Historic sex abuse cases

Taken from piece in MailOnline (See below for details).

Taken from piece in MailOnline, Source details/link given below.

Recently the British media offered yet another example of how things work for them and for us when telling a story. The news item was about Chris Denning and how he has been put in prison, again, for sexual abuse of the young. In this blog piece I am not writing about how they got it right or got it wrong; what interests me is the experience of the processes that typically shapes a historic sex assault case in countries like England, America, and yes New Zealand 2014/15. People may find these historic sex cases difficult and ‘annoying’ but in a way they are very much how we are as a society.

What are often referred to as historic sex charges involve allegations an adult has broken laws when the actions taken are very much in the past; in Chris Denning’s case the period was some thirty years ago – during the 1970s and 1980s. When events are located in the past they are rendered via our gaze, our looking back. How that rendering is done is what this post will seek to discuss.

Many fail to understand this process which generates feelings of betrayal and anger. This experience is not only possible for those who believe a child or youth has been sexually abused, it can also be how those who identify with the accused can experience the process.

Working with accounts of past events is hardly a new riddle to unpack. In my past professional life working with religious texts was central to what I did and through this work I have become familiar with how language and interpretation of items which sit in our past has been at the centre of fierce social debates. Religious texts are a central part of society, and have been so for our culture for as long as we have records.  In my lifetime I can see how working with texts has been shaped by discussions inside literary studies, philosophy, psychology, put briefly all the knowledge fields have had a say about how such texts can be rendered – the process is on-going. What I argue here first came into view for me because these ways of thinking were deployed when discussing accounts of early Christianity, and now I can see the very same ideas impact on how one does history and how one constructs a text for a law court – text is everywhere; in a radical sense, all texts are shaped by the same processes – they are made, read, and rendered.

For a time there was a belief we could, with discipline, retrieve an account of the past that was freed of our prejudices and such accounts could be seen as stable. I recall reading Michel Foucault argue such a discipline sits at the heart of what an intellectual and the academic world is tasked to do. In Religion this discipline was discussed under the headings of hermeneutics and exegesis. In our current time one of the interesting differences between the Muslim and Christian traditions  is how Christianity has found a new sense of itself by allowing these literary tools to help the reader discuss and access the texts Christians see as important to them. Muslims see their texts – often shared texts with the Christians – as important to them as well; however they have so far resisted bringing together the discussions that live inside secular discussions of literature, history, and philosophy and their readings of the Koran. From where I am now I see both what Foucault was arguing for – a disciplined accessing of the past and a rendering of that as an object of study – and a different set of readings shaped by postmodernism. Simply put we understand that we are continuing to tell ourselves stories and that this is just what we do.

For those readers who are unfamiliar with religious texts or just prefer a secular example for a discussion of how to write and how to read let’s look at modern literature. Nineteen Eighty Four by George Orwell is a tale many of us are familiar with and it provides an interesting way of pointing to some of the debates focused on what is history and how to approach accounts offered to us about the past. The novel by Orwell is clearly a caricature and through the story we are offered pointers about ‘truth-telling’. I argue here that to point to an object is to imply its opposite. Orwell’s novel offers, along with it’s fictional tale, a belief we can do history. He shows us as a reader there are ways we use to decide how and if an account offered to us is legitimate. Orwell’s novel refers to institutions, social practices, and a view of knowledge where the reader can see these accounts of the past are reworked and rejigged – the principles of newspeak. At the very same time as this is offered to the reader its opposite sits silently in the background; accounts of the past can be rendered that are trustworthy.

Orwell and Foucault are not the only names to throw into the ring when discussing how accounts can be assessed. Roland Barthes, Jacques Derrida, Jean Baudrillard spring to mind, and whole groups as well, Marxists, the French Nouveau Philosophies of the 1970s, Feminists, religious factions, pop and media culture, the list is extensive. The point is not so much who is right in some absolute sense, the issue is how accounts are made, read, the rules that govern discourse. We have in such a short space of time shifted how we decide what can be trusted when making judgements about any account we view inside Western culture.

