We’re not as big on child protection as we think
|
There is no surer way to get an argument than to start a debate about Dennis Ferguson and people who sexually abuse children. The two recent items that Crikey has published on the topic quickly moved to the top of the most discussed list. Before I mention a bit more about that, I wanted to draw attention to a national online survey being done by the National Association for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (NAPCAN). It is a key part of a campaign aimed at bringing the reality of child abuse further into the open, to gain more insight into public perceptions about the sensitive issue of child abuse and to provide an opportunity for people to contribute to the development of workable prevention strategies. It only takes about ten minutes to fill in the survey, so if you’re concerned about the issue, click on the link — they’re trying to get to 50 000 people to do it. They’re up over 11 600 at the moment. Given the media frenzy regarding Dennis Ferguson, it is ironic that there is still such a need to bring the reality of child abuse out into the open. It is often pointed out that the vast majority of sexual offenses against children are carried out by family members. That doesn’t mean we should ignore the minority of other offenders, such as Ferguson. But it does mean we should make sure we’re not just picking on easy targets while ignoring the bigger problem — something spin-focused governments and law and order tub-thumpers are very adept at doing. Queensland went through the same period of neighbourhood vigilante fervour towards Dennis Ferguson over 12 months ago. I wrote a few posts on the topic then. Very little has changed, except that in the interim Ferguson was found not guilty of the charges that he had been facing around that time. The key point, as made in this Crikey piece is that it
As virtually everyone quite rightly insists that it is the interests and rights of children that they are most concerned about in these situations, it would be preferable if we focused on what responses are most likely to reduce the risks of further harm to children, not what responses feed our sense of outrage and disgust. That goes double for political and other community leaders in the media. Child protection work is amongst the most difficult of fields, but even with that caveat, the dismal state of the child safety systems in most states is a clear sign that perhaps our society doesn’t give as much priority to protecting children as we like to think we do. |
|
|
|
20 Comments
Andrew
Whilst, as you say, it is often pointed out that the vast majority of s-xual offenses against children are carried out by family members, it is also true that the majority of abuse is carried out by a small number of very prolific offenders who may offend against up to 1000 children over their lifetime.
The biggest reduction in child sexual assault will therefore be effected by removing these very dangerous and prolific offenders from the community and putting them somewhere where they can’t gain trusted access to children.
Ferguson is an easy target. However, he made himself an easy target when he agreed to be housed in an area with children.
Pedophilia is most accruately understood as an addiction. If an alcoholic chose to live upstairs in a pub, he’d be placing himself at risk of going back to the drink. Similarly, if ferguson lives in a community where he sees children running about, he’s placing himself at risk of going back to offending. If Ferguson was truly rehabilitated, he would not agree to be housed in a community with a large number of young families.
If the authorities wanted to help ferguson, they would not house him in such an area but would provide him with accommodation that reduced as far as possible, his risk of re-offending.
The tub-thumpers are not just angry at Ferguson being housed in an area with children, they are cranky with a government system which talks loudly about child protection and then does something so stupid.
Andrew, just to clarify, Ferguson was not acquitted of the recent Queensland charges. He was granted a permanent stay of proceedings as the court ruled he could never get a fair trial in relation to those charges. No thanks to the media hysteria and general mob mentality of the community, as you point out.
Amanda does what so many others continue to do. She states that government (in general and specifically) “..talks loudly about child protection and then does something so stupid..”, ie allow an ex-con out of jail. Governments in Qld and NSW have done virtually everything legally possible to harrass Ferguson (and others like him) and drive them out of town, to some other town, to some other state. All of us know that the government cannot put the man back in jail. We agree that he has done his time and that he should be allowed to get on with his life. He has onerous reporting duties and everyone around him knows who he is. What more can a government do? Not one person has actually suggested any legally or socially appropriate action that could be taken. So, if you don’t have a constructive suggestion, get out of the debate. Just leave it. It’s no longer your business. Vigilantes are so boring and gutless. They are often more bent than their targets.
Hugh: “What more can a government do?”
They can figure out what could have been done better and apply it next time. And Premier Rees is willing to do so: http://www.smh.com.au/national/ferguson-case-prompts-government-review-of-sex-offenders-procedures-20090920-fwjs.html
Hugh, your claim that “Not one person has actually suggested any legally or socially appropriate action that could be taken” shows you’re not even reading what people have written. Anyone who won’t even listen to others is the one who should “get out of the debate. Just leave it. It’s no longer your business”
Dear Amandagearing,
We have not enough facilities to house ALL child offenders. We do not even know the numbers. And a hysterical mob is not a solution, either. We cannot treat a human as a pet rabbit in a cage. A pedophile does not have to offend children in the neighbourhood. He may go elsewhere, so it is not a solution, either.
