Hate, hypocrisy and hysteria
Leo McKinstry says that the tabloid moralists should stop hurling abuse at Ruth Kelly and think about their own role in perverting national life When it comes to sex, Britain now seems to be gripped by a dangerous form of schizophrenia. On the one hand, there is mounting panic over the issue of paedophilia, where a media-driven climate of hysteria means that even the mere allegation of child abuse can be enough to destroy careers and wreck lives. Yet, on the other hand, we have a youth culture that is obsessed with sex. In the relentless promotion of adolescent sexual freedom, all moral boundaries have disappeared, pornography has been brought into the mainstream and the law on the age of consent is derided or ignored.
It is this grotesque double standard which makes the witch hunt against the Education Secretary Ruth Kelly so sickening. In recent days she has faced a barrage of calls for her resignation over claims that, through her incompetence, she has allowed an army of child abusers to be employed in our schools. ‘How many more perverts?’ howls the Sun, leading the tabloid pack against Kelly.
But, instead of focusing their rage on Kelly, the self-appointed guardians of public morality should examine their own role in helping to build a modern Britain where childhood innocence has vanished, youthful promiscuity is rampant and young women are told that flesh-baring exhibitionism and availability are ‘empowering’. For the downmarket tabloids to pose as the champions of decency is like Robert Maxwell claiming to be the protector of our pensions.
Apart from the hypocrisy, what is equally disturbing is the way that the furore over child abuse has undermined any concept of natural justice. Along with racism, paedophilia has been elevated into one of the most sinister crimes of our age, so that normal rules about the presumption of innocence, judicial fairness or rehabilitation of offenders no longer apply. Genuine physical abuse of children — such as the appalling recent case in Hertfordshire of the rape of a 12-week-old girl by her babysitter, a porn addict and serial abuser called Alan Webster — is, of course, a monstrous offence which ruins the lives of victims. But some of the charges in the current furore hardly seem to fit into this cate gory. So Paul Reeve, the Norwich gym teacher at the heart of the Kelly row, is branded as a sick pervert who should never be allowed to work again in a school because he accepted a police caution for having visited a website which shows both adult and child pornography. Reeve has consistently denied that he looked at child porn and no evidence has been produced to show that he did. His acceptance of a police caution might seem like an admission of guilt, but then the alternative was having to go through a criminal trial.
Another teacher named this week in the media as ‘a pervert sir’ is William Gibson, who was sanctioned by Kelly to work as a supply teacher in Bournemouth despite having a conviction in 1980 for assaulting a 15year-old schoolgirl. But, again, Gibson’s crime is not all it seems. The term ‘assault’ sounds like a predatory attack, but in truth Gibson had embarked on a long relationship with the teenager. Indeed, he soon married her, and their union lasted for 19 years and produced three children. Gibson’s behaviour was not edifying, but it hardly amounts to paedophilia.
In the current febrile atmosphere, however, little evidence is needed to damn someone. In our secular age we are fond of sneering at the religious bigotry that led to the Spanish Inquisition and the 17th-century witch trials, but we have our own superstitious intolerance. In the last 20 years there has been a raft of child abuse scandals, from the Orkneys to Rochdale, in which lurid allegations of satanic worship, taken so seriously by social workers, turned out to be unfounded. In his massively researched, compelling recent book The Secret of Bryn Estyn, about the notorious North Wales child abuse scandal, Richard Webster demolishes the belief that there was a vast conspiracy of sexual corruption in Welsh care homes for boys in the 1980s, though undoubtedly there were some individual cases of vicious paedophilia. The mood of hysteria encourages false allegations, because victims earn attention and sympathy — and sometimes money in the form of compensation.
For all the public condemnation she has endured, it is not clear that Ruth Kelly has done anything wrong in the way she has reached her decisions on difficult cases. Unlike her tabloid tormentors, she has actually seen the evidence. It must be acknowledged, however, that her department has appeared to be guilty of administrative incompetence in its record-keeping and in its slowness to implement the recommendations of the inquiry headed by Sir Michael Bichard into the Soham murders — which advocated one central list of offenders rather than the present seven. Joined-up government seems to be a long time arriving at the Department for Education.