In the mid-1970s television became a new way authors could access their readers. The old pathways of legitimation were pushed to one side as a TV interview with an author was capable of moving a book from obscurity to being a best seller. Now, 2015, it can be argued this is what is happening with the Internet, and why the media cultures which have become so central to how we live have become so powerful. Engage a person or a group in a debate inside these spaces and one has the sense one has lost control of what might happen. The rule has become ‘enter these spaces at your own risk’. It is my view those in the academic world, and in the legal spaces as well, share a common failing. The features of pop-culture and the world of media are often under-estimated in how these spaces gives expression and direction to both who we are and who we are becoming.

Our legal courtrooms are no exception to what is being argued here. A court of law may well task itself with the business of finding out what happened in the past, involving the competing claims made by prosecution and defence. In fact two things are happening, we can see how we both want to believe we can get to the truth – that the past can be a rendered as an object we can view and make judgements about – and we are aware of how constructed our accounts of life are. The picture is, for all this complexity, still incomplete.

Michel Foucault has argued discourses have rules. You cannot say just anything, not just anyone can speak. Where one is looking at a case like that of Chris Denning the rules in play block the very possibility of speaking inside the legal spaces as if he is ‘just like us’ – at the heart of the profile of the sex offender is how his humanity is not to be ‘believed’, any more than one would be free to construct an account of Osama Ben Laden as ‘just like us’.

Where an adult has had sexual relations with the young, and those relationships violate our laws about sex with the young, efforts to reconstruct the past as it may be understood by the adult involved are unlikely to succeed. Notions of friendship, consent, love, they are all blocked. Because of the rules that govern current discourse – to use Foucault’s way of viewing this process – one is not able to speak and in a sense that past the accused has in their head never happened. The rules Foucault speaks of are fluid, ever changing, and some spaces operate differently than others. The law court, the media spaces, blog sites, a discussion at a pub, a talk in our homes with friends, all offer different rules, but there are patterns, blockages – ‘you can’t say that …’, templates.

In a way analogous to Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty Four what we have that guides our lives is both a textual process governed by rules, and its opposite. It is not as if, in an objectively real sense, what Chris Denning as an convicted sex offender has had as a set of experiences has been made to disappear.  With discipline one might well reconstruct an account Denning could look at and say, yes, that is what happened. However the tale we tell ourselves about those who have sexual contact with the young has a template that is dark, condemnatory and punitive. Yes, sexual assault does happen in the sense that unwanted sexual encounters take place, exploitation is a component of our social relations as people. My point is many do find the historic sex case difficult to experience because of all of what I am unpacking here, especially the person standing in the dock. (What contributes to this experience is far more than the simplistic question ‘Did you do it?’; to pose the question ‘What happened? is more open.)

As a closing remark let me say the blog discussion offered by Tom O’Carroll about the Chris Denning case is an interesting rendering of the past. It includes many bits that are unlikely to ever find themselves living inside the courtroom. Hopefully someone will find a way to allow Denning to view that discussion, he might enjoy the read.

DETAILS:

Advertisements

Cultural hegemony: What’s that?

Antonio Gramsci (Italian: 22 January 1891 – 27 April 1937) Sourced from Wikipedia.org

In the 18th century, Immanuel Kant wrestled with precisely what it was that defined the times in which he lived. Two hundred years later, Michel Foucault, recognising the importance of what Kant had been trying to do, challenged his readers to notice how different the situation was. Both Kant and Foucault offered texts they titled “What is Enlightenment?”  In its non-technical form it is perhaps one of those questions that needs to be asked again and again.

Foucault made the observation that in Kant’s time questions were often put up for readership with the assumption the reader did not know the answer. By the time Foucault came to write his material readers could be assumed to have a set of answers to the questions he set about discussing. The issue Foucault faced was could what he wrote influence his reader? My position and Foucault’s are quite similar in this way, mind you he has a track record regarding an impact that I wouldn’t even begin to come near!

For today’s reader a piece of writing titled What is Enlightenment? might not catch their eye, but I do think threats to what the Enlightenment brought for Western society and culture are very much front and centre for many. Put simply our ideas about freedom, democracy, and critical thought owe a great deal to what the Enlightenment was all about, and currently societal fears about these issues are referenced every day in media items and pop culture. In this regard a person cited in other posts on this blog is Frank Furedi and he is well worth listening to.

