Why we’re standing up for Dennis Ferguson
|
You may have seen Brett Collins on the evening news of late. He’s the bloke who’s been standing outside Dennis Ferguson’s house defending the convicted pedophile’s right to stay in his apartment in the North Sydney suburb of Ryde. Today he tells Crikey why. The State Government’s legislative solution to dealing with Dennis Ferguson demonstrates a spectacular dearth of leadership. Instead of trying to deal permanently with the problem, which will recur not only with Ferguson but other child sex offenders released from prison, all they want is the media to go away. Changing the law to deal with the immediate problem is playing straight into the hands of vigilantism and the sensational media outlets which have capitalized on the coffin and other media stunts which have given them centre stage in the debate. There are many considered Ryde residents who are lending support to Ferguson, who abhor and feel ashamed of their vigilante neighbours. Yet their comments are not sought because it doesn’t feed the frenzied controversy. Justice Action became involved in this issue because we see it as the pointy end of a much larger problem. By whipping up hatred about child sex offenders, it’s easier then to cross the line to hating other offenders who have served their time and are trying to move on with their lives. We believe Justice Action represents the views of hundreds of thousands of Australians who are appalled and embarrassed by this medieval lynch mob mentality happening in our midst. We have received hundreds of emails of support from around the country. This issue is not going to go away. It is, in fact, providing a global stage for an issue we, as a society, are in denial about. The whole world is watching what happens here and will take its cue from it. Monstering pedophiles who offend against children unknown to them deflects focus from the real problem. Intra-familial abuse accounts for 90-95 percent of child sexual abuse and yet Federal and State governments bury their heads in the sand when it comes to protecting children, or even investigating child sex offences within the family. Justice Action is calling for a comprehensive public health response to child sexual abuse, which will address this issue. Police involvement as a first step, deters families from dealing with the issue. A community public health treatment response is the only one which has achieved efficacy. Community run child sex offender treatment programs have the best recidivism rates in the world. Illustrating where we stand as a society, is the fact that the program with the best rate in Australia, of 2 percent, was defunded this year. Refusing this service to families desperately seeking it, would be like refusing to implement AIDS prevention education and policies and expecting to deal effectively with HIV. Dennis Ferguson may look like a child sex offender from central casting, but in reality, most offenders look like the person sitting in the next office or living in the house next door. They are not, unlike Ferguson, vision impaired with a facial tic. Ferguson is being targeted, partly because of his disability. Where else have you seen such hostility towards a child sex offender? Yet to his great credit, his actions are being informed by his desire to make a difference for other families and people going through similar problems. The stigma attached to this crime is worse than that associated with murder. Nobody knows that better than Dennis Ferguson. This has to say something about our denial that one in four girls and one in seven boys will be sexually abused, 90 percent by somebody known to them, before they turn eighteen. If this was any other public health plague, we would be throwing all our resources at it, not targeting one carrier who brought it into the community 22 years ago. Those in the community who are appalled by this uneducated response need to stand up, be counted and force the government to show leadership and responsibility by doing far more than bringing in a Dennis Ferguson Law. |
|
|
|
88 Comments
This is an excellent article, and one that I think sums up the feelings of the majority of the community. Most people will acknowledge that Ferguson has to live somewhere.
I have written more on this on my blog http://www.civiltonguesaustralia.com/, but if we continue legislating harsher and harsher penalties against sex offenders we will end up with more injustice, not less.
In America there are 12 year old children with their names and faces on publically available (for life) on sex offender registers http://www.civiltonguesaustralia.com/2009/09/23/the-faces-sex-offenders-in-america/, and people who most of us wouldn’t even consider sex offenders are regularly run out of town or publically exposed.
As a Ryde resident living very close to where Mr Ferguson has been harassed, I am incensed by the antics of all of the press, especially the ABC, and my fellow Ryde neighbours. Thank you Mr Collins for your very sensible and well argued article.
Yes criminals of all types do need to live somewhere but I find it a bit rich to comment disdainfully about people’s reactions when they wake up and find that a convicted peadophile has been situated near children. I cannot see how I would react much differently if I had kids.
It seems like the ultimate N.I.M.B.Y. arguement
I believe the author was asked by one of the “medieval lynch mob” why he doesn’t have Mr Ferguson move in with him and his family, he didn’t reply. I dont think the article addressed this. I believe this is the most relevant point the author could make.
I ask the same question of anybody in relation to this problem. Would you put them up for a few nights?
I see it like the Michael Jackson conversation.
1st person: Michael was great, he wasn’t found guilty, leave him alone.
2nd person: Would you let him babysit your kids?
1st person:oh well…..
It’s a good article and raises some intelligent points. Like the Bill Henson controversy, the more effort that goes into focussing on one person who’s more than likely causing no harm does a lot of damage in avoiding awareness of harms that are actually occurring and should be prevented. The problem with this article is that Dennis Ferguson has done his (and his supporters) cause a great deal of harm with this week’s revelation that he has recently been in contact with a former partner-in-paedophilia, breaching various conditions which were imposed on him and leading to some reasonable doubts about the claims that he’s reformed. These situations will always be messy but certainly the media have not exactly helped this one along.
Amy, most of your response is irrelevant to the matter at hand.
What may or may not happen in America is not the issue here. What you and Collins appear to ignore is the genuine concern of parents and (dare I say it) law-abiding citizens in general.
There is no doubt that the Ferguson case has been exacerbated by the media. However, I’ve never seen anyone in Crikey complain when the SMH campaigns on behalf of inner-Sydney NIMBYs, so that particular element can be taken out of the equation.
There is a real feeling that successive governments have placed the interests of small pressure groups ahead of those of the populace as a whole. To some degree, this is a matter of perception, but in many cases (eg, the constant rolling out of crime statistics that purport to show that crime levels are falling), common sense tells Joe and Josephine Blow that their interests are simply being ignored by government and the public service.
How are they expected to think any differently when a government agency places a convicted paedophile in their community? This is not a matter of “Ferguson has to live somewhere”, but “why does he have to live next to me?”. This attitude is like that displayed by latte-sippers who campaign against high-rise or new train lines in their suburbs, with only one difference: the latte sippers are motivated by fears about their property values; the parents of Ryde are concerned about the safety of their children. Demonising them simply reinforces their feelings of alienation.
I’ve never been interfered with by a paedophile, but I’ve lost money in corporate scams. I was hoping the Ferguson precedent would mean that the next focus might fall on convicted company directors once they are released from jail- I certainly don’t want them living near me in Double Bay.
The media has been shameful in their stirring up the lynch mentality over this man with even the ABC entering the fray. Where do you start with the disgusting way politicians have pandered to the simple minded and have lacked the intestinal fortitude to stand up for Dennis Ferguson’s rights because they are more concerned about keeping their snouts in the trough and consider the low life they are supporting as potential votes. As a Queenslander I have watched Ferguson’s right being jettisoned as town after town has been allowed to run him out of town even though the law was on his side.
