Showing posts with label authority. Show all posts
Showing posts with label authority. Show all posts

The Vatican, The UN Torture Committee and Reward/Sanction Methods of behaviour modification.

On Friday 9th May, a report on the questioning of The Vatican before the United Nations Torture Committee was released into the public domain at the same time that calls from within other Christian denominations emerged, from within The Protestant Churches and Evangelical Churches, to address their known issues with reporting and prevention of pedophilia and other acts of mistreatment, cruelty and serious abuse of children occurring in all settings they were and are responsible for.

The call was to not do as the Vatican has done, and seek to attempt to manage or control the ‘crisis’ so as to protect their ‘image’ and ‘status’ which inevitably causes even more trauma for all survivors.


With regard to the torture matter, it is really crystal clear to me that every form of indoctrination to which children are subjected that comes with with sanction, punishment, chastisement and reward is a form of psychological torture.

"If you are driven by the threat of eternal torture to be a good person, you're a frightened person.
 
To instil, indoctrinate, inculcate or impose upon a small child's body, mind or psyche the feeling or sensation or thought frame associated with fear of existential punishment, as a psycho-social structure or some 'moral code', as coercive and violent as it is, is torture.”

This means that the person using such a coercive process upon a child is frightening the child and a frightened child, quite obviously,  will not see sense in the instruction and the matter will thus require coercion, to ensure compliance. All for 'the child’s own good', of course. And for the good of Society.

Of course.

This is based on a dreadful misperception of the child, which has been a foundational meme of Christian European culture and indeed Abrahamic cultures for a long, long time, (the fear of Satan/The Wild in the child that must be tamed at all costs) and it mirrors all sorts of adverse power relationships that are institutionalised into our mainstream Societal structures even to this day.

This dynamic mirrors the relationship between Power, Law, the State, and the Citizen. The power issue is the core of the problem, from the personal to the Institutional. It is because this Christian-post Christian social thought map strikes at the heart of one’s sense of self as a vulnerable child that it has so much power over the adult, especially if the adult has ‘adapted to fit in’ and is less than fully aware……  with generation after generation ‘adapting to fit in’ it is easy to see how over time those PTSD patterns become ‘normal behaviour’.

I will address this aspect a bit further down this piece.

Last week, Democracy Now reported on these issues, and there was a specific report on the Evangelical Churches in the USA which I found very interesting.


The news team interviewed Kathryn Joyce, a reported and researcher, who had some really interesting comments to make, one of which I wish to point out, whilst at the same time I recommend listening to the whole Democracy Now report on this link.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ (newsteam): We turn now to a new exposé that asks if the Protestant world is teetering on the edge of a sex-abuse scandal similar to the one that has rocked the Catholic Church. The person trying to address the problem may surprise you. As sex-abuse allegations multiply, it is Reverend Billy Graham’s grandson who is on a mission to persuade Protestant churches to come clean. Kathryn Joyce’s cover story in The American Prospect profiles Boz Tchividjian, a law professor at Liberty University, a school founded by Reverend Jerry Falwell, and former prosecutor who has worked on many sex-abuse cases. He used his experience to found an organization called GRACE: Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment.

AMY GOODMAN (newsteam): GRACE made headlines in February when the famous evangelical school, Bob Jones University, hired it to interview faculty and students about their experiences with sexual assault, then fired it before it had a chance to report the results, only to hire it back after a public outcry. Well, reporter Kathryn Joyce joins us now to discuss this major exposé, "By Grace Alone: As Sex-Abuse Allegations Multiply, Billy Graham’s Grandson is on a Mission to Persuade Protestant Churches to Come Clean." Kathryn Joyce is also the author of The Child Catchers: Rescue, Trafficking, and the New Gospel of Adoption and Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement.

and then the interview starts: 

Joyce outlines the Grace case with regard to the Bob Jones University and other details she has researched. This part is at 43 minutes on the play timer. She makes a very point about Authoritarian settings and predatory behaviour.