What is noteworthy is how freedom, democracy and critical thought are not top of the list; what we are afraid of is. Social fears about the loss of freedom, democracy and the lack of critical thought are considered to be real concerns. The American leadership talks of the War Against Terror and the threat of Al-Qaeda and locally we encounter media items about drugs, alcohol use, threats embedded in how youth behave, and sex abuse of children. Currently the major threat coming to us via the media are economic concerns and the ever increasing cost of houses.

Al-Qaeda is regarded as a threat because it is seen as a group pushing for a return to a time and a way of life that is organized using a pre-Enlightenment way of seeing things. In an interesting twist local groups in our setting, such as government agencies who would see themselves as fighting against Al-Qaeda, are also being positioned as a threat to the ideas of the Enlightenment as well. Democracy and freedom are seen by some in the West as very much at risk from the very groups that govern the country.

Here in New Zealand the government defends a need for surveillance both to fight threats from outside the country but they are also seen as willing to spy on its own citizens.  This blog item is not written with the intention of feeding the reader’s fears, but it is valid to say there are things to take note of. This blog does not join the populist cries for increased surveillance and ever stronger punishment for those labelled bad and dangerous.

When I look out my apartment window I don’t see people running down the street in a state of panic, nor do I see images of this on my TV screen, and yet there is this feel that change is happening. In New Zealand it is that odd combination of apparent quiet and fear that is striking. It is a calm that has me worried. It is not that calm one links to personal or social balance, nor is it a calm that suggests peace is here amongst us, it is the calm of cultural hegemony.

It might help to offer some examples. I will offer three.

A couple of days ago the NZ Prime Minister, John Key was interviewed on Radio New Zealand National about a report where NZ homes are described as the most overvalued in the developed world relative to rents and incomes. He expressed the view this is not an indicator of a problem for housing in NZ.  The issue here is not the absence of any debate, it is the confidence John Key has that in the face of such a report he can say what he says.

A second example is a plan for Auckland city to have a CCTV city-wide surveillance network which incorporates facial recognition software (this ability applies to vehicle licence plates as well).  Again it is not the absence of a counter view, but rather the positing of the plan as if any other view is of no value – of course we should do this … it is what any reasonable society has to do, there is no other choice.

The third example is an update from Corrections Minister Anne Tolley that NZ is to have a sex register: “We want a register with everyone on it.” This includes those with name suppression. What is interesting here is how the only apparent counter point to this plan is the question can a database of this kind be secure, especially when NZ’s recent reputation for unsecure data on NZ citizens is well known. The NZ Privacy Commissioner’s Annual Report 2013 acknowledged a number of high-profile data breaches and security failures involving various government agencies including the Ministry of Social Development, EQC, and our GCSB was accused of spying illegally on NZ citizens. The issue of the civil and human rights of sex offenders is not even brought up by the most radial of social voices. The perspective is deemed not exist.

Of the three examples offered here – the housing crisis for New Zealand; city-wide surveillance systems for our largest city; or a sex register for those seen as the country’s most dangerous sex predators, the hegemonic calm is most evident in talk of a sex register. The mood in the country runs along these lines, ‘well of course we need one’ and ‘any sensible, caring person would want this.’ Information coming from other countries about how such strategies not only don’t deliver, they also bring new social problems and push social stigma even further for sex offenders, seems to have no impact on how views are shaped and sustained.

This term cultural hegemony links back to the Italian Communist intellectual Antonio Gramsci. Writing near the turn of the last century he used words like domination, class (as a real social grouping), a ruling class, ideology, power, and invasion. To us now, 2014, it may appear hard to connect with what he was making reference to. That is one of the difficulties when working with classical Communism, it seems another world, not our own. There are writers in our time who would say Communism is not dead, that the Spectre of Marx still walks amongst us. That argument can be left to another post, but what is central here is how Gramsci is right. There are groups inside our society who seek to dominate. Our beliefs, explanations, perceptions, values, and mores are not merely the outcome of our individual free choices. There is a dominant ideology at work, and in our own way – yes, different from Gramsci’s day – we have our ruling class.

