Knives in schools...

The October 16th edition of the Herald On Sunday (pg 16) featured an article titled ‘Armed in The Classroom”. The front page teaser for the article read “Knives in schools. The statistics that will shock you”

Well, the statistics did not shock me. They didn't even surprise me.

The original article and link to the original is below this blog.

You can read the statistics for yourself and yes, they are not good. They also don't paint an accurate picture of the scale of the problem. I know this because I work with and around violence every day. I have worked in schools ranging from low decile to decile 10. And this problem is a serious one. Of course we could look at the all of the underlying factors here, the issues that cause the violence which is now more and more frequently involving weapons, but I have commented, discussed and written about this before so I want to keep this to the specific subject of weapons in schools.

Last year I was working with a group of year 12 boys in a decile 10 school. The subject of knives came up and I asked them “how many people in here know someone at this school who has bought a knife to school, either yourself or someone else, recently?” There were 27 students in the class, eight raised their hand.

I asked them why they thought “these people” (I knew I was talking directly to some of them) bought weapons to school. The most common answer was ‘Self Defence’. Other answers included “to look tough”, “because they’re marked” etc…

This prompted me to have a very frank and blunt discussion with them about what they ‘thought’ constituted self defence and where knives fall into that equation, the true consequences of the action of carrying a weapon (legal, moral, ethical, emotional, financial, scholarly, career, family), and a look at the real risks associated with this practise vs the perceived gains. The discussion had a profound effect on them with a unanimous agreement that it was a very bad idea. I have worked with students long enough to know when they are saying something simply to placate me and when they genuinely ‘get it’, and this was a situation where they genuinely ‘got it’.

Several of the students made comments along the lines of “nobody has ever made me think of it like that before”, "You (meaning them) just do it because others do it but no-one really makes you think about what could happen” etc…

The HOD for the school, who was sitting in attendance for the session made the comment to me afterwards that this was so valuable because I was able to have a discussion with the kids “that the teachers can’t have and that they don’t get at home from dad”. It had a huge impact on this group and has on several other’s since, but that is just the tip of the iceberg.

One such talk resulted in a student approaching me after the session and handing me a makeshift knife. He told me “Thank you sir, I won’t need this anymore” . That is a big impact.

The issues of teachers being able to search students is one thing, but how about fixing the underlying issues? What our organisation does is only a piece of that puzzle I know, and many schools are doing their best to work on many of the issues, but what we can do is make the kids understand the real consequences. We are in a very unique position to be able to do that. And if they no longer want or feel they need to carry knives or other weapons a big part of the issue is fixed right there. Will we get through to all of them and have them all never carry weapons again? No, of course not. But we can make a huge dent in the numbers who do.

The schools who work with us are progressive and are in many ways pioneers in addressing this issue and the other relevant issues facing their students’ safety. Some others are just plain apathetic and operating in a realm of absolute denial. This issue is real, it is obvious, the signs are there if they care to look, yet when one of their students or teachers is stabbed (again), you can guarantee we’ll hear the same old tune of “there was nothing we could do to prevent it”, or “it came out of the blue” . I am tired of hearing these things. There is plenty that can be done to prevent it and NONE of these incidents (not one) has happened “out of the blue”. Anyone who wishes to debate with me on that, I welcome it.

Anyway, this blog is just me sharing a couple of my many thoughts on this issue but at the end of the day it will be read by those who already know that what we are doing is making massive differences, and is unlikely to be read or taken seriously by anyone in the school system who will take any action. I hope I am wrong about that, I genuinely do, but I doubt that I am.

To end on a brighter note, we recently ran another women’s personal safety course at a decile 10 Auckland College and the results were absolutely outstanding. The feedback has been overwhelming from the staff and the students alike and the difference in the students’ confidence and overall empowerment was incredible. So there are schools who really are making a great difference and it is always an honour to work with them.

