Nov 162012
 

Way back in the 15th, and 16th centuries there was an outbreak of mass hysteria where in many instances the mere accusation of a crime could very well result in finding yourself tied to a stake with a bonfire burning around your feet. The crime? Well it is arguably the case that the victims tended to be inconvenient women – women of power, individuality, or just a trifle too odd for a misogynist. Ignoring the so-called crime itself, there is a great deal of similarity between the hysteria surrounding those ancient witchcraft panics, and the modern day paedophilia panics.

Although paedophilia is a real and serious crime –  in fact because paedophilia is such a serious crime – we need to be very careful about accusations of paedophilia. An accusation is enough to do irreparable damage to a person’s reputation, career, marriage, or even life. Which sounds a reasonable enough start at a punishment for a paedophile, but an accusation doesn’t mean someone is guilty. Again, again (although it is interesting how this story has been inflated over the years), again, again, again, again, again, again,  and again, those who take the law into their own hands have been shown to make mistakes.

And last week with the combination of old media (Newsnight) and new media managed to “name and shame” a totally innocent party: Lord McAlpine. His supposed victim has since indicated that he was mistaken about the identity of his abuser, and that it was not Lord McAlpine. Newsnight managed to “leak” enough information for other parties (the “new media” bloggers) to figure out the name.

No matter how serious the crime, an alleged perpetrator is entitled to present a defence; indeed under British justice an accuser has to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the perpetrator is guilty. And “trial by twitter” is certainly not a fair system of justice.

Of course none of this means we should be taking accusations by the victims any less seriously. Such a victim may well misidentify the perpetrator for all sorts of possible reasons, but that does not mean the crime has not taken place. An accusation needs to be properly investigated to identify the real perpetrator(s), and done in such a way that any potential perpetrators who have been shown to be innocent do not suffer in any way.

Misidentifying an attacker may sound the kind of thing that is pretty unlikely, but is hardly impossible. As an example, within the city I live there used to be someone who looked enough like me for a significant number of people to walk up to me and have a long conversation without realising they were talking to the wrong person.

Jun 252009
 

One of my pet hates is the inappropriate use of the word paedophile. If you look up the proper definition of the word it is someone who is sexually interested in children specifically prepubescent children. That means children who have not been through puberty.

Is that the same as someone who is sexually interested in post-puberty “children” ? No it is not. Yet people assume that anyone who has sex with someone under the age of consent is a paedophile. However wrong it is to have sex with someone under the age of consent, it is a different order of magnitude with a child under the age of puberty.

Even more ridiculously, people have even used paedophile to refer to anyone who expresses an interest in anyone a great deal younger than themselves. The “victims” of such “paedophiles” are well over the age of consent.

By misusing the word paedophile, we trivialise the ofense. Sex with an “adult” under the age of consent may be bad, but it is ridiculous to compare it to abusing a 2 year old.