The telltale signs of what is argued here is the way power becomes invisible, how talk of dominant ideology is denied strongly, how what is put forward is the view that our modern day dominant views are in fact merely ‘natural’, these are the views any reasonable, caring person would hold. Lastly I argue it is the presence of the threat of violence – if you should question this naturalness of these modern dominant views, and note how there is an ongoing claim of an absence of any power at play, then you will be crushed.

A prediction about New Zealand’s social and cultural future for the next year is not that it will fall apart because of deep social divisions, nor is it likely that there will be some large scale turn where the mistakes we make now will be abandoned. The image I have is of a country that is marching into the future, confident, quietly sure of what it wants, but what is most telling about that quiet is how the marching is being done – lock-stepped (imagine the marching done by a group of soldiers celebrating some event inside a fascist setting like Mussolini’s Italy 1943 or closer to our own time a military parade in North Korea 2014). In New Zealand 2014 ideology lives, power is very much part of what can happen and must not happen inside our media and popular culture, but there is no boy to say the Emperor has no clothes (here what is being pointed to is that well known children’s story of The Emperor’s New Clothes), for if any such voice emerges, there is a very good chance that voice won’t live long.

Notes:

Derrida, J. (2006) Specters of Marx: The State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning and the New International. First published by Routledge in English in 1994. New York and UK: Routledge Classic.

Foucault, M. (1984). What is Enlightenment? In P. Rabinow (Ed.), The Foucault Reader (pp. 32-50). New York: Pantheon Books.

Furedi, F. (2006) Culture of Fear Revisited. New York: Continuum.

Morton, A. (2007) Unravelling Gramsci: Hegemony and Passive Revolution in the Global Economy. Ann Arbor: Pluto Press

Do Sally and James have your support?

 

Sally and James are asking for social and community support (Parents Forever logo).

Sally and James are asking for social and community support (Parents Forever logo).

Recently a media item on NZTV2 20/20 caught my attention – The Silent Victim. The programme’s focus was on the families and partners of child sex offenders. In the media piece two women were interviewed: first a woman who, after her male partner was convicted of sexually abusing a girl, made the decision to remain with him and speak about what that process and situation were like for her; the second person interviewed was Shelly Lomas, a psychologist with Wellstop.

The first woman and her husband were given fictitious names – Sally and James. The way the media piece was put together Sally was presented as a brave woman – a person deserving not only a listening ear, but also admiration. That message of respect for Sally is strongly positive and gains my whole hearted support.

There were two occasions during the interview when this position of admiration for her was put in question. The first was in how Sally’s situation was framed. Her story was offered as a very unusual love story, one where if it were us the love would have stopped long ago. The second occasion was when Sally stated unequivocally that she loved James, he was in her words “an intelligent and genuinely nice guy”. The interviewer repositioned what Sally was saying by adding, “Yes, but do you trust him?”

Sally and James had been married about a decade prior to his sexual offending. She viewed her husband positively, and when asked, judged the sex life for them as a couple, before the offending, as average. The offending happened when a young female guest came into the family home.

Sally offered a number of personal insights that came out of her experience. Two of these were really significant. First the girl who was involved with James – and we know nothing about details – was experienced by Sally as a competitor for James’ affections, and in the competition Sally believed she had lost. She offered what is typical for a woman lensing news of a sexual affair through the model of sexual monogamy – the belief that for a second person to be loved by their current partner, and for that person to become sexually involved with one’s partner, is to have failed as a lover. With this as her belief Sally was drawn into entertaining self-destructive behaviours, although it seems from what is offered inside the 20/20 program, she never acted on those feelings. One could again blame James for all this, but I don’t think Sally did. The ‘monogamy model’ positions a woman, or any person in a relationship who finds out their sexual partner has sexual links to someone else, in a potentially harmful way. It is a particular way of interpreting sexual desire and its place inside a life that can be very unhelpful. Sally appears to have seen past this limitation. Her talk about herself and how she felt suggests she decided that fidelity, faithfulness amid change, is the better aspect to stress inside a committed relationship that sees itself as shaped by love.

