeguarding issue.

1. After it was raised in conference & publicised by the media that the declaration literally states that all laws preventing adolescents being able to legally consent to sex should be abolished, there would have been an initial reaction across political parties & relevant orgs (not just LGBT orgs) that this is clearly not okay & must be addressed. No-one would be blamed for raising it or indeed for criticising it, even if some believed the declaration had been written incorrectly - because safeguarding should be a value we can expect all groups to share.

2. Then orgs that signed the declaration would urgently be clear that they did not support any lowering of the age of consent, & would be clear that they were seeking clarity on why this wording was used, from the authors, & ask for it to be redrafted. Govt funded member orgs of any signatories would do the same.

3. At which point, due to pressure, there would have been some form of clarification from the authors a the declaration would then be redrafted, not least to ensure that paedophiles across the globe cannot take this section as validation of their abuse of children - many of whom deny that it is abuse at all because they believe children can consent, & the wording here only helps them validate this to themselves & others like them. This is also why it's not good enough to say that it's okay because a tiny minority of people, due to their work experience, understand what the language is meant to mean.

And that would hopefully be that.

What would not have happened

1. Women would not have been called homophobic for highlighting that orgs funded by the Scottish Govt & which have campaigned to remove the sex based protections of women & girls in the Equality Act, are also members of a signatory to a declaration that recommends lowering the age of consent.

2. Prominent men across political parties & publicly funded orgs would not make specific women raising these safeguarding concerns targets for abuse, harassment, threats & doxxing, by claiming they were driven by hate instead of genuine care for the welfare of children. Men would not have ignored the patriarchal history of women's needs, concerns & motives being ignored or misrepresented, so that women can be ignored &/or dehumanised for their benefit. Men would realise they have a responsibility to undo this patriarchal conditioning

3. Men, including political candidates, would not be threatening women with violence, or advocating violence against a group including them, and political leaders would not ignore any calls for VAW, because they would not find VAW acceptable in our society.

4. Journos would not have engaged in gaslighting re the meaning of words, including the term 'adolescent', & would also have covered any unfair or abusive treatment towards women, including misrpresenting women & threats of violence, & would also have asked the parties of any political candidates doing this to women, for comment. They would also have sought comment from the authors of the declaration in a bid to clarify the content & any further action being taken.

So that is how the last few days would have gone, if we lived in a remotely healthy, feminist society. And that is how they should have gone.

Women deserve so much better than this patriarchal, misogynist bullshit.

It’s not going so well for him today. He looks a right plonker BTL.

He stopped his twitter scolding a couple of days ago and moved onto spamming the comments below his articles. I think he realised that doing his scolding in a protected environment that would support him and delete anything too challenging was going to work more in his favour.