Is this correct? "The UN’s Push to Decriminalise Paedophilia"

[MargolyesofBeelzebub]

I just received an invitation to fill in this petition on CitizenGo.

It claims the UN are pushing to decriminalise privately shared sexual content and some types of currently illegal child abuse images (AI generated for example).

Mind blowingly awful if true...

https://www.reuters.com/article/fact-check/un-is-not-calling-for-decriminalization-of-sex-with-children-idUSL1N3762CR/

But this from the ICJ statement:
"The report refers to close-in-age adolescents, not sexual relations between adults and children.
An ICJ spokesperson said via email that the principles in the report were drawn up as a framework for lawmakers around the world, to focus on consensual sexual activities between adolescents (generally considered around ages 10 to 18).
Globally, at least half of all adolescents are sexually active before turning 18, the spokesperson said. “Most countries have legislated an age at which an adolescent is deemed to be able to consent to engage in sexual activity."

It says "close in age adolescents" then talks about consensual relationships between 10-17 year olds (which are not close in age). A 10 year old and a 17 year old is clearly sexual abuse. It might technically be a minor abusing a minor but a lot of CSA is perpetrated by minors. Maybe that needs a different approach than adults. But If anything, it needs much more focus on it than "consensual" children's relationship. Or they could have started by talking about actual teenagers not 10 year olds. Why 10 year olds???

But this from the ICJ statement:
"The report refers to close-in-age adolescents, not sexual relations between adults and children.
An ICJ spokesperson said via email that the principles in the report were drawn up as a framework for lawmakers around the world, to focus on consensual sexual activities between adolescents (generally considered around ages 10 to 18).
Globally, at least half of all adolescents are sexually active before turning 18, the spokesperson said. “Most countries have legislated an age at which an adolescent is deemed to be able to consent to engage in sexual activity."

It says "close in age adolescents" then talks about consensual relationships between 10-17 year olds (which are not close in age). A 10 year old and a 17 year old is clearly sexual abuse. It might technically be a minor abusing a minor but a lot of CSA is perpetrated by minors. Maybe that needs a different approach than adults. But If anything, it needs much more focus on it than "consensual" children's relationship. Or they could have started by talking about actual teenagers not 10 year olds. Why 10 year olds???

Surely they mean between similar ages and that's just the whole range.
So 17-17, 10-10.

I'm sure there will be a distinction between 10yo to 10yo and 17yo to 10yo?

Yes, the range is just 10-17 and the UN report refers to different countries laws that are generally referred to as Romeo and Juliet laws that allow adolescents to have sexual relationships with other adolescents such as the no more than 2yrs apart in age that most US States have. The maximum age difference allowed differs by country though, so the UN would leave the specifics to individual countries.

Most UN countries the age of consent is 18, not 16 like it is in the U.K.
So they don’t allow 16/17yr olds to have sex with adults.
So that is why the UN range is 10-17 instead of 10-15.

“According to Jonathan Todres, a professor at Georgia State University College of Law who also was not involved with the report, the document is attempting to “acknowledge the practical realities that in some places, young people are sometimes intimate with one another, and so it is saying that in a jurisdiction where the age of consent is 18, for example, criminal law should not treat 17-year-old high school sweethearts the same way it would treat a 35-year-old man who has sex with a 17-year-old.”

.But the petition is about a UN report on cybercrime involving sexual images of children, not the age of consent. It's a
Draft United Nations convention against cybercrime Strengthening international cooperation for combating certain crimes committed by means of information and communications technology systems and for the sharing of evidence in electronic form of serious crimes
There is a link in the petition.

I haven't read the draft report, so I don't know if the petition is factually-based or not. But it does not seem to be about 'decriminalising paedophilia.'

I find it interesting that children having sex with other children has become so normalised that parents will allow it to happen in their own homes on the basis that 'They'll do it anyway'. Admittedly it's not illegal as long as the children are near enough in age, but I was a bit gobsmacked to find out that the 15 year old son in a family I know regularly sleeps with his 15 year old girlfriend, in his house.
His parents think it's OK and anyway, 'That boat has sailed, you can't tell teenagers not to have sex these days.'

