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

Ah, it’s the old ‘consent’ issue. That’s what all their principles rest on. That’s a very weak foundation for a rather important set of laws.

There’s been a quite a bit about consent on these threads. Cass Review? Women not being able to consent to their own harm? Vanessa Springhora woman who wrote her memoir ‘consent’ about when she was in a sexual relationship aged 13 with the 50 yr old French author?

Yet now underage girls can seemingly consent according to our eminent lawyers. Principles 15, 16 and 17 are sickening in throwing girls and women to the wolves.

The International Commission of Jurists - 'Composed of 60 eminent judges and lawyers from all regions of the world

Looking at their website, it’s puzzling that these eminent lawyers have published this advice that rests on sand for the safeguarding of young women. Moreover there’s no apparent information on which organisations ‘fed into’ this report. A conspiracy theorist might wonder if pharmaceutical companies and healthcare firms and doctors are preempting a tsunami of lawsuits from young people harmed by PBs and surgery by teaming these issues up with poverty and homelessness concerns?

But here’s who endorses the principles….

The following organizations and institutions are the first to support the Principles.
Amnesty International
CREA
Global Health Justice Partnership of the Yale Law and Public Health Schools Yale University, USA
Global Network of Sex Work Projects
HIV Justice Network
International Network of People who Use Drugs
Sexual and Reproductive

Yes Amnesty is already there.

Bet no one involved in safeguarding was involved in this publication.

principles 16, 17 and 18 Not 15 obviously.

You know? I think humanity is just about done isn't it? Maybe climate change isn't a bad thing after all. But a simple wiping clean of the slate to give another species a go.

I think I just have to stop caring about everything or I am going to topple into dark hole of depression that I will never climb out of.

it doesn’t feel like long ago we were talking about this…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse_by_UN_peacekeepers

Almost all of principle 16 is about under 18s not being the same as adults. It does NOT say that sex with under 18s should not be criminalized. The principle acknowledges the existence of age of consent laws and discusses the need for such laws to be applied in a non-discriminatory manner. It is also clear that under 18s have evolving capacities and capabilities and says the law should reflect this.

There are aspects of this document that I don’t agree with, but there is nothing wrong with this section.

*Almost all of the second half of principle 16…

And I included the first half of that paragraph in my OP.

Here's the whole paragraph:

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.

That's a charter for arguing that children can consent to sex. It's the same argument Tatchell and PIE used.

Tatchell and PIE argue that children are not harmed by being groomed by older men into sex. That such actions are not coercive. That a child saying yes is all that should be needed for the act to be morally and legally fine.

The section above simply supports the current UK position - that children may be too young or immature to consent (in the UK we have a set age of 13 under which we’ve decided they cannot be mature enough to consent) but also that even if they can consent it may not be in their interests and that where it isn’t in their interests criminal prosecution is okay. That’s totally in keeping with the principle - with due regard to their age, maturity and best interests. And that’s what the UK does. Prosecution for sex with a child is based on an assessment of the individual case and whether it’s reasonable to criminalize the perpetrator. Consequently, the older and more mature the child, the less likely there will be a prosecution. The more stable and equal the relationship, the less likely there will be a prosecution.

In the UK we’ve set an age (16) where it’s assumed that a child can consent and that criminalizing consensual sex will not be in their best interests. If anything, I think principle 16 gives more weight to those arguing that our current “Sex with a child under 16” law should become “Sex with a child under 18”.

I'm reading it that under 18's may be able to consent to sex with under 18's or in some cases over 18's, on a case by case basis. E.g two consenting 16 year olds or a 18 year old and an 18 year old. Isn't it to protect cases like that?

Sorry I meant a 17 year old and an 18 year old..fat fingers.

I think it’s partly that, but also about trying to stamp out laws that allow heterosexual sex at, say, 16 but criminalize homosexual sex until 18.

Then say that. You could write it exactly that way. But they didn't.

It’s supposed to be high level guidance on the principles to apply to policy and statute development, not a list of laws you should or shouldn’t have.

They wrote:
…any prescribed minimum age of consent to sex must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner…

Which is pretty much what I put above but also includes a prohibition of different ages of consent by sex, race, marital status, disability, etc. and makes it clear that the issue is treating people equally regardless of the classes they are members of, not just protecting gay people from discrimination.

When something is followed 'by due regard', it always reminds me of the former wording of the ban on abortion in the Irish Constitution. acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother.

Anything following the 'due regard' meant diddly squat. That is why women died. Although it took the death (due to the neglect to her supposed equal right to life) of Savita Halappanavar to highlight it internationally.

Unpopular opinion here, but I think this is an inevitable consequence of thinking sex between minors (with no adults involved) is ok.

