|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
|
We need to keep recalibrating how
well our society is protecting its most vulnerable members from the
predations of the sleazy It's a restless task because it
really takes a constant process of assessment and correction, reacting to
changing times without losing bedrock values. Most would agree that the safety
of our children is paramount but also that this is not achieved by clumsy
superabundance of caution, to an extent that creates excessive mistrust and
an amplified climate of fear. Guidelines for teachers' physical
contact with children have lost some of the stringency that was imposed by a
1990s code of practice influenced by the Christchurch Civic Creche case. The
Early Childhood Council has warned our children have been getting
"quarantined" from men because of sexist recruitment policies
linked to the previous decade's "paedophile hysteria". The shortage of male teachers is
troubling and there is certainly a need for careful correction of this
imbalace. A telling indication of an easing of outlook is the New Zealand
Educational Institute's new guideline that restores, for instance, physical
contact like cuddling distressed children, or changing nappies. Obviously
there needs to be clear safety details, for the protection of teachers as
well as children, but the dynamic had become a tad too uncomfortably
constrained. We certainly need to monitor our teachers for trustworthiness
but that is not the same as defaulting to a system that sees no place for
trust. Meanwhile, a constriction of rules
is developing at Gymnastics New Zealand, an organisation that has become
acutely aware of the risk of paedophiles taking photos of young athletes. All
spectator cameras taken into the championships in Christchurch are to be
registered and labelled. Was this really necessary? Maybe.
It's certainly a delicate call either way. Amid the photographers there's
real potential for offence at what they may see as an overheated presumption
of ill-intent. It's also entirely understandable that parents would be
appalled by the notion that images of their children could become fodder for
the debased in private, or even posted on to the internet. If there really is
a particular risk at these events, then particular protections may be
appropriate. What is clear, however, is that it
would become ridiculous if this became a general practice. This newspaper is
routinely able to gladden the hearts of its readers with delightful,
endearing photos of young people at sport and at play. Yet on occasion we are
scolded for photos that some of our readers insist would excite paedophiles. No healthy society should avert
its proud gaze from its children on the basis of the corrupted values of a
tiny minority. If we're prepared to do that we might as well shove them into
burqas. This is not a call to serene
indolence, merely appropriate reaction. In that category, the Crimes
(Intimate Covert Filming) Amendent Bill deserves a swift passage into law. It
corrects a gap in legislation that fails to allow sufficient penalty for the
sly and invasive practice of intimate covert filming, such as with mobile
phones. Technology has made this new law an urgent necessity. The bill defines such filming as
"the making of surreptitious visual records of other persons in intimate
circumstances, without their knowledge or consent, and in circumstances that
the person would reasonably expect to be private." Nicely put. |
