When looking back at the year thus far it has become clear
that all that is worth doing takes time and requires stamina, strategy and
courage. We are still fighting the paralysis of a system that designed its laws
to ensure children’s rights were met in South Africa, but unwittingly created a
series of barriers to services based on the flawed human interpretations and
applications of this law. It appears that the age old Hegelian Dialectic has come
into play and in our zeal to ensure rights are not abused we have lost sight of
how best to protect them.
The thesis was that we need to sign the convention on the
rights of the child, ascent to the African Charter for Children, draft a
Constitution and then laws to enact these. If this was done successfully
children would be safe and have their rights upheld. We did this but,
The antithesis was that we tied humanity up in litigation and
lost This child for The children and what has become abundantly clear is that
legislative reform is not enough. Transformation of people is what is needed.
Ultimately all those who implement law are people first and people play roles
that define their identity. The role of professional seems to have become
paralysed, or poor performance excused, by law. We have law, all this shows us
is that we cannot behave humanely unless threatened.
So what is the synthesis, humanity! There are three premises
to successfully protecting children:
1.
The
recognition that there is suffering in the world
2.
The
negative duty to not add to that suffering and
3.
The
positive duty to alleviate the suffering where you can.
On reflection this seems a simple request, it calls for us to
be kind. Why is it then so hard to achieve.
i.
We
know there is a recognition of suffering as this is bemoaned every day in the
media, at dinner parties and in our work in the non-profit sector.
ii.
If
we did nothing to harm children as a collective, they would be safe!
iii.
But
we need to actively protect because there are many who actively hurt or through
acts of omission allow for children to be hurt.
How do we explain why some hurt children? We refer to
psychology, sociology, anthropology, biology, evolution etc. Theories abound as
to why we raise adults who either do not protect or actively hurt children. In
my mind, however, none of them suffice as the sum of the parts never appears to
make up the whole. Bad childhoods, poverty, trauma, poor attachment, genes
etc., have all been used as a way to explain asocial behaviour. What appears to
be missing is that there are many, and even potentially a majority, who have
had the same experiences and overcome those experiences to live by the mantra
“it ends with me”. The cycle can only end if we are aware there is suffering
and NOT wanting to inflict that on the other. Others, often wounded healers,
have chosen to actively take the hurt and use it to heal. How is this done?
I want to leave you with a thought; it is relationships that
are “good enough” and the ability to choose another path because someone opened
it up for you. So we want to make a difference in the life of a child. When I
am asked what makes a difference in the life of a child?
It is everything! As a result we need many strategies and
often ones that do not rely on law or a solution but on an alternative
experience of a caring and consistent adult who is authentic and congruent.
This is only achieved if we remember our humanity and filter all of our
professional work through one question “would I expose my child/family to
this?”. Sadly, many professionals in the child protection system would answer
no. The implication is that we have created a distance between our work and our
humanity and that is why we are failing so dramatically in protecting our
children by not being able to protect their right to nit be harmed that would
be realised if we did nothing!
No comments:
Post a Comment