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

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

There's been a bit of a stooshie on twitter today about Stonewall supporting the age of consent being reduced to ten. This sounded a bit unlikely to me, so I looked into it. (Spoiler, yes, indirectly they do).

The story stems from an organisation called ILGA (The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, and Intersex Association). ILGA "support LGBTI civil society worldwide through advocacy and research projects, and give grassroots movements a voice within international organisations".

Stonewall are members of ILGA as are many, many UK charities, unions etc. You can see the list of members here: ilga.org/civi_details
(Archive: archive.li/pAc0a ). ILGA requires that "All members must support the aims of ILGA." ilga.org/membership

Last year ILGA, along with the "Women's Rights Caucus" (I have been unable to find who this includes) adopted the "Feminist Declaration".

Story and link to the declaration here: ilga.org/CSW64-Womens-Rights-Caucus-feminist-declaration-Beijing25 (Archive: archive.li/YzHiQ ).

The International Womens Health Coalition (IWHC) host the document here iwhc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Beijing-25-Feminist-declaration.pdf Archive: archive.li/TNA7m (Direct link, will trigger download)

Section 14 of the Declaration begins with:

"Respect the rights of all individuals to exercise autonomy over their lives, including their sexualities, identities and bodies, desires and pleasures free from all types of discrimination, coercion and violence, and fully realize sexual and reproductive rights, and ensure bodily autonomy, integrity and sovereignty, by taking the following actions:"

Section 14a (bolding mine) states:

" 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;"

According to the WHO "WHO defines 'Adolescents' as individuals in the 10-19 years age group"

Obviously there are further issues within this short paragraph alone, and I am sure there are plenty more if anyone fancies wading through the entire document

Am I reading this right, do they want to stop knowingly passing on hiv being a crime?

^HIV transmission non-disclosure and exposure^

I get that we want to remove stigma but this sends a message that risking someone else without their knowledge is ok. That doesn't sit right with me.

Also, age of consent 10. Just no.

Am I reading this right, do they want to stop knowingly passing on hiv being a crime

I was at that too.

It's all by the back door.

Oops, I see there is a previous thread on this www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4205956-Unite-Unions-and-Many-Other-LGBT-Organisations-Lobby-Government-to-Lower-the-Age-of-Consent

Not just stonewall: Unite Union too

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#

Anyone who has completed adequate Safeguarding and Child Protection training would/should be aware of the specific policies regarding children age 13-16.

How did ‘Intersex’ get tangled up in that letter organisation? For the love of the wee man...

Intersex conditions have been appropriated/co-opted by many TRAs for a long time.
Lobby groups such as 'Press For Change' used this successfully to convince some MPs to support their demands realised in UK's 2004 Gender Recognition Act.

relevant thread:
[[https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3463920-Lets-go-back-to-2007''

Apologies for failed link above:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3463920-Lets-go-back-to-2007

[quote R0wantrees]Intersex conditions have been appropriated/co-opted by many TRAs for a long time.
Lobby groups such as 'Press For Change' used this successfully to convince some MPs to support their demands realised in UK's 2004 Gender Recognition Act.

relevant thread:
[[https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3463920-Lets-go-back-to-2007''[/quote]
I know - I follow a few on twitter ‘stop it stop it stop it’ but they never listen do they?

It boils my blood that some do the people who supported PIE back in the day are still kicking around.

I was a little girl at the time but even I knew these were the ‘bad men’ mum warned me against (they ‘did things’ to children).

They were expert at manipulation and or though. Getting people to agree with what they stood for without actually understanding the meaning of the words (maybe I’m being generous?)

The piece is about healtcare and privacy, not about making the age of consent 10. Those trying to skew this are just being ridiculous and making themselves look stupid in their attempts to attackg groups that support trans rights.

Seriously, how can someone trying push this point be taken seriously.

