November 02, 2004

• I didn't find any clue as to whether they were supposed to have forced the girls into sex, or whether it was 'statutory rape' To me adults having sex with young people is not a clear cut bad thing - I can see how it would happen in the past and in other cultures. I think that an age of consent is a good thing to aim for for a modern society though, because the adults are always in a position of power, and can have a selfish interest in getting sex, or an unhealthy obsession with young people. I skimmed the circumcision thing, but I think it's a slightly different issue, as with sex the adult has clear selfish reasons.
• Actually, about my comment, Keith was right, and he had basically already stated my point. Albeit in a less blunt, more right way. It's very hard to win an argument against a hard, sincere moral relativist such as clockzero. Wibbleflex has a point: do we know exactly what the men are accused of? Although it seems that they had systematic sex with 12 years olds, and then consent would be very hard to argue.
• I didn't follow the trials closely, only in passing TV news statements, but I'd imagine consent would be irrelevant at that age, and I don't think we have such a thing as statutory rape, but rather that it comes under sexual molestation or sexual assault. I may be wrong there, though. So when they used the word 'rape', I automatically assumed no consent anyway. I have to say, I'd love to go to the Pitcairns one day after seeing the photos. And one thing I didn't mention that I noticed is that every single tourist item on their website has a price. They also seem to be going the .tk route and selling .pn domains, using a satellite weblink put in place by seismic monitors for their connection to the outside world. If you're interested and have a search around, the future of the Pitcairns actually seems a little brighter now that they've had global exposure. They're even looking at getting an airstrip!
• Basically seems to be a 'tribal' cultural influence in Pitcairn society. The 'head men' took what they wanted, as their due, more than anything else. Pitcairn women have said that a culture of sexual assault has always existed there.
• I don't know much about the situation, but I think consent is relevant. I'm not saying consensual sex with youngsters is right in this case, but I feel it's a lesser crime than violent rape.
• I think we do have statutory rape in UK law.
• It seems kind of silly for the British government to claim to retain colonial ownership of the islands, but I suppose they do sort of take care of them. tracicle-- Were you asking if the practices (i.e., the apparent rape and sexual misconduct) were reasonable, disregarding the issue of sovereignty? I can imagine discussing how lawful they were, or perhaps even the moral attributes of the actions, but how could we talk about their reasonability? Or were you talking about the appeal to tradition?
• The age of consent in some countries is 12. I think that there were suggestions the sex was coercive, but I can't tell if you that's true in every case, most cases or just some cases.
• I meant to add that there's usually a stipulation for those under the age of, say, 18 that the partner also be under the age of 18 so I don't think these guys could _actually_ get away with this in, say, Argentina.
• It's absurd for these men to claim that child rape is part of their culture - it's not a feature of either of the cultures from which they descend, and they are supposed to have been some kind of Adventist christians ever since the original mutineers slaughtered each other. It's equally absurd that they should suddenly make a completely spurious claim to independence only when arrested. They're vile, and if the lives of the children on the island are not to remain miserable, they must be removed, even if that means evacuating the whole wretched island. But hey, I could be wrong...
• in georgia (state, USA) one could get more time in jail for molesting a chicken than a child. i believe they finally changed that one. while there are people who despite early sexual experiences are relatively unaffected, it depends on type, frequency and culture-- still, lack of conscious consent disturbs me on so many levels, and often goes unchecked as a form of abuse in any sheltered community from hasidim to the amish to the trailer park down the road--
• how much and many folk and faerie tales are really ways of conveying/explaining the coersive/abusive/incestuous tendencies/unspoken aspects of that society? from japanese flying heads to villanless victims to every little princess--
• tracicle, thanks for the links! i've been fascinated by the pitcairn culture for years. i was a subscriber to their little newsletter, The Pitcairn Miscellany, which now even has its own web site. it's a great publication, even has stuff like the fishing report.
• Victims testified they often did not report the abuse because of the community's culture of silence on the island. Prison terms for the men likely would allow for them to be released temporarily to crew the longboats, said John Connell, an expert on the South Pacific from the University of Sydney. Otherwise, "It would be punishment for the whole community," he said. Hmmm, I've got mixed feelings on this one. If the community was complicit with the assaults, should they or shouldn't they be punished as well? Thanks for the fascinating post tracicle.
