UNAIDS Report--'8 March Principles'--Calls for Normalisation of Pedophilia
Look beyond the 'hype' and outcries, for this is how decades of 'progress' will go down the drain
Our world is dying before our eyes. No, I don’t mean because of ‘the Climate Crisis™’, for here I am referring to the societal order built on the smouldering embers of WW2.
Today, we consider a ‘new’ report by the United Nations HIV/AIDS agency, UNAID, that calls for the abolishment of age protections in ‘consensual sexual conduct’. Launched little over a year ago in 2023 and absurdly entitled, ‘The 8 March Principles’, it can be found over at the UNAIDS website (here and in the following, emphases mine):
The International Committee of Jurists (ICJ) along with UNAIDS and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) officially launched a new set of expert jurist legal principles to guide the application of international human rights law to criminal law.
The ‘8 March principles’ as they are called lay out a human rights-based approach to laws criminalising conduct in relation to sex, drug use, HIV, sexual and reproductive health, homelessness and poverty.
Ian Seiderman, Law and Policy Director at ICJ said, ‘Criminal law is among the harshest of tools at the disposal of the State to exert control over individuals...as such, it ought to be a measure of last resort however, globally, there has been a growing trend towards overcriminalization.’
This is what the proverbial reference to ‘throwing out the baby (criminalising conduct) with the bathwater’ (references to ‘consensual sexual conduct irrespective of age) looks like.
Principle 16—Conseusual Sexual Conduct
Consensual sexual conduct, irrespective of the type of sexual activity, the sex/gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression of the people involved or their marital status, may not be criminalized in any circumstances. Consensual same-sex, as well as consensual different-sex sexual relations, or consensual sexual relations with or between trans, non-binary and other gender-diverse people, or outside marriage—whether pre-marital or extramarital—may, therefore, never be criminalized.
With respect to the enforcement of criminal law, any prescribed minimum age of consent to sex must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner. Enforcement may not be linked to the sex/gender of participants or age of consent to marriage [there goes whatever protections humans evolved over millennia to prevent (forced) child marriages, like this one where an Afghan man ‘sold his 10-year-old daughter’].
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.
This is how the rule of law, and the associated customary sets of ‘unwritten’ societal rules (taboos), dies. It is one thing, as the reports makes clear from the outset, to be against ‘overcriminalisation’ and (mis)use of criminal law.
The main beef here is that this goes way beyond anything that would address this issue—except for the creeping, and creepy, normalisation of pedophilia and child abuse by people in authority and power—while, at the same time, a monstrous Pandora’s Box is opened.
Who, then writes such stuff? Well, I’m glad you asked (the following quotes are from the above-liked press release):
The principles [sic] are the outcome of a 2018 workshop organized by UNAIDS and OHCHR along with the ICJ to discuss the role of jurists in addressing the harmful human rights impact of criminal laws. The meeting resulted in a call for a set of jurists’ principles to assist the courts, legislatures, advocates and prosecutors to address the detrimental human rights impact of such laws.
The principles, developed over five years, are based on feedback and reviews from a range of experts and stakeholders. They were finalized in 2022. Initially, the principles focused on the impact of criminal laws proscribing sexual and reproductive health and rights, consensual sexual activity, gender identity, gender expression, HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission, drug use and the possession of drugs for personal use. Later, based on the inputs of civil society and other stakeholders, criminalization linked to homelessness and poverty were also included [translation: we shall not disclose who put in what parts, i.e., NGOs, outside ‘philanthropaths’, and the like].
Continued overuse of criminal law by governments and in some cases arbitrary and discriminatory criminal laws have led to a number of human rights violations. They also perpetuate stigma, harmful gender stereotypes and discrimination based on such grounds as gender or sexual orientation [remember, this includes, as per principle (sic) 16, sexual relations with minors].
