Richard Dawkins just has it wrong

Speaking in an interview with Times magazine, author Richard Dawkins stated:

‘Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild paedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today.’

At one level, it is perhaps easy to see the merits in Dawkins argument - times change and so do standards of what is and is not acceptable. Yet, he suggests that what took place 50 or 60 years ago represented such a different standard that sexual and physical abuse should be seen as indicative of the times.

Richard Dawkins

The Sovereign Independent goes on:

In a new autobiography Professor Dawkins told how a master at his Salisbury prep school had pulled him on to his knee and put his hand inside his shorts’, adding that other boys had been molested by the same teacher.

While he said that he had found the episode ‘extremely disagreeable’ he wrote: ‘I don’t think he did any of us any lasting damage.’

Those of us who work in and around child protection have worked with enough parents from that age to know that they live with the haunting memories of the abuse from those times. In my view, Dawkins minimizes the impact but also creates a patina of acceptance for what took place. Consider the following:

• In Mount Cashel orphanage in St. John's, Newfoundland where state wards were routinely physically and sexually abused by the Christian Brother's of Ireland. This occurred through the 1950's;
• How about the literally hundreds of victims of Jimmy Savile in the UK;
• In Canada, there were several churches involved in the residential schools where Aboriginal children were stripped of their identity and dignity through neglect, physical and sexual abuse;

These are but three high profile cases amongst thousands that could be added to the list. But most importantly, Dawkins fails to see that what he is describing is the abuse of power by a teacher who is engaged in grooming a child towards greater sexual involvement. In his case, it may have stopped for any number of reasons. One can almost be certain that the teacher he speaks of has other victims, some of whom would have been less fortunate than Dawkins.

The clinical research tells us that those who use their position of authority to take sexual advantage of a minor, typically have several victims. In order to help reduce this type of sexual abuse, we need to educate children about both protecting themselves and being open about advances that may occur. As a society, we also must respond to those who do offend. Seeing it as Dawkins describes it is dangerous as it dismisses the importance of the offence.

Dawkins says that he got over it - maybe he had a good support network; had resiliency; had a way to compartmentalize the event - but for millions of others, these sorts of events have created life long damage that has impacted their lives in multiple ways.

In essence, he has become the apologist for the abusers. That is the most dangerous aspect of his thinking.

Coincidentally, some rather poignant research was published in Frontiers in Psychaitry:

Child sexual abuse (CSA) occurs frequently in society to children aged between 2 and 17. It is significantly more common in girls than boys, with the peak age for CSA occurring when girls are aged 13–17. Many children experience multiple episodes of CSA, as well as having high rates of other victimizations (such as physical assaults). One of the problems for current research in CSA is different definitions of what this means, and no recent review has clearly differentiated more severe forms of CSA, and how commonly this is disclosed. In general we suggest there are four types of behavior that should be included as CSA, namely (1) non-contact, (2) genital touching, (3) attempted vaginal and anal penetrative acts, and (4) vaginal and anal penetrative acts. Evidence suggests that CSA involving types (2), (3), and (4) is more likely to have significant long-term outcomes, and thus can be considered has having higher-impact. From the research to date approximately 15% of girls aged 2–17 experience higher-impact CSA (with most studies suggesting that between 12 and 18% of girls experience higher-impact CSA). Approximately 6% of boys experience higher-impact CSA (with most studies suggesting that between 5 and 8% experience higher-impact CSA). The data also suggests that in over 95% of cases the CSA is never disclosed to authorities. Thus, CSA is frequent but often not identified, and occurs “below the surface” in the vast majority of higher-impact cases. 

This research emphasizes the long term impact of sexual abuse in most cases.