My suggestion would be to chemically (by injection) make them impotent. The only problem is that then, quite a chunk of our male population would be deprived of other sexual pleasures. All these ‘daddies’ and ‘family friends’ would not be able to reproduce. So it is not a solution, either.
We should start protecting our children introducing preventive measures because all we do, is getting hysterical a posteriori, after the fact. We have to start from the very begining which is proper primary and secondary school education system.
Most, and I stress most, of our children are social orphans and are a very easy prey for perverts.
Imagine this:
My grandson (7) goes to a Catholic school. He was caught on the school grounds kissing his ‘girlfriend’ apparently with the consent. He was detained and suspended for two days and the parents were summoned to the school.
No-one could really explain to him why was he detained, and his girlfriend was not. But more important he did not know what he did wrong.
Three weeks later the boy came home telling his mum that ‘when one’s girlfriend is menstruating she cannot get pregnant’.
It is absolutely outrageous that nuns run sex education classes. They should not run any classes as far as I am concerned. And the damage has already been done.
The boy is scared now to approach any girl as the way he understands there is something wrong to have a girlfriend.
And this is my point: we allow unqualified teachers to teach our kids. Illiterate teachers create illiterate society.
I do not know whether pedophilia is a hobby, addiction or a disease. In any case we have too many ‘hobbyists’, addicts and sick people. A prison sentence does not address any of these. But I do know that many, many cases of abuse could have been avoided if we were brought up in an environment of strong community values. Otherwise we have relatives, parents, friends strangers raping children around because ‘they cannot help themselves’.
Children spend most of they time at school, not at home. So the onus is on schools.
For the benefit of those like Hugh who think that no constructive ideas have been put forward, here is a very small selection from what I think has been an excellent discussion in the Crikey blogs this week:
1. “why are adult males attracted to kids? Is it due to some sexual trauma they suffered, a ‘glitch’ in their brain or what? … if we want to improve this country/world for kids, then we should discuss every facet of the situation.” (Liz45)
2. “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.” (Malcolm Grant)
3. “We also need to stop the Family Law Court forcing mothers to send their kids to their abusive fathers each weekend or whenever” (Liz45)
4. “Let’s not pretend we can fix them - that would be buying into the ‘anti-gay’ movement’s way of thinking and a very Clockwork Orange approach in the end. (Please do not for a moment think I’m comparing pedophilia with homosexuality, they are two entirely different concepts. One involves consenting adults, for starters.) Yes, Ferguson needs somewhere to live, as do all child sex offenders … I don’t think it’s appropriate for him to live in a capital city where his movements can simply meld into the general hustle and bustle.” (Nadia David)
5. “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.” (James McDonald)
6. “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.” (Stiofan)
7. “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.” (Ben Fishlock)
8. “as a society in which whole libraries are written on jurisprudence, we’ve never even defined the reasons why we send anyone to prison. What would you say to this:
(1) introduce Restorative Justice Conferencing as the first sentencing option to be considered in all but the most dangerous categories of criminal charges;
(2) With a much reduced prison population, change prisons into decent, safe, respectful and even (gasp) pleasant places as much as possible, for the sole purpose of preventing inmates from doing any further harm either inside or outside the prison. That means no more turning a blind eye to pack r*pe for example.
(3) The most demonstrably dangerous classes of offender never to leave the prison until they die.”
9. “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.” (Eric Lundberg)
10. “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.” (Liz45)
11. “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” (Inkblot)
12. “Education should start with the media educating themselves to report that ‘citizen XYZ moved to neighbourhood CBA yesterday’, in a simple piece of news that allows concerned mums to complain, or not, with logic.” (Venise Alstergren)
13. “Make them seek treatment … Is Ferguson getting any intensive post-prison treatment for this illness? This should be a mandantory minimum priority.” (MostPeculiarMama)
14. “The biggest reduction in child sexual assault will therefore be effected by removing these very dangerous and prolific offenders from the community and putting them somewhere where they can’t gain trusted access to children.” (Amanda Gearing)
James McDonald, you have no suggestions either. Referring me to a NSW government press release which suggests the premier of that state is considering a review of processes and procedures is just plain, boring laziness.
