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

They seem to be insinuating there are quite a number of sexes, or the sexes gives rise into a number of genders.

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

So two sexes - same and different. Then trans, non-binary and other gender-diverse people. Are they not covered by the two sexes mentioned? Does gender-diverse offer an infinite possibility? What are they if they are not covered by the two sexes? Sex in one breath and then glide to gender in the other.

Is this another lobby list crowd, or operating in the interests of some such?

Where is the link with the UN?

Yeah, they are using the words protecting human rights. Whose rights? Maybe not children, however they try to mis represent it. I'd wonder who has classified them as eminent? Themselves, or the guys they are lobbying for?

After Yogakartha Principles, I don't think I'd immediately accept their self-lauding description or claimed intent at face value.

Well, UNAIDS seems to be involved, along with OHCHR.

You can see from the link in the op.

UNAIDS is a model for United Nations reform and is the only cosponsored Joint Programme in the United Nations system. It draws on the experience and expertise of 11 United Nations system Cosponsors and is the only United Nations entity with civil society represented on its governing body.

and

The UNAIDS Secretariat has offices in 70 countries, with 70% of its staff based in the field, and has a budget of US$ 140 million for 2018. The budget for the Joint Programme for 2018 is US$ 242 million.

I don’t think we should be criminalising women who smoke or drink in pregnancy. I think doing either of those things is a seriously bad idea, and absolutely the woman’s care providers should be engaging with her on it. But criminal sanctions? No.

As for criminalising someone because they have the misfortune to contract HIV…. terrible awful victim blaming idea.

This is who is behind the report:

The International Committee of Jurists (ICJ) along with UNAIDS and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) officially launched a new set of expert jurist legal principles to guide the application of international human rights law to criminal law.

www.unaids.org/en/whoweare/about
UNAIDS is leading the global effort to end AIDS as a public health threat by 2030 as part of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Ah, thank you for clarifying - I did originally ask if I was misunderstanding what it was saying, evidently I was :')

So, civil society represented in the governing body. I wonder if NGO's like Amnesty would be there. You know the ones whose Irish crowd called for women standing up for their rights to lose political representation etc. And, of course they are big on the exploitation of women being deodorised as 'sex work'. Suits the pimps and men who buy women a lot better.

Civil society. I wouldn't trust many of those lobby groups as far as I'd throw them.

Christine Stegling said, “I welcome the fact that these principles are being launched on International Women’s Day (IWD), in recognition of the detrimental effects criminal law can, and too often does have on women in all their diversity.”

Does 'in all their diversity' mean er, men?

This is why they've been pushing the trans debate so much, it's a gateway to also accepting this.

Phelister Abdalla, President of the Global Network of Sex Work Projects, based in Kenya noted: “When sex work is criminalized it sends the message that sex workers can be abused...We are human beings and sex workers are entitled to all human rights."

The global network of sex work projects seems to be one of those pimp orgs. HQ in Edinburgh. Income of £1.3 million last year. Founded by a man. www.nswp.org/page/memorial-andrew-hunter

This is horrifying.

Thank you for flagging it, OP.

You'd be hard pressed to arrange these principles in order of most harmful to women and children really.

The right to have sex with kids
The right of pimps to sell our bodies
The right to inculcate children so that they believe they want to keep their bodies in a state of perpetual prepubescence

I'm not seeing the worry, I think it's aimed at countries with very strict (probably religious based) laws about sexual consent.

Age of consent varies from country to country, from age 11 to age 21. Some countries have no age of consent but you must be married to have sex. Do you think you should be prosecuted for having sex outwith marriage if you were at the World Cup in Qatar? Or as a 19yo having sex with their boyfriend/girlfriend visiting South Korea? I think these recommendations are based on those kind of laws rather than a pædophile's charter.

Same with the criminalisation of pregnant women, some countries, most notably the US, prioritise the fetus over the mother and so criminalize her for behaviours that may harm the fetus.

Sounds like another excellent reason to give the UN the old heave ho! Quicksticks stylee!

I think affirming achild's gender identity such that it resultsin sterilization of said child can be argued to be medical negligence.

