“But when it is clarified that (1) ILGA were only one of hundreds of international bodies signing the declaration (2) it uses language commonly used and understood within the global women’s rights community to address a specific issue (3) that ILGA expresslydoes not support lowering the age of consent - then it clear that all these concerns are wrong.”
If the language is commonly used in the past and people have raised an issue with it now, an organisation should not just double down and call people out as hateful. The solution is, and always was, to be absolutely clear in the language used.
The continued defence of it is simply perpetuating poorly worded policy and law.
And it does not matter that it was one of many organisations who signed it. Coming out and saying, we can see the issue and we as an independent organisation will work on clarifying this in the future was the solution.
“If someone is still pretending to have these concerns in the knowledge of the above, and they attack only the LGBT+ signatory but none of the others, making debunked claims that the organisation is endorsing paedophilia, that is so very obviously homophobic.”
Another rather blatant attempt to shame and emotionally manipulate.
This organisation has become the focus because of Primark’s support. I absolutely hold every single one of those organisations who signed that declaration to the same high standard as IGLA. And I will happily say the exact thing about them if they too did not issue a statement detailing that they understood the issue and will work in future to ensure no loopholes, no alternative interpretations can be made.
So, no. That is just your latest attempt to portray people objecting to support of this organisation and to the messaging of this Primark communication without the clarity of target age group as homophobic .
There are children pictured in the primark article. There is no clarity as to whether that child is part of a found family. There are valid concerns with this communication.