Safeguarding, Whistleblowing & Scrutiny Is Not "Moral Panic"

There are some who'd like everyone to equate all mention of safeguarding with "moral panic". But moral panic is based on irrational fear & prejudice, not evidence of danger.

Of the numerous lazy tropes and false narratives that do the rounds from the mouths of gender fundamentalists or the otherwise hard of thinking, this is the one I really hoped would start dying a death after recent Mermaid’s revelations.

Alas, nope. I really should’ve known. Every time. The lull of collective silence, like the tide going out, for just a day or two, before, whoosh, back it comes with full force, the tsunami of denialism, post after post, clearly copied and pasted from Mermaids’ instructions after they sent whatever SOS batsignal they clearly sent out to their acolytes, the shooting the messengers, the gaslighting, the deflection, the excuse-making, the enabling, the Owen Jones having his usual frothing “TERFS are evil” two-minute hate-rant. The usual Nadia Whittome Red Guard bandwagoning, the DARVO, the blaming, the reality-twisting, the lip quivering claims from Mermaids that they had to shut their phonelines down due to “abuse” which we’ve seen no evidence of whatsoever (rumour has it some of those manning the lines walked in disgust, but as we don’t know what actually happened for sure, don’t quote me on that).

And then the “of course it’s all the fault of nasty old TERFS, the evil bigoted right wing press and JK Rowling because they’re EVIL and have stopped all these poor young people getting help and being who they want to be.” And nothing whatsoever to do with the investigation into this children’s charity who consistently resist scrutiny, encourage gender nonconforming children down completely unevidenced and irreversible medical pathways, and whose safeguarding is CONSISTENTLY so bloody appalling that on top of already being investigated by the Charities Commission for safeguarding breaches, they managed to INVITE at least one obvious paedophile into a powerful position as a trustee of their board.

But THAT isn’t worthy of comment or condemnation, certainly not.

It’s “culture war”, the lazy narrative goes, “whipped up by the Daily Fail and other right wing outlets.” It’s “Moral Panic.” “It’s the new Section 28.” It’s “Pearl-Clutching” by evil bigots.

No, it isn’t It’s CHILD SAFEGUARDING. It’s SCRUTINY. This is basic, basic stuff. And we’ve been here before in the UK, many times. But are the lessons ever learned?

Sadly, they are not.

So how do you know the difference? It’s really not that difficult

MORAL PANIC/PEARL CLUTCHING/”THE NEW SECTION 28”

Moral panic is unevidenced, largely irrational fear, that becomes wildly disproportionate, and usually based entirely on prejudice, on things that haven’t happened or won’t happen, often primarily as a result of resistance to change. Examples include the Salem witch-trials, McCarthyism and the Red Peril, fears of the corrupting influence of Rock n Roll or heavy metal music lyrics. Or thinking that the mere mentioning of gayness will turn everybody gay.

Pearl-clutching is about shock at something, usually something sexual, that falls outside a very limited kind of conservative Christian idea of morality. for example, finding the idea of adults having sex outside marriage or being same-sex attracted, or living together shocking, and being outraged about it on moral grounds. It often involves policing other people on solely moral grounds, wanting only “Good Christian values” to be taught and inculcated.

Moral panic also often has an undercurrent of censorship, for instance, not wanting young people to know or learn ANYTHING about sex in school, banning all showings of TV programmes or films or books or music, or wanting to ban any mention or discussion of homosexuality in schools a la Section 28, for fear that the mere mention of homosexuality would “turn kids gay’". Thought policing of “impure” or irreligious or “incorrect” thoughts would also fall into this category. The righteous of social justice thought police might, incidentally, want to think about this when they’re busy rounding up dissenters in their purity spirals or reporting to their employers or going through suspects’ tweets looking for “likes” they disapprove of.

“Moral Panic” isn’t:

• Questioning a prevailing narrative when there is considerable verifiable evidence of actual harms, or where the stated aims of the “narrative” are not in fact achieving what is claimed. That is called scrutiny. It isn’t about “morality and disgust” although it is often about “ethics, equality and fairness” under both current human rights and equalities legislation.

• Discussing potential harms, with evidence, of removing previously agreed or consensus-based boundaries or limits. Again, that is democracy, scrutiny and impact assessment. It isn’t “moral panic” to ask if impact assessments regarding the girls in their care have been done before schools unilaterally remove all single sex facilities, for instance, which could be indirectly discriminatory under Equality Law, and goes against agreed Building Regulations in schools.

• Whistleblowing when harms have been observed, the rules are being broken or established protocols have been flouted is not “moral panic.” Especially when it’s evidenced, and especially when it’s coming from several sources. How you treat whistleblowers is a good indication of your integrity and the strength of your principles and your commitments to standards, ethics—and safeguarding.

• Expecting what is taught in schools about sex and gender to be factual, evidenced and fair rather than ideological. That means no ‘pink and blue’ boxes, no sex discrimination by subject, no teaching that girls are there to be homemakers but boys leaders, and likewise, no claims that babies are “assigned male or female at birth”, that there are 300 “genders”, that a child can be “born in the wrong body” or that children who don’t play with the “correct” toys for their sex or like the “wrong” clothes or topics must therefore be trans and “really” the opposite sex. You can teach, as with religion, that some people believe this, but teaching it as fact when it’s belief and offering no alternative viewpoints for the same phenomena is the equivalent of indoctrination.

• Academic discussion and questioning of prevalent narratives in academia, questioning any monocultural approach in terms of theory, applying a materialist analysis to theory. That’s called academic vigour and debate. It should lead to robustness and better ideas and arguments, not whining that you heard “unsafe opinions” if someone disagreed with your pet theory.

