Paper's massive error of judgment over paedophilia

[Magda Hassan]

Ah, the hallowed 'objectivity' of the media.

Even Guardian readers are outraged by the paper's massive error of judgment over paedophilia

By Tim Stanley Society Last updated: January 4th, 2013
371 Comments Comment on this article



There's been a lot of comment in the past 24 hours about Jon Henley's article on paedophilia. Published by The Guardian under the headline, "Bringing Dark Desires to Light", it posed as a balanced consideration of what makes paedophiles tick.
The problem was less with content than with tone. Henley tried to bring "objectivity" to an issue the potential or literal abuse of children about which there is no reason to be objective. Tom Watson MP points out that Henley failed to quote the victims of abuse, preferring instead to interview experts and even a perpetrator one Tom O'Carroll, described as "a former chairman of PIE and tireless paedophilia advocate with a conviction for distributing indecent photographs of children following a sting operation." Such a collection of sources might be appropriate for a peer-reviewed study distributed among cloistered psychiatrists, but for a newspaper report available to millions of non-experts it was stunningly tone deaf. When writing about something that is so morally outrageous in a national newspaper, any effort at balance actually advantages minority opinions because a) it gives them a platform they would otherwise not enjoy and b) it allows them a degree of equality of authority that they don't deserve. It would be like writing an article about the origins of the Holocaust and peppering it with quotes by David Irving claiming that it never happened. Not only would Irving be thrilled at the publicity (and for the freaks of society, any publicity is good publicity) but it would also encourage other anti-Semites to feel that their opinions are worthy of wider publication.
And there's evidence of that happening in the comments section beneath the article. Many, many readers write that they are shocked that The Guardian published Henley's piece in the first place. Some celebrate it as a victory for rational debate. But for a small group, it's become an opportunity to share their unwelcome views on the comments pages of a major media outlet. Tom O'Carroll reappears, engaging with readers and spreading his perverse gospel. Two sample quotes (others have been taken down by moderators):
I have read about half the comments here so far. A lot are thoughtful and interesting but what the debate is largely lacking is well founded information other than (from a handful of contributors) direct personal knowledge … Rather than rushing to conclusions such as "it's all about power abuse not sex", "they can't give meaningful consent", etc., it helps to look first at a range of evidence, including research based on adult-child sexual encounters that do not fit the stereotype that generally dominates the debate (such as it is: very one-sided).
For those of you who might be of the opinion that all paedophilic abuse is inherently "one-sided" and not exactly the stuff of romance, the public minded Mr O'Connor does share some tips on reducing incidents of rape:
There will always be abusers, but the more open our institutions are including the family the less abusive they will be. Children should be encouraged to speak up. The other side of the coin, though, is that they should be taken seriously when they say YES as well as NO.
It goes without saying that a child can never say "YES". But, then again, it has to be said because Henley's piece has now sparked a debate.
To be absolutely clear, Henley's intention was not to normalise paedophilia with this article. But by suggesting that the number of potential paedophiles is very high (1 to 2 per cent of males), by talking about gradations of sexual attraction, by stressing that Jimmy Saville can abuse adolescent girls without technically being a paedophile and by quoting the argument for a qualitative difference between paedophilia and child molestation, Henley ran the risk of letting some paedophiles think that "the time has come" for an honest discussion. Some or all of the above might true, but presented without emotional editorial comment it was open to being received in multiple ways. Another commentator writes this:
Hi, as a pedophile I think I might have something to say: We do not choose to be attracted to children, and we cannot make that attraction go away. But we can resist the temptation to abuse children sexually, and many of us present no danger to children whatsoever … We can, and DO lead productive, happy, law-abiding lives. We are unfairly treated as monsters, as predators. We are human beings. No one chooses to fall in love with a woman, or fall in love with a man, or a tree, or a furniture object, or a child. If you are the kind of people who like grown-ups, consider yourself lucky. But we are not "predators": most pedophiles would never sexually touch a child, and know their boundaries pretty well. Many pedophiles are not child molesters and in fact, detest those who harm kids.
This is a plea for tolerance to be shown towards something that is utterly undeserving of tolerance. To write that perverts "know their boundaries pretty well" isn't very reassuring, but this whole argument is a fiction anyway. What does it mean to be a paedophile unless you do want to "touch a child"? And if you did "touch a child" you would be harming them all of which is why having paedophilic desires is good grounds, at the very least, for isolation and treatment. The author of this comment claims that paedophiles "present no danger to children" and yet he also confesses to "sexual attraction" towards them. That poses more than just an existential threat. If someone wrote, "I have an overwhelming desire to rape every woman I see … but I promise not to do anything about it" would it be unreasonable to fear them?
The Guardian readers know what's going on, of course. Someone responds:
It's very interesting this article has attracted comments from a number of advocates for sexual abuse under the guise of being advocates for open-mindedness and empathy towards pedophilia. It's important to see how they argue, how they manipulate the facts, etc … Tthey present themselves as objective judges of what is "reasonable" and "rational" and "thoughtful" and open minded.
Bingo. This astute observation goes to the heart of what's wrong with the tone and the publication of Henley's piece. Not only has a space been open for debate about something that hardly needs debating, but it's also injected the misleading discourse of "reason" vs "hysteria" in to it. The constant call for "reason" can become a way of blinding us to certainly universal truths that don't require reason to resonate. Paedophilia revolts us partly on the intellectual grounds that a child cannot consent and so can only be abused. But it is also legitimate to feel an emotional response, and we shouldn't scorn those who display it. Paedophilia is, to use an old phrase, a crime against nature. It offends everything we feel about parenthood and innocence. It is an assault on everything fine and decent, and it ought only to generate feelings of disgust and shame.
In its pursuit of "open mindedness", Henley's article risked divorcing itself from that deep well of natural outrage. That's why so many were instinctively appalled by it and why so many have asked, "Has The Guardian's editorial staff lost its senses?"

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timsta...edophilia/