The Christchurch Civic Creche Case
	News Reports - Home 2007 Index
	The Press June 23 2007 Stirring up a debate that never goes away by Matt Philp FREDA BRIGGS: "They claim I influence the policy of the New Zealand Police! The Commissioner would fall about laughing.'' Photo: Nelson Mail An Australian academic's claims about child sex abuse have reopened a bitter debate in Christchurch. MATT PHILP asks who is Professor Freda Briggs, and why has she caused the latest stir. Christchurch is still a city possessed. At least, that is what you would have had to conclude on the basis of the fierce exchange that took place in the letters pages of The Press last February between a visiting Australian child-sex-abuse researcher and her detractors. Professor Freda Briggs, a longtime voluntary adviser to the New Zealand Police on its school-based abuse-prevention programmes, was challenged to defend her research and expertise, and "exposed" as a believer in the widespread existence of ritual sex abuse. Among the correspondents was Lynley Hood, the Dunedin-based author of A City Possessed, which explores the backdrop to Christchurch's notorious Civic Creche sex-abuse trial of the early 1990s. But last week, Briggs, who believes the correspondence was an orchestrated campaign by supporters of Peter Ellis, the sole person convicted over the creche abuse, was seemingly vindicated when the Press Council upheld her complaint that she'd been treated unfairly when The Press published the last two letters. "It became so personal, just absolute madness," says Briggs, on the phone from Adelaide. Anywhere other than Christchurch, she adds, and what she says about the sexual abuse of children would be greeted as common sense. Is it common sense? Who is Freda Briggs, what does she believe and how do you explain the level of criticism she has attracted? In Australia, the 75-year-old emeritus professor of child development at the University of South Australia has largely escaped controversy. Briggs pioneered the study of child sex abuse there, after early careers in the London Metropolitan police, social work and teaching in some of the tougher British schools, where she says she learned she could "spot" children who had been abused. Her research has included interviewing hundreds of paedophiles, an experience that shaped her views on the process of denial and self-justification by which so many victims go on to offend. She is the go-to person for media, a consultant to federal and state government departments and a patron of victim advocacy organisations. In 2002, the Anglican Church appointed Briggs to a two-member inquiry into allegations that child sex abuse in the Brisbane diocese had been swept under the carpet by church leaders. Owen Sanders, the New Zealand Police manager of the youth-education-services unit behind Keeping Ourselves Safe, appreciates Briggs's background of practical experience. "She knows what it is like in schools, on the streets and for people investigating abuse cases." But Lynley Hood says Briggs is an alarmist whose "illfounded" statements about the prevalence of sex abuse continue to "fan the hysteria surrounding the issue". She believes the academic has been particularly influential in getting "corrosive" school-based programmes about sex abuse into all levels of the New Zealand education system. "She seems to have the ear of the government," Hood says. Whether that's true or not, it was certainly comment by Briggs about the need for sex-abuse education that incited the February "onslaught". To recap: In January, a study co-authored by Briggs and published in a Ministry of Social Development journal concluded that 44 per cent of the boys and girls in two South Island special-needs schools had been subjected to abuse, ranging from "rude games" to rape. Inundated with calls asking for the schools' names, Briggs wrote a letter to The Press remarking that what mattered was not which schools were involved, but giving teachers appropriate training to recognise signs of abuse. The first critical letter was published soon after. Ross Francis, a Wellington-based librarian and part-time researcher into the Ellis case, suggested any expert worth their salt would know there are no behavioural symptoms exclusive to sex abuse and cast doubt on Briggs's publishing history and her impartiality. So began the squall. Other critics warned of "hypervigilance based on poor science", and accused Briggs of attempting to paint ritual abuse back into existence, based on her endorsement in a foreword to an Australian report into the so-called phenomenon. It took only until the second letter for Peter Ellis's name to be mentioned. Several of Briggs' dismayed Australian supporters responded, and then the academic weighed in, defending her credentials and disputing that she believed ritual abuse was widespread. She accused her antagonists of being in denial about