|
|
Allegations
of Abuse in Institutions |
|
|
|
|
An almost audible sigh
can be heard from New Zealanders as they contemplate yet another labyrinthine
case of institutional abuse and the liturgy of apologies and compensation
that will inevitably go with it. After the St John of God, Porirua Mental
Hospital, Nazareth House, Salvation Army and prison solitary confinement
affairs, and others, we could do without the deep flesh wound that is
beginning to suppurate at Waiouru. But an operation to staunch the bleeding
and drain the infection cannot be avoided. The number of complaints
about the cadet school, and the seriousness and detail of their content,
means that the facts need to be established if the army is to maintain its
reputation and troubled complainants given a fair chance of putting the past
behind them. A thorough investigation will assure parents that signing their
young people's enlistment papers does not lead to beatings and humiliations.
Recruits need to know that the military offers them the chance to serve the
nation and learn skills in a humane environment. New Zealanders need to know
that they have a defence force that looks after its personnel. The Government is
therefore right to have moved promptly to set up an investigation into both
the charges and present training practices. It is also welcome that Defence
Minister Mark Burton has promised to initiate prosecutions if the findings
warrant. But the investigator has not been named and the terms of reference
not set, two things that could weaken the inquiry. Given the quarter
century that has passed since the alleged abuses and the tradition of the
military to resent civilians prying into its business, the investigator will
need perseverance and standing. The military, particularly those now out of
the service, will want to protect their own. Nevertheless, the
investigator, and the New Zealand public, needs to bring a sense of history
to this business. Twenty five years ago, society was far more tolerant of
notions that young men needed to be toughened up: corporal punishment was
still used in primary and secondary schools; the military was training to
fight an aggressive enemy; most people had jobs that required muscle; it was
a macho man's world. Moreover, the now prevailing (and often suffocating)
doctrine of political correctness was then in its infancy: the inviolability
of the human body and its rights to privacy were hardly heard nostrums; duty
of care was a dusty legal fiction. In that context, the events at Waiouru are
more understandable. They were not out of keeping with the times or with
military traditions -- traditions that had not so long before allowed the
sentencing to death of soldiers and the flogging of sailors. The officers who
controlled the cadet school and closed an eye to its brutal practices were
part of that tradition and will almost certainly be shown to be good men who
thought they were breaking in wimpish young men for a tough assignment. Even with this
historical perspective in mind, some of the alleged practices were excessive.
Scrubbing a naked cadet with a yard broom is torture -- then or now; so is
being made to run a gauntlet of fists and boots. Barrackroom rough and tumble
is one thing, a culture of violence another. It is also difficult to excuse
officers who did not come to the aid of psychologically broken cadets. All
these young men were, in effect, wards of State, often from deprived homes
and with limited personality skills. They were vulnerable, with low
expectations that opened them to abuse. It is a pity that their superiors --
even though they were believers in the school of hard knocks -- too often
failed to harness rather than break that human potential. This complexity of
background means that the inquiry requires a measured approach. Inflaming
moral outrage should be avoided because it will complicate the establishment
of the facts. A clear understanding of the attitudes prevalent at the time
needs to be kept in mind if today's morality is not to be imposed on the
past. And the inquiry might usefully avoid recommending large financial
compensation. The victims' best recompense is that their stories be heard and
the truth established. |