I have no qualms in saying that I support Dennis Ferguson’s right to be left alone.
Congratulations Brett. But u are opening a Pandora’s box. That 90% figure u quote is the giveaway. Put it next to the broad demographic for subscribers to online child sex sites and who will cast the first stone? The community run treatment programs are a good beginning and must be vigorously lobbied for. Though i wonder whether it is not the fabric of society itself that is under question.
Continuing the MJ babysit conversation Heathdon, no, but not because of the court case. I wouldn’t want someone who held his child over an apartment balcony to babysit.
Re the article, if it were *race* in question, it would probably fall under inciting racial vilification/hatred laws…
Quite a sensible, well thought out article.
I don’t think that the take home message here is that the treatment of Mr Ferguson is inappropriate, even if it might be.
The important thing is that children are being abused far more often by people in their own family. This will have long and far reaching effects upon these children, and as Mr Collins points out it can be thought of as a public health disaster that has been ignored by all and sundry. Mr Ferguson is only in the public’s eye because he is identifable, not because he is important. It is about time we worried about what is important, and I certainly would applaud any attempts at addressing this problem. To ignore that it happens is almost as bad as commiting the act itself.
Dennis, you’re right for the wrong reasons.
Ferguson has a right to a home, not because his crimes are less than other offenders, not because he’s a scapegoat for intra-family offenders, not because he has done his time, not because he has been rehabilitated, and not because of anything else about him.
Ferguson has a right to a home because. For the same reason you or I have a right to a home. Whether or not he was framed in the first place, whether practicing paedophiles ever rehabilitate or just learn to camouflage better, has got nothing to do with it.
If a convicted person is a danger to society, then court sentencing, treatment orders, and parole conditions, are the right way to deal with this. If they didn’t deal with it, then any change to the law should be done through those mechanisms.
For a government to let the media herd them into knee-jerk, special-case solutions is all too common in NSW. We had enough of that with Bob “I’ll show them” Carr.
If the law fails to protect children then it needs to be reviewed properly. If there is one man the government is worried about, it’s too late to change the law for him, if you want him to move you’ll have to bribe him.
Sorry, I mean Brett not Dennis
I agree with the content of this article and the actions taken by Justice Action.
I speak as an adult survivor of family sexual abuse [edited]
We need to protect ALL of the children from abusers, not just the abusers who fit the visual representation of the ‘pervert’ that the tabloid media present to us.
Educating people about all of the occurences of abuse and the likely causes and preventative measures that we as individuals and society can take is the best and most effective way to address this hideous crime.
With regard to Mr Ferguson, at least the people in the neighbourhood he WAS living in knew who he was and where he lived. That allows them to avoid him.
I bet they have no idea which members of their family are likely to want to sexually assault them and steal their childhoods from them.
Malcolm Grant
(Yes I am happy to publish my name)
Heathdon McGregor I don’t think the question is whether Mr Collins should invite Mr Ferguson to live with him but where Mr Ferguson wishes to live. And I would think in his own place just as you and me and everyone else want to live in our own home.
Great article.
Since when was public policy created by a bunch of bogans hanging outside a man’s house with a noose?
I think Premier Rees has underestimated the backlash from “normal” people on this issue.
@MTATS
Since shock jocks started making policy on their morning shows
Since politicians ran their elections based on law and order platforms
This is a well thought out piece and the mob mentality has started to get out of control. The fact that he is a convicted paedophile should and will always concern people though. How can one say that he is rehabilitated? Isn’t paedophilia a sexual orientation towards children? It’s like saying a gay man can be made un-gay…I don’t think a paedophile can simply do their time.
The quote: “This has to say something about our denial that one in four girls and one in seven boys will be sexually abused, 90 percent by somebody known to them, before they turn eighteen. If this was any other public health plague, we would be throwing all our resources at it, not targeting one carrier who brought it into the community 22 years ago.” really says it all.
If only we could channel the energy of all these vigilantes into doing something positive and constructive about the REAL problems of child abuse we would be a lot better off. Sadly the mainstream media seem to like fuelling the useless focus on this one man.
I think it’s a little disingenuous to be so outraged by community reactions to this man. Sensationalised media and redneck vigilantes aside, I do not find it in the least surprising that people do not want him living in their neighbourhood.
He has committed horrific crimes against children, he was caught, convicted, imprisoned and released. Then he did it again. Rightly or wrongly, public perception is that he is at high risk of repeating this behaviour and there would be something wrong with a society that didn’t act to deal with this perceived threat to its most vulnerable members.
I understand that he has some rights that should not be taken away, but rights are not something anyone has in isolation, we all have responsibilities that go with them. When Ferguson chose to abuse children – repeatedly – he made a choice that the vast majority of people find utterly abhorrent, this is a consequence he has to live with. How does it help him, or anyone else, to say that he shouldn’t have to? The consequences for criminal behaviour are not just legal; they are social, emotional, professional and financial. This is true for all of us, why should it not be true for him?
Finally, I think it is also disingenuous to suggest that “monstering paedophiles who offend against children unknown to them deflects focus from the real problem” as if men like Ferguson and Dolly Dunn are NOT a real problem – they most certainly are.
It is tragically true that many children are abused by people who know them, and teaching children and parents how to recognise and avoid these threats is absolutely something we should be doing, but this does NOT mean that we should ignore the threat of men like Ferguson, or allow him to become a danger to anyone else, in the name of protecting his rights.
Like all contributors here, I’m angered by the mentality of the media, politicians etc. The man has to live somewhere. I know who the worst sexual predators are. I was a victim of sexual molestation by a man who was in a position of trust by my parents. I was only 12 at the time. I’m glad to say that I broke up the relationship of this man and a family member - I was only 13 then. I was made aware in latter years that another trusted male was not to be trusted, and had my older sister to thank for protecting me. Two men, well and truly old enough to be my father? Neither were brought to justice! I abhor any form of violence, sexual or any other kind against kids, but if we make laws on the behaviour of those in the community who are ignorant and seek vengence, then the whole society will crumble. I’d like to know what the main male ‘trouble makers’ are like behind closed doors. Their demeanour made me feel most uncomfortable for their ‘loved ones’?
The legislation passed by the NSW govt is diabolical, and does not deal with the prevelance of child sexual assault, nor does it add constructive thought or positive resolution. That’s the discussion we should be having, and it should flow on to the lack of foresight or worse of a legal system that gives Judges the right to send abused kids back to the abuser. The Howard govt aggravated the situation by its 50/50 access legislation.
