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

The links between PIE, the IGLA and the Yogyakarta principles laid bare.

Did this revelation and all the publicity come to light through the Alba women’s meeting yesterday? Or was it already on Twitter when it was mentioned?

I was at the Alba meeting and felt a sense of shock when it was stated. I’d like to say disbelief as well, but it was more a feeling that I would have to check the facts. I was pretty sure such an astonishing announcement wouldn’t have been made if it couldn’t be backed up.

Christian Right? Is that all they have to throw at us? Openly defending paedophilia on a feminist board? Even if I was Christian or Right (I am neither) I’d rather be that than a paedophile apologist.

Did this revelation and all the publicity come to light through the Alba women’s meeting yesterday? Or was it already on Twitter when it was mentioned?

First reference to it I saw was by JL on Glinner's Substack on March 30.

grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/a-piece-of-the-pie

That references a 28 March press release by WHRC Australia, so possibly it's they who deserve the credit here.

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

Twitter discussion seems to have started then, but it's taken a while for the ball to really start rolling.

Oh, and check out the original Mumsnet thread, which the OP already linked to:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4205956-Unite-Unions-and-Many-Other-LGBT-Organisations-Lobby-Government-to-Lower-the-Age-of-Consent

Mumsnet were obviously on the case early.

Thank you Necessary. I am glad we have now UK political party willing to speak out on this. Also to Glinner whose links obviously mean he is now very much on the ball.

But it sounds like WHRC deserve enormous credit for bringing this into the open for discussion and sunlight.

And Mumsnet too. With all its restrictions, Mumsnet remains a vital hub for collating information. No wonder it is constantly under attack.

There's a degree of wilful naivety here as well.

The whole 'calm down, this isn't what the legislation is about' is disingenuous.

Ask yourself the following:

a) who would benefit from a change in legislation? Would this particular change in legislation make things easier or harder for someone with ill intentions towards children?

b) If someone unscrupulous wanted access to underage children, are they more likely to get what they want by declaring publicly 'I am an unscrupulous person who wants access to underage children' or by supporting ambiguously-worded legislation that subtly erodes the protections of children?

It's not exactly a head scratcher.

The whole 'calm down, this isn't what the legislation is about' is disingenuous.

There was a lot of that during GRA2004 debates, if you check the record.

"Obviously no-one would interpret the law like this - that would be ridiculous. Stop being pedantic, everyone knows men can't really be women."

Just flagging up this twitter thread

twitter.com/grroary/status/1381212229543026688?s=21

And link ti the original statement

iwhc.org/press-releases/womens-rights-caucus-issues-feminist-declaration-marking-25th-anniversary-of-the-beijing-declaration-and-platform-for-action/

It seems that there is some mistake over who wrote the original statement

@Datun

It's all by the back door.

Baddum Tish

Interesting reading.
31u5ac2nrwj6247cya153vw9-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Beijing-25-Feminist-declaration.pdf

Feminist groups/gender equality/capture - no issues there then. The only way to get any credibility into dropping the age of consent is to capture feminist groups and then imply safeguarding is taken care of because of who is arguing the case. Now the grey and murky waters will play into the hands of those who will campaign through the back door for a drop in the age of consent.

Hope enough fuss is made and stop this in it's tracks

Article from Lesbian and Gay news.

lesbianandgaynews.com/2021/04/the-un-ilga-stonewall-and-the-womens-caucus-jo-bartosch-investigates-calls-for-the-removal-of-laws-prohibiting-sex-with-or-between-adolescents/

Glinner, TW Malcolm Clark tweet but with an extension....

grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/if-you-say-so

@Biscuitsanddoombar

Just flagging up this twitter thread

twitter.com/grroary/status/1381212229543026688?s=21

And link ti the original statement

iwhc.org/press-releases/womens-rights-caucus-issues-feminist-declaration-marking-25th-anniversary-of-the-beijing-declaration-and-platform-for-action/

It seems that there is some mistake over who wrote the original statement

Thank you for the clarification. I don't think it lessens the concerns who published this (and I'm sure that wasn't your point).

Just wanted to point out that ILGA is not merely a signatory to the feminist declaration but a member of the Women's Rights Caucus (i.e. part of the group who published this) and seems to have been heavily involved in the drafting given that the declaration uses gender identity language ("people who get pregnant", "gender identity, expression and sex characteristics").

Piece in the Scotsman about this today

www.scotsman.com/news/politics/what-i-really-said-at-the-alba-party-conference-margaret-lynch-3202489

( archive.li/SEjtb )

Good article, ItsAll.

Horrible to see how a whistleblower gets attacked.

'When it comes to safeguarding children, there are no free passes. To allow organisations or groups to be “beyond reproach” when it comes to protecting our children has dangerous precedents.'

This makes me feel a bit sick. Although sadly I'm not terribly surprised.

My dd is 13, she is so far from being capable of sexual consent, and she's fairly mature for her age. It's just beyond me that these large organisations can be so irresponsible.

My only hope is a stink is kicked up and more people see stonewall for the misogynistic organisation it is.

Thanks for the Scotsman link. So many things leap out:
The way some publicly funded organisations can be so quick to police language in certain contexts and yet so cavalier about the meaning of 'adolescent', even when used in the same sentence as 'sex'.

That there seems to be no move to redraft the wording of that declaration - or if there is, I haven't read about it.

That no-one seems to know who the Women's Rights Caucus is.

@EdgeOfACoin
Some people have such sort memories! Saville was not that long ago and to your point “ b) If someone unscrupulous wanted access to underage children, are they more likely to get what they want by declaring publicly 'B) an unscrupulous person who wants access to underage children' or by supporting ambiguously-worded legislation that subtly erodes the protections of children?” Didn’t the infamous David Challenor sent FOI requests to find out about children in care at Coventry?

It’s indefensible. Safeguarding is paramount!

That no-one seems to know who the Women's Rights Caucus is.

It seems the Women's Rights Caucus isn't a 'who' but rather a 'what' : it is a 'fringe' meeting that took place alongside the main UN meeting.

It's interesting that all the blurb celebrates over 200 feminist orgs signing up, ("Today, ILGA World joins more than 200 organizations in adopting the Feminist Declaration") yet very very few orgs will admit it - would it not be usual to have the signatories at the bottom of the document.?

Taken from ILGA website:

'On January 23, 2006, ILGA’s application for ECOSOC Status was rejected by the NGO Committee, as it had been on two previous occasions.
No grounds were offered for this rejection other than an impugned link between ILGA and paedophilia.'

...

'In 1994, ILGA expelled NAMBLA and two other paedophile groups at its World Conference in New York. These groups had joined ILGA at an earlier stage of ILGA’s development, at a time when ILGA did not have in place administrative procedures to scrutinize the constitutions and policies of groups seeking membership. At no time, however, did ILGA support or endorse their positions, and these groups were expelled precisely because their aims were incompatible with those of ILGA.'

ilga.org/ilga-ecosoc-status-controversy

More on the ECOSOC rejections:

ilga.org/gaining-the-right-to-speak-in-our-own-name-at-the-united-nations-the-ecosoc-campaign

'July 25 2011, Geneva -- With 29 votes in favour, 14 against and 5 abstentions, the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) granted today consultative status to the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA).'

Law about HIV posted by Rowantree

“nonetheless, there is no legal obligation to disclose HIV status or to use a specific prevention method, so long as transmission doesn’t occur.”

This law seems odd.
Isn’t it like saying there is no legal obligation to not shoot a gun in someone’s direction so long as the bullet misses?

Maybe it just means you will not be prosecuted if no harm is done but who would have thought there would be no obligation.