Original article here:


Armed in the classroom
By Chloe Johnson 5:30 AM Sunday Oct 9, 2011

Teachers are trying to fathom why an increasing number of kids, some as young as 5, bring weapons to school.

Expand Teachers are allowed to search children for weapons and drugs, but many are nervous of doing this one-on-one. Photo / Janna DixonChildren as young as 5 are among the alarming number of pupils who have been suspended or stood down for having weapons at school.

Figures the Herald on Sunday obtained through the Official Information Act show more than 1000 students have been removed from schools for possessing or using a weapon in the past two years.

At least 700 cases involved knives, blades, hammers, scissors and guns, including replicas.

In one case, a 5-year-old boy was stood down for five days for violent behaviour - brandish-ing a weapon - at teachers and students in the classroom. The type of weapon used has not been disclosed.

Ministry of Education curriculum and performance manager Jeremy Wood refused to name the school to protect the child's identity. However, he said the boy was removed from class after the incident in 2009 and received support from special education services for more than a year.

"He has not received any further stand-downs or suspensions, and no further support is currently needed," Wood said.

Educational psychologist Fiona Ayers said it was a huge concern the boy had become violent at such a young age.

"That's scary. What is going on in that kid's life that makes him feel he is so unsafe he has to carry a weapon?"

She said there were several reasons children carried weapons: protection from bullies, issues at home, influence from television or video games and simply thinking it was "cool" to have weapons.

"It's more the impulsive ones doing it. I have heard of kids who have left school and gone home then come back with weapons because they are upset. They are the ones more likely to use them."

Unskilled parents were a large part of the problem because children were copycats.

'Some of them, we do have to look at the culture of the environment they are in ... if family or uncles or people in the neighbourhood are doing that sort of thing then it might be one option for the child."

Te Puke High School maths teacher Steve Hose, 53, was stabbed in the neck and shoulder four times last year by a 13-year-old student from a dysfunctional family. The student took his own life about three months ago.

Hose said he ran to the front of the classroom after being stabbed and felt the blood dripping down his body. "I yelled at the kids, 'Get out'. I just needed them out of the way," Hose said. He looked in the "wide focused eyes" of his attacker and said, 'Are you sure you want to do this, mate?'. He looked at me dead in eyes and said, 'Yes'."

Education Minister Anne Tolley introduced new guidelines this year for teachers to search students for drugs and weapons which Hose supported. "But you need to get a senior team to direct the proceedings. One-on-one is a bad idea."

FAVOURITE WEAPONS

* Knife: 450

* Gun, including toy: 219

* Scissors: 36

* Blade: 12

* Hammer: 11

Total suspensions and stand downs between 2008 and 2010 for weapons-related incidents:
* Primary (Yr 1-8), 409;
* Secondary (Yr 9-15), 609;
* Composite (Yr 1-15), 49 (2008-2010)

'Child Power' Article: The Aucklander

'Child Power' Article: The Aucklander, August 4 2011

'Empower Your Kids to be Safe...For Life' available in most bookstores or from Amazon.com by clicking HERE

Schoolgirl attack warning

This article appeared in the Herald On Sunday (3/7/11, italics are mine, see below the article for my comments):

A 17-year-old girl attacked by a sexual predator while walking home from school is warning other students about the dangers of wearing iPods.

The teen is one of two St Mary's College, Auckland, students grabbed by strangers while walking to and from school. The second was barely a week ago.

Both were listening to iPods via earpieces at the time and did not hear the men behind them.

The 17-year-old, who did not want to be identified, warned others to turn down the volume on iPods or to wear only one earpiece so they were alerted to potential danger.

"It's something nobody ever talks about. People from age 12 to my age think they're invincible," she said.

In March the teen was on Hamilton Rd, five minutes from home, when a man came up behind her and "tried to grab me and drag me into a driveway", she said.

"I got such a fright. I screamed and shoved him and told him to f*** off."

The man - whom she described as stocky and of Pacific Island or Filipino origin in his 20s - then took off.