In my view, we need to roll back the idea that they'll do it anyway and go back to being openly disapproving of teens below the ages of consent having sex. I don't mean we should prosecute them, but sex ed should say, "You are below the age of consent, your brains are not fully developed, you cannot consent to sex and for your own sake you should not be having it yet."

I know there's a school of thought that telling them not to do it just makes them want to, but there's lots of things we tell teens not to do - smoke, for instance. And yes, some of them do smoke despite being told not to, but we don't just give up and say, "ok then, do what you want," about smoking, do we?

I agree with number theory. I think a 17 year old can consent to have sex with an 18 year old, that’s not even worth debating. There are various age combinations that are fine, (I’m talking within existing uk law), but also other circumstances that would make the same age gap more or less acceptable. Context IS important as you get close to the edges of the age boundaries. A little more clarity should have been employed, but given that this is general guidance rather than specific to each country, I can see why giving specifics could be tricky.

Criminal law may not in any way impair the right to:

1. a) make and act on decisions about one’s own body, sexuality and reproduction –
2. such as about pregnancy; contraception, including emergency contraception; comprehensive abortion care; prophylaxis for sexually transmitted infections;gender-affirming care/therapy; and/or
3. b) access health facilities, services and goods, including information.

Isn't the 'gender-affirming 'care' and lack of criminal liability for health providers negated by the call for evidence-based (and the rest) in the next paragraph? Medical negligence; we shall see.

Health providers may not be held criminally liable for conduct, such as providing contraception, abortion services or accurate, evidence-based, non-biased information, that enables others to freely exercise their rights to sexual and reproductive health, unless they engage in coercion, force, fraud, medical negligence or otherwise violate the right to free and informed decision-making.

This seems ideologically driven, and in line with the current fashion. If all is good due to the principle of consent, maybe they also support this wrt inalienable rights. Can't be inalienable if you consent. If they support you getting your healthy sex characteristics chopped off/removed, why not other bits? As long as you consent. And, if those around you cheering you, and affirming you, is not coercion in the gender-affirmation context, I presume this is fit to be extended to other circumstances.

I agree with MrsTerryPratchett that if they'd intended to protect a 19 year old man from being prosecuted for having consensual sex with his 17 year old girlfriend, they could have said it. There are Romeo and Juliet laws that prescribe age gaps - typically 2-5 years - to handle teen sex. Holding the line of consent at 18 enables these Romeo and Juliet laws to exist, which would still allow prosecution of a 50 year old if he has sex with a 15 year old, but won't prosecute a 16 year old for having sex with a 15 year old.

Under 18 with no qualification, so 0-17 years of age. Case by case. My goodness, if parents are faking taking cues from their toddler that they are really the other sex, these same toddlers are at a level of maturity to 'consent' to other things.

They guidelines aren't about protecting anyone. They're guidelines on what should or shouldn't be worthy of criminal sanctions across the world. They aren't recommending specific laws or approaches to protecting children. They're talking about where they believe the limits of criminal responsibility should lie.

Rather than being about protecting adults, this section seems to me to be much more focused on societies accepting that children mature at different rates so hard cut offs for age should be softened with a case by case assessment that includes, amoung other factors, considering their maturity. The intent being to stop the criminal law from being used to remove agency from children when they have the capacity for that agency.

The intent being to stop the criminal law from being used to remove agency from children when they have the capacity for that agency.

Children don’t have the capacity to consent to sex. They do not understand the physical, emotional and psychological ramifications of engaging in it.

Talking about children’s capacity for the agency to consent to sex seems on par with women’s capacity for that agency to consent to death via strangulation in ‘rough sex’.

Doing so takes responsibility away from the adult (or man) and conveniently places it on those with less power. IMO.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-essex-50468890

The quoted section can certainly be read as supporting the current UK position. It can also be read as supporting the PIE position. It has been written to be ambiguous. That's the problem. It would have been very, very easy to write a version of this document that can't be interpreted as support for legalizing adults having sex with children. Much easier than writing this amount of doublespeak.

The choice of 'involving' instead of the more common and natural word choice 'between' should be a red flag even to the most trusting of readers.

I think the use of terms like "agency" to refer to children in a context of sexual behaviours should be an automatic red flag. The whole reason why kids are deemed vulnerable and in need of safeguarding is because they lack agency, either through lacking capacity to give an informed "yes" or through lacking the power to insist on "no" being heeded. The onus should be on the people wanting to ascribe agency to the child to prove why it's necessary and appropriate to do so in a given situation (like how this guide to the Fraser guidelines explains clearly that GPs may prescribe contraceptives to children as a harm reduction measure under specific circumstances), not on the rest of us to prove why agency should not be ascribed to the child.

This is one of those circumstances where rhetoric of choice and autonomy is being used to undermine children's right to safety.