AMY GOODMAN: And the missionary kids?

KATHRYN JOYCE: And for the missionary kids, these were the subject of GRACE’s two first investigation, two different very large international missionary groups, where the children of the missionaries being stationed in foreign countries, known in Christian culture as MKs, missionary kids, they were enduring just kind of epidemic levels of sexual abuse in a number of different countries. GRACE’s reports focused on two in particular, on the New Tribes Mission and their boarding school in Fanda, Senegal, and also ABWE, another missionary organization, and what happened on the mission field they had in the 1980s in Bangladesh. And two different situations, but a lot of similarities, in some ways, in that these were both kind of very authoritarian atmospheres where children were expected to do what any adult kind of in their world was telling them to do, and this made them, sadly, kind of very vulnerable to abusers who came by.

AMY GOODMAN: And you’re talking about the missionary kids. What about the people in the communities they come to, for example, in Senegal or in Bangladesh? What happens to them?


KATHRYN JOYCE: I’m sure that there are stories there, as well. GRACE’s two reports in these situations focused on what happened to the children of missionaries, but I’m sure there are even more untold stories in terms of the children already living there who were, in many ways, much more vulnerable
.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: In some of your writings, you’ve dealt with the issue of patriarchy and its relationship to religious thinking. Any sense on your part whether there are structural or philosophical directions in the churches that allow this kind of stuff to be covered up?

KATHRYN JOYCE: Well, I think, absolutely. And obviously, not all very conservative Christians or all members of the self-described patriarchy movement are going to be abusive. But reading all of these reports and looking at all of this and speaking to dozens of people, it kind of does become clear—and GRACE’s assertion—that a main factor contributing to abuse and the silencing of abuse, of victims, is authoritarian structures that focus much more on rigid rule following, on hierarchies within a church or within a community, on the subordinate role of women and children. And when you have all of these things coming together alongside a culture that sees it as imperative to cover up mistakes so that you can still promote the cause of Christ, that you are being a good evangelical witness, a lot of these things conspire to make abuse not just more common, but much more invisible.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, what most surprised you, Kathryn Joyce, in your investigation?

KATHRYN JOYCE: Well, I think what surprised me the most was watching in real time this pattern happen of GRACE going and starting and doing this investigation, getting a year into it, having spoken to dozens, a hundred of people, and then having the institution back out. This had happened once before with the mission group ABWE, and then it happened again with Bob Jones. And it was very interesting to see that. And it raised this interesting question about whether or not there is a catch-22 at the heart of GRACE’s incredibly admirable mission, that they are being hired by the groups that they’re investigating. And I think that that’s a really interesting question to ponder, but I think we also have to look at their work and say that this is very well—very much needed.
----------------

“a main factor contributing to abuse and the silencing of abuse, of victims, is authoritarian structures that focus much more on rigid rule following, on hierarchies within a church or within a community, on the subordinate role of women and children.”

What she says speaks for itself. It also mirrors James Prescott's findings and insights from his 1975 Paper : Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence.

Here’s a two page outline showing his findings in a .pdf form. 

Comparison of Social Behavioural Characteristics of Low and High Nurturant Societies 

It provides a peer reviewed anthropological narrative that accurately describes a variety of emergent social or cultural structures over time and distance, ranging from Egalitarian Nurturing Communities to Hierarchically Violent Controlling Communities. 

And the same pattern persists as Kathryn Joyce describes :  that within this range of cultures the predictor of violence as an emerging trait, or sustained pattern of behaviour of any given culture was always the degree of disruption to the child mother bond, and or the degree of control or inhibition imposed on emergent adolescent sexuality and the presence and enforcement of rigid gender power roles. 

These are resonant with post trauma behavioural patterns, where the trauma remains unresolved, where the pain remains, coping with internal pressure or conflict drives much behaviour. From the individual to the collective, aspects of the coping mechanism or strategies are internalised as within the range of ‘normal’ or expected behaviour. 'Boys don't cry'. 'Women are more empathetic'. 'Boys will be boys'. 'Girls seek out powerful men'.

