Unite Unions and Many Other LGBT Organisations Lobby Government to Lower the Age of Consent

[gardenbird48]

A large number of organisations led by IGLA World (International Lesbian Gay Bisexual Trans and Intersex Organisation) are promoting what they call a ‘Feminist Declaration’

According to Legal Feminist there are provisions (fairly well buried) urging governments to ‘eliminate... laws limiting legal capacity of adolescents... to provide consent to sex.’

While the Women’s Human Rights Campaign (in Australia nb this is being lobbied in the UK as well) does not want teenagers labelled sex offenders for consensual non-abusive sexual activity with their peers ... there is concern that these demands would remove the ability to protect children from exploitation by adults and older adolescents.

Stonewall and Mermaids (plus Proud Trust etc) are signatories to this. I haven’t read the whole document but I trust Legal Feminist and they are livid about this.

We need to be reinforcing safeguards not removing them - who will benefit from this? It won’t be the girls.

Did we see the recent case of the young girl abused by firefighters in France was undermined by their low (or lack of?) age of consent.

feministlegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Media-Release-on-CSW-and-ILGA-_28-Mar-2021-1.pdf

[IDontOnlyLikeJazzFunk]

The aspect of this type of campaign that worries me the most (apart from the fact that another person that walks this planet can be pushing for such a thing), is the fact that the supposed grown ups in charge seem to fall for the utter nonsense being offered up to justify such a move.

It would not be as bad if it were just some outlying weirdos that we came across on the internet. Weirdos going to be weird.

We select and pay people to help manage our society and look after vulnerable people. Some of these people are not doing their job.

We need our elected representatives to step up and use their brains to determine what is right.

[YetAnotherSpartacus]

If you look closely at what some organisations promoting commercial sex say or do a google search you’ll also see that there is a call by some to remove age barriers to selling sex. These are discriminatory and harmful to young people apparently.

[ArabellaScott]

I think it's the WHO definition.

[IDontOnlyLikeJazzFunk]

Various people in the comments seem to be attempting to argue it's about medical age of consent, but that doesn't seem to be what the actual document says, as far as I can see.

From the document:
a. Eliminate all laws and policies that punish or criminalize same-sex intimacy, gender affirmation, abortion, HIV transmission non-disclosure and exposure, or that limit the exercise of bodily autonomy, including laws limiting legal capacity of adolescents, people with disabilities or other groups to provide consent to sex or sexual and reproductive health services or laws authorizing non-consensual abortion, sterilization, or contraceptive use;


I wonder if some of these organisations have actually bothered to read the full document and are just blindly supporting whatever is presented.

It is very clear that it wants to eliminate laws relating to the age of consent to sex. I think ‘adolescence’ starts at age 10 from a standard definition (can’t remember where from)

[ArabellaScott]

Stonewall Scotland on twitter denying they are campaigning to lower the age of consent.

wingsoverscotland.com/if-it-hit-you-in-the-eye/

Various people in the comments seem to be attempting to argue it's about medical age of consent, but that doesn't seem to be what the actual document says, as far as I can see.

[InspiralCoalescenceRingdown]

This piece by Anna Slatz is timely - covers NAMBLA in the States, rather than PIE in the UK, and mentions the ILGA: 4w.pub/lesbians-vs-pedophiles/

[R0wantrees]

FPA Factsheet

THE AGE OF CONSENT FOR SEX
ENGLAND AND WALES
(extracts relating to children age 13-16)
The age of consent to any form of sexual activity is 16 for both men and women. The age of consent is the same regardless of the gender or sexual orientation of a person and whether the sexual activity is between people of the same or different gender.

It is an offence for anyone to have any sexual activity with a person under the age of 16. However, Home Office guidance is clear that there is no intention to prosecute teenagers under the age of 16 where both mutually agree and where they are of a similar age.

SCOTLAND
The age of consent to any form of sexual activity is 16 for both men and women, so that any sexual activity between an adult and someone under 16 is a criminal offence. The age of consent is the same regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

There are possible defences if the sexual activity does not involve penetrative or oral sex. These are if the older person believed the young person to be aged 16 or over and they have not previously been charged with a similar offence, or the age difference is less than two years.

Sexual intercourse (vaginal, anal) and oral sex between young people aged 13–15 are also offences, even if both partners consent. A possible defence could be that one of the partners believed the other to be aged 16 or over.

Guidance from the Scottish Government acknowledges that not every case of sexual activity in under-16s will have child protection concerns, but young people may still be in need of support in relation to their sexual development and relationships

NORTHERN IRELAND
The age of consent to any form of sexual activity is 16 for both men and women. The age of consent is the same regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

The Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 introduced a series of laws to protect children under 16 from abuse. However, the law is not intended to prosecute mutually agreed teenage sexual activity between two young people of a similar age, unless it involves abuse or exploitation.

