Pitcairn women blast sex trials

[Pert_UK]

"Some women on the British Pacific colony of Pitcairn have criticised sex abuse trials due to get under way on the remote island on Wednesday. Seven men, or half the adult male population of the tiny community, are facing more than 50 charges.

At a public meeting on Pitcairn, female residents claimed it was customary for girls on the island to have sex as young as 12...They have insisted that while under-age sex was a traditional part of island life, it was consensual.

Prosecutors have said there is an ingrained culture of using children for sex on the island, a tiny volcanic speck that lies half-way between New Zealand and Peru...The islanders are descendents of mutineers who seized control of the British navy vessel HMS Bounty in 1789. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3699286.stm

Unbelievable.....The defense seems to be, "But...but.......we've ALWAYS had sex with children!"

[politicat]

1. cultural differences...

Remember, within the last hundred years it was perfectly acceptable for girls to marry men three times their age at the age of 14. (My great-great-grandmother married a man of 42 when she was 14. They had two sons together and she loved him dearly. He died in the influenza epidemic in 1918. I have her diary... )

If the community sees the behavior as normal and healthy - and thus the children see it as normal and healthy - it may in fact be more damaging to the children and the community for outsiders to come in and disrupt their social patterns.

Don't take this as defense of adult-child sexual congress. In North America and Europe, it's deplorable. Our culture is most emphatically not an appropriate one for intergenerational sexual contact. But the Pitcairns were, up until 20-30 years ago, nearly as remote as the dark side of the moon. Out of necessity, they invented their own culture, appropriate to their own needs.

For outsiders to come in and suddenly tell these girls that their anticipated, highly desired rite of passage was dirty, shameful and wrong, and the respected men of their community who cared for them enough to assist in their rite of passage were evil and treacherous for doing so.... well, you've just disrupted these poor children's entire sense of the world around them....

It would be like walking into a secondary school here and telling all of the graduating class that their entire education was wasted and a farce and moreover, they were evil for being involved with it. (As a "Man From Mars" could look at the regimentation, the rote memorization, the bullying, the social stratification, etc of modern secondary school and call it sick and wrong, too....)

I'm not saying what happened is right or wrong, but I don't think we can make a good judgment with our cultural heritage. Ours is just too different. That said, I wouldn't want my hypothetical daughter in that situation. But then again, I'm US. I'm not Pitcairn.

Pcat

[Pert_UK]

2. Errrr......well sort of.......

I've done a reasonable amount of anthropology at University and understand the concept of cultural relativity and not judging others by your own standards......

However, I'd take serious issue with some of your claims.

For example, we're not talking about 100 years ago, we're talking about now, so I don't think you can hold up examples from the past to excuse/explain the present in this instance. Also, we're not talking about somewhere that's the dark side of the moon, we're talking about a British Colony subject to British Laws (and always has been), with a reasonably well developed (if remote) Westernised society.

I agree that it's difficult to make a judgement given our own embedded values. However, my own opinion is that it's far more likely that the men on the island have abused their position of power, rather than this being some "cultural tradition" or "rite of passage." Even if this was institutionalised / normalised some time ago, that doesn't justify it's continued existence or indeed make it right. By your own argument, these men have been behaving as if society and laws haven't changed in over 100 years - they have, and these men know that they have.

[politicat]

3. Evolutionary psychologist here, so we speak mostly the same language.

You and I both know that 100 years is infinitesimal in the evolution of human culture so the argument that it's now versus 100 years is to me kind of specious. Communications are extraordinarily limited; they've got a total of 5 or 6 hours a week when the phone works; ham radio is limited to 1.5 hours a day. Mail takes 3 months or more to turn around. There's no Satellite TV. I'm sorry, this IS the dark side of the moon. We can and do communicate more effectively with Mars. The men are behaving as if their society hasn't moved on.... and well, under the communication restrictions outlined above, they really haven't. A dozen computers and a few DVDs don't make for unrestricted access to modern culture. So under what argument do you claim that these men "know" that the world's moved on? It is possible to be oblivious... (as our politics show... :eyes: )

There are also 42 people in the community. By necessity it will be far more insular than anything we can imagine. I see 42 people in the first two hours I'm not at home... I have an interest in another community of equal isolation, those on Tristan de Cunha (S, Atlantic, between S. Africa and Patagonia.) What I've learned in reading about them (getting to the island is a bit difficult...) there's a lot of what used to be called cultural degradation in such small, isolated communities. Skills are lost, words are lost as the vocabulary of daily language is not refreshed with constant influx... traditions can harden into inviolate laws quite easily in such a small, isolated community. A lot of the issues you're bringing up are issues that people who are working on psychological aspects of space travel are talking about. (That's why I have an interest in this... space colonies being necessarily small, isolated communities in harsh climates....)

Further, the Pitcairners don't consider themselves British. Sorry about that. This is a problem with colonies and possessions and one of the reasons they're not acceptable policy anymore. Their ancestors mutinied, and effectively gave up their citizenship. I assume the reason it hasn't come up before now is that it wasn't a problem before now....

I think the big issue here is that we're both making assumptions based on very little knowledge. Since documents are not being released - which I think is all to the good; it's too bad that even on Pitcairn, it's impossible to not have a case tried in the media - we have no idea who is hurting and what's going on. While I'm reading now about the case (it's caught my eye), I don't know enough about it to say further. Therefore, my speculations end now. All I can say further is I hope no one involved is harmed any further by any of the circumstances surrounding this matter. Further pain will serve no one.

