Culture of violence needs to be replaced

You may get tired of the extensive reportage and analysis on the recent Montreal massacre -- there is always a certain segment of readers/viewers/surfers who do.

Yet, this recent violent event is an essential window into the psyche of an individual and how our culture can and may play a role. As horrific as the events were on Tuesday, the event forces us to examine how we react and respond to life (both responses coming from very different places) and it prompts examination of our individual and collective beliefs.

For that reason, I too, am re-examining this horrible event, through the lense of personal and collective accountability.

First is the oft-mentioned belief that media sensationalizes stories like the Dawson College massacre. This is true, to an extent. The fact that a camera person refused to offer privacy to a victim of the shooting, despite her pleading requests, shows how there are occassions when media is more concerned with getting a picture/story, then they are in telling the tale. Saying that, it should be pointed out that a vast majority of media outlets and personnel do not engage in this obtrusive behaviour; most simply ask questions and find people willing to participate in the sharing of the story. However, it does raise a point: even media has a role to play in this type of extremist situation.

If a person, such as Kimveer, decides to take his angst and rage out in a such a violent manner, it is the media's responsibility to not immortalize and glamorize this person. Like the original Montreal massacre, where a sexist gunmen lined 29 women up and gunned them down, Kimveer's actions should not go down in the annals of reportage as HIS action. Rather, this irrational act should be remembered for what it is: a violent, irrational act committed by a disturbed person. By remembering and recalling the names of these individuals we immortalize them and glamorize their actions -- and this perpetuates a cycle.

An anecdotal precursor to this glamorization of violent, infamy, is the reportage of suicides. Decades ago newspapers and other media were politely asked by medical professonals not to report suicides. The rational was based on collected statistics that showed provided a correlational relationship between the reportage of suicide and a dramatic increase in suicide attempts (and successes).

So in a day and age when people are frustrated, want relief AND are obsessed with being special and remembered why wouldn't the same correlations occur with violent events? The Columbine massacre prompted a series of copycat rampages that lasted for two years after the initial event. Then Canadian teens weighed into the fray. Taber, Alberta, squirmishes in Vancouver and Toronto and now Montreal, Quebec.

In a culture obsessed with being a "somebody" (usually dictated by popularity, fame or fortune) we are providing the avenue and the vehicle for angst-ridden, emotional disturbed people to act out and achieve their goals.

We cannot ban the counter-culture mediums by which kids and young adults communicate with -- that's like the attempt to suppress rock n' roll in the 50s. All that happens is that the medium breaks free! Rather, we can take responsibility as a society for how we display such brutal acts of apathetic detachment.

This leads into my notion that socio-economic factors do play a role in actions taken by individuals like Kimveer. When we live in a culture that ideoligizes war, we cannot expect little ramifications.

The fact that Kimveer's guns were both legal and registered only highlights the necessity for our culture to reexamine our values, as opposed to simply attempting to cover up this examination with legislation and punitive justice. The gun registry would not have prevented Tuesday's massacre. Now, all opinions aside on the gun registry, this fact highlights the need for us as a society to reexamine and reintroduce a culture of community, rather than a culture of violence.

This can be done easily by introducing an education system that is built upon the notion of peace and community -- rather than a culture of war. When examined these two different perspectives provide two different approaches to how we teach historica, sociological and humanities-based classes.

CULTURE OF WAR AND CULTURE OF PEACE AND NON-VIOLENCE VIOLENCE
Belief in power that is based on force Education for a culture of peace
Having an enemy Tolerance, solidarity and international
understanding
Authoritarian governance Democratic participation
Secrecy and propaganda Free flow of information
Armament Disarmament
Exploitation of people Human rights
Exploitation of nature Sustainable development
Male domination Equality of women and men

If we are to address the actions of extremists that lead to Columbine, USA. Taber, Alberta and Montreal, Quebec, we will need to address our cultural reliance upon violence and conflict. And then, we will need to act.

For those that demand individual responsibility, I agree. Every individual has a choice and a chance. Every individual is offered a set of tools that they may draw from.

What I am suggesting, is to reexamine the tools we, as a culture, provide. Rather than focusing on winning, success, fame, fortune, reward, we need to offer our children, teens and young adults an opportunity to develop another set of tools. By taking collective action to establish a culture that values constructive confrontation, peacebuilding and community, we establish a foundation to provide people with alternatives to violent conflict. If an alternative is provided, it can, and will influence the behaviour of a society.

Yes, we can demonize Kimveer; create a profile of one man you was unstable enough to act inappropriately.

Or we can accept that we, as a society, help contribute to his instability. While he, alone, is responsible for his final decisions, we as a society are responsible for providing the options.

We need new options.

We need a culture of peacebuilding.