Any idea who these nebulous 'other groups' - who are currently offered the protection of legal frameworks due to their reduced capacity to consent - might be?
I've been wondering about that, too, ANewCreation.
Dementia patients? Trafficking victims? In the absence of specifics, the reader is entirely free to fill in the blanks.
Thanks, CharlieParley.
My understanding is that legal frameworks around capacity, particularly in the UK, are there to act primarily as a protective mechanism.
This may seem paternalistic but there is always a balance to be achieved between the competing human right of the individual to choose something (which may be actively harmful to themselves) and the duty of the state or society or institutions to protect the vulnerable from harm.
Capacity to consent is often really hard to assess and so with regard, say, to mental health treatments or deprivation of liberty safeguards, there are best interests assessors whose job it is to establish what the best interests are of the individual patient.
If a patient has capacity they are able to make decisions which are entirely contrary to those all their medical team might recommend because they have the ability (capacity) to weigh up the information and come to a different conclusion.
This is something the average child or young adolescent developmentally struggles to do - hence the safeguards of consent laws.
I note that the second Times article in stating ILGA said it “categorically, and in no uncertain terms, does not advocate to eliminate or lower the general age of consent, nor supports paedophilia in any way, shape or form”.
also carefully omits the part where ILGA said it had never supported paedophilia which was a blatant lie.
"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."
Yeah, that's what 'never' means...
ilga.org/ilga-ecosoc-status-controversy
Curious too that the journalist has dropped the 'bigot' quote from the SNP charmer but is now quoting the Greens lgbt wing, possibly the one whom we saw on Glinner's blog?
This pretence around ILGA or Stonewall not knowing what an adolescent means but castigating someone for pointing out that adolescents are potentially very young people - and from CharlieParley's graphic, some of the age of consent laws around the world are of very young girls (puberty? 12,13) - somehow reminds me of the open letter condemning Kathleen Stock which after 100s of virtue signalling academics had already signed it, then needed a serious correction because the main point was factually incorrect (she actually did not support the amendments to the GRA rather than the GRA itself) but then still continued to garner signatures.
dailynous.com/2021/01/05/kathleen-stock-receives-obe-philosophers-opposing-honor/
Can these people genuinely not see the problems they are creating by this dangerous muddle-think or are they actively trying to pull the wool over collective eyes?
The effect will be the same...