I will never forget the time I lost my three year old at the beach.
I turned around for a second – a second – and she was gone.
I scoured the beach, screaming her name, absolutely panic stricken.
I found her about 300 metres or so away, sitting on the lap of a complete stranger.
She was fine. It took me weeks to recover.
And so, when I saw that footage of the child in the gorilla pit, I sobbed.
I sobbed for the mother, watching her child in danger. I sobbed for the child, who was probably terrified.
Now, I’m no longer crying, but I am absolutely stunned and disgusted by the wave of criticism directed at the mother of the child.
I try not to write when angry, but it’s hard not to be angry about it.
As a society, we can weep with parents whose child roams into a swimming pool and drowns.
We can empathize with parents who accidentally run over their toddler with the family car.
We can mourn the recent death of a four-year-old strapped into a car which ran down a boat ramp into the water.
Because we understand, of course, that accidents happen, and that it is a tragedy for all concerned.
And yet we slander this mother for ‘allowing’ her child to enter a gorilla pit at the local zoo.
Let me explain why it is not the mother’s fault.
It is impossible to keep your child in sight every second, particularly kids who are bolters (like my beach-wanderer). The only sure-fire way to ensure that your child will remain by your side is to use a kiddy-leash. But of course we are utterly disparaging of parents who resort to leashes (“You’re treating your kid like a dog???”) and so there is huge disincentive to do so.
The mother was taking her child to the zoo for a day out. This does not scream ‘neglectful’ to me.
Zoos are supposed to be safe spaces for children. Zoos are designed for children. Animals don’t get out of their enclosures, kids don’t get in. Yes, the child was heard telling his mum he wanted to ‘go in the water’. But the mother, no doubt, felt secure in the knowledge that he couldn’t go in the water, because they were at the zoo and kids can’t get into the enclosures. It was an absolutely reasonable assumption. I would have thought the same.
Had the little boy climbed into the enclosure and been rescued without hurting the gorilla, there would have been universal celebration. If the little boy had been killed, there would have been worldwide mourning. Sadly, the gorilla died. But this tragic outcome doesn’t change the actions of the mother. She is no more responsible for the accident in the third scenario as in the first two.
The decision of the zoo to shoot the gorilla is not the mother’s responsibility. Whether you agree with it or not does not change the mother’s actions. Yes, it may have been unnecessary. I’m not a gorilla handler, so I don’t know, and unless you are, neither do you. Either way, human life has to come before an animal life. You may be a passionate supporter of animal rights. You may be devastated at the death of this creature. But if it was your child (or partner, sister, best friend) and you had to choose, I suspect you would make the same decision.