The reality is of course that everyone caught up in trauma related social structures is to some degree affected by the situation, and most will have internalised aspects of it, it’s negative values and prejudices as part of that affect, and this makes for some confusion when boundaries are broken what ought to remain explicit.  The roles played out in that dynamic are hardly markers of optimally healthy human behaviour.

Kathryn Joyce's last point, about what can happen when Survivors groups get too close to the Institutions whose intent to remain and retain their power, and is less than honourable, is also very interesting, because there is a fairly well documented history of Institutions who are liable for harms caused offering an apparent ‘olive branch’ to survivors, where it becomes clear that the intended primary beneficiaries of that ‘olive branch’ is those proffering it. 

That there is a pattern of powerful institutions manipulating Survivors groups, individual survivors and NGOs through offering forms of ‘support’ favoured by the Hierarchy of that Institution. 

I think that Survivors groups need and deserve more support - and respect!- from the wider Society in confronting this situation, a necessary confrontation which has been in full flow in the public domain for nearly 30 years of public reporting of allegations, on matters than have been harmfully adverse for many hundreds of  thousands of children …  it’s narrative of Power and abuse matters for all of us, and how we deal with it will be part of the estate we pass on through inheritance. We intend to give this the focus, energy and commitment it demands.

Kathryn Joyce (And Democracy Now as ever) also bringing a much needed clarity and calm, a de-hyping of the story, a humanisation of the narrative, which is maturing the discourse and is therefore  incredibly valuable.

The main element I wish my readers to take up in why I wrote this piece, is to look at the Kathryn Joyce’s description of how an Authoritarian situation is that much more vulnerable because it has within it many of those compliance behaviour dynamics that suit predatory activity, where there is fear of The Hierarchy as much as there is respect. That fear permeates the entire issue. And it is all too often a fear and respect of distal power, a power one cannot touch or see or even influence, a power that holds life or death power over all.

That fear, that the power of life and death might be exercised upon The Vatican, drives the irrational behaviour of The Vatican, and for them that fear is so intense that it makes it rational in their mind-set to do what they are doing. 

That fear is the largest part of what really drives the ‘support’ The Vatican et al receive from their adherents, the Faithful. Who would want to lose that careful illusory safety net that blind faith, in any are of life, creates? Let alone walk right up to it and say “No! I will not stand for this!”

And it would be so easy to criticise those people for their compliance with the Institution, yet the Survivor in me has to go beyond that distaste and anger, and not to lose either sense, but to integrate them into a larger narrative, of my own life, and that of the Society into which I was born and into which I brought my own child, and it is for her and all her contemporaries and their children and grand children that I must address my actions.

The psychology, behaviour and outcomes of the activity of the Institutionalised Authoritarian Culture of Power and how these affect the majority of people alive to day have to be recognised, observed and understood. 

This psychology and behaviour needs to be observed where it occurs in all hierarchical behavioural structures, from the personal to the largest collectives. Transparency must exist in order to prevent such abuse occurring in the future, starting now. This is the ultimate precondition.

Transparency.

Authoritarianism breeds the fear that drives secrecy. 

Transparency removes it.

Privacy is not to be conflated with secrecy. 

Healthy boundaries are essential attributes in all living organisms. 

Transparency is not arrived at in an invasive environment of surveillance; it is a choice that permeates relationships, interactions and outcomes.



Kindest regards

Corneilius

Do what you love, it's Your Gift to Universe

Mrs. Dorries, MP, Sex Abuse and Teen Pregnancies - Gaslighting the Victimised


Gaslighting the victimised is the Conservative fall back position.

Ms Dorries, is a Conservative MP, who has close ties with Christian Concern For Our Nation, a highly conservative group that campaigns (among other things) for 'Christian family values'. Her efforts are also supported by the Christian Legal Centre and the Christian Medical Fellowship. She misrepresents facts to claim that current sex education is not working. 