Here is a list of ‘first endorsements’ of said ‘8 March principles’:
Amnesty International; CREA; Global Health Justice; Partnership of the Yale Law and Public Health Schools Yale University, USA; Global Network of Sex Work Projects; HIV Justice Network; International Network of People who Use Drugs; Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters
And, finally, here’s from the foreword by Edwin Cameron, Retired Justice, Constitutional Court of South Africa:
The Principles aim to be practically useful to the widest range of stakeholders. From my own experiences, in my life and in my work, I know they will be of immediate significance to critical audiences. Here I include judges, who, in particular bear the critical responsibility of guarding the rule of law while upholding human rights and non-discrimination guarantees.
Mr. Cameron self-identifies himself as a ‘proudly gay man’.
‘Other’ Objectionable Considerations
This current ‘hype’ to be overly ‘inclusive’ and ‘diverse’—don’t fall for it, for it’s a smoke-screen—for precisely the problems I highlighted in the UNAIDS-endorsed ‘8 March principles’.
There is much more in these ‘principles’ that I personally find objectionable to outline in the pseudo-neutral jurists’ lingo, such as Principle 14, which holds:
Health providers may not be held criminally liable for conduct, such as providing contraception, abortion services or accurate, evidence-based, non-biased information, that enables others to freely exercise their rights to sexual and reproductive health, unless they engage in coercion, force, fraud, medical negligence or otherwise violate the right to free and informed decision-making.
It’s irrelevant mumbo-jumbo, for unless one ‘engage[s] in coercion, force, fraud, medical negligence’—which is covered already in, well, any criminal law code—individuals and institutions are, kinda, on the safe side. Hence, it’s a non-starter.
And then there’s Principle 15, which covers—’Abortion’, and it’s well worth citing it in full:
No one may be held criminally liable for their pregnancy loss, including a pregnancy loss resulting from an obstetric emergency, such as a miscarriage or stillbirth, or for attempting or undergoing an abortion or for other decisions they make around their pregnancy or childbirth.
If the ‘principle’ stopped here, no discussion would be needed, for this is a reasonable proposition that actually exists in terms of law, social norms, and the like. The problem is, though, that this ‘principle’ goes on in the following way:
Criminal law may not proscribe abortion. Abortion must be taken entirely out of the purview of the criminal law, including for having, aiding, assisting with, or providing an abortion, or abortion-related medication or services, or providing evidence-based abortion-related information.
I presume, for I cannot know, if this ‘principle’ seeks to normalise, or encourage, such activities in foreign countries that have, well, different sets of mores, morals, and laws to that effect.
Once the floodgates are open, though, literally anything goes for these ‘experts™’, which concludes in the following way:
No other criminal offence, such as murder, manslaughter or any other form of unlawful homicide, may proscribe or be applied to having, aiding, assisting with, or providing an abortion, or abortion-related medication or services, or providing evidence-based abortion-related information.
At the face of it, it sounds o.k.-ish, or even ‘reasonable’. Yet, what it effectively does is it overrides whatever legal tradition, current constitutional and criminal law exists, and imposes a new set of rules.
In the guise of ‘good’ things—namely non-discrimination vs. homosexuals—we see, once again, the excessive, power-grabbing nature of globalism. Here, it comes in the guise of non-heterosexual willing executioners of the mad people who (are pretending to?) run the world.
Bottom Lines
This won’t end well, I think, for it conflicts with both establish socio-cultural and/or religious traditions as well as with, well, biology. With ‘artificial wombs’ no longer entirely out of the realm of (bad) science fiction, we’re already in the virtual cornucopia of mad considerations is already discussed by ‘the Science™’, such as ‘whole body gestational donation’:
Once the evolutionary-biological aspect is ‘solved’, we may expect the considerations expressed in the UNAIDS ‘principles’ go mainstream. Heck, they seem ‘there’ already, hence I suspect this gaslighting-agit-prop will go into overdrive.
This is extremely corrosive in terms of ethics, with the rule of one set of laws for everyone plus equality thereunder quickly becoming a sick joke. Let’s just stop using these notions and defer to an unelected judge to decide, on the spot and with due consideration of the potentially underage person if intercourse was, in fact, consensual.
