So when is a paedophile not a paedophile?

Before age 13 : a paedophile.

After age 13 : not a paedophile.

Is that it?

ian wrote on May 13^th, 2014 at 12:02pm:


Exactly.

Not bothering to keep within the boundaries that society demands of its members.

One thing that's noticeable about religious sects is that it's often the case that these boundaries are abandoned, and sexual relations between the adults and the children is encouraged.

It's all a matter of social ethics.

This week's 4Corners program shows that in Pakistan 1 in 4 boys gets sexually abused by adults as a matter cultural norm.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 13^th, 2014 at 11:43am:

I absolutely agree with everything you say there.

But I also believe that issues of child sex abuse go beyond a mere application of the law and that society needs to discuss these issues and give their opinions so we can change our approaches and responses.

Would I alter the law such that it didn't require such a high burden of proof? No, I would not.

But at the same time I am conscious of the fact that if people had rushed to judgement at least personally on this a little bit sooner perhaps there wouldn't have been so many victims. (This is a general statement, not on this specific case.) With children speaking up about crimes there is an intervening act of judgement: that is, an adult making a decision as to whether or not to take the child to report it to the police. Moreover, in some cases, adults know of something without a child even speaking up.

Whilst we need to make sure that we don't condemn people without proof, we also need to learn how to make the correct judgements as a society and as individuals about when to act, when to speak up, when to push the law to pursue a matter. I think we need to start asking ourselves another question as well, which is at what point it is better to act out of protection and prevention, even if wrong.

What I'm getting at here is that I don't think the issue of crimes against children is solely a legal one.

Yes - it is one thing to rush to judgement and another to make inquiries to ascertain further details, and even to advise someone in a position to do so.

That last seems to be a failing here - and in the case I cited above of family members, I am equally guilty in not doing that as a matter of course.

At least the public outcry and outing of such things, regardless of the outcomes legally, brings the attention of the many to it and shows that it is unacceptable behaviour here.

I was going to watch that thing on Pakistan, but I hate seeing things like that involving young children... turn away from the news at child abuse and murder reports etc....

The world is crumbling around us.
I'm not so blinkered that I don't realise that such unacceptable behaviour has gone on since the beginning of time. I was going to say "deviant" or "aberrant", but I'm not sure either of those desciptions apply to the wide spectrum of human behaviour. Look at the child brides in various cultures.

However unacceptable to OUR standards it certainly is and we become increasingly aware of it in this 24/7 society.
It is especially disturbing when it comes from people who have previously been looked up to in our society.
And it has that awful result for everybody in a "lock up your children" attitude. Gone are the days when the kids could be allowed to play in the streets after school and just come home for dinner. This to me is one of the worst aspects of it. It doesn't just damage to children involved ("just" is a weak word), it damages the life of all children.

And I doubt anything will stop it.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 13^th, 2014 at 12:51pm:

I think the issues here is that of profiling.

Profiling is dangerous because it can mean we falsely label people, but at the same time it can be a valuable component in protecting ourselves and others. Particularly in the case of children we have to prevent putting them in dangerous situations because once they're in them, unlike adults, they can't really get out of them or look after themselves. They're reliant on our judgement not putting them there.

I think sometimes this issue of profiling gets conflated between what we would decide in our own circumstances and a legal sense. Which is what I was partially guilty of in my initial statement that you pointed out to me.

I certainly wouldn't condemn Harris to any sort of punishment without proof. But would I let my children (if I had any) anywhere near him? No, I wouldn't, and that's regardless of any outcome of the trial. Is that wrong? I don't think it is, because it's a question of risk and "better to be safe than sorry".

I'll contrast this to a male accused of rape. Would I hang out with him? I might well do that. The distinction being that I'm responsible for myself and more able to make decisions to protect myself if something goes wrong. And if something does go wrong, I have more capacity at my disposal to deal with it. I would therefore not be as inclined to rush to any sort of judgement.

The flipside to this is, of course, whether we take this too far and become paranoid to the extent that we end up removing positive role models from children's lives. 

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 13^th, 2014 at 12:54pm:

Love Geoffrey Robertson. I've read all his books, seen all his hypotheticals etc etc. You're right about that one - I'd forgotten it existed.