Finally, the media should wake up to themselves. If those who use the most base instincts of people to sell sensationalised front page garbage, they deserve condemnation from the general public. The ABC should cease its grotty coverage of this story too. I expect a higher standard from them, as opposed to the Daily Telegraph, that for too many years, has never let high standards of journalism interfere with their smutty agenda! They don’t give a s*** about protecting kids! It’s time they were told! I wish people would stop buying their filthy rag!
Mr Collins you are right for all the wrong reasons.
Ferguson is entitled to a home because he is protected by the law, just like the rest of us. No more and no less.
You talk about roving child molesters being less of a threat than incest abusers. That’s beside the point.
You digress about paedophile rehabilitation, perhaps covering the fact that Ferguson refused the treatment program in prison, but anyway that’s beside the point.
You talk about him having a disability. People have rights whether they are disabled or not.
You talk about Ferguson as a hero making a stand for others. What has that got to do with a person’s right to a home.
Ferguson is entitled to a home because this society considers it a right, and laws reflect that right, and you can’t just trample that right because of a media frenzy.
But don’t try to turn this into something different, about Ferguson the misunderstood hero.
Mr Collins you are right for all the wrong reasons.
Ferguson is entitled to a home because he is protected by the law, just like the rest of us. No more and no less.
You talk about roving child m*lesters being less of a threat than inc*st abusers. That’s beside the point.
You digress about p*edophile rehabilitation, perhaps covering the fact that Ferguson never agreed to do the treatment program in prison, but anyway that’s beside the point.
You talk about him having a disability. People have rights whether they have disabilities or not.
You talk about Ferguson as a hero making a stand for others. What has that got to do with a person’s right to a home?
Ferguson is entitled to a home because this society considers it a right, and our laws reflect that right, and you can’t just trample that right because of a media frenzy, no matter if the media frenzy is fair or not.
But don’t try to turn this into something different, about Ferguson the misunderstood hero.
And Amy: “an excellent article, and one that I think sums up the feelings of the majority of the community”.
Don’t ever presume to speak for me or for the “majority”. Speak for yourself.
What do think the response will be when Orkopolous is released? Funny nobody mentions the former NSW Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, a portfolio riven with child sex offenses.
Good sensible rational comment. The same could be said re press reaction to the comments by the Scotish Justice minister. “we are a nation of justice, but we are also a nation of compassion”,or the irrational preocupation with “Balibo”
The press are forever in a frenzy of revenge seeking comment. What does this? Are we locked into an old testiment mind set? “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” Is this revenge seeking culture in the media unique to the west? Considering the cultural experience the nations of south east asia have recieved from the west over centuries some level of bitterness would be expected under our rules, yet we are welcomed everywhere. we can learn from this.
Kieran Fitzgerald
John Hunt: “The important thing is that children are being abused far more often by people in their own family.”
No, the important thing is whether some kinds of leopard ever change their spots, and whether they should ever be given the benefit of the doubt. The question applies no matter if the mol*ster is a parent, an “honorary uncle”, or a roving predator.
The law has once again failed to protect children from a proven mol*ster. Therefore Ferguson has the same right to a home that onlyone not serving a prison sentence is entitled to.
But people writing here are turning this into a very different question, about Ferguson being some kind of noble scapegoat for evil parents.
Nothing in the article explains why Justice Action are doing what they are doing.
This man was found guilty of an unforgiveable offence.
It is a basic fact that child abusers as a category are extremely likely to reoffend.
People have the right to know about, and to object to, a person guilty of such an offence living in their neighbourhood. That this inconveniences the guilty person is of little importance in the scale of things.
It is not punishing someone who has served his time. He has been allowed out of prison. Continuing controls are merely risk reduction. They are sensible in a case such as this. Just as convicted criminals are restricted permanently from taking up some occupations or positions of trust.
He has apparently been given public housing to live in. Why should other public housing tenants have to live next to him? Is this not an unreasonable demand to make of them? What of their rights? Are public housing estates to be the dumping ground for the worst of criminals?
I frankly don’t care where he ends up, as long as he is closely monitored and not allowed access to children.
Heathdon McGregor: you’re repeating a trash mag. rumour to back up your point?….give us a break.
You should read the Jackson case before making any further comments about the man.
No doubting Brett Collins sincerity, capacity as an ngo advocate and sheer guts. And Crikey for running the piece too.
One serious omission is Ferguson linking up with his co- convicted, said to be an illegal approach via Centrelink programme. That suggests a disregard for the law he seeks to rely on.
I agree the point about refusing treatment, if true, is also damning.
So the real issue is a rational risk assessment.
For those who aren’t living nearby I think the point about where the real risk lies and red herring from the real statistics about inter family abuse is relevant and is well made. Sunday before last at page 6 in Sydney press was the story of a fireman unnamed, on the south coast of NSW, convicted for raping and selling photographs of abuse of his own children. Sentenced to non parole to 2023 or something. Police were concerned the jury didn’t jump the rail and attack the evil doer. Unknown to his horrified wife. A seriously confronting and alarming story which worried me alot more than Ferguson though admittedly both at a distance.
Another dimension to all this too I think is that NSW is handling the Qld hot potato and quite possibly during their election cycle, and I wonder does NSW ALP expect the same co-operation from other ALP states closer to March 2011 for the controversial NSW sex offenders? Is this too cynical, or rather is it possible to be too cynical?
After all when Kaiser MP hit the skids for fraud up in Qld, a totally unrelated illegality, he moved south and worked in … the NSW Premier’s office. The big parties are like that moving their assets around and their problems too.
“The whole world is watching what happens here and will take its cue from it.”
Sorry pal, but it’s a local news story being beat-up around Oz. Nothing more.
Why are so many people trying the relativize the crime of raping other people’s children as compared to the crime of raping one’s own children?
There is a widespread suspicion that men who beat up homosexuals do so as a means of implicitly denying their own sexual tendencies in that direction which they fear others might notice. They cannot simply state “I am definitely not a homosexual” because that would draw unwanted attention to the possibility that they are in fact gay so they form gangs and bash men near toilet blocks.
Call me cynical but I think that a similar explanation may explain the behaviour of the Ryde vigilantes and other righteous persons, that they must act out exaggerated hate of child molesters because they fear others may notice their tendencies in that direction. When the witch hunt is on, the safest place for a witch is in the front rank of the villages with a torch in one hand, a pitchfork in the other and shouting “Burn The Witch”.
Good try, THEEVILONE. But all the similarities are superficial.
When men bash gays, who are they trying to protect? There is no one to protect from gay people, except the bashers themselves, against having to face homosexuals. Why would facing homosexuals be a problem? Well, the commonly-cited theory is the most plausible to me, although some solid evidence would be welcome.
When people lynch child molesters, who are they trying to protect? I’ll leave that question as an exercise for the class.
