A shocking report issued by international legal experts with the backing of the United Nations appears to open the floodgates to normalize sex with minors.
“Sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual in fact, if not in law,” the Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists wrote in March with an assist from UNAIDS and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
The report is titled “The 8 March Principles for a Human Rights-Based Approach to Criminal Law Proscribing Conduct Associated with Sex, Reproduction, Drug Use, HIV, Homelessness and Poverty.”
It is published front-and-center on the group’s website.
It does not actively call for decriminalizing sex between adults and minors. But it states that children have both the capacity and the legal right to make sexual decisions.
This is the kind of hysteria we all face when trying to survive and make changes in society.
Once again Fox Entertainment creates pedophile hysteria to increase profits. No surprise that the title of the article directly conflicts with the statement they buried saying “It does not actively call for decriminalizing sex between adults and minors.”
A child forced into a marriage should be able to say no. Teens sexting each other should not be criminalized and put on the registry for life. But that is not important to Fox Sleeze.
Fox just wants to say “pedophile, pedophile, pedophile” to sell survival rations in its ads.
“Sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual in fact, if not in law. Children have both the capacity and the legal right to make sexual decisions.”
Wow, that’s quite something to hear after an absence of more than thirty years from any official body. I couldn’t have said it better, myself. It sounds like the Dutch Parliament, circa 1980.
Here’s more about it on this fact-checker-type website:
Did UN call to decriminalise sex between adults + children?!
Oh yes, I’m sure “Fox & ilk” will call for torches and pitchforks, but the reality is that sexual activity between a minor and an adult is already semi/pseudo/quasi-legal….. they’re call Romeo & Juliet exceptions. 🤷🏻♂️
(Just a random thought, FWIW.)
“The UN is full of pedophiles!!!!”
You gotta love the good old USA…where hysteria, can be whipped up at any moment, with no need for accuracy of any kind!
The constant misuse of the “P” word is so…it’s just sad. Do these people have even a semblance of a clue what the word even means? Maybe they do, but it’s not like it matters. It’s not intended to be accurate, it’s intended to terrorize, demonize, dehumanize, and control people with fear. It does that very well.
This should matter. The complete in inaccuracy…the reckless, careless, inflammatory misuse. The blatantly obvious attempts to manipulate with misinformation and fear. You’d think these people were Inquisitors trying to warn the people of Witches in their midst. They misuse this word with the same frequency, disregard, carelessness…and effect. That should matter, but I wonder if it ever will?
Keep thinking of, “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”
Article 17
1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
No violation of any of this…ever?
The person who wrote that report is not part of UN, plus he never advocates for normalized sex between adults & minors. He was referring to decriminalizing sex between consenting adults. So the article is just more lies and fake news from Fox Entertainment. In fact, the UN has been using the Optional Protocol and UNICEF to get countries to criminalize all child sex crimes including cyber ones. The UN Convention to the Rights of a Child even puts out a report card on nations that have or haven’t implemented basic metrics that would criminalize certain offenses.
The “domestically prescribed minimum age of consent” is not ubiquitous, although 18 is common (for…reasons…?)…and the term “child” or “minor” is often used to classify teens and young adults…who are capable of making informed decisions (hence why they can drive, obtain employment, etc.) The article is ridiculous, of course, but that’s to be expected considering the source. It’s highly improbable that there’s going to a dystopian future in which child abuse is decriminalized (I mean, come on now, honestly.) While I find all that hyperbolic pap to be mildly amusing, what isn’t amusing is that the same kind of people who actually get hysterical over this sort of thing, are also the ones coming up with all the psychotic laws and regulations that govern my life.
Fixed News is at it again with their lies. Now we have this Stefani “Lord” politician who wants to castrate people. Her name is appropriate for someone who wants to play God. What’s with some these women and their fixation on chopping it off? Sure they call it “chemical castration”, but we know what they really want.
This is when the cross cultural conflicts encompassing the child rearing environment rises to a heated pitch. You want to start a WAR? Start telling your neighbor how to “properly ” raise their kids. War will certainly ensue.
This topic is continues to be hotly debated and will be for the ages…
Given a quick search online, an adult has also been defined at 21 (before the 26th Amendment) and 25 (the Romans said this) years old for the age of adulthood as well as the now established 18 years old, depending on the needs of the day. 18 is old enough to vote and fight for this country, but not old enough to smoke or drink (with the latter being statistically proven to be a wise choice due to alcohol related drunk driving deaths for 18-20 year olds at the time).
I think the big thing is these people have the legal consideration to make choices for themselves under 18. This is where “if they are adult enough to make adult decisions, then they need to be charged with adult crimes and understand the adult consequences” thinking comes in. I hate to put a blanket of applicability on this because each person needs their own assessment at the time but with the rapid maturation of society today because of society’s pace with the tools at hand, it could be a wise move. However, the understanding of the full ramifications of their adult moves could be the tripwire. Heck, even adults don’t understand the ramifications of their adult moves at times.
I will leave everyone’s favorite trade rag for you all to read to see one person’s thinking on the topic:
Why 25 Could Be the New 18 Psychology Today, 19 Jul 2021
Fox freaks out about this, yet their VP candidate ( Palin ) and their House Rep ( Boebert ) both bore children while under legal age for their respective states. Both had children that had babies before they were of legal age. So do as I say not as I do seems to be the motto for these conservatives.
