When Tolerance and Discrimination Collide

Scenes of increasing agitation by concerned residents have been seen in several locations where the Queensland government has housed convicted paedophile Dennis Ferguson. The debate has become so heated, police minister Judy Spence was almost drowned out by the voices of the protestors at a recent public meeting called to discuss the issue.

Threats have been made against the life of Ferguson and demonstrations continue outside his residence. Protesters have burned an effigy of the convicted paedophile and used megaphones, horns and sirens outside his lodging at Carbrook in a bid to drive him out.

Judy Spence maintained that the convicted paedophile has served his time in jail and is a free man to walk the streets, albeit under strict supervision and restrictions. Justice has been served according to State law – the criminal has completed his punishment and should be free to live his life without recrimination. On face value it would appear Ferguson’s civil liberties are being ignored by the protestors.

Why has this persecution risen to such heights that his very safety is threatened? Is it the media attention that depicts his dishevelled looks or his agitated and aggressive behaviour that so threatens people? Perhaps his unrepentant attitude also exacerbates the situation. Is it the threat that he might repeat the same crimes against young children that has so stirred up communities that his very presence creates such aggression against him? Are the actions of the demonstrators reasonable under the circumstances? Why shouldn’t this man be allowed to live in peace with the strict guidelines imposed on his freedom?

On what basis should he be allowed to live within the ‘average’ community? Should he be “castrated” to ensure his libido is diminished to a point where he supposedly will not have the urges to reoffend, as some have now proposed? Should the likes of the US Megan’s Law be imposed to enable communities to track paedophiles?

Alternatively, are his brain responses to the stimulus of young children so ingrained that his habit pattern of behaviour will only continue, or alternatively, he be locked away indefinitely? The recent findings of studies into pedophilia acknowledge:

…“the ability to intervene rationally in this disorder is limited by shortcomings in our understanding of its neurobiology. The findings provide clues to the complexity of this disorder, [and] this deficit may predispose individuals who are vulnerable to pedophilia to seek other forms of stimulation.” It is important to acknowledge and consider however, that it is currently unknown “whether this pattern of brain activation is a risk factor for the development of pedophilia or a consequence of their pedophilic sexual experiences.”1

Where does tolerance come into this situation and to what extent should it be offered - what is fair and reasonable? On what basis do we make an “informed” decision? Is there some kind of common natural revulsion solely against such crimes as paedophilia, or is this reaction based on some kind of selective attitude prevalent in Western countries?

What is the difference between the crimes of this man and a person convicted of manslaughter because they killed a person through drink driving. A drunken youth kills someone with a king-hit and serves two years jail. Are they going to re-offend when they get drunk again? Are there any guarantees that either of these people will not re-offend? Why is tolerance so readily given to murderers who are accepted back into society after serving their punishment, whereas a paedophile is expected to be banished from society? On what basis should tolerance be given?

Should we, therefore, question the basis on which one crime judged as more serious than another, where people are judging one type of person and their former actions, as against the criminal actions of another who has actually physically stolen the life of someone? Some might say the life of a victim of Ferguson’s crimes has been stolen as a consequence of the psychological damage inflicted. Others say this ‘damage’ is only temporary.

Is there some kind of standard against which this issue can be assessed, aside from the emotional attitudes expressed recently, or do our value responses vary according to subjective reason? Have our standards changed over the generations? With the current concern for adult/child relationships, will the following scenario become more prevalent and communal concern and positive action toward children eradciated?

"I don't talk to children in the street any more. Only today I stopped myself picking up and comforting a toddler who had fallen over on an escalator. In the damage done to millions of children made afraid of every stranger, and millions of adults frightened of physical contact and friendship towards children, I believe that the wave of public anxiety about paedophilia now sweeping over us is doing incalculably more harm than the paedophilia itself.2

___________________________________________________