On June 23, a 12-year-old girl from the same school fought off a man's advances with a kick to the groin.

She was walking along Douglas St in Ponsonby when the man came up behind her, made lewd suggestions and grabbed her arm.

Police described the man as in his 40s with long silver or grey hair and with an orange hue to his skin.

St Mary's College principal Sandy Pasley said students and parents needed to be aware of the dangers of wearing iPods, especially when walking alone.

Following the second incident, she sent a newsletter to parents warning them about the dangers and encouraged students to walk in groups if possible.

Both of the girls in these recent attacks did very well once they were confronted. Awesome in fact!

The reason this article bothered me though was this statement:

The 17-year-old, who did not want to be identified, warned others to turn down the volume on iPods or to wear only one earpiece so they were alerted to potential danger.

"It's something nobody ever talks about. People from age 12 to my age think they're invincible," she said.

Why did this bother me? Because I am saddened that this attack could potentially have been avoided if their situational awareness had not been restricted due to the ipod's blaring in their ears. And the fact is WE DO TALK ABOUT THIS! A LOT! It is a part of the safety discussions we do at every school we work with, and many other courses too. We have writtern articles about it, commented on the issue for media and many others. And not just Ipods, but drink spiking, texting, technology safety, taxi safety, getting followed, and many other safety strategies which make up just a part of the 'recognition and awareness' phase of our school courses.

The problem is that not enough schools are taking the proactive action to get us in there to teach their kids to be safe. And that bothers me. So many times girls have been attacked, sometimes with horrendous consequences, and the opinion of many is "It's terrible, but there is nothing anyone could have done to prevent it". And that is pure apathy, and is completely ignorant. Most of these situations can be avoided (not all, but most) and that is what we teach people to do. So to hear a 17 year old girl say that nobody ever talks about this stuff, after she has been put through a terrifying situation that could have been avoided is really sad to me.

We are here for any school who needs us, but they have to take the action to get us there. I really hope this changes soon, there are many attacks such as this one, and date rapes, acquaintance rapes, stranger rapes, sexual assaults, drug rapes, and many other situations (1 in 4 kiwi girls are sexually assaulted before the age of 16) which we can help avoid with the school's help.

If you have children at school, please send them our details and insist that they run one of our safety programs for their kids. These are life skills which are no longer a 'nice-to-have', they are a necessity.

Online Safety for Kids Series Part 3

Our new book 'Empower Your Kids to be Safe...For Life' has been getting fantastic reviews and I am really stoked with the feedback. So I thought I'd pick some pieces of it and give them away for free to you. So over the next few blogs I will reporoduce parts of the section on Online safety, as I receive quite a few questions about this subject. Please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers. Phil

3)Ensure that all Security Software is Installed and Up To Date.

A computer without adequate, updated virus protection software is exposed to multiple risks including Malware (malicious software including viruses, spyware, trojan horses, adware, and spam), Identity theft, Spoofing, Phishing, and Keystroke loggers. It is vital that you have adequate software installed and that it is kept updated to protect your kids and yourself from these threats.

For younger children (pre-teen) you may also choose to register with a child specific ISP (Internet Service Provider). These ISP’s function as your child’s home page browser and only allow children to surf areas of the internet that are approved for children of specific ages. There are several of these browsers available. Two of them are www.razzul.com and www.kidwideweb.net

A question of choice...

I was working with a group of young students this week and one of them, who was really genuinely concerned, asked me a question:


"I'm going to a party on Friday. There are going to be a bunch of guys there who always start fights, they carry knives and one of them stabbed a guy at a party last year and is a real psycho. Everyone knows they are going to start something on Friday, 'cause some of the other guys who are going to be there had a fight with them before. What can I do to protect myself?".


Of course he was looking for some magic move or tactic.


From there the conversation went something like this:


Me: "Mate, I can give you a strategy will will absolutely GUARANTEE that you won't be stabbed or bashed at the party, 100%, sound good?"


