Malaka Parker

Child Protection and Adolescent Rights Must Go Hand in Hand – A response to ASPIRE

I welcome ASPIRE’s contribution to the national conversation on the age of consent. We may differ on aspects of the legislative approach, but our shared concern must be the wellbeing, dignity and protection of our children.

Let me clarify one important point at the start:

I did not argue that raising the age of consent would cure teenage pregnancy. That was not the subject of my contribution.

My argument was about the need for stronger legal protection against the sexual exploitation of children. The legislation concerns men and women who are predators in our society and who initiate, exploit and or sexually groom our children.

As an advocate for sexual and reproductive health and rights, and as a development consultant that has worked with a number of agencies, including UNFPA (the United Nations Population Fund), the UN agency focused on sexual and reproductive health and rights, I fully recognise and agree with the argument you proferred that adolescents need access to appropriate healthcare, comprehensive sexuality education and the information necessary to make informed decisions. I believe completely that they must be empowered and that age appropriate sexual reproductive health and rights facilitated. I stated this in the debate.

However, we cannot discuss adolescent sexuality in the Caribbean without confronting the disturbing realities of sexual coercion, grooming, incest and abuse. A 2003 regional study, Adolescent Health in the Caribbean: A Regional Portrait, found that 47.6 per cent of female respondents and 31.9 per cent of male respondents reported their first sexual intercourse as forced or somewhat forced. These are historical regional figures, not current estimates for Antigua and Barbuda alone, but they underscore the seriousness of the issue. In my view this is a crisis.

Our children must be empowered to understand their sexuality, but they must also be protected from adults who exploit their innocence, trust and vulnerability.

I made clear in my parliamentary contribution that I do not believe every case involving a person below the age of consent should be treated identically. A relationship between adolescents close in age and maturity is not the same as an adult grooming or exploiting a child under the age of 12. Indeed, I am open to examining whether the existing three-year close-in-age provision should be widened, alongside appropriate safeguards. This is why I further made the call for the age of consent to be 18 years, because this envelope strengthens the protections afforded children in the Child Justice Act, especially where the offender is also under 18 years and may not fall in the exempted three year window.

I also stated that the circumstances of each case, including age, maturity, coercion and power imbalance, must inform a proportionate legal response. This means that I am not of the view that the rigidity of one mandatory minimum sentence is at all the correct move.

I also accept and did lament that legislation alone cannot resolve these challenges. We need comprehensive sexuality education, adolescent-friendly healthcare, public sensitisation, effective reporting mechanisms and properly resourced police, healthcare, social services and courts. We must confront a culture that sometimes excuses predatory behaviour because of an individual’s money, influence or social standing. Equally, allegations must be investigated fairly, victims treated with dignity, and the rights of accused persons protected through due process.

So in brief and to be clear, I support the age of consent being risen to 18 years for a few reasons which include that:

• Persons under 18 are generally recognised as children under international child-rights standards and across our own domestic legislation. Setting the age of consent at 18 would align sexual-offence legislation with the principle that children require special protection.

• To remove appearance as an excuse. Some girls may look older than their chronological age. A clear age threshold of 18 establishes a more protective boundary and makes it harder to treat assumptions about appearance as a substitute for knowing someone’s age. I should also disclose that the current amendment removed any defence for mistake in age.

• Protecting school-age children: Many 16-year-olds are still in secondary school and dependent on adults. Men who provide school transport, money or gifts may create relationships of dependency that warrant scrutiny for possible grooming or exploitation.

• Recognising unequal power and maturity: A young person’s apparent agreement does not necessarily mean freedom from manipulation or pressure. The law and society must recognise these imbalances and ensure that children are protected from exploitation.

However, be assured that I have also followed and do welcome initiatives in Jamaica and elsewhere that combine education, support and empowerment, and believe we should examine what can be adapted to our own circumstances. There is much we can do here for our adolescents.

My concern is not that young people are learning about their bodies or developing naturally. I have no intention to interrupt or deter that. Raising the age of consent will not destroy this. My concern is that our society has not done enough to dismantle the conditions that permit sexual abuse to flourish.

We must not force a choice between adolescent autonomy and child protection. Our children are entitled to both and they can coexist.

I welcome further dialogue with ASPIRE and welcome a deeper engagement with the evidence and the development of a framework that protects children, respects their evolving autonomy and delivers justice.

Hon. Senator Malaka Parker

Antigua and Barbuda

This article was originally published by Antigua News Room. Read the original article here: Child Protection and Adolescent Rights Must Go Hand in Hand – A response to ASPIRE.