abuse. Throughout, the correspondence is shot through with mutual suspicion, unaddressed criticisms and all the baggage of the Civic Creche case and the sex-abuse wars of the 1980s and '90s. I ndeed, the surprise is that it has taken until now for Briggs to come under fire here, given the power of that history and the nature of her research and advocacy. At various times in her career she has: accused an adversarial court system of further abusing children and giving licence to sex offenders to get away with it. lobbied for abuse-prevention programmes to be extended into pre-schools. produced research showing that 10% of New Zealand children had been abused by their babysitters and warned that solo mothers should try to avoid employing adolescent males as sitters. All red rags in some quarters. Yet Briggs remarks that the "vitriol" of the attack surprised her. She says some of the letter writers continue to make "outrageous claims" on men's advocacy websites, and that Ross Francis emailed her university bosses accusing her of making false claims about her research and credentials. She portrays her critics as a handful of Ellis supporters, and their challenge as a "vendetta". In almost half a century of professional life, she says, she has never encountered anything like it. "What they're trying to do is keep me out of New Zealand." Why? "Because they don't want child-protection education in schools. What other explanation is there for it?" But Briggs says they have overstated her power. "They claim I influence the policy of the New Zealand Police! The Commissioner would fall about laughing." Sanders, too, rejects the idea of Briggs as a pivotal figure, saying her role is simply to evaluate the effectiveness of the programme and make recommendations. Has Briggs been responsible for getting sex-abuse education into preschools? "No, we always intended to develop a programme that went right through," Sanders says. He believes the attacks are motivated by suspicion that both Briggs and the programme are openly anti-male. But the criticism is off target: one of Briggs's key concerns is that the vulnerability of boys is underestimated; she has urged men's groups to get involved in child protection and ensured that Keeping Ourselves Safe acknowledges that child sex abusers are often women. "The only ideology I've ever detected in Freda is the same one I've got: we care for our children and know that we have to do a lot better for them." For her part, Briggs defends the rigour of her research. Her findings are consistent with overseas research – indeed, if anything, her "contentious" survey of the special-needs schools turned up less abuse than similar overseas studies, she comments. Programmes like Keeping Ourselves Safe are essential, says Briggs, given that children do not instinctively know how to protect themselves and parents fail to teach them. But don't they foster false allegations? "If you're not educated, then you're more likely to make false complaints," she says, "because you don't know the difference between what is reportable and what is not." Asked for her view of the incidence of sexual abuse, however, Briggs is harder to pin down. At first, she says she doesn't pretend to know. Pressed, she suggests it is far more common and damaging than the public is aware. She mentions research that one in three girls are abused before they leave school and quotes Australian justice figures describing it as rampant. Just this week, she notes by email, the Australian Federal Government described sexual abuse of Aboriginal children as a "national emergency". "Frankly," she adds, "I think we are more open about child sexual abuse in Australia." Hood, however, questions claims about prevalence. "All these studies depend on the notoriously unreliable method of retrospective self-reporting and on how you define sexual abuse." Hood rejects Briggs's remark that she is in denial. "But the hysteria surrounding the subject is so pervasive that anyone who suggests a more thoughtful discussion risks being accused of being in denial." Professor Alison Jones, of the University of Auckland's School of Education, was once taken to task by Briggs in exactly that manner, after she publicly criticised moves to extend sex-abuse education into pre-schools. Jones, whose academic interest is in the effect on teachers of social concerns about touching children, remarked that Briggs had an overdeveloped anxiety about sexual abuse. "She wrote me a couple of stiffly worded letters, basically saying how dare I imply anything about her work. She also wrote to my dean and implied that I was a danger to New Zealand children ... The key point is that one must not criticise her views because of her standing – as if debate within academic circles isn't precisely what we are about." But Briggs denies she bullies her critics. "Criticism I can take. A personal vendetta is a different matter."