Him: "Yeah, cool. That's what I need"


His mate: "Yeah, Can you show me too?"


Me: "Of course, I'm happy to"


His mate: "Awesome'


Me: "Don't go to the party."


Them both: "Oh, aye?"


Me: "Use your heads fella's. This is self defence 101. You know there is a high liklihood of trouble, you are worried that you may be bashed or stabbed. You almost know for sure that shit is going to go down there...So why would you go? Seriously guys, find another party"


Him: "Oh, yeah, I s'pose"


Me: "That's the best advice I can give you guys. You asked me, and I'm telling you. Don't go, it's not worth it."


Them: "Yeah, true aye, we didn't really look at it that way. Yeah, that's cool"


I hope like hell that they listened. Sometimes people just need to hear the obvious. Stage 1 of what we teach: Avoidance through awareness and recognition.


Just thought I'd share it anyway...

Latest media article from Darcy

Here is Darcy's latest article: 'Stranger Danger?'

Enjoy!

Facebook Predators

Below is an article by Lori Getz regarding Facebook Predators:

Ashleigh Hall, 17, was raped and murdered by a 33-year-old man she met on Facebook who was posing as a teenager. How does this happen?

Who is Peter Cartwright? Is he a 19-year-old Facebook hottie, or a 33-year-old registered sex offender? The answer became clear after the man behind the pseudo-identity, Peter Chapman, raped and murdered 17-year-old Ashleigh Hall in the fall of last year. He was found guilty on Monday and sentenced to 35 years in prison.

Ashleigh and Peter met on Facebook and quickly became friendly, exchanging notes on their walls. They even sent text messages to each other. Peter was posing as an attractive 19-year-old, using a photo of a bare-chested young man as his profile picture.
Within a month, Peter had convinced Ashleigh to agree to a face-to-face meeting, telling her his father would be picking her up for the weekend rendezvous. Ashleigh’s body was found the following Monday.

How does this happen? How do good kids fall prey to such horror? What is Facebook’s responsibility? What is our responsibility as parents?

First, it happens more often than we want to think. It doesn’t always end as tragically, but our kids are enamored with being “famo,” or Internet-famous. The more friends they have online, the more popular they seem to think they are. But this just isn’t so. The truth is, the more online friends they have, the bigger the target on their back.

Good kids fall prey to predators for a couple of reasons:

1) They are trusting! They have a hard time believing anyone would want to do them harm.

2) Predators are smart and patient! They find “good victims” and wait patiently to cultivate a relationship that is built on a false sense of trust and loyalty. A predator will become your child’s best friend, significant other, parent or mentor. They will be whatever the victim needs them to be in order to gain their trust.
What makes a “good victim?”

A “good victim,” in the eyes of a predator, is someone who is seeking attention. When predators see sexy or provocative profile pictures on Facebook, they are drawn to the users because they see them as attention seekers. And remember, predators are very good at giving victims all the attention in the world. Also, kids who are willing to friend just about anyone online are also seen as “good victims,” because, again, they display attention-seeking behavior. Finally, when a user posts status updates about hating his/her parents or school, this gives the predator an opening to connect with the victim.

Is Facebook responsible?
Yes and no. Facebook, in my opinion, has a responsibility to act when lascivious or questionable behavior is brought to their attention. In the past, Facebook has removed known registered sex offenders from the site. The company encourages users to report any type of abuse that occurs within their site. Users can report everything from cyberbullying to potential predators. But the USERS need to know to do this.
Facebook’s warning about dangerous predators is buried deep within the help menu under “Safety.” But it is there. The warning talks about how people can pretend to be anyone they want, and therefore it is in the users’ best interest to proceed with caution when friending strangers.

Increasing age requirements or attempting to block older and younger users is NOT going to solve these types of problems. As of now, Facebook requires that a user be 13 — but I know plenty of 10-year-olds who have accounts (and their parents know about it). The kids just lie, and Facebook has no way of verifying such information (especially if the parents are in on the deception).

