Human life or animal life? Case of Harambe the gorilla

The killing of a gorilla at a zoo in the US city of Cincinnati after a toddler fell into its enclosure sparked outrage -  with many people saying the male gorilla should not have been killed since the animal, in their view, did not intend to harm the child. This raises the question as to whether or not the gorilla should have been given the benefit of the doubt after dragging the child around heavy-handedly "like a rag doll".

A gorilla was gunned down on Saturday May 28, 2016 at the Cincinnati Zoo & Botanical Garden. According to CNN the 17-year-old western lowland gorilla called Harambe was killed to save a boy who slipped into the animal's habitat. Critics, many of whom blamed the child´s mother for failing to look after her son, believe the killing of the gorilla was "unnecessary". Others reportedly criticized the zoo for using "excessive force", and demonstrators called for a boycott of the zoo. An online petition seeking "justice" for the dead gorilla earned 8,000 signatures in less than 24 hours, according to CNN. As of the time of this writing the petition titled "Justice for Harambe" had garnered 502,198 supporters. The creator of the petition and its signatories want the parents of the child to be held accountable for "lack of supervision and negligence" that caused Harambe the gorilla to lose its life. The signatories and the creator feel that the parental "negligence" at the zoo is reflective of the child's home situation. It is worth mentioning that the petition, which is, addressed to the director of Cincinnati zoo and Hamilton County Child Protection Services, completely vindicates the zoo of any wrong doing and focuses solely on the parents of the child.

My view

First and foremost, I will not sign the "Justice for Harambe" petition - not because I do not like animals but because I believe the petition is misguided. To completely absolve Cincinnati Zoo of any responsibility and focus solely of the parents of the child - one of whom was reportedly not present at the time of the sad incident - is not the right cause of action. The petition is framed to give the impression that the creator, Sheila Hurt, has the interest of the child at heart but the way I see it, it is designed by someone who feels an animal's wellbeing is more important than - if not equal to - the wellbeing of a human being; someone who thinks that the gorilla should not have been shot to save a child. The petition states that the 17-year-old gorilla was "perceived" as dragging the child. The dragging is not a question of perception - the gorilla in fact dragged the child around in water and reportedly on rocks. Any unbiased observer who has watched a video of the incident would agree. Stating that the gorilla was "perceived" as dragging the boy screams bias. According to the BBC the boy was dragged by the silverback gorilla for about 10 minutes before the zoo officials made the decision to shoot it down.

A lot of people are upset about the killing of the gorilla, and rightly so. The western lowlands gorillas is a critically endangered specie - reportedly numbering less than 175,000 in the wild with an additional 765 in zoos around the world, according to CNN. However, no one really knows whether or not Harambe the gorilla at Cincinnati zoo was protecting the child who fell into the moat - as claimed by critics of the decision to shoot and kill. But one thing is clear: the gorilla was dragging the child around pretty violently as evidenced by numerous videos, and the child's life was in danger. I do not think the gorilla should have been given the benefit of the doubt. It would have been too risky to do so. Zoo authorities should not gamble with a child's life.

I like animals but from a parental perspective, Cincinnatti zoo made the right - and at the same time unfortunate - call. If it were my son in there with an agitated silverback gorilla I would expect zoo officials to do whatever it takes, including using lethal force to get my child out of there - alive. I would not give a gorilla the benefit of the doubt with my child in harms way - irrespective of whether or not the child got into the situation due to so-called improper parenting. Even the best parents, I think, slip off sometimes and what happens at a zoo is not necessarily "reflective of the child's home situation". Anyone who has children knows that children get themselves into difficult and sometimes dangerous situations even under "proper parental supervision". All it takes is a second or two for a child to get into trouble. Urging child protection services to consider taking away a child from his parents because of an incident at a zoo is not justice for Harambe; it is, on the contrary, unjust, vindictive and a step too far.