So the NSW Government will pass a law in response to the Dennis Ferguson fuss and then kick him out of Ryde, but what after that?
Will there be a community anywhere were a significant proportion of the righteous won’t demand that Ferguson be forbidden to live there?
Having caved into the noisy people from Ryde how will the Government justify failing to do the same for the protesters elsewhere? Or is there going to be a complete ban on him living in any government housing?
Will the new law stop Ferguson from renting non-government owned property or will they rely on land lords and agents discriminating individually?
Australian’s are so lucky that we don’t have a bill of rights, otherwise such wise and sensible laws would not be possible.
I am eagerly awaiting the first shout of “POLITICALLY CORRECT” from some righteous person directed at those of us that think the government’s action is absurd, crazy, discriminatory and unwise. Bigots never come out and say straight out that human rights are bad idea because the foolish extend them to members of species homo sapiens who are not human in the sense of being entitled to them such as Blacks, poor people, the indigenous, dissidents whose oppose the rightful government including by voting the wrong way, certain criminals and people whose interests if respected are inhibit the interests of the powerful. Instead they use the accusation of political correctness as code for the same idea.
In Miami Florida there is a colony of sex offenders living under a bridge. Florida has passed laws restricting sex offenders from living within specified distances of schools, parks and bus stops where school children congregate. As a result the only place in Miami where these people can live is under a bridge. Now the righteous are becoming worried that these people are congregating in this place. In the US the most minor sex crimes are conflated with the most major, for example someone who urinates in public has the same residence restrictions and registration requirements as a multiple child rapist.
No doubt our enlightened state governments spurred by the worst of tabloid scare campaigns will pass additional laws forcing sex criminals to cluster in the North West corner of the state.
No, THEEVILONE, no one said “political correctness” and please don’t put words in people’s mouths.
Ferguson is entitled to a home. The government, before knee-jerking to a tabloid alarm, should consider Geoffrey Robertson’s words: “You do not uphold human rights by denying them to those you believe have abused them.” I don’t particularly like the fact that a many-times convicted child rapist is out of prison again. But he is out, his sentence is finished, so he has the same rights as the rest of us, whether we like it or not.
But Mr Collins and many bloggers here are not arguing on those grounds. They are arguing on the grounds that Ferguson is really a misunderstood nice guy, a bit of a hero even, and that in relative terms he’s not much of a threat. That’s not political correctness, that’s blowing a raspberry in the face of anyone who loves children.
Righteous people do not accept the proposition that child molesters can choose not to do so. One of the reasons they are uncomfortable with this idea is that it makes the distance between themselves and reviled pedophiles to close, if child molesters can avoid recidivism perhaps ordinary people can suddenly convert in the opposite direction.
James.
You are correct, no one on this thread has used the term “politically correct” and this lack frustrated me to some extent, I would have preferred not to be the first to use the term. However this issue is a perfect opportunity to point out what the shout of “political correct” really means.
It means that there are people who forfeit their entitlement to human rights including the protection of the law for themselves and their property and the protection from arbitrary oppression by the law. When the previous federal government was extinguishing aboriginal native title rights as much as it could it used “politically correct” as code for saying that rights for Aboriginal subhumans are absurd despite the fact that Mabo and Wik decisions simply gave the indigines the right to own property which is the same right which National Party types view as sacred when they belong to themselves.
I am surprised that PC has not been used by someone on this forum supporting the Government’s action, maybe Crikey readers and posters are too sensible but I suspect checking the letters pages of the papers of the newspapers especially the tabloids for the next few days would yield a steady stream of clicks on the politically-correct-o-counter.
Pedophiles may be the absolutely last minority whose persecution is respectable. Burning heretics, hanging witches, gassing Jews, lynching Niggers and bashing gays are things that used to be considered to be OK but are now frowned upon, I wonder how many millenia will pass before protecting paedo, rock spider, nonces from the wrath of the righteous including respectable bank robbers and drug dealers becomes respectable.
JAMES MCDONALD - Who thinks Ferguson is a nice guy. I find him creepy, and what he did was repugnant to me, but he served his time in jail and has to live somewhere. I’m curious as to why the NSW govt agreed to him living here anyway? Just a point of interest, that’s all. Incidently, I love kids, and have removed kids from danger in the past - not sexual but physical, and stood my ground even when I was accused of ‘being emotionally involved’? It’s beyond my comprehension that people can sexually assault a child, or physically too for that matter.
As a community, I don’t think we’re doing a very good job protecting kids in NSW; and probably the other states too. Too many are abused and too many are killed. We don’t even have strong laws and policing to protect kids from drowning in backyard pools - don’t care, won’t strengthen the laws! My local council has announced introducing a fee for entry to swimming pools - instead of promoting (free)learn to swim classes for all kids? Most depressing!
THEEVILONE - I want Australia to have a Bill of Rights, as it would hopefully support the rights of mothers to refuse to allow their child to be abused every second weekend or ?? by their fathers/stepfathers or whoever. They don’t seem to have many rights at the moment from the reports of the travesties coming out of the Family Law Court!
Neil Summers : I agree but my point is that it is a bit rough attacking the reaction of the people who are suddenly thrust into his orbit.
Kevin Herbert: I am repeating the conversation that I have had with a few Jackson fans since his passing. I specifically did not draw any conclusion other than the fan may not be comfortable with Jackson babysitting their children.
My comment on jackson is and has been that he was a magnificent entertainer who was questionable in his private life. I don’t know what he did or didn’t do but that isn’t my point.
My point is that it is easy to demonise peoples reactions from afar, but not really fair.
You’re one to criticise anyone else for putting words into people’s mouths, James. You’re the one who criticised everyone else for “putting him up as a hero”, when I’m pretty sure no-one did any such thing.
Fair enough Joal and Liz. My main problem was with Brett Collins saying “Yet to his great credit, his actions are being informed by his desire to make a difference for other families and people going through similar problems.” Others didn’t go that far, but they try to portray roving s*xual predators as a lesser evil than other evils, and THEEVILONE compares p*edophiles (both c*libate and predatory) to church heretics, Jews, and other martyred victims of prejudice.
(Sorry, having a bit of trouble with the word filter here. That’s why a lot of my posts end up repeating themselves.)
I’m having some real trouble with the word filter here. When did Jay-E-Doubleyou become a swear word?
Fair enough Joal and Liz. My main problem was with Brett Collins saying “Yet to his great credit, his actions are being informed by his desire to make a difference for other families and people going through similar problems.” Others didn’t go that far, but they try to portray roving s*xual pr*dators as either a lesser *vil, or a lesser threat. THEEVILONE, who is starting to sound more and more like a N.A.M.B.L.A. campaigner, compares pers*cution of p*edophiles (both c*libate and pr*datory) to that of chu*ch h*retics, J*ws, and other ma*tyred victims of prejudice. Jean is more concerned about white-collar criminals taking her money. It’s not all relative, you people. To condemn one doesn’t mean to forgive the other.
