Times article about Age of Consent, Stonewall, Alba

[Wandawomble]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/48c9ae6e-9adf-11eb-8da6-6f8eecc82ac3?shareToken=1d6c72638a41d774b21c06787d90f6d3

I know there are other threads about this but a bit of sunlight and all that...

@Tibtom

Bodily autonomy? So ok for 10 year olds to smoke, drink alcohol, have tattoos? Presumably also ok to decide on medical treatment beyond their ability to give informed consent? As well as have sex with middle aged men? And in this case - middle aged men who are also knowingly infecting them with HIV where drugs to treat HIV are either unobtainable or unaffordable. Yay. Tots progressive.

Goodness! What is happening in your head? This is grim!

How do you see see this empowering children? How do you see allowing people with HIV to not disclose and infect other people as empowering those infected?

How do you see legalising female genital. mutilation (also called for in this document) as empowering to those girls?

At the very least you must consider it badly draughted if so many people are 'interpretating' it the 'wrong way'?

@CatherinaJTV

I can see that and maybe the ILGA could have included a better definition of what they understand as "adolescent", but I have read the whole statement to paragraph 14 and it is crystal clear that this is about empowering young people and NOT about pedophilia.

I think that the different interpretations are a sure indication that it is not crystal clear at all.

Crystal clear would mean that the intent would be very explicit and detailed and not able to be misinterpreted at all.

I've seen a few reddit threads on this and I'm so dismayed to see no discussion on it - very little acknowledgment that the wording is ambiguous - and everyones uncritical acceptance that if they say that's not what they mean then that's clearly not what it says. And anyone who thinks it's unclear is a tinfoil hat homophobe

@Tibtom

How do you see see this empowering children? How do you see allowing people with HIV to not disclose and infect other people as empowering those infected?

How do you see legalising female genital. mutilation (also called for in this document) as empowering to those girls?

There is one mention of genital mutilation in the whole declaration. It is in this paragraph:

Examine and address the shortcomings of existing laws and policies that criminalize violations of women’s and girls’ rights to bodily integrity and autonomy, such as female genital mutilation, domestic and intimate partner violence, and child, early and forced marriage, in order to ensure an approach to justice that does not further marginalize or stigmatize affected people and communities;

I have underlined the purpose. This is not asking to legalise GM?

underline hasn't worked - read from the first to the next

@CatherinaJTV

I can see that and maybe the ILGA could have included a better definition of what they understand as "adolescent", but I have read the whole statement to paragraph 14 and it is crystal clear that this is about empowering young people and NOT about pedophilia.

An adolescent is a person in between childhood and adulthood via puberty. Young people can start puberty at 10/11 therefore it could easily be read to include children as young as ten. What is hard to understand about this. They should have checked the language and they should be clear that they don't mean young adolescents.

What's happening is that we have to take on trust that ILGA and Stonewall would never intend to harm children and therefore, even if they're inadvertently advocating for something that would be useful to those who intend to harm children, it must not be questioned because to do so would harm the reputations of ILGA and Stonewall.

In other words not saying unpleasant things to ILGA and and Stonewall needs to take precedence over safeguarding of children.

I had always thought it was so blindingly obvious it didn't need to be spelled out that:

1. When you draft a law or a policy you check very carefully that it says what you meant. No woolly or ambiguous wording. You don't leave anything to be assumed.

1. If you are going to vote for a law, approve a policy, sign an open letter or petition etc etc - you read it first and carefully consider if you agree with it.

We can sit here all day long arguing about what the people who wrote this actually meant to say. This is irrelevant. We are stuck with what they actually said. What's so hard about admitting that it's at best an extremely poorly drafted statement which should be re-visited?

@nauticant

What's happening is that we have to take on trust that ILGA and Stonewall would never intend to harm children and therefore, even if they're inadvertently advocating for something that would be useful to those who intend to harm children, it must not be questioned because to do so would harm the reputations of ILGA and Stonewall.

In other words not saying unpleasant things to ILGA and and Stonewall needs to take precedence over safeguarding of children.

Nailed it.

Yes Nauticant, spot on. Sacred cows.

@CatherinaJTV - the statement may be intended to empower, but if it was actually enacted, it could have the opposite effect. That is why laws have to be written very carefully. Just having good intentions to make things nice is not enough.

I'd add something to your points Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g:

1. If you get 1. and 2. wrong and people tell you you've messed up, you thank them and make clear you'll solve the problem. You don't go on the attack because that looks like you've got something to hide.