Specific laws protect children under 13, who cannot legally give their consent to any form of sexual activity. There is a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for rape and assault by penetration. There is no defence of mistaken belief about the age of the child, as there is in cases involving 13–15 year olds."

www.fpa.org.uk/factsheets/law-on-sex#

[R0wantrees]

'How did the pro-paedophile group PIE exist openly for 10 years?'
By Tom de Castella & Tom Heyden
BBC News Magazine

27 February 2014

(extract)
"The Paedophile Information Exchange was affiliated to the National Council for Civil Liberties - now Liberty - in the late 1970s and early 1980s. But how did pro-paedophile campaigners operate so openly?

A gay rights conference backs a motion in favour of paedophilia. The story is written up by a national newspaper as "Child-lovers win fight for role in Gay Lib".

It sounds like a nightmarish plotline from dystopian fiction. But this happened in the UK. The conference took place in Sheffield and the newspaper was the Guardian. The year was 1975.

It's part of the story of how paedophiles tried to go mainstream in the 1970s. The group behind the attempt - the Paedophile Information Exchange - is back in the news because of a series of stories run by the Daily Mail about Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman. (continues)

Journalist Christian Wolmar remembers their tactics. "They didn't emphasise that this was 50-year-old men wanting to have sex with five-year-olds. They presented it as the sexual liberation of children, that children should have the right to sex," he says.

It's an ideology that seems chilling now. But PIE managed to gain support from some professional bodies and progressive groups. It received invitations from student unions, won sympathetic media coverage and found academics willing to push its message. (continues)

One of PIE's key tactics was to try to conflate its cause with gay rights. On at least two occasions the Campaign for Homosexual Equality conference passed motions in PIE's favour.

Most gay people were horrified by any conflation of homosexuality and a sexual interest in children, says Parris. But PIE used the idea of sexual liberation to win over more radical elements. "If there was anything with the word 'liberation' in the name you were automatically in favour of it if you were young and cool in the 1970s. It seemed like PIE had slipped through the net."

Some have suggested that the nature of the debate was different then. "In this free-for-all anything and everything was open for discussion," said Canon Angela Tilby on Radio 4's Thought for the Day. "There were those who claimed that sexual relationships between adults and children could be harmless." Homosexuality had only been decriminalised in 1967. There was still prejudice and inequality. The age of consent was 16 for heterosexuals but 21 for homosexual men." (continues)
//www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26352378

[EdgeOfACoin]

How would making it legal for a 15-year-old to sleep with another 15-year-old make them any more vulnerable to being abused by a 20- or 30- year old? Particularly when it's pretty much de facto legal already anyway.

It may be appropriate to take legal action in some circumstances. Cases where one 15-year-old has been coerced or manipulated by another (but who claims to have 'consented').

Cases where a 13-year-old is having sex with a 15-year-old.

These laws are in place to protect children and enables the authorities to apply the law when appropriate and with discretion.

Removing these laws does nothing except remove protections from children.

[334bu]

Well said Gerbil.

[SunsetBeetch]

Quite. This whole thing makes me extremely uneasy. Is the trojan horse real after all?

[RabbitOfCaerbannog]

I really don't understand why we're having this conversation.

I agree Gerbil

[NiceGerbil]

I really don't understand why we're having this conversation.

Here's a link to the law in England and Wales. It's a good site and pretty clear.
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/contents

The CPS has a lot as well but it's much longer.

Our age of consent is already younger than WHO etc recommend (18).

Prosecution depends on the facts of the case. It is not automatic.

In the case of consensual sex between children aged 15 say, they're not going to report each other are they. So... ?

Lowering the age of consent in terrible idea.

I also don't understand the discomfort with laws that are often disregarded but can be used if it seems like the right thing to do.

The idea that if the law is generally ignored/ disregarded and very rarely prosecute then why have it, would at the moment mean there's a good argument for legalising rape.

[RabbitOfCaerbannog]

We should not be aiming to make under 16s to appear to be fair game.

[RabbitOfCaerbannog]

Public perception. It's a weakening of the perception that young people under 16 aren't fully able to consent because they don't entirely understand the consequences. A 14 year old girl is as likely to get pregnant by a 14 year old boy as by an adult. She still won't be fully cognisant of the consequences. Plus who's to say a girl who had had more than one sexual relationship with boys her age wouldn't find her sexual history exhumed should she find herself exploited by an adult? FifteenToes The laws are in place to protect children. I refer to my previous point that youngsters having sex with each other before sixteen are not likely to be prosecuted.

[FifteenToes]

@RabbitOfCaerbannog

If people genuinely are relaxed about teenagers of whatever age having sex with each other (and I'm not saying they should be, or that everyone necessarily is) then it would surely make more sense for the law to reflect that and be simple and clear.

Any law that weakens the protection for under 16s will be abused by predatory adults.

But it wouldn't weaken protection, that's the point.

How would making it legal for a 15-year-old to sleep with another 15-year-old make them any more vulnerable to being abused by a 20- or 30- year old? Particularly when it's pretty much de facto legal already anyway.

