|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
|
Children's Commissioner
Cindy Kiro's judgment of all men by the worst example is a suitably juvenile
tribute to her portfolio. Her assumption that
men, by definition, are potential child abusers is one she shares with (and
for which she praises) our main domestic airlines, which ban men from sitting
next to unaccompanied children. In ensuring the safety
of minors in their care, Qantas and Air New Zealand choose (as airlines are
obliged to in all other matters) to err on the side of caution. In their favour, it is
a demonstrable fact that men won't interfere with children if they can't sit
next to them, just as a dog that is fenced in will not bite (or mount)
passers-by or worry a neighbour's sheep. The airlines make no
exceptions for travelling dogs, either. The policy of leaving
nothing to chance is contemptuous of the majority of the airlines' paying
customers, who are male. Is it possible to take a more understanding view;
that, as its defenders argue, if such discrimination prevents one child from
being indecently assaulted, isn't it worthwhile? If so, should men be
sitting near children, unsupervised, under any circumstances, in buses, movie
theatres or at sporting events? The airlines' policy
says all males have an incontinent predilection for molesting children. In
short, men are bad for them. Paedophilia is the
blackest of crimes and nothing is spared in the urge to condemn it, least of
all the sensibilities of males obliged to shoulder the burden of shared
guilt. The consequent fear of
suspicion and tarnish of accusation mean children are anathema to men, too,
and that segregation might protect the latter from false claims of sexual
assault. Earlier this month it was reported that Swiss Santa Clauses have
been banned from sitting children on their laps because of the risk that they
might face such accusations. A letter on this page laments the mistrust of
any relationship a male teacher has with his pupils. After Dr Kiro's
reflexive endorsement of ring-fencing males, the comments of former prison
superintendent and author Celia Lashlie makes refreshing sense: "New
Zealand, as a culture, is starting to hide behind political correctness in
order not to have to demonstrate moral courage and integrity". In collectivising
crime, the lazy, sweeping assumption that all men are potential paedophiles
is a symptom of society's inability, or refusal, to address sex offending.
Perhaps it is because the absolution convicted sex offenders find in their
own circumstances theoretically extends to everyone. If no man can be
answerable for his actions, then no man can really be trusted. Interestingly, many
unconcerned about shaming and insulting all men by associating them with
paedophilia are likely to be those who insist that punishing and humiliating
sex offenders by identifying them is counterproductive. The airlines make no
apology for their policy. How strange that corrupting the principle of
presumption of innocence should have become a virtue. Some suggest indignant
travellers should vote with their wallets. However, lack of competition means
males are captive to the airlines, which clearly cannot fathom the resentment
their policies have provoked. For many men, each
flight will now be accompanied by the nasty sensation that they are there
under sufferance, because their hosts emphatically believe they are potential
child molesters
|
