New UN report says children can consent to sex with adults

Tatchell and PIE argue that children are not harmed by being groomed by older men into sex. That such actions are not coercive. That a child saying yes is all that should be needed for the act to be morally and legally fine.

The section above simply supports the current UK position - that children may be too young or immature to consent (in the UK we have a set age of 13 under which we’ve decided they cannot be mature enough to consent) but also that even if they can consent it may not be in their interests and that where it isn’t in their interests criminal prosecution is okay. That’s totally in keeping with the principle - with due regard to their age, maturity and best interests. And that’s what the UK does. Prosecution for sex with a child is based on an assessment of the individual case and whether it’s reasonable to criminalize the perpetrator. Consequently, the older and more mature the child, the less likely there will be a prosecution. The more stable and equal the relationship, the less likely there will be a prosecution.

In the UK we’ve set an age (16) where it’s assumed that a child can consent and that criminalizing consensual sex will not be in their best interests. If anything, I think principle 16 gives more weight to those arguing that our current “Sex with a child under 16” law should become “Sex with a child under 18”.

*Almost all of the second half of principle 16…

Almost all of principle 16 is about under 18s not being the same as adults. It does NOT say that sex with under 18s should not be criminalized. The principle acknowledges the existence of age of consent laws and discusses the need for such laws to be applied in a non-discriminatory manner. It is also clear that under 18s have evolving capacities and capabilities and says the law should reflect this.

There are aspects of this document that I don’t agree with, but there is nothing wrong with this section.

it doesn’t feel like long ago we were talking about this…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse_by_UN_peacekeepers

You know? I think humanity is just about done isn't it? Maybe climate change isn't a bad thing after all. But a simple wiping clean of the slate to give another species a go.

I think I just have to stop caring about everything or I am going to topple into dark hole of depression that I will never climb out of.

principles 16, 17 and 18 Not 15 obviously.

Bet no one involved in safeguarding was involved in this publication.

Yes Amnesty is already there.

Ah, it’s the old ‘consent’ issue. That’s what all their principles rest on. That’s a very weak foundation for a rather important set of laws.

There’s been a quite a bit about consent on these threads. Cass Review? Women not being able to consent to their own harm? Vanessa Springhora woman who wrote her memoir ‘consent’ about when she was in a sexual relationship aged 13 with the 50 yr old French author?

Yet now underage girls can seemingly consent according to our eminent lawyers. Principles 15, 16 and 17 are sickening in throwing girls and women to the wolves.

The International Commission of Jurists - 'Composed of 60 eminent judges and lawyers from all regions of the world

Looking at their website, it’s puzzling that these eminent lawyers have published this advice that rests on sand for the safeguarding of young women. Moreover there’s no apparent information on which organisations ‘fed into’ this report. A conspiracy theorist might wonder if pharmaceutical companies and healthcare firms and doctors are preempting a tsunami of lawsuits from young people harmed by PBs and surgery by teaming these issues up with poverty and homelessness concerns?

But here’s who endorses the principles….

The following organizations and institutions are the first to support the Principles.
Amnesty International
CREA
Global Health Justice Partnership of the Yale Law and Public Health Schools Yale University, USA
Global Network of Sex Work Projects
HIV Justice Network
International Network of People who Use Drugs
Sexual and Reproductive

UNAIDS is no friend of women as the documentary linked in this article shows.. https://purnasen.org.uk/ This is about harrassement and abuse of women in the UNAIDS organisation.

I will have to read that document again but it is not an easy read... in the guise of defending human rights, underage sex, selling women's bodies and production of drugs should not be criminalised?

It is unthinkable that women and children should not be protected under law from male sex abuse.

I don't know that I like the way this is worded but it also does not look to me like it is intending to say that children can consent to sex.

I read "can consent in fact" to mean that there are people under the age of majority who do agree to sexual encounters. Which is true. You can say their agreement has no legal force, but in the normal sense of the word, they do agree.

I also think this is talking about people under 18, rather than 16, which is significant to me. (I may be wrong here but that is how I am reading it and a lot of UN stuff seems to see 18 as the appropriate age of majority.) There are a heck of a lot of people who have sex, willingly, before they are 18.