For those so intent on saving children, I hope their energies are also directed towards the proliferation of motor vehicles and high speed limits, given that cars are the leading cause of death and maiming of children in Australia, far outstripping pedophiles in physical damage and trauma. If rampaging vigilantes need to vilify someone, I hope they will turn their attentions to school zones and dangerous driving. I mean, let’s have a little bit of consistency here, even if it’s inconvenient.
Certainly when I take my little boy out, I am far more afraid of drivers using mobiles than I ever will be of pedophiles.
James - methinks you protest too much. This debate was never going to be as cut and dried as you wanted as it is too emotive an issue and contains too many aspects and realities that people simply dont like talking about.
For me, the real debate here is not that Ferguson deserves the right to a home, but whether Ferguson deserves the right to be part of the community. Personally, I believe all pedophiles, rapists and murders dont deserve to be considered part of society. They have crossed a line which is well known and understood and their punishment should reflect this. One solution is capital punishment. However, I believe no-one has the right to take the life of another, not even the state, so the only other solution is incarceration with no parole. Lock em up up and throw away the key, that way they can never harm or endanger others ever again, and will serve as a example to any whose thoughts run to contemplate these evil deeds.
The most frustrating aspect of this debate was that the media has not taken the opportunity to warn of where the real dangers to children lie, in the home and with close family friends. I was a victim of sexual abuse [edited] The monster that did this to us has been a swimming coach for years now, in constant contact with kids, and I fear every day for these children and for the children and grand-children this monster has fathered.
There are a lot more pedophiles in our society than we care to contemplate. It is guaranteed that in the front row of every vigilante crowd that has chased Ferguson out of town in QLD and NSW has been people that abuse their kids. And it is not just men. While a smaller percentage, their is a hard-core band of female pedophiles out there. [edited]
This is an issue that needs a much broader debate and I hope it will not disappear as quickly as it arrived.
Jasmes.
“Pedophiles both celebite and predatory”. Isn’t celibite pedophile a contradiction in terms? By definition a pedophile sexually molests children. What matters is what people actually do, not what they may think of doing.
When humans react to different potential dangers there is a disconnect between the true probability of harms from different sources and the intensity of actions to head them off. For example terrorism. The actual probability for any person of him being killed or injured by terrorist action is extremely low and we would not if we were rational respond as we have done in the “war on terror panic”. Even the September 11 airlinerings that killed almost 3,000 and must rank as the most specularly successful terrorist action yet carried out are pale in comparison to other threats about which we choose to do nothing. For example lack of access to health care kills over 40,000 per year in the USA and the legitimate non-terrorist war in Iraq has already killed over a million Iraquis and displaced 4 million.
Stranger danger pedophiles like DF exist, but they are few compared to the intra family pedophiles who account for the 1 in 4 girls and the 1 in 7 boys. It seems to me that one of the motives for the concentration on the likes of DF is an attempt to distract attention from what goes on in families deemed respectable. There is also a corresponding tendency to equate pedophilia with homosexual pedophilia and to distract from the fact that most abuses are by males on young females.
Moderator.
This is not for publication but I would appreciate a reply via email.
One of my replies to James MacDonald has disappeared from the awaiting moderation queue but not appeared in the published queue. If it has failed moderation could I request some feedback on how to edit it to pass.
Regads, TheEvilOne.
Hi THEEVILONE, we are labouring under a word filter that blocks every second word in this topic. Try inserting asterisks into any words like p*edophile, mol*st, kid*ie, p*rn, j*w, r*pe, and so on.
Asdusty, if I “protest too much” I apologize that I repeated a lot of posts trying to get through the word filter, and those blocked posts were later moderated into the thread. So I sound like I’m ranting.
You say “It is guaranteed that in the front row of every vigilante crowd that has chased Ferguson out of town in QLD and NSW has been people that abuse their kids.” Actually you would be surprised at the effectiveness of public lobbying by peodophile support groups. A common argument is that man-child love in modern times follows in the footsteps of church heretics and marginalized minorities of yesteryear.
Warwick Sauer, writing in today’s Comments in Crikey, has put it in 36 words better than I did in hundreds: “To succinctly summarise Brett Collins’ argument about Dennis Ferguson: ‘Statistically the majority of paedophiles are related to their victims. So, you should leave Dennis Ferguson alone, because he only molests randoms.’ Is this guy for real?”
Inkblot, you are right dangerous driving is terrible and the law should come down hard on it too. Thanks for the red herring. Justice does not have to be diluted just because there are other threats. Justice has to deal with one offender at a time. And it takes prosecutable cases wherever it can find them. Child abuse is special because it can start or perpetuate a cycle of abuse that spreads like a virus.
Just for the record, I absolutely do not question Brett Collins’ motives. Justice Action is an excellent organization with the potential to make us all safer and freer. But I believe Mr Collins has taken the wrong angle on this one. With a government as weak and impressionable as the current one, the current reaction could have dangerous side-effects.
And I repeat, Ferguson’s right to a home should be defended. As Geoffrey Robertson said: “You do not uphold human rights by denying them to those you believe have abused them.”
Thanks James.
Being TheEvilOne I like expressing truth in a way that leaves some ambiguity as to whether I am an insane troll or right wing mad man or simply being sarcastic. I will wait a while and see if the moderator replies or adds my posts after editing and then if not repost using the dreaded asterisk.
Note that a sensible word filter would count asterisks and automatically cancel posts when the count is too high.
Regards, TheEvilOne.
James.
This topic is one that actually requires the use of a lot of the banned words.
Asdusty, if I “protest too much” I apologize that I repeated a lot of posts trying to get through the word filter, and those blocked posts were later moderated into the thread. So I sound like I’m ranting.
You say “It is guaranteed that in the front row of every vig-ilante crowd that has chased Ferguson out of town in QLD and NSW has been people that abuse their kids.” Actually you would be surprised at the effectiveness of public lobbying by pedo-phile support groups. A common argument is that man-child love in modern times follows in the footsteps of ch*rch her-etics and marginalized minorities of yesteryear.
Warwick Sauer, writing in today’s Comments in Crikey, has put it in 36 words better than I did in hundreds. Check it out.
Inkblot you are right, dangerous driving is terrible and the law should come down hard on it too. That’s a red herring in the current discussion, or do you want to talk about hooping-cough inoculation too?. Justice does not have to be diluted just because there are other threats. It has to deal with one offender at a time, and it takes prosecutable cases wherever it can find them. Child a-buse is special because it can start or perpetuate a cycle of abuse that spreads like a vi-rus.