Reference for research

Martin, E.K. & Silverstone, P.h. (2013). How much child sexual abuse is "below the surface" and can we help adults identify it early? Frontiers in Psychiatry. published online at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3711274/

 

The true experience of being falsely accused

We hear stories of people being falsely accused of sexual abuse. In the wake of Jimmy Savile, Jerry Sandusky, Theoren Fleury, Sheldon Kennedy, The Los Angeles Catholic Church Diocese and a myriad other Catholic Church sexual abuse stories, The Boy Scouts of America and numerous other high profile cases, it is hard to remember that, rare as they are, false accusations do occur. For those so accused, the impact is hard.

Recently, in the United Kingdom, the Guardian newspaper has published a first person account of a couple who went through the world of false accusation. It is compelling reading and can be read by clicking this link.

Incest in America

There has been a lot of well deserved attention on the plught of women in India as a result of the high profile rape case that is presently before the coutrs. Research in India identifies that the rate of sexual abuse is bery high - over 50% of children according to the officicial statistics. But a new article in The Atlantic tells us that we in the west should save our smugness, if indeed there is any left after the likes of Cardinal Mahoney in Los Angeles, Gerry Sandusky at Penn State, Graham James in canada and Jimmy Saville in the UK.

However what the article describes is a large, secret problem in the USA (and probbaly in other western countries). It is the dirty secret we do not want to talk about. The article notes:

Here are some statistics that should be familiar to us all, but aren't, either because they're too mind-boggling to be absorbed easily, or because they're not publicized enough. One in three-to-four girls, and one in five-to-seven boys are sexually abused before they turn 18, an overwhelming incidence of which happens within the family. These statistics are well known among industry professionals, who are often quick to add, "and this is a notoriously underreported crime."

The repotr helps to show how significantly under reported sexual abuse is thus causing one to wonder about under repotring. It also notes that the prime place where sexual abuse takes place is within the family systems.

This is a conversation that we need to have but for which child protection and criminal justice systems are woefully unprepared to have at this scale. One can only imagine the impact if more and more victims begin telling what has and is happening. Yet, that is precisely what we need to encourage. The more the secrets leak out and victims can see society respond supportively, the safer it becomes for victims to disclsoe.

The notion of the family as the primary unit of our society makes sense but only when that has a foundation of safety, nurturance and oportunity for growth. Sexual abuse provides just the opposite.



The Atlantic article is worth a read.

Jimmy Savile and Jerry Sandusky - Hiding in Plain View

Social workers and others who work with children around the world, have much to learn from these two high profile sexual abuse case. The material published in the UK today about the breadth and extent of the sexual abuse committed by Savile farnkly boggles the mind. As the CBC reports today:

Detectives said the scale of Savile's sex abuse was "unprecedented in the U.K." They have recorded 214 offences allegedly committed by Savile between 1955 and 2009, including 34 rapes, on victims aged 8 to 47. In all, 450 people have come forward with information about abuse by the late TV presenter.

Jimmy Savile

The details that are coming out show that the range of sexual behaviors and the settings in which Savile committed his alleged crimes includes children who were pre pubescent and teenagers. He did it under the cover of his fame and charity work. As one police officer has noted, he hid in plain view. The Guardian newspaper in the UK offers insight not only into the staggering size of Savile's crimes but also the utter failing of a system that refused to believe, deal with, or collate the data that was available from victims who had come forward. The system failed those who were willing to seek justice - a system that the report clearly shows bent badly in the wind that blew from the magnitude of Savile's deemed importance.

Like Savile, Sandusky had a huge public reputation which appears to have allowed him to hide as well. The power that both men possessed made coming forward with the allegations incredibly challenging. It would be a brave victim indeed who could challenge the reputation of these powerful men. Bear in mind that sexual abusers have an uncanny capacity to choose victims who are weak, vulnerable and desperate for the attention of the powerful.

These two cases are not unique but rather help us to see, yet again, the role that power plays. We have seen hundreds of victims in the cases of priests in various churches and also in such revered organizations as the Boy Scouts.

Sexual abusers take full advantage of the power of role - Savile as the music industry icon; Sandusky as the winning coach; the priest as the sacred leader; the Boy Scout leader as the person to be trusted as a guide in life. These are all very socially supported and revered positions.