If you really want a laugh, then go to the article and scroll down to comments. What a bunch of morons. Some transition to gun rights (?) while others link this directly to parents having to accept school choices. These people are so far off the reservation they can never be brought back. A lost cause.
What strikes me as amusing is the fact that not all that long ago in the US the legal age of consent for marriage in many states was 14 and some states as young as 13. In some states the state constitution set the age of consent at age 14 while the state courts and legislature ignored the constitution and made the age of consent 16 for decades. (State of SC You should read the letter from former attorney general McMaster to state senator Murrell Smith in July 2006)
No one ever acknowledges any of these facts and misdeeds yet they scream their support for the Constitution all the while subverting the same constitution. This is done so as to pander for votes and perfect their surveillance state with SOs as the test subjects. For once maybe the UN is shedding light on what is truly happening in the US and the huge problem with the laws that are being drafted and allowed to exist.
I believe that the recommendations are getting more into the fact that the consent laws are too rigid. The laws don’t take into account the relative differences in maturity levels of people such that they might or might actually be harmed (mentally) in any actual meaningful way due to their engagement in sex acts with another person of the same or a different age. The purpose of making certain sex acts illegal is to protect those persons from the mental harm that effects them mentally and emotionally into the future because they did not actually want the act between them and another to have occurred. Certainly age and age differences have some role to play in this regard but that doesn’t mean that such a thing caused any actual harm for future harm to anyone (legal issues aside).
If a so called victim never feels like there was harm caused by the acts between them and another (this can be kind of retrospective sometimes) then should this be such a serious crime? For example, absent the law, do you think a 14 of 15 year old who consents to sex with a 17 year old generally feels harmed by having engaged in that relationship immediately or in the future? In most cases, probably not. In some cases, yes.
So to me this advocates for a more subjective approach to these sex offense laws. Instead of creating such a rigid set of laws about consent, an analysis of any harm caused to anther by engagement in sex acts is more appropriate to determine whether the relationship between two specific people should be deemed illegal when one person involved is not yet an adult.
While I can agree with this idea, I am not sure how you can truly implement it in a meaningful way. How do you actually determine this in a consistently fair manner? How do you deal with others who don’t particularly agree with the relationship like parents that are angry because their child consented against their wishes from exerting influence on a subjective analysis that would otherwise possibly determine that there was no harm done?
The only reasonable change in the legal system that would make sense would be to give the courts more power to determine whether or not convicting someone of a statutory rape crime and putting them on a registry for some amount of time or forever actually should occur given a totality of the circumstances including a subjective analysis of actual harm done. That is something that has legislated away from the courts authority to do under the current system. Its not a perfect solution by any means but it would be an improvement for sure.
Europe doesn’t have the Mental Stupidity of America. America should focus on their Violence, and Mass Shootings Epidemic. That’s what concerns the entire world at this point when they think about America.
If someone thinks that people under the age of 18 having sex (most have) is a problem, then they are PART OF THE PROBLEM of not recognizing the crime Epidemic in America. Those people under age 18 have a higher chance of being killed in their own school.
They are right as usual but it is poison here, A great example in Chechia. Teenagers for sale. 15 and up, legal. 14 is legal if you don’t pay them and it’s not set up as a business. No I haven’t tried it. Problems..none. What we are dealing with here is a biological clock. Fighting nature, lots of luck. As for America, this is the country with President Trump
I’m sure there are multiple mischaracterizations from Fox on this. On the other hand it is important to acknowledge the age of consent is not the same in every country. In fact there’s a wide range of standards across the world. More importantly people can commonly start puberty at least a few years prior to that. No one is arguing the onset of puberty immediately means anyone should consent to sexual activity regardless if that’s with someone around the same development or fully developed. Nor is anyone trying to advocate for free for all sex among minors under any age of consent or with people at or above any age of consent. At best all that’s being stated is some minors are fully capable of seeking out such activity on their own as a matter of fact. No one claims they should or every minor has, is, or will do this. Just it does happen sometimes.
Romeo and Juliet laws or similar exceptions do exist for this exact reason. It doesn’t mean a 12 year old who could pass for a 16 year old explicitly texting a 40 year old woman should be doing that. Rather it’s possible the 12 year old in this example did in fact choose to do this own his own and ignoring that fact won’t help anyone. If he was engaged in explicit text exchanges with a 13 year old girl it wouldn’t have been the most intelligent choice, but getting them into legal trouble over it isn’t the correct answer either. As a note for fairness it is possible the 13 year old girl decided to text the boy something explicit first without being asked and if it were true any denial of the fact would be just as wrong as denying anything the boy did on his own.
Fox of course took those basic ideas and twisted them into things that were never being advocated in the first place. No one needs to worry about a massive public orgy started by tens of thousands of 14 year olds in a big American city let alone anywhere else in the world. No one is suggesting one million seven hundred thirty thousand four hundred ten 6 year olds be mass married in arranged marriages anywhere. There won’t suddenly be a surge in intimate adult/prepubescent child relationships because it’s okay now, no that’s not being argued for in the slightest. I guess expecting less insanity from Fox on this subject is unreasonable.
This entire document is anathema to those with an authoritarian mindset, particularly those who wish to control others’ bodily autonomy. It is little wonder to me that Faux News interpreted a single paragraph as an open door to child sexual abuse. The paragraph below is the only statement in the entire report that addresses the sexual autonomy of those under 18. How dare the authors state that persons under 18 have the “right to be heard in matters concerning them”.
“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“.