A Second Take on Nur Fitri’s Deed
When does possession of illicit material cross the line into clinical diagnosis? This thought-provoking article challenges the rush to label individuals as mentally disordered without proper assessment. Drawing on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), the piece explores the distinction between criminal behaviour and psychiatric conditions like paedophilic disorder, highlighting the dangers of speculation, moral panic, and unqualified commentary. It calls for a more informed, ethical approach to justice and mental health—reminding us that even in the face of repugnant crimes, responsible discourse matters..
The sentencing of Nur Fitri Azmeer Nordin to five years’ jail by the Southwark Crown, London certainly caused a stir back in his home country. The gravity of his crime appears to be aggravated by the fact that he was attending one of the best schools in the UK and on a scholarship. The perception seems to be that crimes by smart people – assuming that Nur Fitri was smart – are more unforgivable than those of a lower IQ.
What really was Nur Fitri’s crime? He pleaded guilty to “17 charges of possessing, making and distributing pornographic images and videos of children.” The volume of images was huge, and the content alarming. Of the 30,000 videos and images, 601 belonged to category A (the most extreme form of abuse involving penetrative sexual activity with children). When police raided his home, they found his laptop open and him sitting next to a life-sized mannequin of a boy. Let us remember this scenario.
Images of child pornography are contraband in some countries, hence even possession of such images is a crime. In Malaysia, we have no laws to tackle possession and viewing of porn. We have the Penal Code making the sale and distribution of obscene material a crime, and the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA) similarly listing the making, creating and transmitting of such material as criminal offences.
It is unclear from news reports how Nur Fitri was “making” the material; did he film himself sexually abusing the children? Did he film someone else’s abuse of the same? Considering that possession in itself is a criminal offence, how he “made” the porn is perhaps immaterial from the legal standpoint in the United Kingdom. How grave is this transgression from the moral standpoint is debatable.
There have been numeral calls from our people – professionals to laymen alike – for him to be monitored, rehabilitated, even shunned – on his return to Malaysia. Many are calling him a paedophile. Are we making mountains out of molehills?
We have little if any information as to whether he had sexually abused children. If his “making” of videos is nothing more than joining two or more pieces of those damned videos together, creating montages, or converting images into a slide show, why do we assume that he is a child molester, or a potential one at that? To stretch this argument, could Nur Fitri merely be distributing child porn as a business venture?
What prompted me to take a relook at Nur Fitri’s case was reading a daily mainstream newspaper where a local consultant psychiatrist was quoted as saying that Nur Fitri fit the characteristics of a paedophile. It is surprising that there are armchair “experts” who speculate without even a proper diagnosis of Nur Fitri. What was more alarming was the psychiatrist also being quoted as saying that “as a father, I would not want him (Nur Fitri) around”.
Does Nur Fitri even qualify as a paedophile? The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) manual defines pedophilia as a paraphilia in which adults or adolescents 16 years of age or older have intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children that “they have either acted on or which cause them distress or interpersonal difficulty” (the quotes are mine).
Unless some psychiatrist has given Nur Fitri a proper diagnosis to see if he fulfils the conditions (as in quotes), it would seem unprofessional to call him one. We can only speculate as to why he was found sitting next to a life-sized mannequin of a boy. And, for argument’s sake, only the police could tell whether the mannequin was naked or dressed up.
Assuming that he does turn out to be a paedophile, that does not necessarily mean that he will molest children. In that same daily news report, a voice from the Malaysian Mental Health Association was quoted as saying that “only 15% of paedophiles acted on their desires and that most chose to hide their condition and suffered in silence” and “in this (Nur Fitri’s) case, we need to note that there was no evidence of him acting on his impulses.”
Nur Fitri’s act of possessing, making and distributing child pornography was definitely and gravely wrong, legally and morally speaking. He may not be able to choose his sexual interests or orientation if indeed that is an issue, but he can certainly choose what he does about it. And if he was merely distributing child porn as a business venture, he should be dealt with the same way we would with drug pushers who may not themselves be drug addicts.
Yes, Nur Fitri should be held criminally responsible for his actions. There should not even be a second chance for a scholarship or an automatic admission into a local institution of higher learning. When he is freed from jail, he has to compete and earn himself a place. And a new life, like all other ex-convicts.
Nevertheless, for us to assume that because of what he did, he is a paedophile or potential child molester is jumping to conclusions prematurely. It is good we have those child activists and NGOs fighting for our children, but obviously some have misused Nur Fitri’s case to make themselves heard.
As for the learned consultant psychiatrist who does not want Nur Fitri to be around, it is not your call nor is it within your control. It is better to educate our children to be wary of all potential abuse possibilities, whatever form it may take. – May 7, 2015.
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/a-second-take-on-nur-fitris-deed-lee-kok-hoong/
Note: Malaysian Insider is now defunct.
* * * * *