I would not vilify Cincinnati Zoo neither. However, I found is shocking that the barrier at the zoo's Gorilla World was about the height of a baby gate - 3 feet tall, according to ABC News. It is not high enough. If there is any negligence in this case it is on the part of the zoo. A barrier the height of a baby gate is not a good enough barrier at a zoo visited by children of all ages. Curious toddlers climb through baby gates at home and they would climb over baby gate-like barriers in a crowded zoo if they want to. If the barrier was high enough the child would not have climbed all the way without someone noticing. He might not have even tried. The barrier at Cincinnati Zoo's Gorilla World needs a makeover. The fact that prior to this case the barrier had not been breached in 38 years does not mean it is safe. Common sense tells me that a 3 feet barrier separating humans, including children from gorillas is not high enough. It is time for Cincinnati zoo and other zoos with baby gates for barriers to reevaluate. Parents take their children to zoos because they assume zoos are safe. Zoos have a responsibility to protect staff and visitors from wild animals they hold captive. A 4-year-old should not be able to easily breach a barrier in a gorilla exhibit.

It is unlikely that the boy's parents would be held criminally responsible - despite the online petition designed to land them in trouble. Holding them criminally liable would set a dangerous precedent and open a floodgate of cases against parents - because even the best parents slip off sometimes and parental slip offs do not always necessarily amount to parental negligence.

The case of Harambe and the 4-year-old boy is sad on all levels. But if I have to pick who lives between a gorilla and a human being - child or adult - I would pick the human. It does not mean I do not like animals. On the contrary I really like animals, especially dogs. I support human rights - and animal rights. It follows that I oppose cruelty against humans and animals. But in an event where animal rights or animal protection clashes with human rights and safety the latter takes precedence. Ron Magill, communications Director/Curator at Miami Metro Zoo, said something that aptly captures my thoughts on this matter. Speaking to CNN, he said:

"There is no single animal life that is more important than a human life".

Echoing the words of Cincinnati Zoo director Thane Maynard, "they [the zoo officials] made a tough choice and they made the right choice because they saved that little boy's life. It could've been very bad". The director said a tranquilizer would not have taken down the gorilla quick enough. Jack Hanna, an animal expert and director emeritus of Columbus Zoo and Aquarium concurred - "1000 percent".

Share

Tweet

Election of London's first Muslim mayor deals blow to Islamophobia

Islamophobia is rife across Europe - with Muslims collectively linked to terrorism, and hated by a growing number of far-right extremists. Even some people considered "liberally minded" - like Zac Goldsmith - intentionally or intentionally fan flames of xenophobia and suspicion against Muslims. The deadly terror attacks in Paris and more recent attacks in Brussels - as well as the refugee crisis - further polarized an already hostile debate surrounding Muslims and Islam in Europe. Despite the toxic environment, London elected its first Muslim mayor -- the first Islamic mayor in a European Union capital.

News broke on 7 May 2016 that London had elected Sadiq Khan mayor. According to the BBC, Sadiq Khan beat his opponent, Zac Goldsmith - a non-Muslim, white Conservative - by 1,310,143 votes to 994,614 to become London's first Muslim mayor. Sadiq Khan's victory, according to the BBC, gave him "the largest personal mandate of any politician in UK history". In other words, a Muslim now holds the record for largest personal mandate for a politician in the history of the UK.

Of course, with a Muslim's name on the ballot, the 2016 London mayoral campaign was not without racism and fear-mongering by those on the other side of the political spectrum. There are those who misguidedly think all Muslims have links with terrorism or Islamist extremists. This is illustrated by the fact that during the campaign Sadiq Khan was accused by opponents, including Prime Minister David Cameron for sharing a platform with Islamic extremists. In a comment piece published in the Mail, Sadiq Khan's Conservative rival Zac Goldsmith also sought to link his Muslim counterpart to terrorism. In the comment piece which was published with a picture of a double-decker London bus wrecked by a suicide bomber in the 2005 terrorist attacks in London, Zac Goldsmith questioned whether Londoners wanted to hand the city to a party that thinks terrorists are its friends. According to the Guardian, Goldsmith wrote:

"The number one job of the mayor is to keep our city safe. Yet if Labour wins on Thursday, we will have handed control of the Met, and with it control over national-counter-terrorism policy, to a party whose candidate and current leadership have, whether intentionally or not, repeatedly legitimized those with extreme views."