Some people have suggested that the government should “…chemically make them impotent…”, which is a suggestion I s’pose, but is immediately reversed upon the realisation that it won’t work for any number of reasons if it was ever going to have any effect at all. Which is about as much use as the vigilantes.
Vigilantes want to hurt someone. They can’t think of any other action at all so they want to get together in a lynch mob and hurt someone. They can’t hurt the government or get it to act (any further - it’s already at the legal limit), they hold up a red rag in front of themselves (or get the ABC and other media to do it) and then they go mad in public and expect everyone around them to tolerate their actions - or have some apologist mince weasel words and make excuses. The vigilantes need to go back to their homes, turn off their mobile phones and calm down.
Andrew - lots of people and lots of different voices and lots of disagreements!
But isn’t it great that we are starting to recognise the gaps in what we have and the need to work with our community on child sexual abuse, protection and safey issues.
In all of this we can be generating solutions from the community up - as well as the top down. Using local knowledge and priorities to develop local solutions is recognised internationally as a part of a strategic way forwards
But this is an opportunity that we haven’t taken up in the debate in Australia so far - the advocates and policy makers will always have their role but for the families and children affected by this, they don’t need it brought out into the open because they live with it every day, but they don’t necessarily want to talk about it in public.
In our area a 2007 community attitudes survey showed that the communities do care, they know this happens in their community, they know it involves family and friends and they want to move towards resolving these difficult issues
We’re looking forward to the results of the NAPCAN national survey to see whether this confirms what we have found in our region.
Maybe in all of this we need to start to find ways to create ‘safe’ and supportive community spaces where poeple can start to talk, to look at models where the community is engaged, to empower the community to build their own solutions??
Hugh, those “vigilantes” you so despise are responding to an instinct to protect their young, which governments have negligently let them down on. Why wouldn’t they be agitated when their face is rubbed in that negligence?
Reviewing the last few days of these Crikey blogs I can see many posts that add insight and more than a dozen offering genuinely practical solutions or parts of solutions. Some of these appear long after they were written because of moderator delays, so it takes a bit of effort to read through them. Try harder.
Miranda: good luck with that NAPCAN survey. An opt-in survey that hits you with moral panic factoids on the front page. Scenarios that talk in the same tones of unwashed children playing in their front yards as of children complaining that an adult had s*x with them. Diluting the real causes for alarm with the exact kind of snobbery that led to the Stolen Generations.
Here’s a suggestion: let’s get over this idea that you have to call the government every time you see children with a bit of dirt on them or children with a few schoolyard bruises. The monsters infesting our maximum security prisons, stalking the internet dat-ing sites, or consuming their own children for pleasure, did not get their personality disorders from missing out on a bath or two.
James McD:
4 posts so far and still nothing really to add to this terribly complex debate.
Sure there is reason to ask citizens not to run in fright to an official (police, child protection agency) at the first sign of differentness of this or that child. However, as a society, we have adopted a single family dwelling as the norm and we tend to live in isolation, far away from immediate family and trusted friends. The extended family of aunts and uncles, a grandparent or more, cousins, neices, nephews and trusted neighbours from generations back are all things of yester-year.
When we raised our family, we lived in many homes, in a couple of states, as I moved between design offices and construction projects. Our neighbours were strangers. For friends we looked to Apex club membership, pre-school day care centres and so forth.
The outcome of this is that those very same dependent children who we seek to protect have less options for friendship and guidance as they grow up, frequently just Mum and Dad. I wish that it were otherwise, but as my children approach adulthood, they are spread across two continents and no two are in the same State.
I feel that some of the seeds of our inability to deal with this issue are the result of our western, single family, highly mobile lifestyle.
I do not have a set of pre-packaged answers, however it seems to me that a more open society, where parenting is shared between the many rather than exclusively the mother and the father, if indeed there be a father at home, is essential.
Our suburbs are constructed without social spaces - hundreds of homes and no commercial centre, no tavern, often no school or pre-school. Nowhere to buy bread and milk or simply gather for a chat and a warm drink. Certainly, nowhere where adolescents are welcome to gather in peace and security. A sports ground cannot fill the need any more that a tightly fenced and locked school ground can after hours.
My children have grown up with the benefit of having two incomes and a home full of love and books. It surprises me that so many children pass through childhood relatively unscathed and with optimism, good manners and high social standards.
It does not surprise me that our very private and untrusting society finds it so difficult to discuss, let alone agree on, the subject of how to identify and assist children in need of help and how to live alongside those who may otherwise harm our children.
This is primarily a sociological problem, not criminological one and it involves all aspects of how our communities function.
