New UN report says children can consent to sex with adults

[Clymene]

And that there should be no criminal charges for adults who have sexual relations with children.

The International Commission of Jurists - 'Composed of 60 eminent judges and lawyers from all regions of the world, the International Commission of Jurists promotes and protects human rights through the Rule of Law, by using its unique legal expertise to develop and strengthen national and international justice systems' - has published a a Human Rights-Based Approach to Criminal Law Proscribing Conduct Associated with Sex, Reproduction, Drug Use, HIV, Homelessness and Poverty.

They've (ironically) called it the 8 March (IWD) Principles. I say ironically because as you can probably guess, a lot of the report is about men's right to have sex without fear of prosecution.

The entire report is basically decriminalise all the things.

Children can consent to sex:

sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual in fact, if not in law. In this context, the enforcement of criminal law should reflect the rights and capacity of persons under 18 years of age to make decisions about engaging in consensual sexual conduct and their right to be heard in matters concerning them.

Punters and pimps should not be prosecuted:

The exchange of sexual services between consenting adults for money, goods or services and communication with another about, advertising an offer for, or sharing premises with another for the purpose of exchanging sexual services between consenting adults for money, goods or services, whether in a public or private place, may not be criminalized, absent coercion, force, abuse of authority or fraud.
Criminal law may not proscribe the conduct of third parties who, directly or indirectly, for receipt of a financial or material benefit, under fair conditions – without coercion, force, abuse of authority or fraud – facilitate, manage, organize, communicate with another, advertise, provide information about, provide or rent premises for the purpose of the exchange of sexual services between consenting adults for money, goods or services.

Feels batshit to me but I have no idea how much power and influence they have.

icj2.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/8-MARCH-Principles-FINAL-printer-version-1-MARCH-2023.pdf

Isn't that first paragraph about those under the age of consent having sex with each other?

If it meant 'between' it would have used the word 'between'. It doesn't.

Yes, that is how it looks to me but OP hasn't told us where in the 32 page document that quote is and I've just driven several hundred miles so I'm going to let someone else do the research!

"No one may be held criminally liable on the basis that their conduct is alleged to be harmful to their own pregnancy, such as alcohol or drug consumption or contracting HIV or transmitting it to the foetus while pregnant, or for their own pregnancy loss"

Uhm... surely if a woman is conducting herself in a way that is harming her baby that should be.. Idk... a problem? At least looked into by a mental health team??
Am I misunderstanding this section?

Remember the people in 2016 during Brexit who said that we must listen to the experts.

Remember we were told to follow the science in 2020. I did btw, got my vaccine I was told that would stop me spreading covid, which it didn't.

Our library books, schools and NHS are full of factually incorrect Queer theory bollocks and now this.

Which page is it on? Context is needed before making a decision on what they mean. for instance, should a 16 year old be prosecuted for having sex with a 15 year old? They're both children in the eyes of the law.

Eh? I've provided a link to the report @AxolotlOnions.

The link is from this page: www.unaids.org/en/resources/presscentre/featurestories/2023/march/20230308_new-legal-principles-decriminalization

Yes and I'm tired so I wanted to know what page it was on.

I was reading this as I saw it on Twitter. Haven't read it all but that para does say "involving persons...". So one party could be above that age. And then there's group-based grooming situations. Not to mention the bit about hearing what concerns them...well...how many groomed minors are going to understand they're victims? And say they've been coerced and raped?

This document definitely needs some carefully reading, was my first impression.

It's Principle 16 on page 21-22. There are only 21 Principles so I'm not clear why you're finding it so onerous to find it. It's the one which is fairly obviously call Consensual Sexual Conduct.

I only saw it was a 32 page document and thought 'fuck that, I'm tired' so I thought I'd ask someone who's read it.

Principle 16 on page 26-27. It basically says that you should involve the minor in the legal process and take into account the circumstances. I took from this that they want countries to have laws that differentiate between rape of a minor and statutory rape of a minor.

It's weird though, because the UN does have a view on the minimum age for marriage. And yet this...

Here's another bit which is disturbing:

No one may be held criminally liable for consensual practices aiming to assist others with the exploration, free development and/or affirmation of sexual orientation or gender identity, unless there was force, coercion, fraud or medical negligence, or a lack of free and informed decision-making on the part of the person concerned.

So no doctors can be prosecuted for 'affirmation' of children. Even if that means sterilising them or causing life long illness. Because consent.

The whole document pivots around the idea that there is no age under which consent is not possible.

Edwin Cameron, who wrote the report, is 70.

Principle 16 is on page 22-23 of the document I opened.

PRINCIPLE 16 – CONSENSUAL SEXUAL CONDUCT
Consensual sexual conduct, irrespective of the type of sexual activity, the sex/ gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression of the people involved or their marital status, may not be criminalized in any circumstances. Consensual same-sex, as well as consensual different-sex sexual relations, or consensual sexual relations with or between trans, non-binary and other gender- diverse people, or outside marriage – whether pre-marital or extramarital – may, therefore, never be criminalized.

With respect to the enforcement of criminal law, any prescribed minimum age of consent to sex must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner. Enforcement may not be linked to the sex/gender of participants or age of consent to marriage.

Moreover, sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual in fact, if not in law. In this context, the enforcement of criminal law should reflect the rights and capacity of

persons under 18 years of age to make decisions about engaging in consensual sexual conduct and their right to be heard in matters concerning them. Pursuant to their evolving capacities and progressive autonomy, persons under 18 years of age should participate in decisions affecting them, with due regard to their age, maturity and best interests, and with specific attention to non-discrimination guarantees.

I wonder if there is a definition for 'gender identity', and if sexual orientation includes paedophilia?

Why do you believe this behaviour would indicate mental illness

Who are the international Commission of Jurists? Are they like the shower that came up with the Yogakartha Principles, without a care to the real life and effects on others?

So, 'sex work' is fine under fair conditions – without coercion, force, abuse of authority or fraud. I'd be sceptical if those were ever absent, in some shape or form. Former trauma, abuse etc.

What is the link with the UN? Looks like an NGO in Geneva, not a UN body

If you're in a headspace where you're knowingly doing things that will cause harm to your unborn baby, ie getting drunk or taking drugs as the report lists those as examples, surely that suggests that the woman is doing those things because she's not coping very well mentally?
Involving a mental health professional does not always = full on mental illness, maybe she's just having a bout of depression for example and could do with some counselling.

In the case that she's doing those things because she no longer wants to continue the pregnancy, surely an abortion would be the appropriate response rather than alcohol and drugs, no?
And that would raise the question in my mind as to why she's not considering that as an option, and again then I would suggest counselling to get to the bottom of that.

But I also don't think someone should be excused 100% for knowingly doing things that will harm their pregnancy?
The baby has no choice in any of what's going on in the world around them or in what their mother does?

The pages must change based on your screen size, how confusing!

You're confusing "held criminally liable" with "needs medical support". Women in the USA have been prosecuted and jailed for taking drugs during pregnancy. This helps neither the mother nor the child.