Killings suggest we’re too soft
One important theme has emerged in the aftermath of the Christchurch shootings: the idea that those charged with the responsibility of keeping us safe may have let us down and been found wanting in a time of great need. Various inquiries and inquests will no doubt shed some light on that and, we hope, provide lessons for the future.
There were similar suspicions of betrayal, perhaps incompetence and maybe even reckless disregard felt this week in a courtroom hundreds of kilometres north of Christchurch. David Gilchrist didn’t kill 50 people, he killed only one, but the pain felt by the family and friends of his victim, Glen Collins, is no doubt every bit as real and ragged as that being felt in Christchurch today.
Their crimes were separated by distance, but there appear to be sad similarities in the circumstances leading to their evil endeavours: Gilchrist was judged to be insane when he killed Collins in Upper Hutt late last year, while the mental state of the cowardly Christchurch murderer is at least open to question; and both were able to evade the apparently soft, lazy grasp of those meant to be keeping a handle on them, and our safety.
Evidence presented to the High Court at Wellington suggested Gilchrist, who had a long history of mental illness, had simply stopped taking his medication and wandered away from Whangarei, in part to evade the city’s mental health team. He was apparently later found, but released without assessment or treatment.
His care fell to Collins, a kind soul who befriended him, took him in and even helped him at their work. Rather than paying it forward, he paid with this life. His death represents yet another failure of our mental health system. But it also hints at a naive myopia in our dealings with dangers in society.
Gilchrist was a violent schizophrenic with a known drug problem and a history of not taking his medication. He was known to authorities. They had him on their radar, but he was still able to kill.
Since the Christchurch shootings, we have been told by the prime minister that the killer did not choose New Zealand because it was a soft, lazy, safe harbour for terrorism. However, the evidence suggests that that, in part, was exactly why he chose us. Because our laws around gun ownership are more lax than those in his homeland.
Also, we have been told we must remain vigilant. It would be easier to appreciate such advice if those paid to monitor threats and keep us safe had better demonstrated vigilance themselves.
Despite clear, published concerns about the rise of the far-Right, in this country and overseas, and the revelation that this attack may have been two years in the making, the killer was invisible to our many agencies charged with sniffing out such threats.
It is right that the Government should focus on tightening gun laws as part of its response to this tragedy, but we urge it to consider also its role in mental health and its duty to protect us from the extremes of ill-health.
The deaths of Glen Collins and 50 others indicate various government departments and agencies have been found wanting, and have much work to do if they are to regain our trust.
It is right that the Government should focus on tightening gun laws ... but we urge it to consider also its role in mental health and its duty to protect us from the extremes of ill-health.