I agree John. Our suburbs are designed for road access to CBDs and shopping malls and that’s about it. “Village atmosphere” has become a real-estate cliche for a few exclusive suburbs that were designed right (or even better, weren’t designed at all). A lot of middle-class parents seem to give up social life and isolate themselves once the kids come along. I was one of four kids and my parents hardly ever used a babysitter; a circle of parents in the neighborhood used to take turns minding the whole squalling snivelling hyperactive lot of us. In that atmosphere, genuine hard-core child abuse was much harder to keep secret and a few rare cases did come to light.
An adult survivor of inc*st once described to me the house of that person’s dreams: it was tall and panoramic and largely made of glass, and it occurred to me this dream house was a transparent place where few secrets can lurk.
But that childhood I describe, for which I owe a huge gratitude to my parents and their friends and neighbors, may no longer be possible in the current hyper-suspicious, liability-shackled society we now live in. And a DOCS officer today passing by some of those homes where friends took such great care of us, might just see fit to take us away into foster care and charge our parents bewildered because we had sunburn or bruises or untreated cuts on our knees.
Silence from everybody …
Thanks to Hugh McColl for wrongly and insultingly shutting people up on the false basis they had no useful suggestions; there were several.
Thanks to Andrew Bartlett and John Bennetts for prattling on about how “complex” it is. A word invariably used by those who wish to stymie debate. “Are there or are there not weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?” “Oh, well it’s complex.” “It’s very complex, stay out of it and trust me.”
That we live in a complex world is the most banal truism. Civilization is the process of finding principles that can guide action. The actions are complex but the principles are simple. These discussions can help identify principles which can be brought to the attention of policy makers for action.
MR MCDONALD, DOCS officers don’t pass by houses looking for suspect children to take away into foster care. Complete drivel. You know they don’t do that but still you offer a running commentary with nothing (repeat, nothing) useful to contribute. You are not willing to debate, you just want to commentate - and then you get in a lather of waffle. Oh sorry, you are insulted by the complexity of it.
Hugh: From Justice James Wood’s 2008 report on Child Protection:
“There is little reliable research to guide effective interventions for children
and young people who are neglected, although a report of neglect is more
likely to receive greater DoCS attention than one concerning domestic
violence.”
“Too many reports are being made to DoCS which do not warrant the exercise of its considerable statutory powers. As a result, much effort and cost is expended in managing these reports, as a result of which the children and young people the subject of them receive little in the way of subsequent assistance, while others who do require attention from DoCS may have their cases closed because of competing demands on the system (that is, insufficient resources)”
“Amendment of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 is proposed so as to require that only children and young people who are
suspected, on reasonable grounds, to be at risk of significant harm should be
reported to DoCS”
Or do you think that Justice James Wood, our greatest ever judge, is another one with nothing to offer?
How about this: what do you think Nathan Rees apologized for last Sunday?
Justice Wood is not contributing to this blog. Neither is Nathan Rees. And I’m not wasting any more of Andrew Bartlett’s valuable time. Bye.
J McD: Please find another thread to clog with your nonsense.
In one post you agree with me, then immediately thereafter take another tack.
HC McColl has put his case several times and is lucid. You, JMcD are not. I seek to make only one other comment, and that is in relation to your contention that any perception of complexity in a dabate is an attempt to stymie that same debate.
What nonsense!
You, sir, have wasted your time and others’ by attempting to follow this line and thereby have disrupted a discussion of great significance to the communities in which we live and, in particular, those immediately affected by child protection issues.
Why you have chosen to do so is your business. I, however, am disgusted by your efforts.
I’m still keen to hear Mr McColl’s suggestion. I’ll repeat my own:
1. We should closely study the 2008 Wood report showing we’ve allowed attention to hard-core child abuse to be diluted by overreactions to lesser allegations of child neglect, and this must stop.
2. The Ferguson horse has already bolted, too late to close that gate, and he has his rights despite what he’s done to others. By our laws and principles we now have to learn to live with him.
3. Other offenders like him appear in the courts from time to time, some inc*stuous and some prolific serial offenders, and whatever we could have done better with Ferguson could be done with them. Judges and legislators are reluctant to apply life sentences because prisons are horrific places designed largely to crush the soul. Why? A review of the entire sentencing side of the criminal justice system, with an emphasis on harm minimization rather than trying to crush those who anger us, would allow us to contain the most demonstrably dangerous offenders in a humane detention system for the rest of their lives, while preferring non-detention methods to deal with less dangerous offenders.