This is not, however, a resigning matter, and her predecessors in office, both Tory and Labour, are perhaps even more guilty on this point than she is. And bureaucratic efficiency is not going to protect children in our amoral, fractured society. For the real childabuse problem in modern Britain is not in Whitehall but in our sex-fixated, relentlessly hedonistic public culture, where modesty is now viewed as abnormal. The downmarket tabloids and TV channels, now self-righteously pontificating about Kelly’s future, have helped to build this culture, making money from the cult of instant sexual gratification. Explicit imagery, which only two decades ago would have been both unthinkable and illegal, is now all round us, whether it be in popular men’s magazines like Loaded, Zoo or Nuts, or in the freak show Big Brother, which has brought us live sex and masturbation on British television for the first time. Nudity and sado-masochism are constantly used in advertising, while the lyrics of rap and hip-hop music are filled with degrading, often violent abuse of women. Much of this glorying in sex is aimed directly at young people. Pornography has been made acceptable, even fashionable. Last year one of the most popular brands of stationery for children sold by W.H. Smith was produced by Playboy, the giant American pornographic empire. Mizz magazine, aimed at pre-teen girls, even had a marketing promotion giving away Playboy souvenirs. Mizz explained that the Playboy brand ‘is given added cool by its association with American hip-hop stars’. Little wonder, then, that a 2005 survey of 1,000 girls aged 15 to 19 found that 63 per cent of them aspired to be glamour models. Even teen literature is not safe. One of the most popular recent books for boys has been Doing It, by Melvyn Burgess. Featuring a condom on the cover, it gives explicit accounts of the sex lives of four teenagers, one of whom is given oral sex by his female teacher.
Sadly, some of our civic leaders who should be protecting the young are at the forefront of those corrupting them. The powerful sex education lobby, which despises any kind of morality and follows the twisted Freudian view that all children are sexualised from an early age, believes that teaching about sex should start in primary school. The creed of so-called ‘sexual rights’ for youngsters now prevails. So a sex education booklet from the Family Planning Association, aimed at nineto 11-year-olds, includes explicit drawings and advice about masturbation. Similarly, a leaflet from the state-funded Brook Advisory Service told schoolboys as young as 13 a series of ‘juicy sex facts’, such as the best types of condoms for oral and anal sex.
The spirit of our times is summed up by this statement from a Swindon girl, quoted in the Daily Telegraph: ‘We are not like your generation. We get taught how to do it. When I was 14 we were shown a video in school that told us all about sexual positions. And it said that we should consider oral sex if we were a bit unsure about going all the way.’ Nothing there about the illegality of underage sex.
But all this uninhibited sex education is not working. Britain has by far the highest rates of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases in Europe. An astonishing 5 per cent of all London girls aged between 15 and 17 have been pregnant. In this swamp of dissipation, it is inevitable that exploitation of sexually aware, knowing adolescents will occur.
The irony is that Ruth Kelly, devout Catholic and mother of four, is the antithesis of this approach. Indeed, she has ruled out serving in the Department for Health because of her religious opposition to abortion. Yet it is precisely because of her respect for motherhood and her religious beliefs that she is now in such trouble. Today’s mood of misogyny, where women, even senior politicians, are judged on their looks and supposed sexual allure, means that Kelly is condemned because of her refusal to play the tabloid game, concentrating on her work or her domestic life rather than her wardrobe and make-up. Some of the worst offenders in this kind of brute sexism are women in her own party. ‘How has she managed to get so far when she’s had so much maternity leave?’ a female backbencher was quoted as asking in the Times. ‘What’s she ever done for Labour, that cow?’ Kelly’s membership of the Catholic group Opus Dei only adds fuel to the secularist, amoral fire — and I write that not as a Catholic myself but as a Belfast-born Ulster Protestant. She is seen as a crank, a fundamentalist. Without a shred of evidence, some have even hinted that her Catholicism has led her to be soft on child abuse, citing the Catholic Church’s undistinguished recent record in tackling the problem. Others go even further. The taxpayer-funded black lobby group the 1990 Trust has even accused Kelly of a connection to Nazism through her membership of Opus Dei. ‘Nazis active in Minister’s Secret Society’ proclaimed a recent headline on a 1990 newsletter, revealing not only that a member of the National Front is in Opus Dei but also that the organisation’s founder, Monsignor Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer, was an admirer of Franco’s. The article went on, ‘Parents will be concerned that Kelly is in charge of their children’s education while supporting a secretive and elitist Catholic body with past links to fascism.’ Guilt by association was the hallmark of Senator McCarthy’s witch hunts in 1950s America. Now it has been revived in modern Britain against Ruth Kelly.
The education establishment, that insidious nexus of teacher unions, self-styled experts, Whitehall officials and local authorities, are lapping up the Kelly crisis. Because of their dogma and mismanagement, they have failed successive generations of pupils. But they are desperate to protect their vested interests from any reform, like independence for schools. So child abuse has become an easy stick with which to beat Kelly. Ever since she took office last year, the arrogant left-wing educationists have been out to destroy her and, in the process, they have formed an unholy alliance with the baying tabloid press.
They must not be allowed to win. The resignation of Kelly would be a disaster for the education system, signalling that the instinct of the hypocritical mob had triumphed over reason. Her departure would only mean that we are sliding deeper into the cesspit.
Previous page
