There is a lot of talk about "yes is yes". But what is happening behind the scenes is much darker. It is no longer just about protecting rape victims. It is about transforming the sexuality of children and young people into politics – and making society lawless along the way.
The government is now going to introduce a consent law that defines sex without active consent as rape. Many conservatives are blinded by the slogans. But ask yourself: Who is really behind it? And what kind of reality is it based on?
The answer should wake up every parent in this country.
All sexual radical and queer organizations in Norway – including Sex and Society, Foreningen Fri, Skeiv Ungdom, Sex and Politics – support the Consent Act. The organizers of the website samtysmelov.no are Amnesty, the Crisis Center Secretariat and SNU, which together form the “Consent Alliance”.
What all these actors have in common is that they are also together in SRHR.no, the National Network for Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights. These organizations work for “holistic sexuality education from cradle to grave” with an emphasis on “positive sexuality” and they want to equate “sexual health” with physical and mental health.
This means that the actors behind the consent law believe that children have the capacity to consent to far-reaching things:
● children under the age of 6 are considered competent to consent to legal gender reassignment.
● children under 10 years of age should be able to start irreversible hormone treatment (puberty blockers) – based on “what gender they feel they are”.
These organizations base their entire policies on the assumption that children know best – including about their own gender and their own bodily choices. Then we must ask the uncomfortable but necessary question based on their view of child autonomy and positive sexuality: Why are children NOT competent to consent to sex?
The Free and Queer Youth Association and others are members of ILGA International, the global pride movement's main organization. ILGA has signed a declaration that they will fight all laws that prevent or limit the autonomy and right of minors (10-19 years) to consent to sex. Sex and Politics has adopted a separate declaration that all persons have the right to be recognized before the law and to sexual freedom, with due regard to the evolving capacities of children.
These organizations have a radical view of sex and gender, and they have free access to our children through sexuality education, Week 6, through definitional power and the introduction of legislative changes.
The Consent Act turns legal certainty on its head. Instead of judging based on objective evidence, it opens up the possibility of interpreting body language, silence and emotions. A manipulated “yes” – obtained under pressure, fear or confusion – can in practice acquit an abuser. At the same time, an innocent person can be convicted for not having “taken sufficient steps to ensure consent”
This is not rule of law. It is chaos built into a system. In such a climate, there will not be fewer abuses, only more gray areas – and more losers.
NOU 2024:4 proposes massive awareness campaigns and strengthened sexuality education. It is no longer a question of teaching young people about responsibility, boundaries and respect – but of introducing a state-defined sexual norm, detached from parental rights, faith and traditional ethics.
And again: Those behind it are the same ones who have previously paved the way for gender confusion, sex positivism, and the idea that all sexual activities are positive and desired as long as there is consent, with the radical idea that children have inherent sexual rights because they are sexual beings.
When these actors are allowed to define both consent, gender and sexuality – what is it that actually limits the future view of sexual consent?
When all of the proponents of the Consent Act believe that children are competent to consent to legal gender reassignment and irreversible medical interventions, because they believe that children know best which gender they feel and thus are – then the question must also be repeated:
Why do these actors believe that children are NOT competent to consent to sex?
In practice, we are faced with a slippery slope – a political and legal slippery slope. It starts with a consent law. It ends in a changed practice around the age of consent, a weakened legal protection for victims, and a rule of law where more innocent people are convicted – and more guilty people go free.
Reject a consent law, protect children better!