Two things:

I don’t think we should be criminalising women who smoke or drink in pregnancy. I think doing either of those things is a seriously bad idea, and absolutely the woman’s care providers should be engaging with her on it. But criminal sanctions? No.

I've worked a lot with young women and girls who used various substances in pregnancy. In the program I was involved in they couldn't use illegal substances and most had given up street drugs as soon as they knew they were pregnant. They are heroes to me, giving up everything in their lives to try to change things. If they had a cigarette during a time when typically they would have shot up, I'm fine with it. Yes, we did engage on harm reduction but no, we weren't pushing abstinence.

Second:

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.

I have known, worked with, been friends with and lived with sex workers on and off for 30 years. I have never seen a situation with a pimp where there wasn't one of those things. And this is in Western democracies. Are you telling me that it's so common that these punters legal minds think it needs to be enshrined in this way rather than the constant coercion and violence we KNOW happens all the time. I'll introduce them to the 'boyfriend' pimp who I saw beat up his pregnant, high girlfriend when she didn't bring in enough cash for him to get as high as he wanted. There are men who will actually have sex, for money, with a pregnant, bruised woman.

But the most important thing is for punters and pimps not to see the inside of a prison cell. I despair.

The terms "sex work" and "sex industry" allow (usually male) pimps and lap dance club managers to be considered "sex workers" by dint of being in "the sex industry" and be listened to by policymakers when it's not them spreading their legs or on their knees with open mouths, it's the (overwhelmingly) women who "work" for them whose bodies are violated over and over again. We need to insist on "prostituted women and children" when we talk about the victims of prostitution and we need to call out when pimps are talking over the women and children that they take payment to permit the abuse of.

This is a matter of sex (in the sense of male and female) and also class in the Marxist sense. We don't let the coal owners join the miners's union and speak over miners, we don't let the railway directors join ASLEF or RMT and speak over railway workers, so any so-called "sex workers' union" that has pimps in it should not be trusted to speak for prostituted women and children.

I'm not seeing the worry, I think it's aimed at countries with very strict (probably religious based) laws about sexual consent.

Well-intended but badly-drafted laws, guidelines, etc can be abused later on against people they were never intended to be used against. We see this with the GRA and other pieces of law.

Exactly this.

This is absolutely not well meaning but poorly drafted advice. Every single phrase has been meticulously worded.

What I said was the most charitable interpretation, in response to someone who sees nothing to worry about.

It doesn't actually matter what the writers' intentions are, what matters is what they write and how they write it. There's plenty in that paper to worry about, whether aimed at the Qatari govt or not.

I don't know that I like the way this is worded but it also does not look to me like it is intending to say that children can consent to sex.

I read "can consent in fact" to mean that there are people under the age of majority who do agree to sexual encounters. Which is true. You can say their agreement has no legal force, but in the normal sense of the word, they do agree.

I also think this is talking about people under 18, rather than 16, which is significant to me. (I may be wrong here but that is how I am reading it and a lot of UN stuff seems to see 18 as the appropriate age of majority.) There are a heck of a lot of people who have sex, willingly, before they are 18.

They don't seem to be saying any of this should necessarily be legal, but that circumstances may be relevant and for some of these under 18s their view of what happens should be heard. (Whatever "heard" means. Maybe not much.)

The stuff on prostitution is awful IMO and it's no wonder some countries are suspicious of the UN and the west.

UNAIDS is no friend of women as the documentary linked in this article shows.. https://purnasen.org.uk/ This is about harrassement and abuse of women in the UNAIDS organisation.

I will have to read that document again but it is not an easy read... in the guise of defending human rights, underage sex, selling women's bodies and production of drugs should not be criminalised?

It is unthinkable that women and children should not be protected under law from male sex abuse.

If anyone can find anything, anywhere, in this document that acknowledges that children are not the same as adults and so are not able to give meaningful consent, then please direct me to it.

There is no acknowledgement of coercion, of power, of age, of any kind of imbalance at all. It seems to assume that everyone is equal.

It's such a privileged perspective