UPDATE: The fish rots from the head down
This update discusses a fine example on how to patch up a mistake of authority which opens doors to sexual violence on children by persons involved.
The Daily Press Briefing by the Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General (UN) reacted later the same day I posted (April 18th 2023) as follows:
I want to read something on behalf of our colleagues at the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), because there has been a lot of — how to say — malicious misreporting on a recent report on the age of legal consent. And I can tell you that the report released by the International Commission of Jurists in March has recently been misrepresented on a number of websites. It did not call for the decriminalization of sex with children, nor did it call for the abolition of the age of consent. The International Commission of Jurists report set out legal principles to guide the application of the international human rights law to criminal law across a range of issues. In the application of law, it is recognized that criminal sanctions are not appropriate against adolescents of similar ages for consensual non-exploitative sexual activity. So, too, it is recognized that adolescents should not be prevented from accessing health services, which protect them. The UN is resolute in fighting the sexual exploitation of children, upholds that sexual exploitation and abuse of children is a crime, and supports countries to protect children.
The 8 March Principles do not call for the decriminalization of sex with children, nor do they call for the abolition of a domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex. Indeed, the ICJ stresses that States have a clear obligation under international law to protect children from all forms of abuses, such as child sexual abuse, including through the criminalization of such conduct.
It would appear many people misread(?) the report, this whilst the report is:
... aimed at offering a clear, accessible and operational legal framework and practical legal guidance to parliamentarians, judges, prosecutors and advocates to address the harmful impact of criminalization of certain conduct on health, equality and other human rights. They are based on general principles of criminal law and international human rights law and standards.
Now, if the report is aimed at offering clear, accessible and operational legal framework and practical legal guidance to parliamentarians, judges, prosecutors and advocates, then it surely did the opposite since it states in copy-paste:
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.
Reading this, and I caricature, a person of 16 years old may have sex with a person of 30 years old, since the person of 16 years old may seem to know what they're doing and may seem to understand they are not being taken advantage of. Let me put this sharper. The same 16 year old has sex with the grandfather because it runs in the family for generations on end and both are in agreement and understand it is not done but do it consensually because it feels good and ... vomiting here.
So let's put it this way, they meant something else then what is actually written.
They did not mean to decriminalise sex with children in the now considered too general terms they used in the report. They did not mean sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual
They meant it is OK for adolescents of similar ages for consensual non-exploitative sexual activity.
They meant sexual conduct between
involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex, who have similar age and the maturity to understand what consensual non exploitative sex is, may be consensual
But they did not write that, did they? They just wrote involving persons, which includes adults who can be very eager to be involved persons.
What's worrying is that parliamentarians, judges, prosecutors and advocates will read the report, they will not read the a posteriori given justifications and clarification for which you have to hunt to find them.
Scrambling to cover up the wording mistake they made I guess.
I call for a rewrite of the report in at least those explicit terms:
fighting the sexual exploitation of children, ... sexual exploitation and abuse of children is a crime, ...
Otherwise judges, prosecutors and (certainly) advocates (of sexual abusers) will use the wrong, err, open to interpretation wording in the report to the benefit of sexual abusers, and to the benefit of protecting authorities who neglect to take action in case of sexual violence on children.
I can just hear the Swiss prosecutor: Yes, but the UN said it is OK if the child says they know what they're doing, and according to Swiss Jurisprudence your daughter at 9 years old can fall into the category of knowing what she's doing, and she said she does, so it is OK with her grandfather...
Morons. Just morons. Get it right, will you. There are kids at play here!
A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. This blog gets the proverbial pants on!
information provided as is, without prejudice, without any prejudicial recognition, and with reservation of all rights, expressly without recognition of any Swiss competence which remains contested
for the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever, all information on this blog, such as but not limited to documents and/or audio recordings and/or video recordings and/or pictures mentioned, have been made and/or collected, and published, in the interest of justice and the public at large
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to everything on this blog
the Universal Right to Truth principle applies to everything on this blog