Sally did more than offer self-reflections, she challenged the viewer. She offered an outsider a riddle inside a question – what if someone you admire deeply sexually offends, what would you do, how would you feel? It is easy to see why this woman was viewed inside the 20/20 programme as brave.

Sally also talked of the issue of shame. Unsurprisingly Sally experienced shame when news of her husband’s offending became public. Out of that sprang a question, would it change for her if she left him? Her answer was no, the shame would remain. It was her view the message “leave him” is the message of society and the wider community. At the same time she understood that message can be resisted, her personal experience told her that the wider community may be wrong.

This idea the community and wider society can get things wrong about how to manage the sex offender came through the interview with the second woman as well. Shelly Lomas of Wellstop saw the modern response to sex offender as blocking the possibility of things getting better. It is her view all the mechanisms and strategies for helping the sex offender deal better with life are dismantled by punitive attitudes and social isolation; the sex offender is denied the capacity or even the possibility of hope. Shelly expressed strongly the belief this approach was for her counterintuitive – “How do people expect to make change when you shut down all the processes that you and I would ordinarily use to evolve and move to a better place?”

The final insight Sally referenced was the role of human doubt inside what it means to be in love with a person. She was asked, as one might expect, “What if James sexually abused a second time, would you leave him then?” Her answer was “I don’t know.” In 2008 John Patrick Shanley directed a movie in which Meryl Streep played the part of a religious woman in the employ of the Catholic Church – Sister Aloysius Beauvier. Eventually it became clear Beauvier was on the war path to push a priest out of the parish where she worked. The character of the priest – Father Brendan Flynn, was played by Philip Seymour Hoffman. The movie was called Doubt and it was about sexual abuse inside the Catholic Church. At the end of the movie Sister Aloysius Beauvier, the character Streep gave life to, cupped her face in her hands following her success at getting the man moved on and said, loudly crying, “But I have such doubts.”

Father Flynn early in the movie gave a well thought through homily to the local Catholic community, pointing out that doubt is a position from inside which interpersonal and even political relationships can grow and deepen – he was referencing the period following the assassination of President JF Kennedy. He was, of course, arguing how certitude can be a deeply problematic model on which to forge a life, or the path for whole communities as well. The various versions of fundamentalist worldviews that surround us today, ranging from fundamentalist Islam to strident statements by Richard Dawkins, serve to reinforce the view offered in Father Flynn’s homily.

Voices of people who are not frequently offered the chance to speak are situations that grab my attention, plus there is a theme in this 20/20 media piece that seeks from wider society an extended hand of human compassion. In what is written here there is a separation between what is said by the women interviewed and how the item has been managed by those who put together this media item. To the two women who are interviewed I deliberately extend a message of respect, they deserve that in my view; the makers of the media piece are judged less positively.

You have heard the saying, “How did a nice woman like you get to be in a bad place like this?” The media piece gave an answer to this by stressing how all the women in the group being referenced in this story experience suffering because of their partners’ offending. The sub-text being offered in this media piece is negative in how men are referenced.

The 20/20 item gained a place on my Facebook wall and I chose to support the process where these voices are given space inside our public discussions. ‘The Silent Victim’ opened with the idea that people have experiences that need to be considered, but these people daren’t speak out for fear of persecution. Because ‘The Silent Victim’ showed it understood how some voices are blocked and suffer because of this, I was looking for more: just where will this compassion take us? Will we be asked to extend that empathetic skill set to the sexual offender? The answer seems to be a clear no.

That clear no for me was sad, but the programme’s shortcomings did not end there. Again I stress, a critical eye is focused on how the media item was assembled, not the women who were interviewed, or the views they offered. The profile of the sex offender was male; I saw no acknowledgement that sexual offending against children could be attached to the profile of a woman. And this piece was written as if same sex couples did not exist. Allowing for an untruth to be believed – that all sex offenders are men – the partner of the offender could also be male. Two important pieces of New Zealand legislation are crucial: the Homosexual Law Reform Act 1986 legalising consentual sex between men aged 16 and over, and the very recent law allowing same sex couples to marry – Marriage (Definition of Marraige) Amendment Act 2013. The media item’s ‘heterosexual normalism’ seems seriously out of step with what is happening in the real world.

