The Feminist Declaration that is being attributed to ILGA was written by the Women's Rights Caucus (a coalition of over 200 organisations) in response to the perceived failings in the UN’s Commission on the Status of Women commitment to gender equality in March last year. >

On 29 March this year the Australian arm of WHRC put out a press release mistakenly attributing this document to ILGA highlighting parts they were concerned "would remove the ability to protect children from exploitation by adults and older adolescents". > https://www.womensdeclaration.com/en/country-info/australia/

This was quickly picked up by other blogs and Twitter accounts who also misattributed the document to ILGA and often used more sensationalist language. Many people who are concerned about child safeguarding took this information on face value and it spread over social media. >

The paragraphs in the document that have caused concern are 14 a) and g). I've attached them here and linked to the full document and press release. >
Press release (9 March 2020): https://iwhc.org/press-releases/womens-rights-caucus-issues-feminist-declaration-marking-25th-anniversary-of-the-beijing-declaration-and-platform-for-action/
Declaration: …https://31u5ac2nrwj6247cya153vw9-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Beijing-25-Feminist-declaration.pdf

It's important to note this is a document intended to highlight issues that are barriers to female equality across the globe that 200+ orgs feel are overlooked by the UN’s Commission on the Status of Women. It's trying to pack a lot in and is written for a specific audience. >

I'm wary of some of the claims being made online at the moment because I think people are frightened about legislation and policies being pushed through without public consultation which can lead to insufficient fact checking or misinterpretations. >

So I think it's even more important than usual to check sources and the veracity of what is being alleged. Obviously the first page I visited made it very clear this was not an ILGA document and that they were just one of over 200 signatories. >

I read the sections that had been highlighted and whilst they sounded vague and with room for interpretation I found it difficult to see them as an attack on child protection, particularly within the context of the document. So I did some research. >

Turns out ending the "criminalization and stigmatization of adolescents’ sexuality" has been a rather large topic of conversation over the past decade. In many countries there are punitive laws around teen consensual sex which are seen to be a barrier to female health/equality. >

There is thoughtful analysis, deeply rooted in the need to balance protection for young people from non consensual, exploitative or predatory relationships/adults and the desirability of allowing them to develop and explore their sexuality in a healthy way. >

This is a topic I was vaguely aware of after reading a few news articles about young people being prosecuted in some US states but I didn't really know anything and I've learnt a lot. I found this article about Africa particularly interesting. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244018806036

I think it's unfortunate the way this has snowballed and reached the point people are accusing orgs like Stonewall of supporting "campaigns to lower the age of consent" by being a member of ILGA who signed this declaration. I'm sure they've not even read it. >

My main worry is that mistaken attacks like this serve to protect Stonewall. The "we're under siege" narrative can be used to deflect from their activities that need to be robustly challenged. That won't help anyone, least of all those whose rights and wellbeing are at stake.