Pitcairn Island and questions of morality.(Bites: brief notes on news and views from around the world)

A number of the recent sexual fence convictions against several ale residents of the Pitcairn Islands resulted from the maintenance of what have been described as 'consensual' sexual relationships between the men and the girls, many of whom were aged between twelve and fifteen years at the time the offences were committed. The accused men did not, typically, deny that they committed the offences but argued that, given the island's unique history and long-standing adherence to Polynesian sexual practice (which has traditionally permitted sexual consent at age twelve), it was simply inappropriate to impose English moral values, and the legal code which supports those values, upon the island. In the words of one of the islanders' advocates, 'This isn't downtown London'. From a legal perspective the point is largely moot: despite a recent challenge to the jurisdiction of the court, it seems likely that the island will be accepted as a British Overseas Territory and the islanders' convictions will stand. However, from a cultural standpoint the trials fit neatly within a broader debate about the way in which Western legal codes recognise indigenous cultural practice.

Generally, the debate has centred on the question: are all cultural traditions inherently 'valid' and should any conflict between a broader legal code and a cultural practice serve to stay the application of the legal code? The position on Pitcairn, however, requires us to take a step backwards and consider not just ...