Child Pornography - Home | National Rapporteur on Trafficking in ...

136
<strong>Child</strong> PornograPhy First report oF the Dutch NatioNal rapporteur
The identification of children who have been victims by individuals in victims’ personal environment 144
In this context, the public campaign ‘Kindermishandeling, wat kan ik doen?’ [<strong>Child</strong> abuse: what can I do?]
is worth mentioning. This campaign was launched in 2009 by the Ministry for Youth and Family and
is currently being run by the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. The campaign is geared towards
helping people recognise the signs of child abuse (including the sexual abuse of children), using means
such as the online indicator identification test, which was launched on 20 June 2011. 145 The campaign
also focuses upon what action to take after identification, whereby the most obvious course of action is
to contact a <strong>Child</strong> Abuse Counselling and Reporting Centre (AMK). However, with regard to this public
campaign, Unicef argues that there are still too many instances in which child abuse is not noticed. 146
As a result of the campaign, the Netherlands Government Information Service [Rijksvoorlichtingsdienst]/
Public Relations and Communications Service [Dienst Publiek en Communicatie] commissioned a study into
the likelihood and manner of reports made by persons in close proximity to the potential victims or
perpetrators of child abuse (not professionals).
The building blocks for the ‘Kindermishandeling’ campaign 147
Between April and May 2010, Motiveaction conducted research – within the scope of the ‘Kindermishandeling,
wat kan ik doen?’ campaign – into the issue of why so few suspicions of child abuse are
reported, and into the areas in which the most significant doubts and uncertainties lie in this regard.
The research specifically focused upon persons in close proximity to potential victims of child abuse
who are not professionals. The final random sample consisted of 831 members of Stempunt.nu
between 16 and 70 years of age who had completed a questionnaire online. Amongst other findings,
it emerged from the research that practically all those in close proximity to potential victims
would take action if they suspected child abuse. 148 The interests of the child and the sense of duty
to take action constitute important factors in such a case. However, many respondents stated that
they would only take action if they were certain that child abuse had taken place, even though in
more than half of cases in which child abuse was suspected it eventually turned out that it had
indeed taken place. 149 The respondents were generally quite familiar with some of the indicators
of child abuse, but by no means with them all. For example, only 42% of respondents counted
sexually provocative behaviour by a child as potential indicators of child abuse. The respondents
were not particularly aware of who they could contact to report the signs of child abuse that they
144 In this context, see Article 8 of the Lanzarote Convention. This Article requires States to take the following
action: “Each Party shall promote or conduct awareness raising campaigns addressed to the general public providing
information on the phenomenon of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children and on the preventive measures which
can be taken.”
145 Site wijst op kindermishandeling [Website helps to indicate child abuse] Spits, 21 June 2011.
146 Unicef Netherlands & Defence for <strong>Child</strong>ren, 2011,p.23.
147 Motiveaction, 2010.
148 Only 1% indicated that they would take no action. This group increases to 6% when only the more passive
course of action ‘keeping an eye on the situation’ is placed under the ‘no action’ category. NB. It
is conceivable that social desirability forms a factor in answering this question.
149 18% (N≈150) of the total 831 respondents have once had suspicions that a child had been abused. In
57% of cases (N≈86), this suspicion ultimately proved to be correct, according to their own statements.
The suspicion was only proved wrong in 6% (N≈9) of cases and in 30% (N≈45) of cases it never became
clear as to whether or not the suspicion was well-founded.