[Previous entry: ""] [Main Index] [Next entry: ""]

01/16/2006: ""

It isn't, by any standards, an appealing choice.

In the red (?) corner, we have Ruth Kelly, Education Secretary, Opus Dei member and lickspittle Blair apologist. In the blue corner, we have the baying ranks of the witch-hunting media, screaming for her blood, with hopefully a few 'sex beasts' to torment into the bargain. The issue, of course, is sex offenders and teaching, specifically the revelations that certain persons listed on the Sex Offenders Regsiter have held teaching jobs thanks to special exemptions made by Kelly and her predecessors.



There are agendas aplenty at work here, but my meagre contribution is to make a few, hopefully clear-headed observations. First, I don't know that it matters terribly that William Gibson went on to marry and have babies with his former pupil. The fact is, she was both underage (though only just) and his pupil at the time when the offence occurred, and this constitutes a pretty serious breach of the responsibility with which he was entrusted. It would be a strange sort of justice that judged the actions of abusers by seeing how the originally abusive relationship turned out down the line. If there are good reasons for criminalising sexual relationships between teachers and underage pupils - and there surely are - then the 'alls well that ends well' defence just won't cut it.

It's important to keep in mind, though, that the criminality lies in behaviour rather than appetites. There are talkboards aplenty discussing whether Gibson was a 'paedophile', whether 'that sort of person' ever changes their ways, and what have you. But ultimately, all of that misses the point. For here is the brutal, honest truth that we would for the most part seek to ignore: the fact that he could be sexually attracted to a 15-year-old girl doesn't differentiate Gibson from the big majority of us. Sexual attraction does not neatly correspond with legal, or even moral imperatives. And the fact that UK law currently sets the age of sexual consent at 16 (as opposed to, say, 14 in the Netherlands, or 18 in most US states) is, from a sociobiological point of view, pretty arbitrary.

No, the only problem with Gibson is what he did rather than what he thought about. Being turned on by a pretty teenager is both normal and, in itself, unproblematic, but that simply does not provide an excuse for turning those thoughts into actions. And that remains the case even if the girl in question initiated the relationship; a teacher just has to be prepared for any such temptations as come his way, and be prepared to resist them. Otherwise, he really should find another line of employment.

Which brings me to the somewhat different case of P.E. teacher Paul Reeve, whose conviction relates to possession of indecent images of children. Now I happen to disagree pretty strongly with some anti-censorship libertarians who maintain that possession of child porn is a victimless crime. On the basis that demand begets supply, I really can't see how this could be so. But all the same, I find myself wondering if it automatically follow that someone who likes to look at naked children - however odious that behaviour may be - presents a danger to actual chidren. Is there something about the paedophile appetite that renders the possessor incapable of resisting his urges? I, after all, quite like looking at nubile 20-year-old girls, but have never had the slightest difficulty in keeping my hands off them in class. Seriously, it's a psychological barrier that I don't even approach, far less cross.

Now I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for Paul Reeve, because as I say, his behaviour was far from victimless. But I wonder how far this 'protect the children, at all costs' mentality could lead. Could we see prospective teachers required to undergo some sort of penile plesmograph (It's a device for measuring blood flow to the penis. Which always seemed to me to present problems for people who were aroused by having their penis wired to a device, but I digress ...) test to prove that they are not attracted to their students? This seems to completely collapse any division between thoughts and actions, in a rather scary way. If the only thing preventing me from acting in a particular manner is the fact that it doesn't appeal to me in the first place, then what place is there for morality, or law, or even enlightened self-interest?

No, there is a whole range of temptations - including, at various times, visiting violence on intolerable colleagues! - but which I have been quite capable of choosing not to indulge. This, I suspect, is a distinction that is in danger of being eroded in our society (I feel a rant coming on re Charlie Kennedy, Kate Moss & the culture of victimhood, so I'd better stop soon lest this turns into a Spiked! editorial.) And this is never more true than in relation to deviant sexual appetites, where the prevailing attitude is that there is scant distinction between the sort of 'pervert' who rapes & murders children, and the sort of 'pervert' who likes to gawp at odd things on the Internet. (This, incidentally, is the same attitude that lumps all 'sex offenders' together on the same Register, even those who have done nothing more than be caught in flagrante in a public park at night. Silly & embarassing, yes. A threat to the nations's children, I hardly think so.)

There's a mighty wide gulf between thinking and doing. Both Gibson & Reeve crossed that gulf, albeit in different ways. If they must be kept away from schoolchildren in future, it should be because of a credible chance that they might do so again, not on the basis of their tastes and fantasies. God help us all if we come to be judged on that basis ...