She has a Bill in the House she is trying to push forwards.

https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2011/12/nadine-dorries-abstinence-for-girls-bill-what-you-can-do

Ms. Dorries has often made seriously inaccurate comments about  sex abuse. 
She claims that teaching abstinence to girls will reduce child sexual abuse – which has outraged abuse survivors' groups.

This week, however, Dorries has gone one step further. Appearing as a guest on Channel 5's The Vanessa Show on Monday, host Vanessa Feltz suggested that teaching children they can 'say no' already happens and that it already happens in an appropriate and sensitive way. The MP replied:

"Well do you know that’s really interesting because...if a stronger just say no message was given to children in school that there might be an impact on sex abuse."

Not content with putting the onus completely on girls to take responsibility for sexual activity of others who might be more powerful that the child is in the situation, she now appears to be saying they should also be taking responsibility to prevent being abused.

http://ontoberlin.blogspot.com/2011/05/nadine-dorries-abstinence-and-abuse.html

A courageous Survivor wrote about some repugnant comments made by a Tory MP, Nadine Dorries, about child sex abuse, whilst promoting her particular 'Abstinence' campaign, on TV, a campaign designed to reduce teen pregnancies (part of her stated concern is the impact teen pregnancies have on girls in terms of education, job and life prospects) and old Conservative trope.

She comprehensively rebutts Mrs, Dorries comments about children saying "No!" to adult sex abusers.

"To say I am insulted that someone would insinuate that I caused my own abuse is an understatement. But this isn’t just about me, this is about everyone who isn’t able to live with the memory of what happened to them. It’s about children who even now are being abused and being blamed for their abuse: by their parents, by their abusers, by Nadine Dorries."".

The show, The Vanessa Show on Channel 5, can be viewed here, Mrs. Dorries speaks at about 19 minutes into the show. Hopefully it will be youtubed for posterity by some enterprising youtube-er.

The blogger, Vanessa, invited her respondents to write to Mrs. Dorries. So I did.

The Letter : copied to her party leader..

Mrs. Dorries,

I watched the Vanessa Show in which you spoke eloquently about your ideas concerning sex education, and teenage pregnancy. Your concern comes across.

However, I think you have not done the depth of research in this matter, that your position as a Public Servant, paid for by the taxpayers, demands.

Eloquence is not enough when it comes to the welfare and safety of children.

You have a duty of care, Mrs. Dorries, that is both legally mandated and morally implicit.

That duty of care is to the welfare of all those affected by the work you do.

Thus it includes all living Survivors of childhood sexual abuse, it includes all those children who are today being abused, and all those who will be abused in the future, because the policies you promote will affect many, many people, and because you made some comments about sexual abuse that I must address.

That duty of care demands that you transcend your 'opinions' and deal explicitly with the facts, the material evidence.

Those who have Survived sexual assaults in their childhoods form a very large part of that dataset. Have you spoken to Survivors on this matter? Are those conversations a matter of record?

Regarding your comments which I have transcribed from the program which were as follows :

"from some of the evidence I have heard, that if a stronger 'just say no' message was given to children in school, that there might be an impact on sex abuse, because a lot of girls, when sex abuse takes place, don't realise, until later that that was a wrong thing to do ... because" .. and you continue to speak of sex being so common in Society, in marketing etc etc and do not return to this matter of 'saying no will impact sex abuse', you do nor return to the moment the child in jeopardy is in, and you talk instead of the over-sexualisation of our children, as a societal phenomenon and of how that is linked to teenage pregnancy, a point that is unproven.

I note that you made a number of comments throughout the piece that it is the girls whose futures are most impacted by falling pregnant. That suggests that teenage pregnancy is key to your position. Your primary concern. No the abuse itself.

You have used 'sex abuse' as a means to an end. To bolster your particular campaign.