• Let it punish the whole community.
• A society that is this small and isolated is prey to all kinds of problems.
• Orange Swan Like Earth?
• Like MeFi.
• Great post, tracicle. It seems to me that a community as tiny, isolated and insular as Pitcairn would inevitably develop what most would regard as aberrant practices, particularly one with such nefarious beginnings. The situation reminds me of other patriarchal societies such as the Mormon communities that practice polygamy and the marriage of very young women. One such town in BC, Bountiful has been in the news recently. It will be interesting to see if Britain increases its aid for this long-neglected "colony" now that it has come into the glare of media attention.
• They have a governor, based in Wellington, NZ, called Richard Fell, who is ostensibly the liaison between the Crown and the island's council, but it seems his time is focused on where Crown money can be spent there, rather than pushing the islanders to uphold British law. There is one law enforcement officer on the island and they are elected/employed (I'm not sure which) by the islanders, so really they have been left to do what they want for over 200 years. According to the Pitcairn history, they did try to leave the island en masse twice: once to Tahiti and once to Norfolk, but felt unhappy in both places and returned. I wonder now that law enforcement on Pitcairn will be under close scrutiny whether the community will actually survive as a whole. Clockzero: I guess what I'm interested in is actually the lawfulness of it. When it was in the news, we talked a lot about whether the Crown was justified in coming in after 200+ years and claiming that the islanders should have been following their laws all along, when the Pitcairn residents considered themselves as having their own independent legal system and acceptable behaviours.
• All in all, Pitcairn sounds like a fine place to leave.
• Looks like somebody violated the primary rule: What happens on Pitcairn stays on Pitcairn. This is a fascinating study of an isolated culture. It's kind of like Lord of the Flies all grown up.
• What I thought as well rocket88 but I was having a hell of time remembering the title of the book and could only recall characters in it. I found this interview about the future of Pitcairn for anyone who is interested. Some of the children were 5 years old when it occured, very hard to justify consent in that context and my personal view it is pushing it at the age of 12. I'm in agreement with Plegmund. From what I found some of the women said that it had been happening all along but there was no one to turn to to make it stop. Considering there are only about 50 people who live permanently on the island and they all rely upon each other for their survival can't help but wonder if that had something to do with why it went on or it was considered 'permissable'. When the person who is abusing your kid is also one of the ones maning the longboats to get supplies for your survival, have a tendancy to shut up (I would think), even though you'd rather rip their eyes out.
• There can be no question that this was anything other than a misuse of power.
• One of the articles claimed that the British government still administered the island, and in general (after actually reading the background material) it seems like Britain's claim to legal sovereignty was not illegitimate. I think they had a basis upon which to prosecute these men.
• I just don't believe that the Pitcairn Islanders always considered themselves independent. They celebrate the Queen's birthday. One of their sources of income is selling stamps which all have "EIIR" on. The thing is, somebody has to provide a legal framework for these tiny communities, and back in the nineteenth century, the responsibility inevitably fell to Britain, whose ships were most likely to be passing, and who had the nearest substantial colony. But it is ridiculous that in the current state of the world we still have nominal responsibility for some place on the other side of the world. I'm sure the British Foreign Office would be delighted to give up its rights if someone else were willing to step in. The Governor's office has been in Auckland for a long time, and I see that the current cases were tried by New Zealand judges. Erm...
• Thank you, Plegmund, but no. We're still living with the fallout from when people last helpfully handed us a bunch of colonies they didn't want any more (Samoa, Niue, etc). Way to dodge the hard questions, clockzero.
• Nah, there can't be any mitigating circumstances for sex with 5 year olds.
• rodgerd-- Hard questions, such as? I thought I was responding to the question tracicle was posing.
• The community of Pitcairn had all the time in the world to do something about the sexual abuse of these girls, and could not or would not do anything to prevent it from happening. The British stepped in and are doing what the community should have done itself. So be it. If Pitcairn's falls apart as a result, again, so be it. Not everything is worth saving.
• Court rejects appeal by Pitcairn sex abusers
• Jeez, the community got off lightly as it was; the men are on suspended sentences so they can continue to support their families. Nothing's going to change the fact that they are under British jurisdiction, and they're hardly in a sympathetic position.
• Pitcairn appeal to begin in London