School staff, Ruth Kelly and List 99
There has been considerable and over the top news coverage about teaching staff who have been given ministerial clearance to work in schools even though they have a conviction (or in some cases no conviction) related to sex offences. This obviously has an impact on the sort of work that I do and is of very great interest but as the debate rages on, how much is a debate and how much is fanning the flames of the witch hunt?
The PE teacher who was working at the Hewett school gained his place on the sex offenders register for accessing paedophile websites is literally on my doorstep. It's the school that I have youth work responsibility for. What does this mean? The answer is unclear. Just as I do not want my own children at risk, I do not want the children at Hewett to be at risk too. But were they ever at risk? We will never know and yes, of course it is better to be safe than sorry. But the man was CAUTIONED, never charged and what did he do? I probably don't want to know but what if he accidentally wandered onto the wrong site? What if he has a problem that he has never acted on or has over come? What if stupid curiosity got the better of him and he genuinely regrets what happened?
The answer of course lies in a media induced moral panic which claims that there is no right and wrong UNLESS you have sexual feelings for a child and/or act aggressively towards them. Mud sticks and if you say the word "paedophile" there is a strong emotional reaction based around it and it doesn't wash off. Just ask the people who have been mistaken for paedophiles in an area and been hounded and abused. If you can get onto List 99 by stumbling across a horrible website, how easy will it be to just mention the word paedophile in the same sentence as someone's name and then they will be tarred for life?
I work with young people who may have done some stupid things in their short lives. They may well have punched someone under 18 or spat at them. For this they can get Schedule One Status, a criminal conviction that they can never get rid of and they will never be allowed to work with children or young people because of that conviction for the rest of their lives. Admittedly, fighting or however the offence is committed is not nice but we all make mistakes. Some of us have good reasons for making mistakes. Same applies to paedophiles. Some desperately want help, some will never commit an offence. They are poor mixed up people with troubled lives who need support and the opportunity to be forgiven.
I'm not offering answers because the answer will be different for every individual in different situations but a judgemental attitude and a climate of fear is never the best way to deal with people with issues. We need to sort out this witch hunt mentality first which in my mind is more sinister and dangerous than most of the sad individuals on List 99. We need to support people in a position of power who are able to give second chances to individuals who might *gasp* be able to change. I'm guessing that as Christians we need to love the unlovables, just as Jesus did. What do you think?
posted by Helsalata @ 10:02 am
5 comments
5 Comments:
Difficult one. I agree the media frenzy is horrible, and no doubt unjustified. I agree that each case is different, and we rank and file citizens will never know the facts. If we had the stats. which we don't, I reckon more offences occur each year by people not on the list, than by people on the list. I wish I knew an answer. Good blog H.
The situation here is reminiscent of OT health laws. How many “lepers” were wrongly diagnosed and cast out by a relatively crude artifact that cut out the “canker” at the expense of a few miscarriages of justice, but nevertheless suppressed the spread of disease in primitive societies? And so it is with a host of tools we use in this world; from the weapons that cause collateral damage (plenty that in Joshua), to the legislation that by its very nature is unable to make fine distinctions about inner motives, to the telephone directory of which you will only ever use a few names, to the computer in front of me that searches through a myriad options in search of one. (My obsession with probability, search engines and the like is not just an intellectual game as some try to make it out to be)
To catch all you sometimes have to catch too many. And at other times when the effects of the tool are particularly severe one is forced to catch too few. This seems to be an innate feature of our world that is difficult to dispose of. “We see in part” said St Paul indicating the informational censuring this world often imposes on us. The irrational religious passions that motivated stonings and shouts of “unclean, unclean”, are not unlike today’s baying against the sex offenders. But somewhere in a messy graded world an almost arbitrary cutoff has to be placed. Hence the taboo. But taboos have a role and are not unlike the person who suspects his food is soiled and casts it aside in disgust and declares it unclean. Better safe than sorry. But often taboos are operated without any self-awareness or self-criticism whatsoever. And it is here that your comments are welcome. “For a single rose a field of thorns was spared” goes Jewish saying that well conveys the bluntness of the processes of this world. Perhaps your compassionate insights are a rose in this particular field of thorns.
15/1/2006
Hey mate
You mentioned "what happened if he just stumbled upon it".
My understanding is that this was a payable site that required a credit card authorisation and hence traceability.
The media's handling of this really has no care or bias for childrens welfare but more about getting a good political scalping.
I was aware as I was writing that it would be unlikely that he "just stumbled across it". However when porno sites seem to advertise "barely legal" and the like which are trying to ellude to a grey area of "is she or isn't she?", could you actually say with any certainty the age of any participants? And isn't it the case that you have to enter credit card details for whatever?
It reminds me of an 11 year old I know of who was encouraged to type "naked women" into Google. The resultant search and subsequent clicks downloaded cookies and trojans onto the computer. Silly and yet just a part of a natural curiosity.
The trouble with pornography is that if it's in the adult arena it is a question of taste. If they want to harm themsleves in that way, if they want to do that, if they want to be treated like that, then they are old enough to make their own decisions. If people are saying that a desire to view child pornography is the first step in an inevitable series of steps that lead to actual offences against a minor (as opposed to "just" the viewing of abuse) then why is it not the same for other users of pornography? I cannot believe that these sad individuals are the only ones who get caught in a world of deviance and self loathing. What is to say that when the adult world of pornography has been plumeted, then steps into other taboo areas will provide the next thrill?
I like the idea of the catch all that catches too many but for the unfortunate individuals who have judgement heaped upon them, it just isn't fair. I guess the system needs to be this way- I can't think of an alternative but I look forward to a time when we can take the emotion out of discussing this and not make pantomime villians out of people who are ill or disturbed. Just as lepers, homosexuals and "witches" were in times gone by.
You like the ‘the catch all that catches too many’? Well, yes and no I suppose. No, because as you point out great injustice may be entailed. Yes, because the underlying principles here probably also govern our minds and even the physics of our world. To dump these principles in their entirety is to dump our world. To dump our world is to dump its inhabitants. To dump its inhabitants is to dump us!.
Well, having steered this thread toward physics I now feel at home in your blog. Do you have any other physics orientated topics up your sleeve? For example, like cooking, cats and crocheting?
16/1/2006
Post a Comment
<< Home