It could be asked was this feature I am calling heterosexual normalism merely an oversight by those who put together this media item, a forgetfulness? Perhaps, but another explanation, one that is much more problematic, could be at play. The program is clearly wanting to show compassion and empathy towards the families and partners of sex offenders. It may also be inspired by a strongly feminist ideology that is zoological, by that I mean a form of feminism that is deterministic and is really only about women as opposed to a different kind of feminism where men are included in that better world one is working to create. If same sex male couples had been included then the empathy the program wants to push for would be directed to men as well as women, a position a zoological version of feminism would not want to engage.

The last element of one-sidedness and distortion that I found regrettable in this piece rests with the West’s newest social and cultural blind spot. There was no space offered to the idea that sexual contacts across generations could be positioned inside friendship, or how such encounters could be framed positively. I would not be at all surprised if a reader felt I had just taken a step too far, but take it I will.

In my view The Silent Victim is in fact the same old same old. I am disappointed because I view these moments as opportunities, chances to do some good. I am glad that Sally’s narrative has been given some public space, and the move to get New Zealand society to consider the situations of those impacted by sex abuse, NZ prisons, and what comes after the person is released. All this matters a great deal. But still the negative attitudes to the sex offender, the profiling of men as the real source of women’s personal suffering, these messages are not simply tedious – they’re dangerous.

________

Late post: This item in Salon was offered to me by a British friend after the above article was put on my blog site. On the page it had this publication information: .

Married to a Pedophile – Salon.com

Being liberal is no easy life-choice.

Apparently we are all being watched.

Apparently we are all being watched.

The focus of this blog Take-A-Risk-NZ is on crime, sexuality, social change, and in particular, the situation minor-attracted people find themselves dealing with. The views offered here may seem to many to be off to one side and remote – if a reader goes to the pub or some social gathering the ideas I offer are probably not going to pop up in conversation.  Other issues it could be argued are more worthy of public concern.

I don’t see it quite that way, although there are some really big issues out there. The canary in the coal mine comes to mind. As things change and new problems replace old ones the signs a problem is present can be found in what at the time is not focused on and not judged to be important. In earlier days inside a coal mine those who went down into the mine would take with them a small bird in a cage. While down inside the mine the bird, perhaps a canary, might begin to struggle and fall ill, indicating a gas leak or the presence of a threat, a danger the miners may fail to register. To fail to see the bird having problems was to leave open the possibility a person might be the next animal to die. How minority groups experience problems can be for the rest of us a warning regarding our fate as a society.

Yesterday two plain clothes police officers came to my apartment complex. They had taken an interest in an image that was distributed inside Tumblr, a social media network much like Facebook. The picture these officers were interested in was of a boy pointing a handgun at his head. That image was used in a post put up on this blog that discussed the use of the term sexual orientation when referring to a person who is minor attracted. The American Psychological Association had just pulled the use of this term in favour of the phrase sexual interest when referring to the desire felt by a minor attracted person. (For a background to this see this Washington Times piece.)

What this blog piece offers was referenced by Tom O’Carroll in an item titled “Should we publish and be damned?” A commenter on that article, Peter Loudon, shared details about the person who took the image of the boy in the picture. The image eventually found its way to Tumblr. Peter stated as part of his comment, “The photograph was taken by Jan H Andersen using a model. Andersen lives in Denmark. His blog is here http://www.jhandersen.com/ and his stock photography collection is here http://www.expozero.com/. The photograph in question can be found in the collection ‘Death and Suicide’.”

When my blog item, along with image of the boy and the gun, was put up on Take-A-Risk-NZ a link to it appeared on my Facebook page.  It was this link the NZ Police took an interest in. The two women were in front of me to give me a polite message – we are watching you. I don’t have any criminal convictions, but apparently I am a person of interest. The police are, I am sure, convinced such interest is what their job requires – under that banner of “child protection”.

There are times when to understand an event one needs to locate it inside a context. Digital communications like those used by a lot of us – Facebook, Tumblr, emails – are of interest of the State and its agents, Mr. Snowden has helped us see this very clearly. Also 2014 seems to be part of what has been unfolding for some time now – over the last thirty years there has been a turning process unfolding.