That’s where we come in as parents. What is our responsibility?
To be active and involved parents in our children’s online world — the SAME way we are active and involved parents in their physical world. Education is the ONLY option here. Social networking has its pitfalls, but it also has incredible value when used appropriately. Staying connected with friends, marketing a new business, exchanging photos with family members across the world — these are all positive things.

But we need to start talking to our kids about the fact that these communities have the same rules that our personal communities have. Keep personal information private, respect one another and do not involve ourselves with total strangers or invite them into our lives.
———————————————————————————————

Lori Getz
Lori Getz is the founder of Cyber Education Consultants and speaks to students, parents and educators about Internet safety, security and ethics. She has a Master of Arts in Educational Technology from San Diego State University and is certified by isafe.org as an Internet Safety Specialist. Her mission is to help bridge the gap between a young generation of digital natives and their parents and teachers. She is the mother of one and lives in Los Angeles with her husband

Child sexual predators 'sick'?

Below is part of a Facebook conversation between Richard Dimitri (founder of Senshido), Ryan Sainsbury (senior Protect student), Craig Walsh (briefly - Senshido affiliate UK) and myself. I thought I would copy it here as I think it raises some interesting points of view around child sexual predators...

Richard Dimitri - Senshido International: "Despite Facebook's attempts to safeguard its users from sexual predators, tens of thousands of registered sex offenders have been able to slip through the cracks in security. Those with CHILDREN please, make certain you set your privacy settings accodingly especially when it comes to your children's profiles and pictures shared."

Craig Welsh
"dirty bastards.."

Richard Dimitri
"Most yes, some are actually sick, realize, feel horrible for what they do, how they feel and even ask to be medically impaired from it or incarcerated. Nothing is ever cut and dry or black and white brother... the human being is much to complex a creature to be categorized under any label our intellectual mind can come with."

Phil Thompson
"Sorry Bro, I'm with Craig. Regardless of the human condition, to label all child sex offenders as 'sick' is a way that people can pigeon-hole the issue and use that as an excuse for the truth, and that is what most people do (not what you were doing I know, you said 'some'). And the truth is that they are cruel and in many instances, evil. 'Sometimes' they are 'sick', that is, they have a mental illness. 'Some' do ask for help, and good for them. Most are not sick and most do not ask for help. And the majority of the time, outside of their sexual practices they appear as normal as everyone else. 'Some' of them have a sexual attraction to kids, the vast majority are attracted to the power, manipulation, dominance and control that they can act out on the 'easiest' of targets, young kids.
It is wrong in every context, damaging in ways most people cannot even begin to comprehend, and absolutely needs to be called what it is: Cruel, horrific, and evil. Stage 1 of any problem we need to fix: Accept it and label it correctly...
My two Kiwi cents... Love ya fella"

Richard Dimitri
"I fully agree bro... no argument there at all, most are indeed sociopathic, however, there are some that are clinically and medically 'sick' and realize it and also abhor what they are... and even though they appear to normally function in everyday society doesn't take away the fact that a small percentage do actually have a mental condition, much like some drug addicts that manage to hide their addictions for years to both their friends and families as well as social networks. I'm not saying the law should ease up, I'm just saying that on a humane level, to simply throw a blanket statement isn't fair to the minority and is to a certain degree, a judgement... that's all :`)"