Needless to say, the ‘personal experiences’ of a retired judge with the ‘stigma’ of any of the above ‘practices’ or the like leaves the door wide open for speculations about the nature of these. I don’t think we should criminalise thought-crime, yet, the way this entire ‘report’ is formulated makes me scream, ‘o.k., groomer’ at these ‘legal experts™’.
Yet, there is an even larger implication that transcends the normalisation of pedophilia: why would an unelected judge have to defer to statements of an underage person on these issues? Sure, there’s criminal law, but don’t think for a minute that, if enacted, these ‘experts™’ will stop at sexual relations with minors. In fact, they’ll likely use these ‘principles’ as a ‘precedent’ to advocate changes to a whole other set of laws and rules.
People, there’s a reason why we as adults protect minors, which sometimes means stigmatising, forbidding, and actively disincentivising certain things; it’s not personal, it’s biological, because the human brain isn’t fully developed until the early 20s. Here’s the punch link:
An endeavouring judge might, citing case-precedent, move to lower the voting age, permit firearms, alcohol, or driving to 8 year-olds because, you know, if these people are heard and appear reasonable, you know…next time you check, everything’s gone to hell.
If you need any more convincing about the real-world problems associated with these issues, have a look at this absolutely mainstream reporting from 23 June 2023:
In a decision scrutinizing how colleges investigate sexual assault allegations, Connecticut’s highest court ruled Friday that a former Yale student is not immune from a defamation lawsuit by a fellow student who was exonerated in criminal court after she accused him of rape.
The Connecticut court ruled 7-0 that because he had fewer rights to defend himself in university proceedings than he would in criminal court, the rape accuser can’t benefit fully from immunity granted to witnesses in criminal proceedings.
The unanimous ruling came despite warnings from more than a dozen violence prevention groups that such immunity is crucial to prevent rape victims from being discouraged to come forward.
It’s one of the few state court rulings on the topic in any U.S. court and could be cited widely in future cases, legal experts said. It ruled that Jane Doe, the pseudonym she used in court proceedings, was not immune from liability for statements she made to Yale investigators accusing fellow student Saifullah Khan of raping her in her dorm room in October 2015.
This isn’t an easy topic, yet we avoid these notions—especially the push by ‘experts™’ to normalise (legalise) pedophilia—at our peril.
Once something as atrocious as pedophilia becomes normalised, the tables may quickly turn and those who refuse to act likewise become the targets. Just look at ‘the unvaccinated’, the alleged ‘friends of Putin’, or, if you will, footage from Columbia University’s ‘protests’ about the Near East this week.
As a result, I call for an open-ended discussion about the abolishment of the UN and its affiliate organisation.
The reason for this is that over the past 30 years, islamic nations have been allowed influence in the UN, and in islam, child marriage is normal, legal and endorsed by their prophet.
That's the real reason for all the efforts everywhere to remove age limits on intercourse and marriage: the moslems wants their child-brides.
Okay, to play devil's advocate here and wade into a minefield, after skimming the 8-March Principles and admittedly not being well informed on this area of law, I can think of a couple of milder examples perhaps extenuating 'criminalalization' which spring to mind (not to say they preclude the more extreme possibilities Epimetheus mentions).
Two consensual teenagers (close in age) but both below the legal age of consent.
Two consensual teenagers (close in age) but only one is below the legal age of consent.
(a larger age difference makes it difficult to exclude the older teenager taking advantage of the younger)
It seems a lot of this rests on the basis of informed consent and I presume/hope that children (let's say, for the sake of this argument, under 14) can never be deemed legally capable of informed consent. In which case, some of Epimetheus' worst case concerns might be moot.
As to instances of teenagers with adults (let's say over 21) it seems nigh impossible to rule out the adult taking advantage of the teenager despite and also questionable whether the teenager can truly give informed consent to enter into sexual activity with an adult.
Again this all seems to rest on the concept of informed consent and the legal minimum age of consent.