I would agree with that interpretation if the reactions to the statement had been "whoa guys, we've had a close reading of your statement and these segments here could be misconstrued as meaning XX" instead of "THE SNP IS PAYING STONEWALL TO MAKE PEDOPHILIA LEGAL" (I am paraphrasing, but not by much).

OK, so Stonewall have lashed out. Let's say that was understandable. How about them taking steps in public to solve the problem? Is that too much to ask?

I have underlined the purpose. This is not asking to legalise GM?

First of all, it's FEMALE genital mutilation, not genital mutilation. And you left out the most important part of that section, CatherinaJTV so here it is in full:

14f: Examine and address the shortcomings of existing laws and policies that criminalize violations of women’s and girls’ rights to bodily integrity and autonomy, such as female genital mutilation, domestic and intimate partner violence, and child, early and forced marriage, in order to ensure an approach to justice that does not further marginalize or stigmatize affected people and communities; and invest in addressing the root causes of these violations by replacing punitive laws with comprehensive social interventions that address multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination and violence, and put survivors of violence and discrimination at the center;

That is a clear call to decriminalise the most egregious forms of violence against women and girls. We can read, you know.

This is, of course, sitting very comfortably alongside this "feminist" declaration also calling for the full decriminalisation of prostitution (the pimps and punters preference) as well as a call to stop conflating trafficking and prostitution. Because that thorny issue of the many women and girls trafficked into prostitution stands in the way of prettyfying prostitution as just another job. No one trafficks people to work in law, or Tesco's or KwikFit, do they?

The whole declaration is questionable to put it mildly.

So they way the concern was raised has resulted in them not redrafting the document? Should've asked nicely?

Okay.

It is of very serious concern that an organisation that receives copious amounts of public funds to educate children would blithely sign a document that advocates for lowering the legal age of consent to include children. They should be explaining how it happened and what their position actually is, like any other accountable organisation, but they are well protected by the fear organisations have of calling them out (see the coded threat to Alison Bailey's chambers) and their tactic of using slurs as propaganda against their critics. They will eventually come unstuck if as an organisation they cannot own their actions.

@nauticant

I'd add something to your points Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g:

1. If you get 1. and 2. wrong and people tell you you've messed up, you thank them and make clear you'll solve the problem. You don't go on the attack because that looks like you've got something to hide.

Yes indeed. There's more than a whiff here of 'Bloody transphobes sounding off again, irritating, but no need to engage with it as it's all bigotry'. Well, sorry, no. If you're a public body in receipt of taxpayer funding and/or charitable donations, you plaster a smile on your face and say 'Thank you for your input. All feedback will be carefully considered.'

When writing a document, you can take the approach that it's the writers responsibility to be clear and to assure themselves that they have explained everything that needs explaining, and defined everything that needs defining so that a reasonable person can follow it with ease.

Or you can take the view that it's the reader's responsibility to educate themselves so that they understand you, the writer. That any lack of understanding is because the reader isn't, well, good enough to understand it all properly. If there is a lack of clarity in the reader's mind, but not felt in the writer's mind, then the reader had better go off and work hard until they do understand. Any pointing out of logical inconsistencies, lack of definition, or even, on occasion, of any identifiable meaning whatsoever, merely shows the reader's shallowness and lack of education and subtlety.

The emperor is not naked because you have been told he is not.

I wasn't that engaged with this issue when it broke. What yanked my chain is the way it's been handled by apologists all over the place putting forward arguments that only work if we don't pay attention to the actual words of the Declaration. It's that that got me asking what actually is going on here?

Really happy to see that Salmond is defending the ALBA women rather than chucking them under the bus, and the party has reported the serious threats to the police. A refreshing change from some other parties.

@JustSpeculation

When writing a document, you can take the approach that it's the writers responsibility to be clear and to assure themselves that they have explained everything that needs explaining, and defined everything that needs defining so that a reasonable person can follow it with ease.

Or you can take the view that it's the reader's responsibility to educate themselves so that they understand you, the writer. That any lack of understanding is because the reader isn't, well, good enough to understand it all properly. If there is a lack of clarity in the reader's mind, but not felt in the writer's mind, then the reader had better go off and work hard until they do understand. Any pointing out of logical inconsistencies, lack of definition, or even, on occasion, of any identifiable meaning whatsoever, merely shows the reader's shallowness and lack of education and subtlety.

The emperor is not naked because you have been told he is not.

Not far off the Humpty Dumpty approach.

It's that that got me asking what actually is going on here?

This x 1,000,000

If Stonewall et al had simply said "we understand why some people are concerned with the phrasing of this document. ILGA and other signatories are taking these concerns on board and will redraft these sections to improve clarity". That would have been a totally reasonable response to a reasonable question.