• Knowing facts and statistics about rates of sexual assault against girls and women, the division of crime types as either victim or perpetrator between the sexes (naming things accurately is important for everyone ,both for fairness and to be able to address all effectively) , or the historical reasons why, for instance, single sex spaces exist in certain circumstances.

• Listening to women and girls about their experiences, of sexual assault and harassment, for instance, and taking them seriously, even (and I say this for those women who do the “Not All Women/ You don’t speak for me” schtick) if such experiences have not happened to you personally.

• Understanding the established principles and standards of safeguarding and prevention. It is not “moral panic” to recognise when breaches have occurred. Safeguarding protocols are well-established and are there to protect kids and young people. Many came about as a result of abuses and even murders of vulnerable kids. They are therefore not unevidenced. They are “lessons learned”. They are not the equivalent of “morality policing” for, for instance, religious or ideological reasons Anyone who tries to make out they are is trying to pull the wool over your eyes, to obfuscate for usually nefarious purposes. Or has been gaslit themselves into doing so.

CHILD SAFEGUARDING, WHISTLEBLOWING, SCRUTINY

• Safeguarding is a set of principles established BECAUSE of previous breaches where young people have been harmed, physically, emotionally and sexually abused or even killed. Anywhere where children and young people are, unfortunately, is going to be of interest to paedophiles. Anywhere where vulnerable children are is going to be even more appealing, and anywhere where the safeguarding is lax or the boundaries of the adults who are meant to protect vulnerable children are porous or where the adults are naive is going to attract predators like moths to a flame. Mermaids, a charity for gender questioning children and young people should know and understand these principles inside-out. They are required across the charity sector. Yet Mermaids has demonstrated again and again they either don’t know (unacceptable given what they do) or don’t care (which would be even more appalling on many levels, not least because actively and knowingly choosing to undermine child safeguarding protocols would suggest sinister motivations.) It is not “pearl clutching” to point out these breaches.

• Whistleblowing, where you know there have been breaches and you publicise or otherwise draw peoples’ attention to them is not something to be ignored. If something is failing, the powers that be, those that can and will do something about it, need to know about it. It is not “pearl-clutching” or “hysteria” to whistleblow, especially not where child safeguarding protocols are being ignored. It’s flagging up known and established possible harms. Worth remembering that one of the reasons that the Tavistock GIDS clinic has been closed is because of the evidence of the sheer number of individual whistleblowers. At least 10 went separately to Tavi board member and eventual whistleblower Dr. David Bell with their concerns, about fast-tracking children down medical pathways, about resistance to standard exploration of mental health issues presented, about the enabling of homophobic attitudes . GIDS’ managements’ treatment of their child safeguarding lead, Sonia Appleby, actively preventing doing her job when she tried to expose safeguarding problems, resulted in their having to pay her compensation of £20,000 in the resultant employment tribunal for actively preventing her carrying out her duties in this regard. A clinic. For vulnerable children. Where, it’s noted that the “politicisation” (and involvement of certain lobby groups) of these issues appears to be a big part of the reason why Sonia Appleby and David Bell were treated the way they were. What kind of people demonise whistleblowers? Is it “moral panic” or “pearl clutching” to have an issue with serious institutional failings where institutions are not following the protocols expected and agreed?

• Scrutiny, accountability and basic standards of behaviour is expected of all officials and organisations in public life (see the Nolan Principles, the Seven Principles of Public Life), which should be adhered to by ALL in public life including organisations and charities. That we are in a situation where many in public life (politicians of all parties for example) completely fail to uphold these standards is no excuse. It is not “moral panic” for members of the public to expect their representatives and public organisations to adhere to these basic, fair principles, or to object when they are not upheld, regardless of by whom or what their political affiliation is. The ideal of having standards of fairness and integrity is not a “right wing” concept. Mermaids have demonstrated on numerous occasions their lack of willingness to be scrutinised or to accept accountability. Remember documentary-maker Olly Lambert saying that they made false assertions in order to avoid being interviewed for the Trans Kids: We Need To Talk documentary and he had an easier time getting either side in Gaza to accept ‘the other side’ giving their point of view than he did Mermaids? If you have integrity to your arguments, you don’t need these deflection tactics. You’re adults, not children. Whining “they’re all being so meaaaaan” over and over again as per Mermaids’ claims about the phone line “abuse” to deflect from their own signing of an obvious paedophile up to their board is not the response of responsible adults. Arguments should be so solid they stand up for themselves: well argued, evidenced, solid, factual. But as we see time and time again, Mermaids’ “representatives” not only crumple under scrutiny on the rare occasions someone holds them to it, it’s usually to the point of utter embarrassment.

Perhaps one day, those who’ve been blindly following along with this narrative (Hello, Guardian, Hello Owen, Hello Nadia, Hello Greens/LGBTI Labour/LibDems, Hello Independent, hello, “academics”, hello “be kind” useful idiots thoughtfully stroking their beards while imagining themselves morally superior) and anyone who rushed to the kneejerk defence of Mermaids might like to start having a think about exactly what sort of person would like you to think that CHILD SAFEGUARDING and “MORAL PANIC” are one and the same thing and why, and who in particular is likely to gain from their conflation in the above situations, what the impacts are likely to be and on whom.

But I’m really not seeing much evidence of intelligent thought, integrity or dot-joining at the moment from the usual suspects, so I won’t be holding my breath. All I know is that at SOME point, the tipping point will come. It just has to. But we need the Charity Commission and others in positions of power and influence to develop backbones. It’s already gone on far too long.