To be clear: I'm not particularly advocating lowering the age of consent. I'm only saying that IF you're going to take a different view on sex between two people of a similar age than you do between those of different ages (which is one possible approach to take), it makes more sense to actually construct the law that way than to piss about with laws that are kinda sorta not really laws because they don't get enforced, mosty, except some of the time.

[NiceGerbil]

16 and 17yo in England and Wales can only marry with parental consent.

The piece we are discussing was global.

If you read my post upthread some of what they say is good and with the iffy stuff, in a global context, someone who wanted to could sell the dodgy stuff as genuinely harm reducing.

Child marriage is still legal in the USA in some states. Those states do not want to make it illegal. IIRC it's a get out clause for having sex with a minor/ getting a minor pregnant.

The UK laws on sex- consent and crime. Are actually really strong. Stronger than many in Europe. I was surprised when I realised that.

They need enforcing when it is warranted and that requires a shift in societal attitudes.

I can't really see what the arguments about UK law are tbh.

[NiceGerbil]

And a serious point.

None of this is to do with morality, really.

It's to do with HARM.

it's to do with having laws that have the ability to penalise those who do harm, without being punative on those who aren't.

Two 14 to in a relationship, who know each other well, and have moved into penetrative sex, and are taking precautions, and their parents know and are keeping an eye.

Why take them to court?

A nearly 16 yo who is in a 'relationship' with a 25 yo... There needs to be a mechanism if there are red flags to step in. Of course this rarely happens. In het dating where the girl is the younger no one bats an eyelid.

The societal attitude to girls and sex is really wonky. That needs to change fast. Changing all the laws in the world won't fix that.

[NiceGerbil]

'Because we accept pluralism we tend to say, everything that is legal we should be non-judgemental about. Things where there is a real problem and social consensus on that, are the only things we make law about'

This is our general approach.

In England and Wales it's worked kind of forever that things are ok unless there's something to say not.

Elsewhere in some European countries it's the reverse. You shouldn't do things unless they are explicitly ok.

This is a cultural thing as much as anything.

EG walking on the grass in a maintained park.

Here you assume you can unless there's a sign saying not.

Elsewhere it's assumed you can't unless there's a sign to say it's ok.

This conversation is touching on some really interesting cultural points.

[Notoriouslynotnotious]

Well said @NiceGerbil

[NiceGerbil]

Flying fox

I think child prostitutes was one of the terms used

The girls were groomed young. Below 16. Sometimes below 13 (the no excuses age).

The police, social services etc saw they girls not as exploited children but as. Child prostitutes. Girls who were off the rails.

The abuse these girls were subjected to was extreme.

The 'authorities' didn't care. The original woman who tried to raise the alarm was sacked.

I see no issues with the current law in terms of the writing. It covers a host of situations. Coercion etc.

It is right that there is latitude not to prosecute similarly ages teens in consensual relationships.

The BIG problem here is not the law. Rape convictions are at an all time low. Women are not infrequently murdered by men who had been reported to the police multiple times. Girls are still seen in society as somehow well older than their years and sexually knowing.

The law in fine.

The application of the law, and the view in society of both victims and perpetrators. That's what needs attention because it's fucked up.

[NiceGerbil]

'But in doing so we create a situation where there isn't a lot of social force to stand against things that we don't like, but which aren't ideally dealt with criminally. The law starts to be looked at as the main explication of the social consensus on morality.'

Yes that's true but I don't think there's much of an appetite in England and Wales to move the age of consent up.

[flyingfoxkins]

was thinking about how when secondary sort of age girls are sexually coerced, exploited. There is a common response to reject that anything is wrong. To insist that they are in control of what's going on etc. When girls or women are raped there is a common reaction of promiscuity. To take some control back etc. Maybe to minimise what happened to themselves. It's just sex no big deal type thing

I seem to remember Rochdale and how some of those girls were described as promiscuous and wanting the attention. They were young teenagers and some of them extremely vulnerable.

[CuthbertDibbleandGrubb]

@Zinco forced marriages are sometimes a 16 or 17 year old young woman and an older man. That's why although it will not eliminate all forced marriages, it will be a step in the right direction.

[SmokedDuck]

@Tibtom

I am uncomfortable with just saying 'they are both 14 so it is ok' especially when you place that in the context of schools rife with misogyny, harassment and abuse.

I guess the question is whether it is necessary to legally proscribe everything we don't want to happen.

It's not like two underage kids having consensual sex are ever actually charged with anything, it just wouldn't be a useful way to address it, at least that's what most would think.

One of the weird effects of social liberalism is that it can drive some rather invasive legislation. Because we accept pluralism we tend to say, everything that is legal we should be non-judgemental about. Things where there is a real problem and social consensus on that, are the only things we make law about

But in doing so we create a situation where there isn't a lot of social force to stand against things that we don't like, but which aren't ideally dealt with criminally. The law starts to be looked at as the main explication of the social consensus on morality.