There were clear attempts during the campaign to paint Khan as a radical. The freshly minted mayor of London later described the electoral tactics employed by his opponents as being "straight out of the Donald Trump playbook". Worthy to mention that US presidential candidate Donald Trump called for a "total and complete" ban on Muslims entering the US, - with fear-mongering being a cornerstone of his campaign. Mayor Khan is not alone in linking London´s mayoral campaign to Donald Trump's chirade. Even a Conservative described the Conservative campaign in an article on the Middle East Eye as "repulsive". A senior London Conservative said the campaign had "blown up bridges" the party had built with Muslim communities.

My view

Not all Mulsims are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. It is a fact which cannot be overemphasized. And the election of a Sadiq Khan, the first Islamic Mayor in a European Union capital, is an indication that the shameless exploitation of anti-Muslim sentiments and prejudices by politicians and Islamophobes in a bid to score political points does not always work. All the people cannot be fooled all the time. Londoners are smarter than that.

In an infamous comment piece in the Mail, Zac Goldsmith claimed -- wrongly, of course -- that London was "on the brink of a catastrophe" as the capital could elect Saqid Khan -- a Muslim son of a Pakistani immigrant -- to replace Boris Johnson as mayor. Well, I got news for Goldsmith and those who naively bought his misguided narrative: it has been a month, as of the time of this writing, since London elected a Muslim mayor, and there has been no "catastrophe". London was not (and still is not) on the brink of a catastrophe because of the election of a Muslim mayor. The city faces the same security, economic, political, social and other challenges that it faced under two former [white, non-Muslim] mayors, namely Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson.

The election of Sadiq Khan shows that contrary to the industrial scale of xenophobia across Europe, and scare-tactics and hate-mongering employed by politicians like Zac Goldsmith, Londoners at the end of the day can distinguish fact from fiction. All attempts to link Khan to terrorism were fictitious, and failed woefully. Divisive campaign tactics used by opponents of Sadiq Khan clearly did not work. Londoners refused to reject a candidate for mayor simply because of his religious background. The Islamophobic Tory campaign played right into the hands of Islamic extremists who benefit enormously from Muslim-bashing and exclusion of vulnerable groups of people.

Exclusion and discrimination faced by young Muslims and other ethnic minorities in western societies is often exploited by terrorist recruiters. By electing a Muslim mayor, Londoners might just have neutralized a recruiting tool used by radical Islamists. Criminals who use exclusion as a recruiting tool can no longer tell reasonable young Muslims in London in particular and the UK in general that they have no place in Britain or in British politics. What should matter at the end of the day - be it in politics, business or any other field - is the content of one´s character and his or her qualification and ability to get the job done. Any other distinction -- race, skin color or religion is secondary.

In 2003 Sadiq Khan voted in favour of same-sex marriage and received death threats; he worked as a human rights lawyer, he said there´re questions to be asked about the use of hijabs, and he was sworn in as Mayor of London in a multi-faith ceremony in London's Southwark Cathedral -- doesn´t look like what someone who is - in the words of Zac Goldsmith - "radical and divisive" would do.

It is in London´s interest that Zac Goldsmith was not elected mayor after running such a racist, xenophobic political campaign with the backing of his party.

Share

Tweet

Sheffield University expels Cameroonian student for anti-gay Facebook post

Cameroon is a largely Christian - mostly Catholic - country and there is no shortage of individuals from the country whose thoughts and utterances both online and offline are based on nothing but religious beliefs, sometimes extreme. Needless to say, some of their expressions are outrageous, deeply offensive to certain minority groups, anti-social and could cost them a place in communities that value inclusiveness and equal treatment of individuals irrespective of race, sexual orientation, gender or any other distinction.

A student was expelled from the University of Sheffield, a public research university in Sheffield, South Yorkshire, England. According to The Independent, the postgraduate student, Felix Ngole, was expelled from a social work programme after he posted anti-gay opinions on Facebook. The 38-year-old student reportedly shared a post on Facebook expressing support for Kim Davis - an American county clerk for Rowan County, Kentucky who refused to sign marriages for same-sex couples, in defiance of a US Supreme Court ruling and a Federal court order. In September 2015, the student also reportedly commented on a link on Facebook quoting a Bible verse calling homosexuality an "abomination". The father of four was ejected from the social work course following a decision by a Fitness to Practise Committee. A letter from the Committee informed the student in question that his actions "transgressed boundaries which were deemed appropriate for someone who was entering the social work profession".

