Editorial

It has not been a good month for children. Little more than a fortnight ago a 63-year-old pleaded guilty to raping three of his grandchildren - a crime so abhorrent that words are an inadequate means of description - and just days ago a hotel manager was accused of committing sexual acts with a 14-year-old boy.

Even though these cases do not get anywhere near the attention given to those involving Church institutions - we, the media, are to blame for this, because they should - there is still a great deal of understandable anger and emotion on behalf of the public.

And these days, through internet forums and the facility to comment on stories carried by this and other newspapers, readers can, and do, express themselves extremely openly. Given that we live in a democracy, this is a good thing. But even those not heading the mediums they are seeking to speak through, need to understand the responsibility that comes with this privilege. People cannot just say what they like, especially if they are uninformed.

The first point to bear in mind is that a child can never be capable of providing consent to a sexual act with an adult. It matters not if the child did it willingly, nor even if the child initiated the act. The law should never make any distinction between wilful and forced sex involving a minor - and nor should the public.

So the offence is always serious, contemptible and condemnable. And it should be treated that way. However, because of this, and because of the understandable outrage that is generated, it is all the more important that the necessary safeguards are in place.

First, to protect the children, which means alleged offenders cannot be allowed any contact with them once an allegation has been made. However, equally important is respect for the presumption of innocence of the accused. These are, somewhat ironically, complementary objectives - because divulging details invariably makes the child's ordeal that much harsher, while doing the accused's reputation irreparable harm.

The outstanding issue, therefore, is what to do with convicted offenders. For several years - and particularly since 2006 when the Malta Football Association took a ludicrous decision to retain the services of a 79-year-old paedophile as a groundsman on a playing field used by schoolchildren - there has been a suggestion, which quite remarkably has not been followed by any meaningful discussion, on the introduction of a sex offenders' register.

While clearly not eliminating cases of child sex abuse, a register would at least present obstacles for potential offenders. The highly publicised case involving fallen pop star and convicted paedophile Gary Glitter - who was forced to return to the UK to sign one - is ample evidence of that. He will now be monitored and may even be banned from using the internet.

Children's Commissioner Carmen Zammit told The Times three months ago that she agrees with the introduction of such a register and will be pushing the issue. Yet she said there must first be a debate to establish how it is implemented.

There has, so far at least, been no such thing. Strangely - since she is a minister in the government that should have introduced the register by now - Dolores Cristina told her to do so by the end of the year. How many more bad months for children will there be before we have it?