Pedophile reference led to job10 May 2003 The Northern Territory News |
||
|
A glowing reference from a former headmaster allowed a pedophile to get a job in a Territory school, it was learnt last night. Music teacher Greg Knight then began sexually abusing children at Darwin's Dripstone High. The abuse included tying up naked boys. Knight, now 62, was jailed for eight years. Gilbert Case employed Knight at St Paul's School in Brisbane in the early 1980s. He resigned as the head of Anglican schools in Queensland on Tuesday as the row over his handling of pedophile allegations against his staff mounted. In a parting written statement, he said he had sacked Knight as soon as he heard of an "incident" involving the teacher. But the Northern Territory News has discovered Mr Case gave Knight a reference, which he used to get the job at Dripstone High. The Territory Education Department yesterday checked its archives and said the reference was enough to get Knight the job in 1990. "Our normal process then, and now, was to check an applicant's immediate previous employer, in this case the Queensland Department of Education, and nominated referees," a spokesman for the NT department said. Inquiries yesterday confirmed Mr Case gave the music teacher what Education Queensland said was "a glowing reference". Knight moved to Darwin and committed acts of gross indecency against several schoolchildren. The abuse included tying them up naked and masturbating them. He was jailed in Darwin for six years in 1994 after pleading guilty to two charges of carnal knowledge, 12 of committing acts of gross indecency, and one of indecent assault. This report appears on news.com.au. Last known URL (may be outdated):
The above story is quoted under the "fair use" provisions
of the Copyright Act
|
||
Jason's comments on this story |
||
| On the face of it, this seems like a story about abuse of children
by an adult who should never have been placed in a position of trust over
children. But is it really about abuse?
What is "carnal knowledge"? This is the Australian equivalent of what Americans call "statutory rape". In other words, the charge implies that the children concerned consented to the sexual penetration and they made no complaint of having been raped when questioned. There is some question as to the validity of this charge. All of the children concerned were of high-school age. Under the Australian education system, this means that the children must have been aged at least 11 and were probably older. I wonder how old these "children" really were? I wonder why the news report fails to mention any ages? Could it be because the children were very close to the age of consent and the newspaper thought mentioning the ages would detract from their sensational story? You may be asking yourself what "gross indecency" means. This charge is commonly used when an adult performs oral sex on a child. Again, no force or lack of consent is implied by the charge. This could be accurately described as a "bullshit charge" as it is based not on harm done, but on a moral judgement of what is considered "decent" or "indecent". It is also based on a double standard because the same charge is not applied to the same sexual activity when it involves two adults. So what is "indecent assault"? In this case, it would describe an adult masturbating a child. Although it uses the violent word "assault", the term "indecent assault" actually contains no implications of violence. This is consistent with the lack of any violence implied in the other charges. This is another "bullshit charge" as there is no harm done to the child, particularly if the child wants to be mastubated. Again, the double standard is blatent because consenting adults may indulge in exactly the same activity without fear of legal interference. It is very significant that there is no mention of the charge of "unlawful imprisonment". If the children who were tied up had been unwilling, this charge would certainly have been added to the others. The fact that this charge was not used strongly suggests consent on the part of the so-called "victims". My opinion on this news story is that this was "abuse" only in the strict, legal sense of the word. The children involved almost certainly enjoyed the sexual games immensely and they probably regret the involvement of the police to terminate those games. I may be wrong of course, but based on my own experience, I doubt it.
|
||
|
|