How can we protect children?

Submitted by AWL on 7 February, 2003 - 3:07

In the second part of her discussion article about issues surrounding child pornography and paedophilia, Gerry Byrne looks at how society tries - and fails - to protect children

To read Part 1 here
Age of consent

In the last issue, I looked at how the massively greater social weight of adults against children meant that adult-child sex can not but be abusive.

The Age of Consent is a legal device that recognises this inequality in ability between adults and children to genuinely consent to sex. It is set at 16 in this country. An equal age of consent for heterosexual and homosexual sex has only just been achieved, after decades of campaigning. Some of those who campaigned for equality also argue for either the abolition of all consent laws or a lower age of consent.

Sixteen is to some extent an arbitrary standard, as any rigid age limit on any activity would be (smoking, driving a car, drinking alcohol, getting married). That's the way laws work and is not an argument in itself for abolishing age limits. Sixteen is also not irrational, in the sense that it coincides with the age at which you can leave school, get married and work full-time, i.e. a range of "adult" activities. Any change in the age of consent should be consistent with the age at which young people achieve (theoretical) economic independence.

When arguments about the age of consent come up, someone always raises the hypothetical two fifteen year olds "locked up" for having consensual sex. In real life that doesn't happen. I would favour a more flexible age of consent law, staged or staggered so that a fourteen year old having sex with someone of their own age would be treated differently than if their partner was twenty. But that would be just asking to change the law to reflect what is already the practice of the police and child protection agencies. The Metropolitan Police, at the urging of children's charities like Barnados, have a policy of treating under-18s involved in the sex industry as victims in need of child protection rather than as criminals.

How do we protect against child sex abuse?

Child pornography, sexual abuse and paedophilia is certainly in the news all the time (as I write this Michael Jackson's claim that he sees nothing wrong with sharing a bed with young boys, and calls to ban the Number One band Tattoo, are headline items). Is it all media hype or is there a growing threat to children?

The tabloids are certainly hypocritical. They think nothing of featuring 16-year old topless models or highly sexualised "schoolgirl" pictures, while at the same time spurring on vigilante mobs to attack named paedophiles (with the obvious danger of all vigilantism that you don't know you got the right person anyway).

But in general I think increased public awareness of child sex abuse is positive. It reflects a growing willingness to listen and believe children. It is a shift in the balance of power towards the powerless, the silenced, the previously ignored.

One of the most damaging aspects of sexual as opposed to physical abuse is the "mindfuck". A child who is beaten may be told they "asked for it" in the sense that their bad behaviour provoked a violent response, but they are unlikely to be told they enjoy being beaten, that they initiated the beating, that beating is a liberating way to express their natural childish masochism. But sexually abused children are told all these things. They are accused of lying and are disbelieved.

This is one of the most distressing and long-term effects of sexual abuse. It alters a young person's barely-formed sense of reality, it damages their sense that they can rely on their own perceptions, it creates fearful untrustful human relations, and insofar as the abused person takes on board the normality of abuse, it makes them a potential abuser in their turn.

Serial child sex abusers get away with it for so long because they not only impose their desires on the body of a vulnerable young person, they also impose their world-view, thus taking away the child's only means of protection - "telling". They can do this because adults have authority over children. And the overwhelming majority of perpetrators are adults who have specific authority: parents and older relatives, teachers, residential care workers, priests, youth workers, the police. It is not the stranger in the dirty mac or white van, it is the step-dad or neighbour that mum tells you to be nice to.

So how can we protect children? It follows from what I argue here, that the main thing is to strengthen children's and young people's sense of autonomy, of knowing that they have inviolable rights to bodily integrity. That means an education system that equips them with knowledge about their own sexuality and builds up self-respect rather than emphasising conformity and obedience; that they can refuse authority, that they will be supported in making their case when they feel these rights have been violated.

We live in a society based on unquestioned authority, on money and might holding sway, of "justice" that can be bought. It is only ever going to go so far in undermining authority and championing the weak against the strong. The only real solution is a society based on a completely different set of values, of equality and respect for human autonomy, a society where everyone cares for everyone and the vulnerable are especially looked after. In the meantime, we should not dismantle laws which offer a degree of protection for the vulnerable, any more than we are for the abolition of health and safety laws. They are defences erected by our class against the encroachment of the dehumanising values of capitalism.

What makes children/young people vulnerable?

I used to look after teenagers (including ones who had suffered sexual abuse) for the local authority. In their training on issues of sexual abuse, the factor that came up most commonly in relation to what makes certain young people particularly vulnerable was not having their needs met. Which could mean:

* Homeless young people who would go with anyone who offered them a bed for the night;
* Impoverished or socially deprived children and young people who could be won over with material gifts;
* Emotionally neglected people who craved any sort of adult attention;
* Children in care;
* Children of the upper classes in boarding schools who might also be emotionally neglected ;
* Children and young people who had been bullied at school or were socially isolated from their peers
* Gay and lesbian young people who could find no validation for their sexuality, and who might also be bullied;
* Children with special needs or with physical or learning disabilities,
* Children from families where abuse was normalised, who might have no conception that what was being done to them was wrong.

I think this has implications for us as socialists. I take it as read that we should be addressing issues of material deprivation, homophobia and inequality. But what do we say about the abusers? If, as seems to be the case, they are exploiting poverty and powerlessness for their own sexual gratification, then I think we have to take sides clearly against them. We shouldn't be enabling them to make a spurious case that abuse is somehow OK, or even liberating.

I'm not condoning hysteria or vigilantism. I believe those accused should have the benefit of due process, innocent until proved guilty, etc. But we shouldn't excuse them, see them as the main victims or take their sides. We should take the attitude to them that we take to all exploiters. Our main job is to fight to get rid of a system that enables exploitation.

Comments

Submitted by AWL on Sun, 09/02/2003 - 22:07

Can anyone who saw or videoed the programme comment on it? I saw the excerpts on the news.

My feeling is MJ is a sad thing, abused as a child and locked into an image of himself as still a child. He doesn't see anything wrong in sharing a bed with a teenage boy because in his mind they are both the same, little lost boys.

However, given he is watched and idolised by millions including young people who may themselves be subject to adult attentions from people who are considerably more conscious and cunning than MJ, I think it's a very bad thing that he is seen to be encouraging behaviour that will put young people at risk from genuine predators. What do other people think?

Gerry
e-mail: office at workersliberty.org

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.