By Kieran McCartan, PhD, David S. Prescott, LICSW, & Katarzyna UZIEBLO, PhD
Child protection and safeguarding are among the most
challenging issues faced globally. The threats to children, new and old, are constantly
evolving. It seems that every time we catch up and are aware of any given
threat it changes and adapts. As part of his PhD, Kieran researched and
examined Ulrich
Beck’s idea of the risk society, which states that by the time we are aware
of a risk it is often too late to change it and we instead must devote our time
to risk management and damage limitation. This is very depressing from a
prevention point of view; we desire to use existing knowledge to predict
problematic behaviour and roll out interventions upstream to produce the harm
from ever occurring. In child protection terms, this means identifying and
working with at-risk populations (so at risk of committing an offence or at
risk of being a victim), strengthening institution safeguarding practices, and
upskilling communities about the realities of risk as well as how to intervene.
Two distinct stories that highlight the challenges of child protection and
safeguarding.
The first story is from the UK, where the online safety bill is being
discussed, the core tenet of which is to keep children safe online from harmful
material as well as risky (or more precisely dangerous) behaviours. The online
safety bill has been discussed a lot over the past 12-18 months and has been
through the hands of three Prime Ministers, with promises of a new wide-ranging
bill that will redefine the online world and protect children. But this is
seemingly not to happen, as with all policy it has been changed and altered, with
core pieces dropped from the bill. One major portion was dropped this week,
which was limiting
access to legal but harmful material to children. The idea behind this
change is that doing so would remove free speech and the right to choose from
the online world. This is a strange argument; we have always safeguarded
children in this way in the offline world by placing restrictions and
verifications in place to make sure they cannot access inappropriate material.
It begs the question of why we would do something online if we wouldn’t do it
offline. This leads to the growing debate about the lived reality and the
policing of cyberspace, and whether, how, and why behaviour is different on and
off it? This then leads to another argument levelled against the tenets of the
bill, which is that they are too hard, too complex, and too unwieldly to do.
That should not be an excuse!
On a week where we are reminded of JFK’s famous statement
about going to the moon (i.e., we do it because it is hard) we should refocus
our attention on solving this issue. One response from the UK government is the
use of age verification software and related policies, which we know is often a
challenge and does not work, as parents often sign up for their children or
allow them to use their accounts. Therefore, what next? We need tech and online
companies to stand up and accept responsibility for what happens on their
platforms, since only accountability changes policy and practice. What is the
next big step forward in online child protection and safeguarding? And where is
the corporate responsibility? Currently, it seems that we rely only personal
and/or parental responsibility, which is not always as exacting or fit for the purpose
as it needs to be.
This leads us to our second news story, which is about the explosion of child
sexual abuse and exploitation in the Philippines through online platforms.
Over the past 30 – 40 years we have seen the growth in sex tourism, especially
in the far east, but over the past 10 – 15 years we have seen this evolve into
cyber/online sexual tourism and abuse. The online sexual exploitation of
children is a growing concern and often difficult to police transnationally. This
means that the internet and the online environment has a role to play in preventing
and responding to it, as it plays a key role in enabling it. The reality of the
online sexual abuse of children, as with the trafficking of children for sex
and the sexual exploitation of children is one of access, poverty, and
hopelessness. All of this is set to increase with the current global costs of
living crisis. How do we prevent sexual exploitation, both in person and
online, when on some occasions it is being caused by the parents, family
members and associates of the child? According to a report
from the Dutch Centre against Child and Human Trafficking a family member is
even involved in almost one fifth of the cases. On one level, it is about local
education and prevention programs, but on another level its about the role of
the internet in facilitating and not preventing its dissemination. Again, we
hear narratives about the challenges of doing so, that it’s just too difficult
and problematic. This time we hear that its because of culture and social
differences; issues linked to cross-border and transnational working; that
international law is sketchy at best; and the need for sovereign independence
and the fact that it’s difficult to get a prosecution. All these things are
true, to a degree, but it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do it. The internet
spans borders; therefore, should its content and usage not span boarders too?
If the internet is being used to exploit children in one country by someone
from another, shouldn’t they be held responsible and therefore be accountable?
We have reached the stage where we need to hold the online
community responsible for its actions, because harmful behaviour offline can be
just as harmful online. It’s the content and behaviours that make something
harmful, not merely the medium. When we think about how we respond to and
prevent online sexual abuse and the tools we use, we need to future proof these
and therefore we need innovation, not reinforcement of old ways. Whether we are
managing the risks that our children face online or the way that they engage
with technology we need to look at it from all angles, with fresh eyes.
No comments:
Post a Comment