Safeguarding

A 2022 safeguarding alert that went out within the NHS (National Health Service) after the Jacob Breslow affair. No offending history was identified in relation to Jacob Breslow, and the complaints were entirely political in nature, serving the ends of conservative "gender-critical" feminists.

Safeguarding is the practice (by authorities and institutions) of "protecting the interests" of children and others judged to be "vulnerable". It can therefore be seen as an ongoing "protective" influence on behalf of children, without their input or consent.

More recently, the term has been claimed by radical (conservative) feminists, similar to their redeployment of grooming alongside socially regressive conspiracy theorists of the new and traditional right.

The use of safeguarding protocol and language has become particularly common in the UK, where it has been used by local authorities, charities and government departments since the early 21st Century, to legitimize a range of interventions - many of which might be seen in less-favorable terms if not given cover. Safeguarding is regarded by MAPs, and anti-authoritarians to be one of an array of obfuscatory terms relating to the policing of sexuality, and used by governments to legitimize far-reaching powers. As revealed in the Wikipedia article, the concept of safeguarding has seen considerable mission-creep in the UK, confirming these suspicions.

Linkage with conservative feminism, abuse for political ends

One prime example of partisan political adoption of safeguarding is the British Safe Schools Alliance, a front-group that adopts the optics of a charity to push a radical anti-trans agenda. Further examples can be seen throughout social media, usually when neopuritan, education-adjacent British feminists are mobilized by controversies centering on the normalization of attraction to minors, the Jacob Breslow controversy being one such example. Within this politicized context, the term has also spread somewhat to other dialects within the Anglosphere, e.g. the Canadian/American-focused TERF News and Features site, Reduxx uses the tagline "Pro-Woman. Pro-Child Safeguarding".

Linkage with racism

It has been suggested - particularly by left-wing, critical theory and feminist writers, that the idea of "safeguarding or rescuing children" both perpetuates and institutionalizes a racist belief system, allowing legacy racism to persist in the age of "equality and diversity". Africans and non-white youth outside the western world are painted on the one hand as passive victims in need of saving by western NGOs. On the other, however, they may be presented as culpable, predatory "delinquents" within the borders of white-majority democracies where they are excluded from discourses of childhood innocence. This is cited as an example of selective application, whereby child safeguarding and childhood innocence discourse is used as a "double-edged sword", cutting both ways, both "for" and "against" non-white youth the world over, but always resulting in their criminalization or disempowerment.

The creation of the innocent girl-child persona can be traced back to concerns about "white slavery" in the mid-late 1800s. Further, the later reformists and Social Hygiene/Purity advocates associated with the problematization of girlhood and the resulting legal changes, were also linked with the Racial Hygiene and Eugenics movements, for example, the Racial Hygiene Association of New South Wales. In the 1970s, this language was even redeployed in order to frame black adult males as the captors and exploiters of America's girls. Thus, the social/psychological target we are protecting, is seen as a vulnerable but treasured institution of female purity that invokes as a tangent, both the nation and race, in order to excuse sometimes violent, criminal and unconstitutional actions by governments:

As we discussed above, discourses on childhood sexuality have often been used to blame its manifestation on an external and ‘deviant’ (i.e. homosexuals, prostitutes, the poor) stimulus. Historically these narratives were rarely about children themselves; rather, childhood sexuality and the desire to bring it under control was often an avenue for addressing other cultural anxieties (e.g. racial purity, affirming the institution of marriage and constructing more rigid gender boundaries).

Conservative rebuttals and counter-rebuttals

Serious conservative scholars who have studied this topic tend not to contest the idea that racism reveals itself in particular parts of the child safeguarding response. What is disputed, is the extent to which safeguarding and innocence discourse serves the ends of a racist or imperialist corporate-state zeitgeist:

• The popular idea of there being "no such thing as a black/non-white pedophile" is cited as one such counter-example. Leftist/progressive critics would respond that this myth in fact exists because pedophilia is seen as an "animal impulse" innate to all "unsocialized" non-white men, and is therefore not deemed to be a defining feature. Thus, the idea that white men who engage in "sex crimes" such as child pornography are "transgressors" is in itself implicitly racist, as it assumes a status quo in which white men are free of such impulses. Grooming-gang scandals (e.g. in the UK) are pointed to as further examples of xenophobic safeguarding concerns. Of particular concern is the ease with which the term "child rape" is used to describe voluntary prostitution by white working-class girls, whose clients are Pakistani men in Northern English ghetto street-scenes.
• Another counter-example is the sympathetic response of child trafficking charities towards (often African) migrant children who claim to have been abused, sometimes sexually, after trafficking into western democracies. Such charities and child protective services are often sympathetic to stories that law-enforcement agencies refuse to believe, as documented in our article on CSEC. Leftist proponents of the racialized theory of child safeguarding would then point out that this is simply evidence of how the system as a whole, first disempowers non-white youth and then paints them as a "problem in any event". Under this split model, "problem" immigrant youth can only be seen as either culpable immigration offenders (complicit in the falsification of documents for example) or as "coerced/trafficked abductees". No middle ground is permitted, as the state insists on problematizing them.

See also

• Grooming
• Jules Gill-Peterson
• Critical Childhood Studies

External links

• Wikipedia