Phil Thompson
"Yeah, I understand bro. I have such conflicting emotions around this. On one hand I know that when we judge someone we don't define them, we just define ourselves as someone who needs to judge. I get that and I work hard on it every day, you constantly inspire me towards that. On the other hand where is the line drawn? I think our judgements are necessary to form our opinions, which are often ego fuelled I know, but sometimes necessary. I mean without them we would condone every act of violence and cruelty in the world and simply accept it as 'it is what it is'. I think my personal direction on this is that I will aim not to judge anyone as best I can for the way they act, how they live their lives, who they are etc until such time as their behaviour adversely affect other people or brings harm to any other person or creature. That is the point where I am happy to make judgements and form strong opinions on someone and take the appropriate action. Otherwise I think tolerance becomes weakness and even denial, which does not serve humanity or the world at all. In the case of child sex offenders, yes I appreciate that some of them are mentally sick. But most are not. It is just an easy lable that most bestow upon predators because it makes it easier to understand and accept. And to look at the issue with empathy or sympathy because the offender 'might' be sick is not giving it the weight it deserves. Personally I will choose to look upon every child sex offender as being cruel and evil. If through the process of law and order (for the countries which actually have it) it is determined that the person is 'mentally sick' then my opinion on the person may change, but my opinion on the crime never will...I think before society starts to worry about whether a child predator has a mental illness before they draw an opinion, society needs to wake up to the fact that we have an enormous problem, accept that these things are happening out there to our kids, silence the voice of denial that goes on for so many, and bring this issue into the mainstream so it can be reduced. Once that is done, then we can start categorising the predators and ensuring their treatment or punishment fits their own circumstances. Right now, we are a long way off..."

Ryan Sainsbury

"Y'all seem to be looking at this somewhat differently from myself, so I'm going to pitch in here.

Personally, I don't care if or why a person is attracted to children. Are they sick in the head? Fine. Do they have an innate sexual preference for children? Okay. Do they have a cruel attraction to power and dominance, and prefer the thought of enacting that upon children? I, for one, would submit that this is merely another form of sickness.

Point is, what leads them to the point of wanting to do these things to children is utterly disinteresting to me. If one of them wants help, for any of these situations, I'm all for giving it to them. If they decide to spend their lives bottling their desires up in a vortex of self-loathing and despair, then that's cool too.

Myself, I see the important distinction as being between 'person who wants to have sex with children' and someone who acts upon those desires. As far as I'm concerned, your ultimate fantasy can revolve around an orgy in the goddamn maternity ward, but the moment you actually touch a child for gratification, that is the point in time that I break out a big heaping bowl of judgment and start ladling it out.

Rich, you made the distinction between people who are clinically 'sick', and those who are sociopathic. I suggest that these are two sides of the same coin. And in the end, it makes very little difference, because both are capable of controlling their actions - the difference from one to another rests not in discerning in which particular way they specifically are fucked in the head, but whether they decided to resist the urge or not.

The sole exception to this is people who are clinically psychotic, and this is so insanely rare (there are very few true psychotics, and most of their blackouts end with people injured and dead, not molested) and difficult to prove that it's hardly worth mentioning. Did a quick search, and could not find a single case where this defence was even argued.

I'm not sure why we're placing such a large emphasis on why they're attracted to children. It seems entirely academic, because in the end the practical result is the same. Ultimately, anyone who wants to have sex with children wants to have sex with children, and the question seems not to be "why do you want to" so much as "did you resist the temptation to do so?"

In the end, that's the only question the child's really going to care about."



Phil Thompson
"Ryan, good points fella. I have the same thoughts on some of what you say and different thoughts on other points you have made. Particularly your point about fantasies.

Fantasies are thoughts and thoughts equal outcomes. The missing piece in the middle is... Action. If a person with child sex fantasies goes their whole life without ever doing anything about them then I agree with you. People will have their own judgements about this but at the end of the day nobody is hurt. But as soon as that person starts to take ACTION against any of their fantasies then there is an escalating problem.

Rich’s original post referred to child predators (in fact registered sex offenders) using Facebook as a means to exploit kids. That is a serious issue. It means that they have taken action against those fantasies. They are no longer harmless. In the same way that child pornography is not harmless. An argument I have heard there is that as long as the person ‘just looks but never touches’ it is harmless. That is not so. For every photo or video of child pornography there is a victim. The innocent child on the tape or in the photo is a traumatised victim and the person viewing it for their own pleasure or to satisfy their fantasy IS guilty of the crime. They have acted upon their fantasy.

