Violence is unacceptable

Kevin Mokento | Monday April 4, 2022 18:40

Immaculately dressed in a three-piece dapper suit and a white shirt, Will looked every inch the much-loved debonair celebrity. In an event that was telecast live and held the world spellbound, millions failed to parse what was going on as they beheld Will aggressively prancing towards Chris Rock and unleashing a powerful slap that could have easily sent Goliath teetering.

Though it is a fact that violence normally begets violence, and no self-respecting man would passively watch another man humiliate his wife, the visibly stunned Chris stuck to the moral high ground and restrained himself from responding in kind. Once he had performed the deed to his satisfaction, Will turned around, flashed a subtle, almost imperceptible smile, and walked back to his front-row seat, from which he shouted sulphurous expletives spewed from his foul orifice. Will willingly and recklessly disrupted a high-profile ceremony.

Like Will, Chris Rock is a celebrity and a comedian, and he often takes advantage of the stage to bring the house down by humuorously attacking other celebrities. This time, the target of his comic verbal assault was Will’s wife, and the slight scowl on her face and the rolling of her eyes reflected that she felt the joke went beyond the pale. Was it acceptable for Will to assault Chris? Diverse views abound. I was shocked to read a view that rings hollow, that a local influencer, with close to 5,000 friends, posted on social media, “Clearly Jada (Will’s wife) was pained, and that was enough for him. I don’t promote violence but any guy that stands up for his woman like that gets my respect.”

While I would not quibble over the need to “stand up” for loved ones, I would contend that any society that reduces such noble action to horrific and numbing violence is, for want of a better word, barbaric. Unfortunately, in the considered view of some, the victim suddenly evolved into a brutish aggressor, and the bellicose assailant metamorphosed into a helpless victim. The less said about warped mindsets, the better! If it’s any solace, a credible wave of voices singing in tune has joined the sensible chorus advocating for Will’s censure.

I wonder whether there is a view out there, that in instances of this nature, violence is warranted and justified. I have reason to believe that a man of Will’s calibre is well-grounded in the principles of professional and gentlemanly decorum, and would always choose to be an uncompromising model of decency and primness in his choice of words and actions. I will be the first to accept that all people have the right to be treated with respect, but by the same token, I would vehemently argue that we do not need to drop our moral bar to be noticed or to get even. What stopped Will, a man indubitably blessed with an alluring suite of genes that have endowed him with the gift of the gab and an enviable electrifying personality, from verbally engaging Chris instead of physically assaulting him? What Will did is in many ways blatantly inconsistent with the globally cherished view, “to jaw-jaw is better than to war-war.”

For all I care, the slapping of Chris was a premeditated act of violence by a man who did not seem to care a hoot about minding his p’s and q’s. A man who would at his convenience choose to think with his heart rather than his head. All things considered, Chris was not so close to Will that the latter could claim emotions got the better of him resulting in an impulsive but unacceptable move. The distance he paced towards Chris gave him ample opportunity to review his decision, but no, the enraged Will had to violently put the comedian in his place. Surely Will is not just another naïve joe public. Much as he might claim that he has never presented himself as a role model for millions of young ones, he knows that many aspire to follow in his footsteps and that is part of the package of living in the limelight, a platform he willingly chose to be propelled onto.

To his credit, Will eventually apologised to the Academy and Chris, in the process shifting the blame for his unfortunate conduct to the devil and the depth of his love for his family. When in tarnation would men like Will have the moral fortitude to take responsibility for their actions? Some might form the view that he needs to be forgiven and that the incident must be forgotten. While I don’t have a problem with the forgiving part, I take issue with what seemed to be the brazen acceptance of violence by The Academy and Will’s colleagues in the movie and entertainment industry. Not a single person dared to condemn the violence and the programme continued as if nothing untoward had happened. Despite his unacceptable conduct, The Academy proceeded to present The Best Actor Award to Will and when he reached the end of his ad-libbed highfalutin victory speech, he walked off-stage with a winning smile etched on his face, and the audience unashamedly gave him a standing ovation. He received two standing ovations, when he was announced as the winner and at the conclusion of his speech.

The message was loud and clear. We have seen what you did, but it does not bother us, we wish to reaffirm our unconditional love for you! Upon further reflection, I wonder, what can one expect from an industry that has long made violence the cornerstone of its superstructure? An industry that has for the longest time justified violent loss of life, euphemistically calling movies overflowing with such incidents action-packed! An industry that, without a twinge of conscience, is comfortable with generating astronomical profits from promoting violence of all sorts! For me, it did not come as a surprise when The Academy’s response came in the form of this lame tweet, “The Academy does not condone violence of any form.” They would not dare mention by name their beloved friend.

Could they have done more? Certainly! Of course, we know Americans are fond of suing each other, and perhaps in anticipation of a legal suit, The Academy chose to be careful in its response to this unprecedented behaviour. But what stopped its board from convening a short emergency meeting during one of the many breaks to resolve not only to throw Will out of the house but also to defer the announcement of The Best Actor Award until legal counsel was sought and considered? At the bare minimum, one would have expected The Academy to step up to the plate and issue a strong censure, but lo and behold, that was not to be!

The question that kept bouncing on my mind is, what does this say about the moral obligations of the organisers and the audience? Is this reflective of a collective endowed with a skewed and obtuse moral compass? Had this misdeed been committed by a novice actor still working on the ascent to celebrity status, would the response have been the same? Is the response somewhat a tacit approval of the creation of a cult of untouchables who can do as they please without being subjected to a credible form of consequence management? Can we afford to sit back and watch as accountability hits an atrophic low? Do we, by our acts of commission or omission, tend to subscribe to Jim Morrison’s view, “Violence isn’t always evil. What’s evil is the infatuation with violence?” Since Will is not known to be infatuated with violence, do we find it reasonable to accept his act of violence? Is it acceptable for celebrities and other high-profile rotten elite to play by a different set of rules characterised by unruliness?

I like the fact that, among other things, The 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” It is this covenant that should be at the forefront of our minds when we are tempted to beat petty thieves to death or when we think that because we have been unduly provoked, the only way to drum sense into the mind of the culprit and help them find their way to the narrow road leading to life is to beat the living daylights out of them. In the same vein, recognition of this covenant would assure the public that in the interests of justice, when dealing with high-drama cloak-and-dagger intrigues, law enforcement officers would wherever possible exercise restraint and make sure that culprits are swiftly hauled before the courts.