A grim parade of bad news raises questions about our diet of violence
|
Version 0 of 1. At times, Tuesday’s grim parade of bad news stories, still very prominent in Wednesday’s papers, became confusing to follow. Teenagers abused in Oxford on what the prime minister foolishly calls “an industrial scale” (he’s not worked in industry). Babies allowed to die in the care of a “dysfunctional” team of midwives in Barrow. Indifference and worse by those in authority who should have protected the vulnerable. All this against the continuing anger and bafflement about how Mohammed Emwazi, a promising London IT graduate, turned into ‘Jihadi John’, a brutal, exhibitionist killer for Islamic State (Isis) in Syria. Put aside Barrow’s chilling “normal childbirth” champions for a moment – though the refusal of NHS managers in charge there to apologise has echoes in the other cases. Was it Emwazi who was groomed and manipulated on the internet – or was it the teenage girls in Oxford, higher up in Tuesday’s news bulletins? It was both. And where did the Tower Hamlet trio of Isis brides get their ideas? From social media. Was it Emwazi or the vulnerable girls – both sets – who were let down by society’s protective agencies? Again: all three if you believe Emwazi’s “MI5 made me do it” thesis, which I do not. Nor, it seems, does Boris Johnson. Was a corruption of Islam a factor in these cases? Yes, it was, though we do not have to look far – try the dreadful murder of Becky Watts in Bristol and a clutch of current court hearings – to confirm that nihilistic acts of savage violence exist in all faiths and none. Why? Are our liberal societies descending into chaos, heading towards a dystopian Mad Max future, the one liberal Hollywood keeps predicting? Or does the fashionable doctrine of transparency, combined with commercially driven social media, just mean we are more willing now to face our demons, personal and collective, than we were in Jimmy Savile’s heyday when MI5’s existence was officially denied? I hope it’s the latter and that mankind copes – adequately if not well – with assorted interlinked challenges that face humanity, economic, social, cultural, environmental. But you do not need to be Russell Brand to wonder if our daily media diet of sex and violence (I realise Russ doesn’t do violence) isn’t as unhealthy as our diet of comforting fats and sugar. I would no more look at a jihadi beheading on YouTube than I would watch online pornography. (I found the Isis destruction of antiquities upsetting enough.) Nor would you, I expect. But plenty do watch these things and play Grand Theft Auto (etc) in their free time. For some it may be cathartic, but clearly not for all. And it’s catching. Watching the final episode of the BBC’s Wolf Hall I was struck by the protracted and voyeuristic way in which it chose to dwell on the beheading of Anne Boleyn. It didn’t used to be like that and there wasn’t much point. In an earlier episode someone used the word “cunt”, too. I’d not heard that on TV before. I was more surprised than offended (I’m a great swearer in private), but it was pointless showing off which will encourage some and upset others. What does a liberal society do about such questions? It learns and adjusts its behaviour in the light of experience and greater wisdom. The next Jimmy Savile will find it harder to bamboozle us. It avoids glib blame. No one can really say what combination of factors made Mohammed Emwazi a monster, though I liked Jonathan Freedland’s point that a search for certainty and identity (his Kuwaiti family was virtually stateless before ending up in a taxpayer-funded flat in London) may have been more important than bullying by classmates or MI5. Shyster preachers can work on that with an angry young man. What a sensible liberal society doesn’t do is over-react in time to catch the 6 o’clock BBC News. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown did it, so did David Cameron this week over both the Emwazi case and the Oxford victims so close to his Witney constituency. Theresa May joined horns with the universities over free speech and hate preachers. Following Barrow’s maternity scandal new duties – even more – may be placed on NHS staff to report perceived wrongdoing, as police, social services and other professions are being required to do over child abuse. MI5 can expect to be both softer (and tougher) on wannabe jihadis. Passing new categories of offence and punishment cannot easily change human behaviour, though it may modify it for better and worse. The flexible range of existing laws is capable of dealing with most situations and our prisons are already too full. What we need is people willing and able to fairly enforce the law – from social workers and teachers to judges, via the police and politicians. They need resources and support. In hard and bewildering times it’s often a tough call. It’s also down to us all, especially the grownups. It’s even more bewildering being young. |