So underage sex is being normalised, but probably not by the UN.

Well they are holding up Canadas age of consent laws as best practice and that allows adults to have sex with a 14 or 15 year old so long as they're only 5 years older so a 19 year old adult could have sex with a 14 year old child and that ok same with a 20 year old with a 15 year old so in a way yes they are

I'm looking only at the petition, and the UN Report it is objecting to. The post you quoted - where is that from?
The only ref I've found to children/sex in the report - it's 41 pages and I haven't finished it yet- is:

3. A State Party may extend the definition of intimate images, as appropriate, to depictions of persons who are under the age of 18 years if they are of legal age to engage in sexual activity under domestic law and the image does not depict child abuse or exploitation.
4. For the purposes of this article, a person who is under the age of 18 years and depicted in an intimate image cannot consent to the dissemination of an intimate image that constitutes child sexual abuse or child sexual exploitation material under article 14 of this Convention.
5. A State Party may require the intent to cause harm before criminal liability attached.
v2405506.pdf (un.org)

The only dodgy thing there is, I think the 'intent to cause harm' defence. Apart from that it is quite clear about child sexual abuse/exploitation.

If I find anything in the UN Report that proposes 'decriminalisation of paedophilia', I'll let you know.

I've had a quick read-through of the Draft United Nations convention against cybercrime cited in the petition, and I can't find anything that suggests the decriminalisation of paedophilia - in fairness, I don't think that's what the petition is about.
Apart from the extracts quoted in my previous post, the only other relevant section I could see in the UN draft says

Undertaking specific and tailored efforts to keep children safe online, including through education and training on and raising public awareness of child sexual abuse or child sexual exploitation online and through revising domestic legal frameworks and enhancing international cooperation aimed at its prevention, as well as making efforts to ensure the swift removal of child sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation material

which seems to be far removed from condoning paedophilia.
So in the case of the report mentioned in the petition, I think the answer to the question in the thread title is: no, it's not correct.

I feel like something icky is trying to piggyback through words again.

Why anyone would think 10 year olds are mature enough to have sex with each other is beyond me.

That's still sex abuse but by negligent or absent adults.

10, 11, 12 year olds aren't actually teenagers either.

"Mind blowingly awful if true..."

it's not true.

I have a problem with the word consent. If a 12 year old has the capacity to "consent" to sex with a 13 year old then why not a 40 year old. I appreciate the "close in age" criteria is to minimise the possibility of an age related power imbalance but the concept of "adolescent consent" feels like a slippery slope.

I said I was disturbed at the family I know condoning and even facilitating their [barely] 15 year old son having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend in their home, so you can guess that I agree with FOJN's concerns about children being able to consent to sex at all, even with other children.

I just don't think that the UN is spearheading this, it seems to start closer to home, with the 'We can't tell teenagers not to have sex' attitude.

Hoardasurass, I'd like to know who 'they' are, and links to the Canadian age of consent laws. As far as I can see the authors of the draft report on cybercrime that this petition is about don't say anything about Canada's age of consent laws. I'm not sure how Canada cropped up in this thread?

The answer to the OP's question so far is: no it is not correct, on the basis of the report referred to in the petition, that 'the UN is pushing to decriminalise paedophilia'.

Somebody seems to have come up with the accusation from somewhere. That's not what the petition is about, that's not what the draft UN report is about, and if it is true, we need to see the evidence - links to where the UN proposed decriminalising paedophilia, what branch of the UN - because we know that 'The UN' is a mixed bunch!

So please, if there is evidence, let's have the evidence.

To me, this raises the whole troubling issue of what is informed consent?

A 10 year old girl may well say ‘yes’ to a 12 year old boy asking the will you have sex with me question but yet have no real understanding of what that actually involves and little capacity to say no.

It’s up to the adults in the room to protect our children but too many of those adults (men) seem increasingly and conveniently of an anything goes mind set. Not to mention that Canada, in my view, is no great role model in any of these liberal issues anymore.

