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

@DisgustedofManchester

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.

Seriously, how can someone trying to push the point that this will not be exploited any people who want to lower the legal age of consent be taken seriously?

If there is a means for certain people to get legal access to minors they will exploit it. Assuming that it wont happen is being naive in the least. Of course thats not what this policy is about, but they need to ensure its wording is watertight and unable to be manipulated.

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.

UK Gillick Competences and Fraser Guidelines are well-established law and rooted in Safeguarding principles. There is no 'christian right wing' bogey man here and trying to summon one up to deflect from serious Safeguarding issues is not going to be as successful as some may wish.

I’m looking at this from my perspective from my previous roles working in safeguarding and as the mum of a child with ASD with learning difficulties and some development delay, and what I’m reading is filling me with absolute horror.

We know that children and adults with disabilities are already vulnerable to sexual predators- this proposed law goes against everything we know about safeguarding people with disabilities we need to shout loudly about this.

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;

Eeeeeek!

@DisgustedofManchester

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

You need to choose your words carefully. A girl is someone who has not reached the legal definition of adult - from NSPCC:

“In England a child is defined as anyone who has not yet reached their 18th birthday. Child protection guidance points out that even if a child has reached 16 years of age and is:
living independently
in further education
a member of the armed forces
in hospital; or
in custody in the secure estate
they are still legally children and should be given the same protection and entitlements as any other child (Department for Education, 2018a)*

A woman is someone who is over 18. No one has proposed taking away any legal choices from women, whether they are ‘young women’ or older women.
Girls are able to obtain birth control, but if they were 13 and getting it so that a man (by definition someone over 18) is able to have sex with them, then they are being exploited. I would assume any normal person - regardless of their religious inclinations - would think the same.
Do you not think that vulnerable women deserve protection? What about women with severe conditions that affect their cognition? Should they not have protection? Should we just leave them to it?

Any laws that are made need to take into account all possible permutations and interpretations otherwise they are open to exploitation. Even a fool knows this.

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;"

According to what I have been reading on twitter, the argument seems to be whether it is saying adolescents should be able to consent to sex, or whether the word 'sex' is actually part of the next sentence? Reading it, I would have said it was the former. At best it is very vague and terrible written, and needs to be clarified pretty urgently!

13-year-old girl is having sex with a 30-year-old man, right?

Or two 13-year-olds under the direction of a 30-year-old man, to come up with another scenario.

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

To be fair, I believe in the US there have been quite a lot of cases of it not being applied with discretion, further compounded by sex offenders' registers

I've seen ridiculous stories of married couples stuck on the sex offenders register because their relationship started underage.

A cynic might suggest this was being "weaponised" to try to abolish the laws in totality, rather than fixing the flaws and bizarre incentives in the US legal process.

I'm generally opposed to having laws that require us to rely on the discretion of prosecutors to not cause such scenarios, but I can't see a better alternative in this area. Children need the protection.

Thread I've just seen by Malcolm Clark, links to Scotland and lgbtq

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1381211390690660357.html

Sorry, just seen shadowy posted it too. Worth a read!

To be fair, I believe in the US there have been quite a lot of cases of it not being applied with discretion, further compounded by sex offenders' registers,

Yes, in the US. But this is a UK board and I was talking about the UK and the UK's laws of consent.

Is there a similar problem in this country which needs to be urgently addressed?

DisgustedofManchester
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.

Are you saying that "underage girls" cannot be prescribed contraception in the UK?
You can get contraception from the age of 13. Teenagers are offered support and guidance to ensure they are not being abused. Which is very important, as younger people are more vulnerable.

"It’s easy to get free condoms and lube packs through the C-Card scheme if you’re aged between 13 and 24.

You can join the scheme to get a C-Card from many youth organisations, pharmacies and GP surgeries, then use your C-Card to collect more condoms and lube packs.

If you’re aged 13 to 15, you’ll have a short discussion with a trained practitioner to ensure that you are safe and supported with your sexual health choices."
youngandfree.org.uk/join-the-c-card-scheme/

"You can get contraception free of charge, even if you're under 16, from:

contraception clinics
sexual health or GUM (genitourinary medicine) clinics
some GP surgeries
some young people's services"
www.nhs.uk/conditions/contraception/where-can-i-get-contraception/

1./ Paedophilia and the Scottish LGBTQ+ movement. Is it any surprise that Stonewall and other groups are members of ILGA an international LGBTQ+ lobby group that's alleged to be campaigning against an age of consent? Here's why it's no surprise at all.


2./ ILGA began in Edinburgh in 1974 when two guys brought together gay organisations from across Europe to form the International Gay Congress. One of them, Ian Dunn, was an unrepentant paedophile and founder member of PIE. Here's his obituary. 👇


3./ IGC would become ILGA, the pre-eminent international gay rights organisation; despite its status as a UN NGO being interrupted in 1994 when its links to pro-paedophile organisations were revealed. ILGA says it was all a big mistake. If you say so.👇

4./ When ILGA finally managed to put that row behind it, in 2006, it returned to its efforts to argue the UN should embrace gay rights properly. It couldn't overcome the opposition of many nations. So ILGA had a bright idea. Fancy a trip to Indonesia?