Just for the record, I absolutely do not question Brett Collins’ motives. Justice Action is an excellent, very enlightened organization with the potential to make us all safer and freer. I strongly commend most of their campaigns. But I believe Mr Collins has taken the wrong angle on this one. With a government as weak and desperate as the current one, misguided reactions could have dangerous side-effects.
And I repeat, Ferguson’s right to a home should be defended. As Geoffrey Robertson said: “You do not uphold human rights by denying them to those you believe have abused them.”
There, I’ve repeated myself again while editing out the bad words. Is there an echo in here?
Seems the moderators are a bit slow.
James, if you see my point as being a red herring, then evidently I need to perhaps spell it out. The current hysteria about pedophiles is out of proportion to their threat to children. Yes they are a threat, but they are not at the top of the list of dangers that destroy, maim, and ruin children. Even though you suggest it flippantly, yes, hooping cough was more of a concern to me when my child was an infant. There was no argument for diluting justice, and Dennis Ferguson has been subjected to it according to the law of this land.
I owe it to my child to restrain emotions and to yield to constructive debate to maximise the chance of obtaining a preventative solution. If the goal is preventative and to identify a risk and manage it, facilitating a way for those who harbour illegal thoughts to come forward without stigma and seek treatment/management is going to garner more positive results than screaming pedophiles underground, where the problem will fester, and then persecuting the end result once an offence has occurred. Vilification is counter-productive.
Come on moderators. Turn the d*mn filter off if you have to. I’m just waiting for someone to come right out and call me a wolf in sheeps’ clothing or whatever they’ve got in mind.
JAMES.
It seems to me that we need a method of talking to the moderator to discuss necessary edits when it might be perceived that the count of loaded words is too high.
((((There, I’ve repeated myself again while editing out the bad words. Is there an echo in here?))))
hehehehahaha…I just want you to know that I pulled a rib the other day…thanks!
Inkblot: Thank you for the reply. I withdraw my “red herring” statement and instead agree to disagree on the magnitude of the threat.
Numerous statistics are in print about the number of Australian children who suffer s*xual abuse from those more powerful than them. The rates vary, but are always higher than one in ten. Several survivors have already had the guts to speak out about it in this thread. [edited] Most survive, some break down and self-destruct, a few are murdered to destroy the evidence, and a few later choose to become predators themselves. American lawyer and child advocate Andrew Vachss call them the “Children of the Secret”.
There is nothing illegal about having paedophilic fantasies. The people that cause concern are those who act on them. Some are weak and give in to temptation, the worst are sociopaths or psychopaths who don’t care. The havoc they wreak can ripple outward for generations from a single act of r*pe. Even if the perpetrators were rare they would be far more dangerous than a drunk driver. They are not rare. The fact that most of their victims are their own children or their friends’ or relatives’ children rather than strangers’ children does not change the magnitude of the threat. The fact that the law sometimes deals lightly with them means that you really never know whether or not a known child m*lester is seeing your children every day.
Ferguson’s last conviction was for the planned r*pe of the children of a woman he befriended. I’ve spoken in defence of his rights on principle, but to depict him as the victim of a psychiatric condition and a misunderstanding mob is going too far.
When this debate is over, there are going to be several hundred paedophiles living in Ryde, +/- 1. There will also be drink drivers and climate change deniers, maybe even some tobacco and/or gambling industry lobbyists. Lots of people you’d really rather not have next door. None of them are as dangerous as someone prepared to throw away the rule of law.
The moderators are asleep at the wheel, I’ve had one test email with a innocuous use of one of the target words “awaiting moderation” since yesterday morning.
Guess using stars is the way to go.
@EvilOne: Celibate p*edoph*le might be one who accesses or possesses pron.
Ben you’re right, which is why I argued Nathan Rees has done exactly that and is in the wrong. But don’t be too dismissive of people who when all is said and done have one basic instinct that overrides almost all others, which is the protection of their young. All good laws, such as the US Declaration of Independence, are designed to work with the grain of human instinct not against it.
EvilOne, now that the moderator (praise to him) has posted your piece from 12:39, I can answer it.
“a disconnect between the true probability of harms from different sources and the intensity of actions to head them off”. I agree with you on terrorism, which is ingeniously calculated to push our buttons so we overreact. The last enlightened response to terrorism that I can remember was British PM John Major saying “I suggest we continue this meeting somewhere quieter” immediately after an IRA mortar hit his office in 1991.
With p*edophiles we underreact, because there is a well-financed industry advocating for them, such as the likes of Barns and Northey in Thursday’s Crikey, saying don’t worry we have sophisticated ways of assessing and managing them, and leading genuinely good, heroic people like Brett Collins down a garden path.
But child r*pe sets off chain reactions that eat our society like cancer. To quote former New York criminal defence attorney Andrew Vachss: “And while there is no one-to-one correlation, while most abused children do not turn predator as adults … although they do continue to abuse themselves in a variety of ways: drug addiction, alcoholism, suicide; and to be especially good candidates for being abused by others … I have never met a gratification-driven criminal who was not abused as a child.”
Why is a random predator like Ferguson more important than a parental predator? He isn’t. But he’s not less important either. He is a bit easier to identify because he’s not there in the house to terrorise his victims into silence every day. Criminal justice can only take down one offender at a time.
Maybe Ferguson can be a catalyst for new laws that would genuinely favour child protection over the fantasy of p*edophile rehabilitation. Then those same laws could overturn family laws we currently have, which protect even the right of proven s*xually abusive parents to ongoing contact with their child, to “repair the relationship”.
Dennis Ferguson has been described as a “child rapist”. But is he? Has it ever been proved that at any time in his life he sexually penetrated a child? Or committed any other sexual act on a child?
The description in the media of the kidnapping of three children committed by him and his accomplice Alexandria Brookes in 1987 state that he and Brookes performed “acts of gross indecency”, ie mutual masturbation, in the presence of the children. There was no statement that either he or Brookes had inflicted any sexual act on any of the children. In any case, it would be difficult to prove if they had, since the three children concerned had previously been victims of sexual abuse by their own father.
It appears that Ferguson’s basic sexual orientation is homosexual, and that Brookes, a younger man, was his sexual partner. It appears also that Ferguson and Brookes are obsessive exhibitionists, fixated on children. In other words, they are more probably “flashers” than rapists. The media reports are rather coy about Ferguson’s prior convictions for sexual offences against minors may well have been exhibitionistic rather than physical.
If that is the case, it would explain Ferguson’s repeated claims that he is not physically attracted to children, and that he was innocent of the crime of rape. In his mind, performing sexual acts with an adult partner in the presence of children was not a sexual offence against those children.