Felix Ngole said in his defense, according to The Independent: "My beliefs about marriage and sexual ethics reflect mainstream, biblical understanding, shared by millions around the world. Simply expressing that understanding, in a personal capacity, on my Facebook page, cannot be allowed to become a bar to serving and helping others in a professional capacity as a social worker."

The decision to expel Felix Ngole, who according to Cameroon Online is a Cameroonian, is reportedly being appealed and the expelled student believes the decision is a "bar to office for Christians".

My Take

First of all, not all Christians are homophobic hence the University of Sheffield's decision to expel someone who espouses homophobic views is by no means a "bar to office for Christians". Even Pope Francis, leader of the Catholic church who be believed to be the descendant of Saint Peter, does not appear to be homophobic. He famously said he is in no position to judge someone who is gay. And I guess Sheffield University has many Christian students enrolled in the numerous programme it offers, including the social work programme who do not share or espouse homophobic views. This case is not about Christians or Muslims or Buddhists or whatever. It is about someone with anti-social views wanting to be a social worker.

Homophobia is certainly mainstream, reflects a biblical (and perhaps koranic) understanding and shared by millions of believers around the world. But it must not be given a pass by institutions of higher learning - like the University of Sheffield University - tasked with preparing students for public service professions like social work in England or elsewhere.

Individuals sanctioned for publicly expressing despicable views and their supporters often point to freedom of expression in a bid to defend themselves and their views that have the potential to incite hatred against a group of people. Many, if not all of them, seem to be unaware of the fact that the right to freedom of expression is not absolute. The right to freedom of expression is provided for in article 19 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). It is stated in sub section 3 of the same article that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it "special duties and responsibilities", and that the right may therefore be subjected to "certain restrictions". The restrictions, according to the ICCPR must be "necessary" and provided by law. The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (article 10) also allows necessary restrictions on freedom of expression such as restrictions in the interest of public safety, for the protection of reputation or rights of others or for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence. The African Charter on Human and People's Rights (article 9) provides for the right to express and disseminate opinions "within the law". This shows that freedom of expression is not absolute. Some countries like Finland have laws that criminalize speech that incite hatred against a group of people. An individual in a country with hate speech laws for example cannot go inciting hatred and making public statements that endanger the well-being and safety of others, and claim the right to do so. The right to free expression comes with duties and responsibilities - in the eyes of international human rights law.

But the case of Felix Ngole and Sheffield University is not about the law. It is about standards and ethics of a profession. The question is whether or not a university or any educational institution for that matter should be compelled to prepare people who hold and publicly express anti-social views for the social work profession. I do not think they should.

According to The Independent, a spokeswoman for Sheffield University said standards of the social work profession in England are nationally determined by the Health and Care Professions Council. So I looked up the the HCPC's standards of conduct, performance and ethics and it turns out that the standards also apply to students on an HCPC-approved program (see page 4). The standards require professionals to, amongst other things, challenge discrimination. Interestingly the standards also touch on the use of social media and networking sites. It requires professionals to use all forms of communication appropriately and responsibly, including social media and networking websites. In a separate document, guidance on conduct and ethics for students, published for students by the HCPC, it is stated that students studying to become professionals in a regulated profession have certain responsibilities and that they will be expected to meet high standards of conduct and ethics. It is also stated in the document a student's conduct outside of a regulated programme may affect his/her ability to complete the programme or register with the HCPC. The guide also urges students to make sure their behavior does not damage public confidence in their profession.

Clearly, Felix Ngole did not read or adhere to the HCPC's standards and student guide.

Kim Davis is not a suitable role model for a social worker. A social worker who thinks Kim Davis did the right thing by refusing to issue marriage licenses as required by law is likely to refuse to offer social services to service users who do not meet certain religious standards. A university's decision to expel a student who does not  meet the standards of the profession is a pre-emptive measure to protect the public.  

Share

Tweet