Opinion

Bimpe Archer: It seems compassion is in short supply these days

The Guardian made a twisted comparison between David Cameron's agonising experience of losing his young son and the struggles of someone less privileged 
The Guardian made a twisted comparison between David Cameron's agonising experience of losing his young son and the struggles of someone less privileged  The Guardian made a twisted comparison between David Cameron's agonising experience of losing his young son and the struggles of someone less privileged 

WE’RE not very happy at the moment are we?

I used to think maybe there were pockets of happiness here and there, obscured by the bitterness and anger convulsing the world, but pulsing steadily nonetheless.

Now I’m not so sure.

Albert Einstein saw human beings as interconnected - to ourselves and to the entire universe – but locked inside the “optical delusion of (our) consciousness”, shackled to our personal desires and our small circle of friends and family.

This is most apparent today within the `echo chamber’ of our own social media feeds, where we are simultaneously bolstered by like-minded strangers and engaged in vicious battles with other strangers.

But Twitter and Facebook and news organisation comment sections are merely a shadow boxing arena – as increasing numbers of opposing marches in Belfast and beyond show, they merely reflect how we are living our lives.

In philosophy, as in physics, Einstein was at base a problem-solver, and had a ready answer to our bleak condition.

“Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”

Compassion between competing ideologies has been in short supply recently.

It was certainly lacking in the Guardian’s editorial on David Cameron’s book interview tour.

Unable to ignore the fact that the former prime minister could at once be a Conservative leader and a grieving father, it made a twisted comparison between his agonising experience of losing his young son and the struggles of someone less privileged.

It later apologised and deleted the reference, but its inclusion in the paper’s flagship leader article is a disturbing bellwether of our troubled times.

Meanwhile, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) has found itself in the astounding position of having to justify saving people from drowning.

The criticism levelled in the Times and the Mail on Sunday was that it had “funded burkinis for Africans while cutting jobs” and spent £3.3million of donations “abroad including aid for Tanzania swimmers and crèches in Bangladesh”.

It seemed to be the fact that the swimmers were `Tanzania’ and the crèches were `in Bangladesh’ that were considered the deal-breakers in the covenant between the shopper chucking coins and the person holding the bucket.

People OVER HERE were losing their job helping to save lives, while people OVER THERE were having their lives saved.

RNLI reacted with dignity, explaining its founder Sir William Hillary had always envisioned it “should extend our views (of drowning prevention) from our own immediate coasts to the most remote quarters of the globe, and to every neighbouring state”.

It pointed out an estimated 320,000 people drown each year in “a silent epidemic”, making it a leading killer of children older than one in parts of Asia.

As part of its work with local partners in drowning prevention, in Bangladesh the charity had realised children were drowning in ponds close to home while their parents were at work, so it helped fund crèches to keep them safe.

Thirty thousand children have been kept safe in crèches and another 30,000 taught to swim.

The burkinis provided to young women in Zanzibar as part of a swimming programme, meanwhile, is “an innovative (and cheap) way of enabling girls in strict Muslim countries to get into the water without compromising their cultural and religious beliefs”.

RNLI has since been “overwhelmed” by messages of support and a surge in donations.

But did its words reach the Times and Mail on Sunday’s readers in their echo chambers, or have existing supporters of the benefits of foreign aid simply doubled down in order to make up the likely shortfall?

As with the offensive David Cameron editorial, it is plain that our respective circles of compassion today do not stretch far enough.