ben.atwood.com.au

My church has recently had the opportunity to object to a development application released by the local council, relating to a proposal to develop a brothel in a nearby area.

Writing my own objection letter has forced me to think through the grounds on which I establish the inappropriateness of a brothel. Clearly, as a Christian, I (and, I should hope, those from my church who are also planning on objecting) have chosen to let the council know that I disapprove on the grounds that a brothel encourages and sanctions sexual immorality, in a way demonstrative of the way God has given man over to lustful sin and the depravity which has resulted. As Christians in a sinful society, we are called upon to be salt and light (Matthew 5:13-14) and be distinctive, and I think it is reasonable to say that one way of doing so is objecting to the development application for this brothel.

However, I find myself wondering if the council will dismiss the Christian argument out of hand. Our objection is largely based on a worldview which presupposes a number of things – the fallen state of man, the sinfulness of having sex with a woman (or man) who is not your spouse, the vile nature of building an institution which is permissive of such relations, the sovereignty of God and His anger at our sin. I’m convinced that this, surely, underlies any Christian objection to brothels (and prostitution in general); I am not entirely convinced, though, the council will not demand more evidence from Christians if their objection is to be upheld.

I initially thought that you could move away from a Christian argument and adopt a more moralist perspective, which seems to more or less define those who have objected to brothels elsewhere in Sydney. These people often cite a range of reasons for their opposition to applications for brothels, including the defilement of sex (as a special and private activity, though the reasons for this vary), the degradement of women who prostitute themselves in brothels, the distasteful nature of paid sex, and so on. Moralists may also argue more ‘pragmatic’ reasons for their opposition, including the increased use of substances allegedly associated with prostitution (which, I hear, is not borne out in research – though I wonder if that would be an artifact of the population being studied), increased noise, paraphernalia being left around the area, the possibility of the exposure of children to the activities being held in the brothel, and so on.

But, the more I thought about that, the more the idea stuck in my craw. A moralist position is not based on absolutes (as the Christian position is), but each moralist is speaking from assumptions. What is their view on the nature of sex? Is their problem that prostitution violates the sanctity of a sexual union between…a man and a woman? A man and a man? A woman and a woman? On what grounds does prostitution violate this sanctity? Is it to do with cheapening the sex act? Breaking the bond of fidelity? A pairing of sex with money, and, by extension, a commodification of sex? Without the Bible’s guidance, these presuppositions present to me as being rickety and easily disputed, at least in secular fora.

Of course, I don’t advocate adopting the view of those who approve of brothels on the basis of ‘why not?’. Indeed, I have read the arguments of civil libertarians (a title I use cautiously) who reject the arguments of Christian and non-Christians alike, saying, in essence, that every man or woman has the right to seek pleasure (including sexual pleasure) in whatever fashion he or she chooses. It has even been said that, should the ‘buyer’ and the ‘seller’ in a brothel be consensual and willing parties to the ‘transaction’, then this is no different than the buyer and seller experience we have when we go to the grocery shop. The civil libertarian, depending on the extremity of their stance, would then say that any moral objections to prostitution are founded purely on the idea of what we should consider ‘evil’ as a society. It is at this point that I wonder what disgusts the Lord more – the unifying of a man with a prostitute, or the cheapening of sex and the blatant approval of sex outside God’s intended context by those in this extreme libertarian position.

The essence of my objection to a brothel must be, in some way, religious, moral, and/or ideological – brothels have been decriminalised since 1995 in New South Wales, so I cannot argue that a brothel is, in essence, a criminal establishment. The only solace for any kind of legal argument lies in the council’s restrictions on where a brothel may be built (and, as it turns out, I believe the development application violates several of those restrictions). I can only hope that God’s sovereignty means that the council will consider, in some way, God’s wrath towards all sin, including prostitution, in their deliberations.

That’s only thirteen working days left, of course, before we head off on another overseas adventure to the Land of the Bengalis. Thirteen days!

It’s all been happening. We’ve been to the doctor and had our jabs for hepatitis (apparently, typhoid shots last two to three years, so we should still be covered from 2005). We’ve filled in copious amounts of paperwork and sent our passports off to Canberra to get precious visas stamped on them. We’ve been running awareness activities, including a fundraiser trivia night. The team has met three times (although only once in its entirety) to prepare for the trip. I’ve been trying to learn and relearn Bangla. I’ve applied to our airline for extra luggage allowance, in anticipation of all the extra stuff we might end up taking.