The 1960s and 70s are now very much under attack and a part of the liberal commentary that filled those decades is now viewed as suspect, even dangerous. (See Tim Stanley’s views of both Camille Paglia and Allen Ginsberg, and a podcast on The Telegraph titled “Why did the 1970s become a haven for evil?”.) Men and women my age find themselves in the gaze of others as agents of dangerous views, and some bashing is going on, especially for the males in that cohort (see Barbara Hewson’s comments on the persecution of old men).

When responding to the two police officers I mentioned Mr Snowden and the watching process they referred to. I stressed this activity is well known to many of us. I also asked them to tell me if any image, like that of the boy with the gun, is linked to criminal activity, links I may be unaware of, please tell me of such things, I want to know if I have been pulled into something unawares.

If asked, my politics is liberal; perhaps the term “left” might be a fit as well. Whatever the label, the views I hold and the commitment I have to them is no easy road to walk. Over that period of thirty years I refer to above, it could be said the liberal and the left have not had the upper hand politically. It has been the neoliberals and the Christian right who seem to have been the movers and the shakers. One choice I have made is to back the liberal view because I think it deserves my support. Like the opinion voices of Alain Badiou and Michel Foucault I think an event is something that one should link to truth and truth telling. The 1960s and 70s can be seen as an event and a truth, something that broke through into our lives that needs to be allowed to touch us now in 2014.

Further Reading:

Are Jon Henley and The Guardian prophetic or is it just sound science?

Finally, a word in edgeways at the Guardian!. is a blog entry penned by Tom O’Carroll. He points to a media piece by Jon Henley published in The Guardian in which he shares his overview of the current debate regarding the pedophile. As journalism goes these days on this topic Henley’s piece is well written and balanced.

On my Facebook site this comment was offered: “Matt Wilkinson of the Sun, and where one writes seems to be well worth making note of, attacks Henley for being liberal and left-wing. Clearly for him such labels are harmful to writers! Sadly The Sun newspaper and it’s writers see any reasoned argument as pro-pedophile, and if they are right, then it tells us a lot as to where the Sun believes the debate is going to travel to. The fear here is that reason, in the end, will prevail.”

The response to Jon Henley’s article (a sample listed below) has included some strong messages of criticism about the Guardian newspaper for publishing this item, as well as personal attacks on Tom O’Carroll – viewed in such attacks as unable to speak because he has a profile of a ‘career pedophile’.  Sociologically speaking O’Carroll is probably one of the most consistent contributors one can find to the global debate on pedophilia, for a period spanning decades. (For more see his website: Heretic TOC.)

Reflecting on this article by Henley there is an important question in play here, that of what constitutes scientific and moral authority, how is the truth spoken, what are the rules governing this process, and is it that moral positions, especially driven by emotional aspects, can have little or no empirical basis and still stay in play?

Recently in an article by Zachar and Kendler the question was posed can decisions in the sciences like the classification of Pluto as a planet and is homosexuality a mental disorder help us understand how scientific authority functions for us today? In their paper they show there are situations, at times controversial ones at that, where empirical evidence and theorizing can be very much at odds. Their solution is problematic for some issues however. Zachar and Kendler argue for a form of democratic exchange, they see privilege and the seeding of scientific subcommittees with one-sided experts as unhelpful, and on the face of it such a position is easy to agree with. Where this democratic process can be unhelpful are in issues that are deeply socially contentious, issues like pedophilia. Democracy tends to keep social prejudice rather than overturn it.

What is needed is something both secular culture and religion have come to value – in secular thought it comes under the heading of intellectual insight and critical thought; inside the world of religion it is seen as prophetic speech, visionary leadership. From a secular perspective what you end up with is a better view of the real, and in some cases that includes an emancipated society and culture; in religious groups it is an appreciation of the divine and the human. Both frames of reference see any situation as able to be improved able to get better, science can progress from where it is to a science which is more sound, societies that are more humane. Perhaps that is what unites a person like Tom O’Carroll and the sex abuse industry, there is a belief that things can improve, child abuse can be reduced, individuals can see themselves as being inside a human community and they should not be expelled for being sexually what they feel they cannot change – and why should they.