Minding our children

All it takes is one case of abuse to seriously mar a child's life. Unfortunately, it seems the courts, educators, employers, and the rest of us complacent lot, are not taking this risk seriously enough.

We have seen too many lenient sentences being meted out to child abusers. But perhaps, worse than the sentences meted out, it is the reasoning of some within the judiciary and certain employers and the laissez-faire attitude of the educators that should concern us.

One recent example clearly demonstrates that some within the judiciary need to be trained on the effects of child abuse and how to deal with such cases.

Two years ago a 12-year-old girl was sexually abused by a 65-year-old minibus driver, whose job it was to drive her to school. A couple of weeks ago he was jailed for seven months for "violent indecent assault", according to a newspaper report.

The first question that came to mind was: has this man been driving other children to school while his case was pending? The second was: why had it taken two years for the case to be settled?

The report quoted the magistrate as saying the abuser "could have spent a year behind bars for this 'deplorable' act". However, after hearing that the girl had forgiven him, and that he had a clean criminal record, the magistrate handed down a seven-month jail term.

The girl's forgiveness is admirable, and shows generosity and maturity, but it should have absolutely no bearing on the man's "deplorable act".

If, for example, the magistrate had said the man had shown remorse and vowed he would never again commit such abuse, would undergo therapy and would be prepared to be monitored, then that might have had some bearing on the sentencing. And anyway, is even a year too much for people who present a danger to our children?

This man had been entrusted with the responsibility for the child's safety and instead he "was charged with holding the girl against her will, defiling her and violently assaulting her in an indecent manner".

It might have been a first offence, but this was not pilfering some petrol. The girl recounted that the man had picked her up at about 6 a.m. and driven to an unusual place.

But on evaluating the evidence the magistrate ruled he could not find the man guilty of holding the girl against her will, since the Attorney General had not included the charge in the case documents. (The charge had been filed by the police on arraignment but dropped by the Attorney General.)

Maybe the police used the wrong terminology, i.e., the girl was not forced on to the van, but surely she got on the van to get to school, not to be taken elsewhere and molested.

Even the magistrate noted that "the incident happened when the girl was alone with the driver who was meant to take her to school".

The girl recounted that having driven to an "unusual place, he stopped the minibus and got into the back where she was sitting. He held her hands between his, kissed her on the lips and touched her thighs and breasts. She tried to get up and leave on two occasions but he pushed her back onto the seat."

That, to me, is holding someone against their will. "He backed off when she started screaming. She then got out of the minibus and started running. He drove behind her and told her to get back into the van so that he would give her a lift.

"It was still dark and the sun was just starting to rise, she decided to accept the lift on condition he left the van door open" - something which also must be against the law.

It is unforgivable that a 12-year-old is left alone with a man at that hour. Educators of all people should be aware of the dangers. People get so outraged about 12-year-olds being in Paceville late at night, and they have a point.

But is it not even more outrageous to have young solitary schoolgirls picked up by men before the sun has even risen?

Then of course we have another example of the law being an ass. While deploring the man's behaviour, after "examining caselaw" the magistrate also cleared the man of defiling the girl on the grounds that "although the court deplores the actions of the defendant they do not constitute libidinous acts in terms of law".

If that is the case, we should be pushing for the law to be changed in such a way not to leave "caselaw" loopholes for men "found guilty of violent indecent assault".

Other minibus sagas

I have been writing about the schoolchildren minibus system ever since I first came back to Malta, over a decade ago. I had been shocked driving behind them and observing the chaos caused by unsupervised children running amok.

The minibus drivers seemed to stop anywhere - in the middle of the road and on corners - regardless of safety, to let children on and off.

Later, I read that a rear door had opened while a minibus was in motion and if I remember correctly a child had fallen out, but luckily she was not badly hurt.

I had opined, at the time, that I could not understand how parents trusted the minibus drivers with their children, considering how protective Maltese parents are and that mothers, and sometimes fathers, seemed to spend much of their time acting as chauffeurs for their children.

I could not understand the logic. The children were not trusted on public transport, but they were trusted with 'private' drivers with no modicum of responsibility towards the children in their care.

As I said, that was over a decade ago. Yet, just the other day I was driving behind a red minibus with children standing and pushing each other all over the place.

Nobody seems to care, until there is a tragedy. Then of course, having been complacent for decades, we shall all be baying for blood. Some years back we had also raised the issue, in the media, of the ridiculous and dangerous practice of children being picked up at the crack of dawn.

Children were being deposited outside locked school gates too early in the morning. But that also seemed to be swept under the carpet with the usual shrug of "m'hemmx x'taghmel"!

And now we hear that two years ago a young girl was picked up at 6 a.m. and assaulted by the driver who was supposed to drive her to school and instead decided on a little detour.

Now, if I remember correctly, the excuse given by the drivers, when the early morning issue was hitting the news pages a few years back, was that they did not have the time to wait till later because they were too busy with other jobs.

The latest minibus episode is yet another "pass the buck" story. Nobody accepting responsibility and the children are the 'piggies in the middle'. Suffer the children.

And at play

In yet another case, a man employed as a groundsman with the Malta Football Association (MFA), at Pace Grasso Ground in Paola, which was used by children from a neighbouring school, got a two-year suspended sentence for defiling a 13-year-old boy. Why suspended?

Besides, the case caused more controversy because the man's employment was not terminated, when he was a clear risk to children. The MFA showed insensitivity and ignorance when it said that "it would leave it up to the public to conclude whether, in a long life, if someone is found guilty only once of corrupting a minor, one should be labelled a paedophile".

This has nothing to do with labels. But yes, even corrupting a minor "only once" should be unacceptable in our society. That man should be barred from any job, which involves contact with minors.

After pressure the MFA terminated the man's contract, but it also stopped the school children using the ground! Why? Pique? Suffer the children.

The MFA's reasoning for barring the children is "so that it would no longer be unjustly accused... and would not enter into a controversy..." Grow up, MFA!

Besides, the association does not even have the right to bar the children. They are squatters. So why is the Education Ministry pussyfooting around "discussing" the issue?

Freedom of speech haven

In the wake of the arson attacks on people who stand up to be counted, as always happens, the media are inundated with a barrage of opinions.

First of all I stand in solidarity with the colleagues who have been targeted. It is bad enough that journalists' homes are attacked, but putting their families at risk is despicable, whatever the alleged provocation.

It is good news that amendments are being proposed for harsher penalties for crimes involving white slavery, and those motivated by racism.

Even if the arson episodes are not connected, it is about time that the criminal element connected to racism and white slavery are taken seriously.

However, the problem will not be solved by retribution alone. The media as a whole are not doing enough to counter the wave of hate being propagated against seekers of justice.

The writing has been on the wall for a while. Under the guise of "freedom of speech", racists, fascists and anyone prepared to spout 'controversial' drivel have been given inordinate air and print space.

Maybe that is why Malta was recently described as being a freedom of speech haven!