Thu, Jul 15/04
Under the Bridge

A fascinating exchange between Reena Virk's and Kelly Ellard's parents was laid out in the National Post and the Star last week. The thing that pricked my ears up, and I think probably the main thing that rendered the exchange newsworthy, was George Pakos, Ellard's stepfather, claiming that "We're all victims in this." (This was after affirming that he and his family have "felt sorrow for the Virks from Day 1," but that "the Virks aren't the only family suffering in this whole seven-year ordeal.")

It sounds racy, an accused murderer's relative calling himself a victim, but the statement itself is not really so extraordinary. Clearly, to some extent, all involved are victims: Reena Virk and her parents, for obvious reasons; Kelly Ellard herself, a victim either of phenomenally bad judgment (not a particularly tear-jerking form of victimhood, admittedly) or of a frame-up; and Kelly Ellard's parents, also victims either of their daughter's bad judgment or of the aforementioned frame-up.

What I love is the clearly defined, mutually agreeable middle ground at which the Virk and Ellard camps arrive. "This has not been pleasant for any of us," said Suman Virk, Reena's mother, "but you have not experienced the pain of a dead child. So, we can't compare the pain we've suffered." "I realize that," replied Pakos, "and I've said it right from the start." By the end of it all, rather than each side insisting on a superior claim to victimhood (as is the style of our time), Pakos had shaken hands with both Reena's father, Manjit, and grandfather, Mukand Pallan. "I feel sorry for you, George," Pallan said. "You're a gentleman."

Uh, like yawn. Are these people going to claw each others' eyes out, or can we send the camera crew up to the nude beach?

"Victim" is one of the most loaded words currently on the market. Victims — of murderers, of abuse, of fast food — are pretty much the kings of the nightly news, as has been widely and somewhat tiresomely expounded upon by numerous commentators. The victimizers, meanwhile, and their lawyers, are left to pick over and hold up to the light whatever scraps of their own now-forfeited victimhood remain. It's fantastic television, really, except when real people like the Virks and Ellards won't play ball.

Think of the widespread astonishment when Dan Snyder's family "forgave" Dany Heatley for driving like an idiot and causing the accident that killed Snyder. (Think, certainly, of Mary Ormsby's unbelievable misread of the situation.) These people are the victims, some confused faces seemed to say, and they invite him to the funeral? Modern saints, the Snyders must surely be.

But in real life, I think everyone knows people like the Snyders. Forgiving a good friend for doing something stupid that killed your son is extraordinary in the way the northern lights are extraordinary — no matter how many times you see it, it's still wonderful — but that doesn't make it unusual. Imagining myself in Heatley's situation (in a rented Ferrari, mind you), I can see all my friends' parents "forgiving" me. In fact, I don't even think it would be as melodramatic as an eye-to-eye "Chris, we forgive you." That's Hollywood. This is real people, bad luck, and shared pain. 

I think the Heatley case highlighted the lie that is partially behind the "victims' rights movement," or at least behind its disproportionate popularity. Don't get me wrong — it’s good that victims and the families of victims can look the victimizer in the eye and explain what he did to them (though extremely distressing when the effectiveness of the statement factors into sentencing). It's good that victims are treated as part of the process, to the extent that they want to be, and that their wishes are taken into account to some extent in determining punishment.

But murder, for instance, is not something that affects a whole lot of people — less than .009% of Canadians have been murdered in the past five years. So if so few of us are victims, why do so many people give such a vociferous damn about it? Because we care about the victims? Excuse my editorial snort. No, I think there's significant overlap between the people working themselves into a lather about "victims' rights" and the gawking rabble that spits and hurls invective at accused murderers and child molesters outside the police station. Despite its positive intentions and consequences, the victims' rights movement has unfortunately become the respectable face of said gawking rabble — the mob's Sinn Fein.