That is disingenuous and it is also manipulative. How dare you behave in such fashion?

What evidence to you have to support your contention?

How do you link your campaign, which is ostensibly about telling young girls that they should say NO, as part of their conscious abstinence practice, (which I partly support : sexual activity must to be consensual, well informed, safe and fun for all concerned, and that includes saying no...) to these comments?

As a child, age 8, I was sexually assaulted. By a priest. I didn't understand what was happening, so I could not say 'no'. It was simply put just weird behaviour I did not understand, yet the abuser was in a such position of Authority in relation to me, the child that I acquiesced. He had all the power. ALL abusers do. They are adept at manipulating the situation. Check the facts. Ask Survivors.

Many Survivors have in fact said 'no!', and that has then been ignored by their abuser. This is common. Abusers do not give up easily. Some children say no and are intimidated, manipulated and even beaten by their abusers. There's this question of Authority again.

How does a child, or a young teen say 'no!' and back it up, to an advancing abuser when  all the real Power in the situation lies with the ADULT abuser?  When all their young lives they are taught to respond to Authority with obedience?

The other panellist mentioned the fact that many parents are embarrassed to speak of sexuality to their children, and that her organisation has programs to help parents get over that embarrassment, so that flows of communication between children and parents are more open?

What are you doing to address this really important communication gap, one which abusers are known to exploit?

And what then of children in 'care', in fostering, who might not have the kind of trusting relationship that nurturant parenting ought foster, where the child has no-one to turn to, where we know that sexual abuse is relatively common?

Mrs Dorries, I have to say that 'might have an impact' is far too vague a term to use, for someone in your position, with the responsibility you have, of a duty of care to those whom you serve.

Perhaps you don't see it that way. Perhaps it is others you serve, (ideology) or your own opinions you serve. Only you can answer that. But I tell you this, your comments do not serve Survivors or children who are in jeopardy today, tomorrow and in in the future.

You see, Mrs. Dorries, the roots of abusive behaviour are known, they are well described, and documented.. The dynamics of abuse have been studied for some time, the witness of many Survivors is a part of that dataset.

At the root is a lack of empathy. At the root are a range of situations and societal expressions of power, where societal messages that lack empathy are transmitted by thought and by deed, where the power disparity that exists between a child and an adult is abused by the adult, to meet the adults perceived needs, where the child's natural nurturant needs are not met. Part of that lack of empathy you have ably demonstrated in the comments you have made, quoted above.

Of course I do not hold you responsible for the abuse that others do. Nor do I seek to link you to it in any way.

If you are serious about preventing abuse, (which is another matter altogether than the one you are so exercised about, that of teenage pregnancy) then you must study this material.

You must dig deep, Mrs. Dorries, and you must, above all, speak to Survivors...

Here's some research that would be a good place to start. I offer this to you with respect and with the hope that you reflect on my comments.

http://www.alice-miller.com/ - Eminent Psychologist whose work or intergenerational abuse cycles across whole Societies, has helped many, many people recover from their trauma, has helped people break the cycles of abuse and prevented further abuse from occurring.

http://www.birthpsychology.com/ - the latest findings in Science, on the natural development of children from in utero, through birth, infancy and childhood, which describes in great detail, the natural expectations that all children embody, that are intrinsic, inherent and that if not met, lead to pathology.

http://www.violence.de/prescott/bulletin/article.html - Body Pleasure and The Origins of Violence

If you don't, then I, as a Survivor, must assume that you are more concerned with imposing your personal opinion and world view, through the power invested in you as an MP, than you are with the material evidence, the facts of the matter, and that is, in my view, utterly immoral, profoundly repugnant and I am sure that it absolutely disqualifies you from office.

I look forwards to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

I will copy this email to your party leader, and publish it on my own outlets.

Yours Sincerely... etc


Kindest regards

Corneilius

Do what you love, it's Your Gift to Universe



Bookmark and Share