They don't seem to be saying any of this should necessarily be legal, but that circumstances may be relevant and for some of these under 18s their view of what happens should be heard. (Whatever "heard" means. Maybe not much.)

The stuff on prostitution is awful IMO and it's no wonder some countries are suspicious of the UN and the west.

What I said was the most charitable interpretation, in response to someone who sees nothing to worry about.

It doesn't actually matter what the writers' intentions are, what matters is what they write and how they write it. There's plenty in that paper to worry about, whether aimed at the Qatari govt or not.

Exactly this.

I'm not seeing the worry, I think it's aimed at countries with very strict (probably religious based) laws about sexual consent.

Well-intended but badly-drafted laws, guidelines, etc can be abused later on against people they were never intended to be used against. We see this with the GRA and other pieces of law.

The terms "sex work" and "sex industry" allow (usually male) pimps and lap dance club managers to be considered "sex workers" by dint of being in "the sex industry" and be listened to by policymakers when it's not them spreading their legs or on their knees with open mouths, it's the (overwhelmingly) women who "work" for them whose bodies are violated over and over again. We need to insist on "prostituted women and children" when we talk about the victims of prostitution and we need to call out when pimps are talking over the women and children that they take payment to permit the abuse of.

This is a matter of sex (in the sense of male and female) and also class in the Marxist sense. We don't let the coal owners join the miners's union and speak over miners, we don't let the railway directors join ASLEF or RMT and speak over railway workers, so any so-called "sex workers' union" that has pimps in it should not be trusted to speak for prostituted women and children.

Two things:

I don’t think we should be criminalising women who smoke or drink in pregnancy. I think doing either of those things is a seriously bad idea, and absolutely the woman’s care providers should be engaging with her on it. But criminal sanctions? No.

I've worked a lot with young women and girls who used various substances in pregnancy. In the program I was involved in they couldn't use illegal substances and most had given up street drugs as soon as they knew they were pregnant. They are heroes to me, giving up everything in their lives to try to change things. If they had a cigarette during a time when typically they would have shot up, I'm fine with it. Yes, we did engage on harm reduction but no, we weren't pushing abstinence.

Second:

Criminal law may not proscribe the conduct of third parties who, directly or indirectly, for receipt of a financial or material benefit, under fair conditions – without coercion, force, abuse of authority or fraud – facilitate, manage, organize, communicate with another, advertise, provide information about, provide or rent premises for the purpose of the exchange of sexual services between consenting adults for money, goods or services.

I have known, worked with, been friends with and lived with sex workers on and off for 30 years. I have never seen a situation with a pimp where there wasn't one of those things. And this is in Western democracies. Are you telling me that it's so common that these punters legal minds think it needs to be enshrined in this way rather than the constant coercion and violence we KNOW happens all the time. I'll introduce them to the 'boyfriend' pimp who I saw beat up his pregnant, high girlfriend when she didn't bring in enough cash for him to get as high as he wanted. There are men who will actually have sex, for money, with a pregnant, bruised woman.

But the most important thing is for punters and pimps not to see the inside of a prison cell. I despair.

I think affirming achild's gender identity such that it resultsin sterilization of said child can be argued to be medical negligence.

Sounds like another excellent reason to give the UN the old heave ho! Quicksticks stylee!

I'm not seeing the worry, I think it's aimed at countries with very strict (probably religious based) laws about sexual consent.

Age of consent varies from country to country, from age 11 to age 21. Some countries have no age of consent but you must be married to have sex. Do you think you should be prosecuted for having sex outwith marriage if you were at the World Cup in Qatar? Or as a 19yo having sex with their boyfriend/girlfriend visiting South Korea? I think these recommendations are based on those kind of laws rather than a pædophile's charter.

Same with the criminalisation of pregnant women, some countries, most notably the US, prioritise the fetus over the mother and so criminalize her for behaviours that may harm the fetus.

This is horrifying.

Thank you for flagging it, OP.

Phelister Abdalla, President of the Global Network of Sex Work Projects, based in Kenya noted: “When sex work is criminalized it sends the message that sex workers can be abused...We are human beings and sex workers are entitled to all human rights."

The global network of sex work projects seems to be one of those pimp orgs. HQ in Edinburgh. Income of £1.3 million last year. Founded by a man. www.nswp.org/page/memorial-andrew-hunter