@MarieDeGournay completely agree about not understanding why parents condone sex for their younger teens by permitting it in their own homes. My own DC tried that argument of ‘not allowing it at home drives teens to have sex in the park’. My response was fine! I don’t believe it’s in the best mental and physical health interest of young teens to have early sex so I’m content making it as difficult and uncomfortable as possible for them to do so.

10 is super weird. i'd say maybe 13 at a push? But it still seems like abuse.

I think there is a huge can of worms around it all and it's very difficult for people to be realistic about it. And the fact that different countries have different laws is a problem where international issues come into it.

The thing is, it is a fact that a lot of people are going to be having sex before they are 18. I don't at all condone the trend noted above to accept whatever kids do because "they'll do it anyway". But 18 is really high, realistically. And I think practically, if you make that the legal age of consent, you are going to have significant problems where a lot of 16 and 17 year old in particular will be actually breaking the law.

I think laws where there is a two year gap accepted in teen type encounters is probably about right, maybe one year. It does no one any good to criminalize kids who are one year apart and maybe in the same school class in such situations. That's not statutory rape in a meaningful way. Four years gets to be quite a gap though.

This is a quote from the petition

"According to Article 14 of this United Nations convention against cybercrime, "countries may choose to decriminalise the production, distribution, and possession of content that depicts children being sexually abused, as long as it doesn't involve a "real" person or explicitly show actual "child sexual abuse or exploitation."
Material kept for what they call "private and consensual use of the persons involved" would also be made legal."

So not about the age of consent, but about filmed child sexual behaviour.

And however can you find out about consent for filmed sexual activity between children?

Thank you for pointing out this section of the Draft - here's the exact text:

4. In accordance with their domestic law and consistent with applicable international obligations, States Parties may take steps to exclude the criminalization of:
(a) Conduct by children for self-generated material depicting them; or
(b) The consensual production, transmission, or possession of material described in paragraph 2 (a) to (c) of this article, where the underlying conduct depicted is legal as determined by domestic law, and where such material is maintained exclusively for the private and consensual use of the persons involved.
5. Nothing in this Convention shall affect any international obligations which are more conducive to the realization of the rights of the child.

4(a) seems to be about not criminalising teenagers sexting each other.
I agree 4(b) looks bad - it's saying that if national laws say something is legal, we're not going to suggest that states criminalise it. That does undermine the whole spirit of 'realization of the rights of the child', and I agree it is out of place in what seems otherwise to be an OK draft on cybercrime in general.

A weak point is the phrase 'as defined in domestic law' ,which crops up in Article 15 as well, which leaves the door open for States to use their own definitions which could undermine child protection. I'd like to see an explanation of the UN's deferral to domestic law, and I wonder if it defers to domestic law in other matters, like war crimes etc ..?

So I agree with the spirit of any effort to make sure Article 14 para 4(b) is not in the final draft. I think saying that 'the UN is pushing to decriminalising paedophilia' is overstatement though.

I signed one of their petitions after the German Self ID law. When their info mails started to arrive, I decided they are piggybacking on any issue that generates clicks, inycluding some rather tinfoil-y ones.
I'd not use them as a reliable source of info.

@MarieDeGournay it's from the ICJ (report authors for the UN) statement in the routers article posted up thread though I'm not sure if it's the same report as citizen go are talking about in their petition
Edited to tag the correct poster

It wasn’t held up as a best practice, it was given as an example along with other examples- ie Nigeria age of consent to sex is 11, U.K. is 16 and South Korea is 20.

CitizenGo are not credible:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/citizengo-bias/

Rated as "Extreme right Christian, Propaganda, Pseudoscience, Conspiracy, Poor Sourcing, False Claims, Hate". They also managed to get suspended from Twitter after Elon Musk bought it (which is quite an achievement).

It's regarding 14.4 of this document below, the tl-dr idea is so a teenager who is just below the age of consent isn't charged with ch*ld porn if they send a nude photo to their partner of the same age who consents to receiving it. And it also says state parties can decide for themselves if this exemption should be made.

documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/v24/055/06/pdf/v2405506.pdf

This extreme misleading manipulation is why CitizenGo aren't to be trusted.