The bottom line is that Ferguson, although he is obviously a psychopathic personality with a lack of empathy for others and of insight into the effect of his actions on others (for example, he has also been convicted for fraud), is most probably not as much of a danger to children as he has been depicted. It is unlikely that he will try to commit sexual acts with children, although there is the danger that he might engage in exhibitionist behaviour.
Whatever the case, the harassment that he has been subjected to by irrational mobs is unlikely to contribute to any improvement in his behaviour, and is more likely to impel him to re-oofend. Perhaps that is precisley the unstated purpose of the journalists and politicians, so that they will have an excuse to imprison him once again.
“Ferguson’s last conviction was for the planned r*pe of the children of a woman he befriended. “
Untrue statement. Since Ferguson’s release after completing his 14-year sentence for the crime committed in 1987, he has not been convicted of any crime.
He was charged in Queensland for a sexual offence against a child (not rape, but inappropriate touching) and tried before a female judge who, after weighing up the evidence in a dispassionate way, found him not guilty.
Michael, see the facts here: http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23968372-5017590,00.html
And by the way, something I said above about roving predators being no worse than domestic predators has just been refuted in a very interesting post by Amanda Gearing: http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/09/25/were-not-as-big-on-child-protection-as-we-think/#comments
Meski.
I finally get around to replying to your post of Friday, 25 September 2009 at 11:51 am.
What is the definition of child porn? Maybe it depends on who possesses it. Would a department store flyer advertising underwear or swimsuits for children be child porn if in the possession of Dennis Ferguson?
My impression is that in the USA at least, any picture of a naked child can be considered to be child porn . Look at this post by Jonathon Turley’about an absurd case in the US.
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/09/18/arizona-couple-sues-wal-mart-after-store-calls-the-police-on-them-for-developing-pictures-of-this-children-in-a-bathtub-and-the-children-are-taken-by-the-state/.
Hi Michael: sorry, I should have said I meant the 1987 crime
It would be interesting to know how many of the comments have been written by people who have children themselves. There is a visceral, almost sexual content in the tabloid press, duly whipped up by the permitted sensationalism of their scribes in many previous articles about Ferguson which I find deeply disturbing. It runs the risk of coming onto the pages of Crikey, unless we are all ultra careful.
Clearly this is not the case in the people who read Crikey as yet, however there is one question I would like to ask people. How outraged would you feel if a serial murderer were to move in next door to your flat, house, tent, whatever? Would the letters column be so busy; would the same sense of outrage be expressed? Just thought I’d ask.
James: For what it’s worth, and I speak with a ton of expertise on this subject, (it happens to me all the time). I’ve noticed with subjects which attract lots of comments that any hint of repetition or the merest whiff of straying off topic will cop a suspension. Also, just testing, perhaps if people spelled the word paedophilia as it should be written it may get past the sensors. Ditto paedophiliac.
I notice BEN AVELING’s comment sailed through, possibly the correct spelling gets past the machine. I know this has been said before but I question whether the commenters have to be as uber strict as the scribes whose article is written.
I realise that Dennis Ferguson has to live ‘somewhere’, and it is rightly hypocritical of the media & the vigilantes to make him a scapegoat for every perceived or actual threat to children. I am well aware the stats on child sexual assault - by far the majority are from someone the child knows - whether it’s an immediate family member, close relative or family friend.
But I have to say I am very troubled by Brett Collins misunderstanding of this issue. In my, unfortunate experience, paedophiles whether inside the ‘family’ or outside are for the most part alway paedophiles. Doing time for their crime does not mean they accept that their behaviour is manifestly wrong or that they realise they have caused a child life-long harm. Understanding that intra-familial abuse accounts for a large part of child sexual abuse should not be used to deflect from the possibility that Ferguson may offend again. I have heard that he has refused treatment and I would be very anxious if he lived near my young nieces and nephews.
There has to be a solution to this that is thought out carefully. A big part of the problem is that we live in a wider society of violence - mostly meted out to women & children & also some men. I agree that governments need to spend more money protecting children with more resources, education, counselling etc, as well as developing rehabilitation & treatment programs for offenders.
Though I am still concerned by the situation that Ferguson’s abode is anywhere near children. He would need to be at least in a situation where he is not in close contact with children & with some sort of unexpected supervision.
Defending the rights of prisoners & ex-prisoners should not blind Mr Collins to misunderstand that paedophiles have always the potential to be a danger to children, whether they themselves have been abused or not. Even with the best of intentions, this risk cannot be ignored.
How and why does Ferguson qualify for instant public housing in NSW ahead of the families depicted on the recent Four Corners program “The Last Chance Motel”?
How about living next to Roman Polanski then?
Venise: Not sure, but see Michael Danby’s bit from the 16th where he really put the fear into both Crikey and NewMatilda about anti-s*mitic comments being over-represented in blogs. They walk a fine line and I think they do pretty well, even if I throw a bit of good-humoured sarcasm at them. (BTW I wrote to Danby privately the same day, saying I thought he was going the wrong way about fighting r*cism. He hasn’t replied.)
By comparison, in the Murdoch or Fairfax blogs, 100% of comments have to be moderated before posting, and I suspect their moderators sometimes abuse their roles and filter points of view, presenting an illusion of near-unanimous hysteria or outrage that doesn’t exist in reality.
By “privately” I mean through his website, in case I gave the wrong impression
Wow. Intellectual posturing and name calling at it’s best. From this mother’s perspective, it is absolutely simple. ANYONE who interferes with any child deserves no compassion, no empathy at all and definitely no vitriolic chest beating about their human rights. IMO, their rights marched straight out the door the moment they made a choice to rob innocent children of their rights. Ferguson, and sadly the too numerous of his kind - can go and live under a rock for all I care.
JAMES: Something which worries me deeply is the ease with which people jump to attention in order to see porn in everything. See the reference posted by TheEvilOne; last para, last comment.
It worries me that the whole issue is so emotive. How many paedophiles per one thousand children would there be? All sense of proportion gets lost by the shock horror dismay crowd. Remember Kevin Rudd’s hysterical outburst about Bill Henson hanging a photo of a naked pre-pubescent girl at an art gallery, in NSW. Words like disgust, nausea, and revolting were hurled around like Hundreds and Thousands at a windy picnic. Salivating paedophiles were apparent by their absence.
I tried asking how people would feel about a serial murderer moving in next door. Could they tolerate that more easily than a serial child molester. No joy there except for the well-meaning ALTAKOI asking how I would like Roman Polanski moving in. Actually I’d be chuffed. Sexually, neither of us would be interested in each other but I am a minor movie buff and would love to talk to him about cinema.