Pcat (sorry if I offended, but these type of things can be very hot-button for me.)

[bleedingheart]

4. I agree, culture does play a role

as I recall the Ayatollah Khomeni was 25 when he took his first wife who was only 12...in his country it was acceptable, when he did that in his own country it would land him a prison term in some states and in others it would be seen as borderline normal.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

8. Likewise, I've got a gr-gr-gr-grandmother who was 13 when she married....

...in 1814, and her husband was just 17. But people had a tendency to marry younger back then because life was hard, and people tended to die at a younger age.

[politicat]

5. having had some time to read....

Some points from reading articles linked from here http://www.lareau.org/pitc.html :

None of the cases alleged are less than 6 years old. Some go back 40 years.

All of the cases came to attention after a police officer from Kent was assigned to the island to teach community policing. Prior to that, the last legal issue that the islanders could not handle themselves was in 1897.

Some of the allegations have been withdrawn.

At least two allegators report independently that she was pressured to make up false allegations by the British and NZ police.

The prosecution and the magistrate have behaved in a manner both familiar and disprespectful of women. The first is a far bigger issue as collusion between the prosecution and the magistrate is not allowed.

Pitcairn's legal status as a possession of Britain is murky at best. Further, Pitcairn's legal system is rudimentary at best.

By holding the pre-trial court proceedings in New Zealand, the prosecution has already damaged significantly the economy of the island. Removing 1/6th of the population and half of the adult male population of any community would do so; Pitcairn is a tenuous community due to its small size. The economy depends on the skilled labor of the adult males because all supplies must be brought in from ships in longboats. This is very difficult, highly skilled labor. The elderly, children and women without a great deal of upper body strength and training cannot perform the tasks and it's not a common profession elsewhere that they can hire longboatmen for the duration.

Prosecution of the 7 accused would destroy the island's economy and force an evacuation, giving Britain an uninhabited possession in the South Pacific. Britain cannot be said to be neutral in such a case. A vacant possession in that region would allow for several strategic possibilities, (not limited to a lease to the US for strike capability on N. Korea - this is my interpretation, looking at my globe and arcs for missiles...)

The court proceedings were being held in foreign territory for both sides. New Zealand is independent. This would be like holding US cases in Costa Rica.

Any community this small must make accommodations for interpersonal behaviors that might not be acceptable in a larger society. When one's choice of generational mates is limited to two girls, both of whom are very closely related, it comes as no surprise that marriage might be delayed until a child of the next generation was old enough to be wooed and wed. If men are scarce in a generation, sisters might share a husband. 42/47 (numbers vary) people is a tiny number, especially when that number includes babies and septuagenarians. Teenagers, looking for romance and unable to find any because the only boys available are brothers, may look to adult men, married or unmarried. There are no discos, no cinemas, and no television... so entertainment is necessarily of the "make it yourself" variety... and sex is always high on that list.

The case stems from a rape case; the initial rape was committed by a New Zealander.

This case has taken nearly 5 years to bring to court.

Analysis: The fact that this has swelled to 96 counts from two reports means either that there's a witch hunt atmosphere, people are being coerced to testify, or the situation was considered normal to all involved until outsiders got involved. (Do the math - it's 7.4 cases per accused.) This far more reminds me of the Salem witch trials in numbers, since there are so few people involved and so many accusations. Further, teens have sex in Britain, Australia, the US and elsewhere. Why should Pitcairn be different? Because the only available men are older? When you only have less than fifty people... that happens. End Analysis....

Those who know the Island and the inhabitants best have stated repeatedly that for the sake of ALL involved, the legal solution is far from the best. First, a community of so few doesn't need laws - social customs are of far more value. The suggestion of restorative justice rather than punitive justice has been made, and since this is what happens informally in small communities anyway, this is a far better solution than punishment.

It's an extraordinarily complex case.... for the sake of the language, the genetic variation, and the cultural aspects of such a small, isolated culture, I do hope they manage to survive intact. Losing that unique culture would be a terrible thing to waste.

Pcat

[bemildred]

6. This has had the smell of a witch hunt from the beginning.

I am not in favor of sex between children and adults, but, as
with the drug problem, I think one is better off with harm-reduction
and education in most cases rather than punitive approaches based
on rigid criminal justice. I grew up in the fifties in the USA and
I can testify that there was plenty of sex across the 18-year boundary
going on, and it was "accepted" as normal unless it became public,
or the child was too young. At the time, twelve seemed to young,
fourteen not. I understand the rules are different in Utah. I would
be surprised if there is not still plenty of it going on in the same
way. Sometimes it was pernicious and sometimes apparently not. When
there is use of force or reasonably clear coercion then a crime has
been committed; otherwise I would be reluctant to apply the legal
and criminal justice systems to the situation for fear of doing more
harm than good.

[patcox2]

7. I agree 100 percent. Surprising, though, how few would.

Amazingly punitive society we live in, and the disinterested thirst for vengeance is prevalent even among those who consider themselves progressive. I think its another sign we are on the road to totalitarianism.

I remember when school officials wouldn't think of calling the police on a child, it was understood that educators were better equipped to deal with most behavior problems.

In contrast, recently a high school prinicple in New Jersey called in the local police and had a student prosecuted for hate crimes for telling an ethnic joke. Ridiculous. The joke was the kid said "watch me start a jewish parade," then rolled a penny down the hall. Insensitive, dumb, but criminal?

[bemildred]

9. "disinterested thirst for vengeance"

A fine turn of phrase there.
Perhaps it comes from watching all that hero crap on TV.
:thumbsup: