24.09.1998

End state abuse

Sarah Hubert, a 25-year old woman who fell for a 14-year old youth, was found guilty last week of indecent assault. The love between these people was deep, mutual and lasting. It enriched their lives and harmed no one. But because the state does not allow adults to have sex with ‘minors’, she may well be sent to prison for six months or more when sentenced next month.

This case demonstrates clearly the injustice of present laws controlling personal relations in British society. The youth’s father, who denounced Hubert to the police, described the affair between his son and Hubert as “sordid and immoral”. No doubt he, and the lawyers who prosecuted Hubert, would claim that the laws which criminalise sex with under-16s exist to protect youngsters like this boy from ‘harm’. This is of course nonsense: the real harm lies in the forcible separation of the two, the humiliation of having their private relationship exposed in the popular press through state interference, and the stress caused by the threat of imprisonment.

The state denies young people the right to enter into consensual relationships, under the guise of protecting them from abuse. In this case the youth was abused not by Sarah Hubert, but by his father, who felt he had the right to steal his son’s property - the love letters from which he found out about the relationship, bully him and forbid him from meeting her.

Hubert was a leader of a scout troop to which the youth belonged. It will no doubt be argued that, as she was in a position of trust, it was wrong of her to allow a sexual relationship to start between them. This is ludicrous. People meet in all sorts of circumstances - through work, a shared interest or by chance - and a sexual liaison may result. But a private relationship is no concern of the voluntary organisation or employer - still less the state.

Although Hubert was actually charged with indecent assault, there is no doubt that but for the boy’s age there would have been no case against her. No one pretends she really assaulted him or forced him into sex. Only his age is at issue. To quote the CPGB’s draft programme, we “recognise the right of individuals to enter into the sexual relations they choose provided this does not conflict with the rights of others”. Hubert and her young boyfriend freely chose to have sex after a period of courtship, and no one’s rights were violated. Of course, had the boy been several years younger, or had the ages of the two been reversed, the question of consent might have been less clear-cut. Our demand to keep the state out of the bedroom does not mean that we wish to give free rein to paedophiles or anyone else who seeks to exploit children in any way. Our draft programme is clear in its call for “alternative legislation to protect children from abuse”: ie, from violence, physical or mental cruelty and non-consensual sexual interference. What matters is protecting children, not setting arbitrary age limits to sexual activity. The ‘correct’ age to indulge in any sexual activity will be different for each individual.

Although we condemn paedophiles - if the term is used to define those who act in the way described above - we also criticise the hysterical lynch-mob mentality against known or suspected paedophile whipped up by the tabloids. These lead campaigns for men who have completed sentences for sex offences to be returned to prison indefinitely, or worse; and the Blair government seems happy to acquiesce in such demands. This is a very dangerous development, which could easily be extended, allowing the state to subject whole categories of offenders to indefinite detention on the word of a government minister.

By contrast we call for the treatment of sexual offenders. This must include supervised accommodation, counselling and other measures, aiming for the maximum voluntary cooperation.

Since over 90% of sexual abuse takes place within the family unit, our call for alternative accommodation to be made available for young people is particularly relevant. The CPGB, as one of the immediate demands for youth in its draft programme, insists that the state should provide for young people “housing/hostels for youth to enter of their own choice for longer or shorter periods when they lose their parents or choose to leave them”. Our demands for youth, like those relating to every other section of the working class, form an integrated whole designed to empower young people and enable them to play an active role in society and develop as full human beings.

The main function of the law in sexual matters should be to guarantee people the right to conduct their relationships as they wish, free from interference from others and from the state.

Although there has been some progress in this field in recent decades, most notably in the gradual movement towards homosexual equality and the reduction in moral disapproval of single parenthood, elements of anti-human Christian morality are still all too prevalent. This is because sex is bound up with the family, whose ‘sanctity’ is stressed by Christian and other religions. More importantly, the family is the basic economic unit of capitalist society.

There is still a long way to go until sexual expression is totally free from state interference, as Sarah Hubert and her young partner have found to their cost.

Mary Godwin