Choosing law over fear: Resisting the securitisation of children’s rights

 ​[[{“value”:”

WHEN law clashes with the language of security, we must stand firmly on the side of justice. In recent months, the cases of children accused of committing sexual and bodily crimes has reignited a wave of anxiety and public debate.

What began as a social and parenting discussion has now been entangled by the rhetoric of securitisation which is a dangerous practice of reframing ordinary legal or moral issues as matters of national security.

This is not merely a story about violence; it is a story about childhood, responsibility, and society’s moral compass. When such a tragedy involves two children—one alleged perpetrator and one victim—we must be extra careful.

Both are children. Both are products of the environments that shaped them. To speak of them in the language of threat or deterrence is to lose sight of their humanity and of the state’s duty to protect, not punish.

The Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) has rightly pointed out that any move to search or confiscate children’s mobile phones is unconstitutional. Such an act violates the child’s fundamental right to privacy and personal liberty guaranteed under the Federal Constitution.

A child is a rights-holder, not a suspect. Subjecting them to surveillance or intrusion under the guise of “protection” erodes the very foundation of justice and undermines public trust in the rule of law.

Too often, measures framed in the name of deterrence are used to justify policies or actions that, in practice, criminalise childhood. Deterrence may have a place in adult justice, but when applied to children, it becomes conceptually and morally unsound.

(Image: Freepik)

Children do not act through rational calculations of punishment or consequence; they act through curiosity, imitation, and social learning. To impose the language of control, “risk” or “security” on them is to mistake development for deviance.

When a violent incident occurs in a school, it is quickly securitised and discussed in terms of threats, prevention, and control. But when violence occurs at home, do we accord the same urgency, resources, and framing?

If not, then it is clear that what we are witnessing is not true securitisation, but selective moral panic. The issue is not “security” but our collective failure to provide consistent care, emotional education, and community support for children across all settings.

What we need is not surveillance or control, but empathy-driven intervention, systems that address harm through understanding, not fear.

Equally concerning is the growing tendency to attribute children’s violent or troubling behaviour solely to online gaming or social media or exposure to digital content. This narrative is simplistic and reductionist.

Criminality, even in its earliest forms is rarely born from a single source. It is the culmination of multiple interlocking factors: family dysfunction or parental neglect, exposure to violence, neglect, socio-economic strain, peer influence, emotional deprivation, and the absence of safe social spaces.

To place all blame on gaming or social media is to absolve society of its deeper responsibilities—to raise, educate, and support children meaningfully in both the real and digital worlds.

When dealing with children, we must therefore use language that heals, not harms; language grounded in care, guidance, and education, not surveillance or suspicion. Every word we use shapes the way we see them: either as individuals in need of nurturing or as potential threats in need of control.

This habit of invoking “security” or “public order” every time a moral panic arises is not vigilance, it is moral carelessness and emotional laziness. The securitisation of childhood transforms vulnerability into guilt and compassion into control.

It diverts attention from the real questions society should be asking: Where are our parenting structures, our educational supports, and our digital literacy initiatives? Why do we resort to fear and punishment instead of understanding and guidance?.

The law exists to protect, not persecute. It must remain the bulwark against moral panic and political expediency. To securitise children’s behaviour is to criminalise innocence; to police their digital lives is to teach them distrust, not discipline.

True security does not come from control or intrusion, it comes from compassion, education, and the fair application of law. A nation that governs through fear can never claim to be just. A nation that safeguards its children’s rights, however, proves that its justice system is still rooted in humanity.

In moments like these, we must choose law over fear, rights over rhetoric, and justice over securitisation. – Oct 31, 2025

 

Dr Haezreena Begum Abdul Hamid is a Criminologist and Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Law, Universiti Malaya.

The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Focus Malaysia.

 

Main image: Unsplash/Honney Artkongharn

The post Choosing law over fear: Resisting the securitisation of children’s rights first appeared on Focus Malaysia.

“}]]