The piece is about healtcare and privacy, not about making the age of consent 10. Those trying to skew this are just being ridiculous and making themselves look stupid in their attempts to attackg groups that support trans rights

"Page 3
g. End the criminalization and stigmatization of adolescents’ sexuality, and ensure and promote a positive approach to young people's and adolescents’ sexuality that enables, recognizes, and respects their agency to make informed and independent decisions on matters concerning their bodily autonomy, pleasure and fundamental freedoms;

Page 4
14.Respect the rights of all individuals to exercise autonomy over their lives, including their sexualities, identities and bodies, desires and pleasures free from all types of discrimination, coercion and violence, and fully realize sexual and reproductive rights, and ensure bodily autonomy, integrity and sovereignty, by taking the following actions:

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;"

iwhc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Beijing-25-Feminist-declaration.pdf

Ohhhh ‘HIV transmission non disclosure’?

Haven’t there been cases where someone has deliberately had unprotected sexual with several partners with the intent of infecting them with HIV? I’ve definitely read news reports of at least 2 being jailed.

Why would you want to decriminalise this?

To attempt to decriminalise HIV non-disclosure is to attempt to undermine/ remove the requirement of informed consent.

Which means... (sorry if I’m being slow) you meet someone, they have HIV and don’t tell you, you have sex (whereas of you knew you might have chosen not to). You might have unprotected sex. Or have a condom fail. At what point are they obliged to tell you?

'HIV, sex and the law'
Rebekah Webb
October 2020
(extract)
"A person may be charged if their sexual partner acquires HIV through condomless sex without HIV status having been discussed.
Nonetheless, there is no legal obligation to disclose HIV status or to use a specific prevention method, so long as transmission doesn’t occur.

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, it is possible you could have legal action taken against you if all of the following apply:

You suspect or know you are HIV positive
You suspect or know you have a detectable viral load
You still have sex without a condom without telling your sexual partner about your HIV status
Your partner acquires HIV as a result." (continues)

www.aidsmap.com/about-hiv/hiv-sex-and-law

Why was my post deleted? If people are trying to lower the age of consent to 10, this is reminiscent of the tactics practised by PIE back in the 1970s!

Does MNHQ believe the age of consent should be 10? Surely not.

The piece is about healtcare and privacy, not about making the age of consent 10.

And yet

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,

including laws limiting legal capacity of adolescents,

Where, in the document does it contradict the definition of this, by the World Health Authority, being from age ten?

Because instead of calling anyone who notices, 'ridiculous and stupid', you could just, oh I don't know, refute it?

This is frightening

@Datun

The piece is about healtcare and privacy, not about making the age of consent 10.

And yet

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,

including laws limiting legal capacity of adolescents,

Where, in the document does it contradict the definition of this, by the World Health Authority, being from age ten?

Because instead of calling anyone who notices, 'ridiculous and stupid', you could just, oh I don't know, refute it?

QED

Its almost as though we do not prescribe birth control to underage girls who are sexually active.... More christian right wing nonsense taking away autonomy from women and especially vulnerable young women.

I think its a ridiculous and stupid proposition that in the end will walk straight into the Christian right's hands by repeating and defending it. Well done.

This thread from Malcolm Clark is quite eye opening. Seems there's a lot of background & history that should make, even a badly worded unintentional demand (which is me being generous to those who signed up to this without actually seeing or understanding the implications), something that's worth scrutiny & challenge.

Link to tweet thread

Its almost as though we do not prescribe birth control to underage girls who are sexually active....

You know the laws are there to make sure that you don't have a situation where a 13-year-old girl is having sex with a 30-year-old man, right? And so that the law can step in if she is being coerced into sex by a more dominant teenager (even if she thinks she is consenting)?

The law is applied with discretion, but can be used in circumstances where it is appropriate to do so.

It's not about a couple of 14-year-olds messing around.

including laws limiting legal capacity of adolescents , /people with disabilities/ or other groups to provide consent to sex

That sounds to me like people with severe mental difficulties who don't understand sex should be able to say yes.

There was a case a few years ago where a young woman repeatedly got pregnant and the babies were taken off her. From memory she didn't understand this came from sex. There have been other cases where someone things they are being nice by saying yes to their "friend" without really understanding.

These people need protection too, although I would hate to be the one who makes the decision.