That same person who views child pornography, or hunts through Facebook looking for children, left alone with a child and to their own devices would likely abuse that child in some way. Not necessarily in all cases I know, but the probability is high. Therefore the only difference between the fantasy – once any form of action has been taken against it - and the reality is opportunity.

Therefore our responsibility is to work towards removing the opportunity for sexual predators and increasing online security in just one avenue to do that. If all we worry about is “Did you resist the urge or not” and forget the “Why and how do you carry out crimes against kids” then we will always be the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. The biggest part of our job in this area is prevention. And knowing the ‘enemy’ is important so that we can implement preventative strategies to keep kids safe.

You stated: “Do they have a cruel attraction to power and dominance, and prefer the thought of enacting that upon children? I, for one, would submit that this is merely another form of sickness.” This I do not agree with in this context. My reference to this was in the context of people using ‘he is sick’ as an excuse for his actions. By that logic then every act of murder, cruelty, torture, manipulation, control, emotional or physical aggression is a form of ‘sickness’ and there are no evil people in the world. I don’t believe this is the case. There are some truly evil people out there. There are a hell of a lot more loving, caring, great people, but there are the bad ones too. And my point here is to call it what it is. An act of sexual violence against a child is evil. Regardless of where it came from, the act itself is evil. Now as Rich points out, there are ‘some’ cases where the person has a genuine mental illness and I accept that but once the crime has definitely been committed against the child this is a case where I think ‘guilty until proven innocent’ is relevant when it comes to proving mental illness as an excuse.

Loving the conversation and debate here, awesome."

Ryan Sainsbury

"Hey Phil, you've made some pretty good observations mate.

To be honest, when I wrote that, I'd more or less forgotten about Rich's opening post, and had started focusing on the whole judgment/difference between a 'paedophile' and a 'child molestor' part. In relation to his initial point, could not agree more with him (except perhaps the part about "Facebook's attempts to safeguard its users" - I like Facebook, but their safeguards are pretty pathetic and they really don't have any serious interest in maintaining privacy). Any movement to make children safer from online predators is something I can get behind - have gotten behind - and I've got no argument with you there.

I should have clarified that I do include viewing child pornography in the category of 'acting on those desires', on account of the fact that that pornography has to come from somewhere, and in acquiring it they support and encourage the creation of it.

As for the part about sickness, I think we're both using the same term to mean two different things. I gather that when you say it, you mean 'sick' in the sense of something which renders a person irresponsible for their actions, on account of the concept that they 'can't be held responsible' - as a result of some form of mental health issue wherein they genuinely don't realize that what they're doing is wrong, or literally lack the capacity to stop themselves. Of course, someone who just enjoys inflicting pain does not fall into this category.

When I use the term 'sick', I'm referring more generally to 'someone who has desires that just aren't right'. Be this a desire to have sex with children, or a desire to cause suffering, or a desire to feel power over other human beings - I see them all very much as sides of the same coin. The main difference between our use of the terms seems to be that your usage of 'sick' refers to people whose actions are (for lack of a better term - this doesn't really convey what I'm trying to say, but it's the best I can think of) excused by their affliction. My use is more in line with merely explaining how someone came to have those desires, and isn't in any way mitigating their responsibility. When I say 'sick', I'm only referring to sick desires - not a literal inability to control them. That's something quite else.

To summarize that ridiculously long-winded definition of mine - when I say 'sick', I'm talking about anybody who wants to do terrible things, not somebody who *literally* cannot stop themselves, or lacks comprehension of what they're doing. So, in the context in which you were using the term, I agree wholeheartedly.

"An act of sexual violence against a child is evil."

I think this is the ultimate crux of the discussion, and I don't think anybody's arguing with you. There exist cases where mental illness plays a genuine role, but they are rare and are far more likely to be used as an excuse than they are to be a genuine reality.