Social workers need to be very mindful of the ability of the predator to use position. The sexual abuser does it time and again. When the social worker hears the stories, we need to be open to the telling. Sexual abusers in these positions count on their reputation and the notion that those speaking against them won't be believed.

The rate of false allegations is small.

I like some key points from Dr. D.L. Reed:

* A substantial proportion of sexually abused children are quite reluctant to disclose their abuse; many are ambivalent about disclosing; many delay disclosing•Disclosure of sexual abuse is typically a “dynamic process” not a “one-time event.” Consequently, confirmed victims often make inconsistent statements•When CSA victims are interviewed only once, they often minimize the extent of their abuse; and some deny it altogether•When children’s abuse allegations include fantasy elements, this does not necessarily mean that they weren’t abused 

 The point is that disclosure occurs in a variety of ways, over time and often with a great deal of shame and guilt (the victim may well think that the abuse is their fault). Victims may let slip little details by accident at the start or as a way to test how people will react. We have a need to just listen and not judge.

There are many more perpetrators out there that have yet to be discovered. Social workers are key in hearing these stories as are parents, teachers, police officers and many others with whom a child has contact. A child alleging it occurred with someone powerful should not deter us hearing them.

Jimmy Savile - Power and Domination

If you follow stories regarding sexual abuse, you would be had pressed to have missed the one about Jimmy Savile. He is the former BBC music icon who is now thought of as one of the most significant serial sexual abuser of our time. It has been reported that his victims may number 300 or more. It is a staggering story but one where prestige, money and power are at the centre.

What struck me is the common thread in so many sexual abuse cases - those who saw that something was wrong failed to act. Because of this, there were more victims. The Guardian newspaper in the UK notes that:

Doctors and managers at Stoke Mandeville hospital were afraid to challenge Jimmy Savile over the free access he enjoyed to wards, out of fear that he would take his fundraising millions elsewhere, a former director of nursing has said, as fresh claims emerged of abuse at the hospital and elsewhere.

It is gaining a position of power that allows abusers to get away with what they do. It gives them access to victims; it creates room for them to groom victims and they do so with the immunity that comes when others fail to act. We saw that in the Jerry Sandusky case in the United States.

As in the Sandusky case, there were a few occasions when someone would tell, but they lacked the power to force action. Like Sandusky, those who could have acted with the information that they were given failed to do so. The Telegraph reported

Jimmy Savile's former director on Jim'll Fix It reveals he saw the presenter having sex with a 16-year-old girl in his dressing room and informed BBC officials who 'did nothing'.

The story adds

David Nicolson, 67, said he reported the incident to his bosses at the corporation in 1988 but was rebuffed and simply told: "That's Jimmy".
He told The Sun newspaper: “I was revolted by his behaviour. They just shrugged it off, saying, ‘Yeah, yeah — that’s the way it goes’.”
“Everyone knew what was going on. That includes senior BBC people — chiefs at the highest levels. 

These are illustrations that organizations become invested in the image, prestige and money that comes with characters such Jimmy Savile and Jerry Sandusky. They become wilfully blind to the reality of what is going on and fail to act ethically. Such organizations need to be held accountable, as has happened with Penn State University in the Sandusky case. Will the BBC also be held accountable? Let's keep a close eye.

Additional Note:

ToledeBlade.com reports that there are further charges in the Sandusky case against those who covered up his behaviour. Former Penn State University President Graham Spanier was charged related to a conspiracy of silence. The report notes:

“This was not a mistake by these men. It was not an oversight. It was not misjudgment on their part,” Ms. Kelly (Attorney General) said. “This was a conspiracy of silence by top officials, working to actively conceal the truth, with total disregard for the children who were Sandusky’s victims.”

Mr. Spanier is, of course, innocent until proven otherwise. This step does send a message that covering up sexual abuse by another brings its own accountability.

You may also find this story on the role of silence to be quite relevant.