Saturday, March 29, 2014

AUSTRALIA - Support programs challenge community hatred

It's madness
"It's Madness"
Original Article

This reporter posted the following question under the image on the article: "Is redemption possible for paedophiles?" Well of course it's possible! Not everybody who sexually abuses a child is a pedophile, by definition. Reporters need to stop misusing the terms "sex offender," and "pedophile" as if they mean the same thing, they do not.

03/29/2014

By Daniella Miletic

Barbara pulls a thick stack of handwritten notes from a cloth bag, places them on the table and starts talking in a voice that never rises above the softly conversational. On a warm Melbourne morning in a city cafe, she smiles comfortably but glances discreetly around, not wanting to be overheard. There are few topics, she says, that are more volatile than the one she is here to talk about.

She grips a small clump of her hair, saying it was fear that drained the pigment from these strands the day her husband told her his secret. The day she decided to leave. ''It caused instant menopause. I decided I was going to go,'' she says, and then stops. ''I love him. It's bloody hard.''

Even when pressed, she offers little more detail of that day, of that time, of the crime her husband revealed to her. ''The fact is, I knew he was in a bad place and I suppose my head didn't want to let the suspicions through. But once I knew, I told him what we had to do, and that was to hand himself in.''

Barbara convinced her husband to confess and he went to jail. She chose to stand by him because of her love and her religious faith, she says. If anything else had been wrong with him, if he were schizophrenic, an alcoholic, she knows she would have tried to help him. ''People might hate these men, but God doesn't,'' she says. ''And one of the reasons Jesus got nailed on the cross was for mixing with the wrong kind of people. Back then it was prostitutes and lepers.''

Today, it is paedophiles.

But Barbara believes in redemption. When she was growing up, her father worked in prison reform, helping criminals, mainly men, restart their lives outside prison. Often, he would take them into the family home. ''They would live with us until they got work. They were my friends,'' says Barbara. ''We wouldn't talk about their crimes, most criminals don't want to talk about that, but we often talked about their lives when their lives were good. Their memories.''

Since her husband's release several years ago, Barbara has dedicated her own life to his rehabilitation, learning about paedophilia and its treatments and watching him to make sure he never does anything like it again. She read about a Canadian program that aims to prevent child abuse by creating a friendship group around sex offenders. She felt there were similarities to Alcoholics Anonymous and believed it might work for her husband. Besides, no other treatment program was on offer except a Salvation Army course for drug addiction, which he also took on, because his was an addiction of a kind.

She has been unofficially mimicking the program since he was released, with just her and a counsellor as his support group. For years she has also been campaigning, pleading - with police, politicians, church groups - for help to start a group to make the treatment available for all child sex offenders in Australia once they get out of jail.

Barbara says she had not prepared herself for the hatred, sometimes the violence, she would encounter. ''I am trying to make sense of the monster theory, the rock spider thing,'' she writes in a diary entry almost a decade old. ''I have discovered a wall of suspicion, and an overwhelming resistance to viewing sexual offending as anything but the worse kind of intentional evil …"

''The resistance is so great, that anyone who bears any other kind of message is viewed as naive at best, and plain evil at worst … The experts in this area stay very quiet for they also shrink from the hysterical reactions. Consequently most people do not doubt the monster model, and seem to prefer to believe that either these people are untreatable or that they don't deserve to be treated.''

This is why a treatment program like Circles of Support and Accountability, she says, one that carries the motto ''No More Victims'', can't seem to get off the ground here. ''It's madness,'' she says, shaking her head.


3 comments :

auisse chick said...

Finally! A well thought out article from hear! Can only hope that the likes of D. Hinch reads it! Also hope that braveharts read it as well. Thanks for posting it.

getting closer to the street said...

There are states that are now contemplating useing a controled and supervised approach of allowing victims and the convicted to express their feelings and explantions that had been surpressed by laws of protection . If the damage of a mental recovery is not addressed of both there is no closer , and what was mentioned from experts - in my opinion are only experts of text guided by out dated laws with no direction of recovery . The circle of support and accountability holds the title for not just the convicted but also the victim . Amazing .

Matt said...

It's frustrating for both, pedophiles and sex offenders, when the two words are used interchangeably. Not all pedophiles have committed a type of offense and not all sex offenders are attracted to children (only a very small portion are.) Even those that have committed an act against a child are not necessarily (and in most cases aren't) true pedophiles. By mixing up sex offenders and pedophiles and treating them as the same, they invariably get them both wrong.

Perhaps one of the reasons people don't think sex
offenders can be rehabilitated is because they think they are all
pedophiles with a fixed orientation to children. A myth that this
article, ironically, helps perpetuate.

Reporters also get pedophilia and hebephilia mixed up a lot. Pedophilia is rare, while hebephilia (the attraction to teens) is more common, and until very recently, was not considered illegal or deviant in many cultures. It's funny how a simple change in the writings of the law can suddenly create a problem that never existed before.