I WRITE in response to David Aaronovitch’s plea in The Times last week: “Shami Chakrabarti, where are you when we need you?” Human rights principles can indeed offer a great deal of help in analysing the current debate about sex offenders and schools, but only if people are a little less loose about language.
First, there is no — I repeat — no fundamental human right to work in a position of trust with children. Instead, such work is a privilege for which some amazing people are suitable and well qualified. I don’t want my son taught by a bad communicator, someone dishonest or someone who doesn’t basically relate well to children, let alone someone who downloads child pornography. The presumption of innocence and other fair trial rights are essential before we convict someone of a crime, let alone put them in prison. I will fight for these so-called “Dickensian” rights with my last breath, against a modernity of mob justice.
But that’s not the present discussion. I am not talking about the punishment of sex offenders but child protection. I’m not even talking about the thorny questions of when a child should and should not be removed from his family. This should be about positive suitability and qualification to work with kids. Any system for deciding such suitability must be rational and fair, but we are entitled to err on the side of caution in a way which would not be appropriate in the criminal context.
I have every sympathy with the men I heard on the radio last week describing how their lives have been ruined by recent publicity. They should not be hanged, flogged, named, shamed etc. That does not mean they should be working in schools and the recent publicity probably makes it much harder for them to obtain alternative employment.
Part of the problem is the incredible demonisation of sex offenders (and those suspected) in our society, even though so many of them have been abused children themselves. Media vilification of those teachers who have been convicted allows us to look away from the touchier subject of undetected child abuse (torture, cruel and inhuman and degrading treatment — in human rights language) that goes on in the home. “Naming and shaming” also leads to mob justice on the street and past sex offenders in the community going to ground in fear of their lives. In these circumstances they may present a much greater risk to children in their path.
Advertisement
The mob mentality can also lead to decent, fair-minded people thinking that they have to make some kind of invidious choice between child protection and fairness to those working in the sector. This false choice undermines the whole idea of human rights.
Moving forward, it might well be possible to achieve greater alignment between sex-offender registration and a list of those who should not work with children, but only if we seriously tighten up on our definition of “sex offender”. However, anyone who thinks that you can have a system without discretion and judgment is kidding themselves, not just for dealing with false accusations and oppressive police cautions, but because a system of rational positive vetting (as opposed to panics or witch-hunts) would mean assessing the suitability of people who have never been anywhere near a policeman nor a criminal court.
Shami Chakrabarti is director of Liberty, the human rights and civil liberties organisation