...I think I could have summarized my entire statement by saying "ya i agree lol"."

The future wants to be bright...

Today I spent 3 hours working with an amazing group of young women (and one young man) at an Auckland Senior High School.

The event was sponsored by our (Protect’s) Community Support Program and was arranged and co-ordinated by three year 12 students as part of an assessed project.

It always amazes me when I have the chance to work with people at this age just how keen they are for the information that we provide. The group I had the privilege to work with today were positive, open and receptive, asked relevant, well structured, and direct questions and clearly wanted to help themselves and others with the information from the course.

So often I hear people talking about how the world is such a violent place and only getting worse and how – basically - we are all damned to a future of fear and violence. But I don’t see it that way at all - it is the mission of our organisation to help ensure that is not the case – but where I have hope is in the younger generation that is coming through right now. People like those I worked with today. These are genuinely good and caring people, who are really passionate about making a difference and they are armed with knowledge and technology advances that older generations never were, these people really will make a positive difference in the future, I truly believe that.

Our responsibility (the generations currently running the place) though is to make sure they get that chance. It is to protect them by giving them the relevant life skills – self defence and empowerment skills in our case – to ensure they get through their youth empowered, confident and free from unnecessary worry and fear which they are constantly bombarded with. We need to do everything we can to get them through un-scathed so that they will be in a position to make the required changes.

From what I see at every school and learning institution that I work with is that these young people do want to “be the change that they want to see in the world”. The most common response I get after a course (today included) is students asking how they can help by spreading the information. They want to help. They want to make the world better. Our job is to make sure they have that chance. It is to protect them from the damaging effects caused by bullying, intimidation, sexual assault, general violence and self destructive behaviour often borne from damage to their self-esteem and confidence from experiencing these things. If we can do that, the future is looking a lot brighter.

The alternative is to buy into the myth of powerlessness. To keep avoiding the problem, passing it over and not standing up and taking responsibility and accepting that we CAN change things right now. We have the information. We have the resources to do this. All that is needed is the will and the understanding of the true benefits of this information.

Apathy and denial are the enemy of improvement and positive evolution of thought and results, yet they are prevalent attitudes around this subject. We as a society have a problem called violence. It takes on many forms. And it will never fully go away. But we have the information right now that we can deliver to our kids and young adults which can help them tremendously – skills to protect themselves physically where needed, to diffuse and de-escalate violent situations, resolve conflict at its earliest point, increase confidence, build empowerment, deal with their strong emotions and ego related behaviours - and it is mostly being kept out of their hands. This needs to change. These people should not only have access to this information when a few pro-active and responsible students or teachers organise a class, it should be available to them all.

Now before I receive emails telling me that I have a utopian view on this and that I should visit a school in “my hard area” and see what "they are like there", I have worked with schools in every type of area, of every decile rating including schools for the behaviourally challenged. I know there are some bad apples out there. Of course there are. The vast majority of our young people are really, really good people. The few who are not can be very, very bad. I have met many of these people and there is no point glossing over it or tiptoeing around it, some of them are real bad news. But they are the vast minority, not the majority as we are often led to believe. Part of what we do is give young people – the ‘good ones’ who want to be helped – the skills to keep themselves empowered and safe from harm. There will always be violence is our society. There always has been and there always will be, it is inherent in our species, but it is important to keep it in perspective, it is still the minority and we have to keep focusing on reducing it wherever possible and giving our next generations the skills to deal with it so they can move ahead in life.

As I mentioned to the team I worked with today, I truly believe that if our education was compulsory in every high school and college in the country violence in future generations would be massively reduced and some forms of it almost eliminated. This needs to happen and it is something that we will continue to work towards.

I am grateful to the students I worked with today. Every time I teach I learn something and meeting these people today strengthened my belief that our society’s future is going to be in good shape. We just need to help get them there...