5./ In 2007 ILGA invited human rights lawyers on an expen$e$ paid trip to Yogyakarta in Indone$ia where they drew up a charter of human right$ they hoped would become the definitive statement on gay rights. Here'$ a guide to Yogyakarta. Look$ lovely. 👇

6./ The resulting Yogyakarta Principles enshrined the unscientific notion of "gender identity". They'd no legal force but were presented as an international model not least by the Scottish govt. They've been used to justify the medicalising of kids. yogyakartaprinciples.org/principle-3/

7./ The theory runs that under 16s who believe they're the "wrong" sex must have total autonomy and need to be protected from going through puberty. They should be given blockers to keep them pre-pubescent for as long as possible. It's all about the kids? If you say so.

8./ In the UK this became a key demand of Stonewall in 2015. This was the recommendation of its Trans Advisory Panel that included everyone's favourite trans activist, the bearded "lesbian", Alex Drummond. "She" said that beard "deconstructs gender". If you say so.

9./ On the same panel was Aimee Challoner, champion of Self-ID, who failed to tell the Greens her dad, an important "trans ally" whom she lived with, was up for child rape charges for which he was eventually jailed. She's the one with glasses, standing to the left of @ruth_hunt

10./ Aimee left the Greens accusing them of transphobia after they came over all miffed, and joined the Lib Dems who threw her out when it was alleged her fiancee was a paedophile fantasist. Aimee claimed his twitter account had been hacked. If you say so.

11./ Aimee went into schools as a mentor. But in Scotland our carelessness went further. The leading gay organisation of the 2000s, Lesbian and Gay Youth Scotland, was led for years by a disgusting paedophile, James Rennie. 👇

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;"

The difficult part of this statement is this:

to provide consent to sex

If they intended to not amend the law regarding the age of the consent to sex, why would they not have said the following?

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 sexual and reproductive health services or laws authorizing non-consensual abortion, sterilization, or contraceptive use;"

If they were intending to limit the concept of consent to sexual and reproductive health services, that sentence would be sufficient. I am not clear why they even want to include that for the UK as Gillick already covers afaik?

This is an absolute 100% bona fide Trojan Horse - right there in front of us being wheeled through open gates.

It is very interesting that some people are trying to deny what we see written in front of our faces - do they think we are stupid?

It will be interesting to check back to that document periodically to see if they take out that extremely concerning sentence, probably to avoid the immediate heat, then they will sneak it back in at a later date. Denton's would be proud.

Please read the rest of the tweet in context.

It's a tough read.

When they say “non-consensual abortion” they mean abolish laws forcing abortion on a woman against her will, right?

Not abolish laws authorising women to terminate a pregnancy without the consent of the man who provided the sperm? Just asking because this whole document seems to be sneaking in some pretty suspect proposals...

That's all a copy and paste from the tweet.

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?

The law is to protect 13 year old children from being raped or sexually abused by adults.
In the scenario above the 13 year old girl is not 'having sex' but being sexually abused and exploited by a 30 year old man.

Is non-consensual abortion a thing that happens in the UK?

Interesting posts, thanks WarriorN - more dots are joining up.

And we are paying for this in a number of different ways. Unions are using members subs - and apparently duplicating membership several times over. The Unite Union itself has direct membership, then is presumably funding the multiple Unite LGBTQ+ groups affiliated with it who also have membership.

Stonewall has membership and is taking government money directly through grant funding and indirectly (through paid services to schools, police, councils, most government departments etc).

Not to mention the many other LGBTQ+ organisations that will have a certain amount of government funding (either direct or indirect) also have membership which is another duplication.

I'm sure the ILGA does good work in certain areas, it does seem to be advocating for gay rights in many countries that have a terrible record on that front. I wonder how they balance their advocacy for Lesbian/Gay Rights, Women's Rights and Trans Rights and cope with the obvious conflicts?

It is not right.

@EdgeOfACoin

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.

There is a real tendency amog progressives to assume that laws that allow minors to access abortion or birth control without parental consent are clearly, and unquestionably, positive.

I really think this needs to be challenged a little.

Everyone understands, I think, that there are young people who are in bad positions at home and that we want to avoid making those problems worse.

On the other hand, one of the principles of safeguarding is that in most cases, parents are the ones with the best interests and safety of their kids at heart and that they are more likely to look out for them effectivly than the state or other guardians.

I am a little embarrassed to admit that I didn't think much about this kind of approach until a good friend of mine, who I didn't expect it from, told me that she really didn't agree with giving abortions to minors without parental notification, because she herself had been seriously abused by another young person when she was a teen, and her parents just had no clue. She felt had they realised, they would have nipped the whole thing in the bud while she was still living at home. The law, in her opinion, enabled her abuser.

I don't think these are simple questions and it's wrong to treat them as if they are.

Is there a similar problem in this country which needs to be urgently addressed?

I am not clear why they even want to include that for the UK as Gillick already covers afaik?

Is non-consensual abortion a thing that happens in the UK?

Just to clarify - all the chunks of document being quoted are general proposals from an international document, like the Yogyakarta Principles were, so not targetting any specific country.

It is very interesting that some people are trying to deny what we see written in front of our faces - do they think we are stupid?

It's quite common for them to do the motte-and-bailey thing of saying "of course we don't mean the totally unreasonable thing we just said, we meant this more nuanced interpretation" whenever anyone notices, and resuming fighting for the unreasonable thing as soon as the heat dies off; but they normally leave themselves more wiggle room. They might have overstretched.

They are aren't they @IDontOnlyLikeJazzFunk?

Those aren't my words I hasten to add. All from the tweet. Last couple of tweets I haven't included as they mention an MP. worth looking at.

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.

Christian Right? Lol.

So the answer to my question would be a no then.

And repeatedly calling women stupid in the context of safeguarding isn't doing what you think it is.