I am looking forward to the following:

• Rocking up at Sydney International Airport, laden with excitement and baggage;
• Flying again (especially if there are decent films);
• Travelling with seven friends, one of whom is a new-ish friend;
• Seeing so many smiling brown faces again;
• Conversing (hopefully in Bangla!) with said smiling brown faces;
• Eating with my fingers;
• Real rain;
• Travelling to the village(s);
• Slumming it in a lungi;
• Driving through thrilling Bengali traffic!;
• Making lotsa video and taking lotsa pictures;
• Eating kathal, fresh anarosh, and loads of amgulo;
• Teaching children about our great God;
• Seeing U and L again

I am not-so-looking forward to:

• The amount of work I need to do before I go;
• Possibly not sleeping on the plane;
• Possibly losing luggage;
• Possibly not being able to travel to the village(s);
• Possibly getting sick (my kingdom for imodium);
• The flight home

It’s funny how DFAT is advising me to reconsider travelling – I’m not sure if this is because of the state religion (which seems to be a predominant theme in other countries with similar DFAT travel advisories), or if it has something to do with the current caretaker government, which has been in operation since January and will remain in power until November 2008. Apparently, there has been something of a purge of the cabinet, and many noteable politicians have been arrested (and even hanged!) on corruption charges. I am more worried about getting sick (or, worse, being called into court before I go).

Hammer has raised an interesting issue over on his web site: in his blog post ‘Weighty Issue’ (and I can’t come up with a better pun than that), he discusses the case of a morbidly obese eight year-old boy in England who was the subject of a child protection intervention because he was not eating a healthy diet and not undertaking a reasonable program of exercise. Connor McKeown, who weighted approximately 98.8kg when he was only eight, was the subject of a child protection conference with health authorities because he refuses to eat fruit, vegetables, and will only eat processed fast foods, would become so out-of-breath he would vomit after only ten minutes of exercise, and was not receiving much in the way of support from his mother, who seems resigned to the fact that her son is the way he is. According to the BBC news article, there was talk of removing Connor from his mother’s care due to these health issues.

Initially, the idea of child protection authorities removing a kid for being too fat is laughable. Obesity is, of course, a health problem which creates risks of diabetes, heart problems, and so on – but if children were removed solely for being too fat, then the care system would be bursting at the seams. This is clearly a unique case, as young Connor’s size is affecting his ability to maintain personal hygiene, his attendance at school, and his self-esteem…but still, I just feel somewhat uncomfortable with call ing this ‘neglect’, especially since Connor does have a part to play in his own diet and it seems that the only reason he hasn’t taken on a more nutritious regime is a personal taste for junk food (and lots of it).

Maybe we should be clear on what neglect means, though. The NSW statutory child protection agency defines neglect as:

...the continued failure by a parent or caregiver to provide a child with the basic things needed for his or her proper growth and development, such as food, clothing, shelter, medical and dental care and adequate supervision. (www.community.nsw.gov.au)

Further, in NSW, neglect is incorporated into the Children & Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 in Section 23, which defines what constitutes ‘risk of harm’ to a child or young person. Under s23, children or young people who are not having their physical or psychological needs met, or are at risk of those needs not being met, are considered to be at risk of harm and could potentially be considered to be in need of care and protection (which would warrant an intensive child protection intervention). Neglect is a nebulous concept which is difficult for workers to incorporate into coherent portraits of risk-of-harm, because the range of behaviours, types of harm, and risk factors can be so broad and varied – but, technically, Connor would fall into this category, and would be considered to be at risk of harm.

However, while it may be fair to have grave concerns that this boy is eating himself to death, I find it hard to see why child protection authorities were threatening to remove him from his mother’s care. In the article, Ms McKeown does seem to be somewhat resigned to her son having a weight problem and being fixated on junk food (“I’ve got to give him the food he likes,” she says), which is certainly a concern. But, she also states that she is confident she can get his weight down with some support. To start touting removal – which is, at least, what the BBC article is implying was going on – is a fairly gross misuse of the legislative power to remove children. It would be far better to put in a lot of support for the mother and Connor to increase their likelihood of successfully getting his weight down to a more healthy level. After all, mother-blame (where the child protection authorities burden the mother of a family for problems when there are clearly other parties who share responsibility) should be avoided in this case, where Connor is of an age where he has some input into his diet and (probably) has the intelligence to comprehend the consequences his eating choices have on his physical and psychological well-being.

As Hammer said, the bandying-about of removal was probably more to get Connor’s mother into gear so her son could lose some weight and save his life. It may be effective, but talking seriously about removal should only occur when it’s an actual possibility. I noted on Hammer’s blog comments that I think the social workers would have trouble justifying this to a Children’s Court, and I maintain that would probably be the case. If there was to be court action, it would likely take the form of a registered case plan to provide support to the family, not placing Connor in the foster care system.

I started writing this post as a former fat kid and still-sort-of-fat adult, in response to the idea of fat kids being a child protection concern. Now, I think I am more provoked by the irresponsible talk of removing this kid. What do you think?