How quickly we react, how easily we see in black and white
only, and how easily we pass judgment. But is it really that simple? I’m going
out on a limb here with what would be considered as outrageous by practically
everyone who has lapped up the media reports that have appeared over the past
two weeks.
Let’s take the first.
A prank call, a lot of smug laughter, some chaffing, some backslapping
(for those that pulled it off) and wide media coverage. At that point it was still a prank to top all
pranks! And then the laughter turned to censure. Just like that. What an awful thing to do! How irresponsible!
The pranksters are now considered criminals.
Irresponsible, certainly. But,
criminal?
Let’s look at the picture a little more closely. Two people impersonate public figures and
make a prank call. They do not know who
will take the call and they probably expect to be sent off with the proverbial
flea in the ear. The nurse on duty makes
an error of judgment, and the prank goes viral.
The unintended ‘victim’ becomes a joke.
Suicide follows.
Now look at a mother who has to choose between remaining a
national joke for probably a very long while (certainly among colleagues and
friends) and being there for two children whom she is raising and loves very
much. Hard choice? Probably, but only if you
are already close to the edge. A
nurse’s life is not easy: graveyard shifts, the responsibility for life, taking
tough calls, dealing with extreme illness, dealing with death. And, in this
particular case, a duty that allowed a mother to connect with family only once
in the week: the kind of life that would take its toll on the strongest of
persons, physically, mentally and emotionally.
So, was the prank the cause of suicide? Or was it the last straw? Think
about it. Then, whom would you hold responsible?
Soon, the headlines change dramatically. We hear about the
massacre of the innocents. The one thing
that should be a certainty is that children should always be safe: at home, in
school, on the playground – everywhere. A while ago I read a novel titled ‘We
need to talk about Kevin’ which has so many parallels that, in hindsight, it is
almost predictive in its content: an exclusive affluent environment, a child that
is different and who prefers to be excluded, the murder of a parent (and a
sibling) and the massacre of a class in a truly gruesome way.
So where lie the answers? Because,
surely, there are questions that need to be addressed; issues that need to be
confronted and assurances obtained that such an abomination will not happen
again.
Could we find it possible to look at the perpetrator as a
victim? Or is it just too convenient to write him off as a psycho – someone
monstrously evil?
Look again at the child who was different. A broken family (the school had a
Psychiatrist that had to help children with issues ‘that they were unprepared
to handle’ and these were children in the age group 5 – 10!); a father who
left; a mother who seems to be the tough cop’s daughter and who taught her boys
how to handle a gun (the choice of guns sounds more like a male statement than
an option for security) and there is nothing more powerful than the feel of a
gun in the hand – alone you are vulnerable, with a gun you are invincible; a closed
neighbourhood that sent out a message that they were perfect in an imperfect
world.
To me, this is the story not of individuals but of a society
that demands more – much more – in terms of who you should be, what you should
deliver and the image you have to maintain.
It is the story not of individual crime but of collective error. We need
to turn the mirror on ourselves and face the truth. We need to retrace our steps and find the
wrong turns. We need to ask ourselves the tough questions and accept the
tougher answers.
When it comes to being as we believe God meant us to be, we
need to stand tall and call the shots. Without using a gun.