Hi Venise. I think we have trouble coming to grips with the reality of s*xual predat*on on little children so we use stronger language for things that fall short of that extremity. So for example David Henson, who in his mind at least was only photographing innocence, or Polanski, who s*duced someone with more or less an adult body but far younger than he should have, may or may not be dangerous but are not genuine pa*dophiles. We sometimes use very strong words about them. But when confronted with someone who spent days or weeks preparing to perform s*x acts with pre-pub*scent children, words fail us. The imagination fails us.
So for example, a man was convicted of r*ping his child of under 10 years old. A psychologist testified in court that the child was quite seductive. This appears to have been taken into account in handing down a very light sentence, perhaps because the crime was so hard to imagine. According to the survivor, the offender also locked up animals and starved them to de*th for kicks. The survivor found it interesting that people said “that’s sick” when they heard about the starved animals, but could not think of anything to say when told about the inc*st crime.
In another case, a man being examined for r*pe of a child under 10 said “I really only hurt myself”. This was initially taken as a hopeful sign of empathy for his victim. As he went on to make clear, he meant that the small size was painful since he had not used vas*line.
It really is a hard thing to imagine, that the essential instinct to protect and cherish children could become so distorted. So we sometimes pick easier targets for our strongest invective.
Hi James, not sure we’re on the same train station. We may be, or perhaps I’m just confused. Bill Henson is certainly no paedophile. I’m not so sure about Roman Polanski.
What I was trying to do by asking how people would react to a murderer moving in next door was to find out which would be worse, a murderer or a paedophile in one’s vicinity; as no one took me seriously I’m sure the paedophile was the greater potential offender. Certainly mothers of young children have every and total right to be fearful, but I don’t think the mothers’ of young children are thick upon the comments section of newspapers.
The subtext of all this is the same as the preceding comments I made. There is another emotion at large when it comes to paedophlia, and same-sex relationships that seems to be verging on erotic sexualism. Purience? (can’t find correct spelling) Perhaps if we could conquer that it would free the rest of the mind for logic. Just a thought.
Bill, that’s right, not David. Bill. I don’t know what he is, I never saw the pictures. I know what you’re saying; I just went in a slightly different direction.
Murderers leave bodies, and usually get caught soon afterwards. Child mol*sters leave silent, frightened victims, and can go for years without being caught. Partly because the victims are intimidated into helping conceal the crime; and partly because, as I said, the rest of us find it very hard to believe what we are seeing. In most cases family or neighbors know what’s going on but it’s too big to face.
Some (not all) of the victims go on to become habitual victims, drug addicts, suicides, dysfunctional criminals, or predators themselves. But that comes later, not necessarily while they’re living in the same building.
I don’t think it’s prurience that causes this awful silence, and the explosion of fury when we can no longer ignore it. I think it’s partly self-disgust for ignoring the signs that were there for so long, together with the shock that the human instinct to protect children could be distorted into something so grotesque. Kind of like watching Jeff Goldblum turn into a fly in that movie. I’ve seen people go into self-destruct mode, not because it was done to them, but because they knew it was being done to someone they should have protected. The sense of failure eats them alive.
Some people have suggested that we’re projecting our own unexamined desires onto easy external targets. I don’t buy that. First of all, the denial I’ve spoken of shows that they are not easy targets. Secondly, it’s not just a contimuum of the preferred age of s*xual partner. A pre-pub*scent child is a completely different object of desire than an adult. As different from an adult (or a teenager) as a man is different from a woman. Even more so, actually, because of the above-mentioned conflict with the instinct to protect children. I’m certain that the vast majority of people love small children and do not have any suppressed s*xual attraction to them whatsoever.
James McDonald: I am not trying to pass the buck here but I think it’s a bit of sweeping statement about the “vast majority of people love small children and do not have any suppressed sexual attraction to them whatsoever.”
Going on the figures provided by Brett Collins (one in four girls and one in seven boys) and these are just the stats for the ones that got caught, suggests that an awful lot of men can’t separate the sex from the fondness. Which is a grim thought.
But we must look to our history to remember that witch-hunts are as old as time. No matter how it is sliced this aspect of our society still exists. And continuing with a witch-hunt by Rupert Murdoch’s press does no one any good at all. Still less does it help the victims.
Some way towards achieving the help needed by the victims and the perpetrators must be achieved if we are to think of ourselves as a twenty-first century society.
Starting with muzzling Rupert Murdoch’s slathering hounds may not be such a bad idea. This way the problem can be thought out without the concomitant hysteria of the media. And yes, Crikey is the media, it’s just unfortunate that other news papers, on-line, television, whatever are not read by the very people who need it.
Remarkably, the above post got straight through the word filter without any moderation.
Venise: Brett Collins does a lot of good on a lot of things, but he’s been led astray on this one by a clever bit of propagandizing. I’ve heard many times the the statistics you refer to and I think they are wrong. According to over-zealous child protection agencies, every time a child gets sunburned, that’s neglect. Every time a parent smacks a child, that’s abuse. Every time a primary-age shoolboy kisses his primary-age girlfriend, that’s s*xual abuse.
Sociopathic pa*dophiles benefit from this overly inclusive definition of child abuse/neglect because it seems to place them within a milieu of normalcy.
I completely disagree with you on this one. The hysteria about one-in-four or one-in-seven child abuse supports the discredited theory that no parent can really be trusted, and is a dangerous distraction from the real hard-core child abuse/neglect that goes on.
I should add that these things have been measured and studied. S*xual arousal is measurable by physical means and the proportion of the population aroused by various stimuli is fairly well known within a scientific margin of error. The studies show pa*dophilia is rare. It should not be confused with attraction to teenagers, where the eye sees a healthy, ready adult but the brain knows better.
JAMES McDONALD: I admire the passion and knowledge with which you speak far too much to have a row with you. And I do take your point about attraction to teenagers.
Cheers
V.
But having said that, I should reveal that there was a time when I — at the age of six — was a pa-edophile. That’s right, I kissed a first-grade classmate (which would bring the child-authorities running today: “child-on-child sex-ual assault!”), lus-ted after another, wanted to run away with another at one point, and my roman-tic fem-inine ideal was a beau-ty called Emily whom I hardly ever spoke to. All of them were my age, and had none of the bumps and curves that indicate fertility to the visual pattern-matching neurology. In fact those bumps and curves in the older gi-rls made them far too much like my mother for any se-xual interest. (Freud may have been right about his own tastes but he sure as he-ll wasn’t right about mine.)
In time my tastes moved on with my age and have continued to do so. But if this process had been interrupted — if sufficiently extreme psychological trauma had been imposed on me as to stop my se-xual development dead in its tracks — who knows? I might have overcome and transcended it, as many survivors do, or I might just possibly still be stuck at that age on some level today, endlessly chasing after “partners” that show no physical sign whatsoever of being able to fulfil the biological imperative. That’s how pa-edophiles are made.