The recent Gorilla incident at the Cincinnati zoo produced a storm both in the virtual world as in the living humans’ one. The dramatic fall of a four year old visitor into the Gorillas’ enclosure ended up with the shooting dead of the giant beast. The dilemma did not hang on a hair for the zoo keepers and zoo administration, who did not ponder whether to give a chance to the wild beast to prove that it was protective in respect to the child, had hospitality intentions, or on the contrary – was overwhelmed by instinctive self-protective or cannibalic impulses, destructive ones. The staff acted firmly and promptly according to the existing protocol for life risk situation, averting the imminent tragedy. The imminent tragedy, however was not perceived as such by many of the spectators there present, including the parents of the child, who were justly accused by the entire world community of parental negligence. Moreover, an online petition #JusticeforHarambe had been signed by thousands condemning the reaction of the zoo for having killed the going extinct giant gorilla, but also demanding harsh measures of punishment for the negligent parents, up to prosecuting them according to the penal code, and taking the child away from them and giving it into child care.
The international media projected the 10 min. thrilling video, with a double interpretation, some claiming that the ape was protecting the boy, others alleging that it was a creepy life threatening catastrophe. The interpretations and comments of the internauts of the event were astounding for me personally by the degree of variation and intensity. Scanning the up to 400 comments track to one article, the human nature was taking shape in front of my eyes in a rainbow-like palette: one revolted commenter wondered as who had the right to choose between the monkey’s life and child’s life! The subsequent rituals around the ape’s grotto – vigil, deposition of flowers to a bronze statue of a monkey, proclaiming Harambe a hero who was sacrificed to save the boy’s life – seem a little exaggerated. The animal rights campaigners are essentially right, pointing to the zoo administration and blaming them for not having sufficiently protective measures for dangerous animals’ enclosures; the zoo administration are absolutely right in their justified fury against the mouth-gaping parents who certainly should put aside the mobiles and keep their children close to them. The right thing, however was done – the zoo staff acted according to the protocol professionally; THE CHILD WAS SAVED!!!
This is my relief sigh, but not with regards to the two week’s ago incident with the killed lions – two mature lions shot because of a naked suicider who crept into the cage at a zoo in the Chilean capital. That news provoked justified revolt and disgust, not to mention that the reckless, maybe drugged, senseless, agent of the deadly incident was mauled but rescued and still alive. That regrettable case is one where the animals are indeed victims of human irresponsibility. Not the zoo staff are to be charged, who again, took the right professional decision, but the delirious individual who left even a suicide note with reference to Biblical stories, claiming he was a lion. If that was a religious man, which we doubt, not to mention that we have strong grounds to doubt his mental sanity, maybe he thought of himself as being a Daniel, the Biblical hero who was saved from being eaten by the lions in their cage, not by his dignified nature but by the power of the strong faith of King Darius’ prayers who had beseeched God and had God’s mercy through a miracle. The Chilean lions deserved to LIVE more than the schizophrenic pervert.
Another Biblical story reenactment was staged live in my Capital. A Cain and Abel tragedy type recently had been insistently concealed smothered by the jaundiced, clientelist local media. The tragedy detonated with a resounding explosive echo from an elite town appartment, of a younger son of a Member of Parliament who shot deadly his elder brother in the family kitchen, while the parents were upstairs at home. The young men 26/32 years old, engaged into the deadly confrontation as a consequence of which the younger shot dead the elder one with the legally possessed firearm and fled away by his father’s car. I was totally astonished by the reaction of the family. One can only guess the ampleness of the double tragedy of the parents who in one moment lost both sons and the reputation of a decent family. They posted an emotional address imploring the killer-son to quit going hidden and return home for the funerary of their dear dead son/brother, promising to forgive him, assuring him he was not guilty and not blamed. Finally after about a month the maverick son was found by the police and returned home! He was said to be deeply disturbed and had been prosecuted through a strictly secret investigation, the crime being protected like a confidential family affair. The hidden skeleton in their family’s closet was to become a real shot dead victim, as the killer was not even allowed by the precautious powerful father the permission to subject him to a necessary forensic psychiatric examination. After a not so long silence he was proclaimed not guilty, more exactly an article, that in my profane in penal code’s opinion, was irrelevant was invoked. The so-called victims or claimants – the parents’ lot, invoked a reconciliation article so that as a result – the mature, fully-conscientious man took life to another mature man with high cruelty unpunished with not any consequences. My concern is that a hideous, heinous, treacherous reconciliation act like that could have dire consequences for the sensitive, weak, vulnerable internet-gamestry fed society as whole. That senseless forgiveness could become a dangerous precedent, example, model to remould other grotesque crimes. The parents from my perspective should not involve, they cannot, they do not own the crime case, they are not Gods to forgive. A man killed another man – he must be taken accountable for his act. Parents become accomplices to crime. The Reconciliation instance could be invoked in case of having stolen something and returned with expression of regret and damages paid, but parents do not possess the life of their mature son to give it such a verdict. What if the next in the row would be the father or the mother of the FORGIVEN?