The tragic discovery last week in her Handsworth home of the emaciated corpse of seven year old Khyra Ishaq raises several disturbing questions.
First, why did Kyhra’s mother and step-father allow her, whether by design or negligence, to go without food for so long, as apparently they also did in the case of Kyhra’s five other siblings? They too were discovered in the house alive but in a state of profound malnutrition.
The parents have now been charged with causing her death and eventually we shall know why they did it.
The second question is why the relevant local social services failed to investigate the condition of these children earlier, knowing, as they did, that their mother had withdrawn them from school some ten weeks earlier. After just one visit to the house and no-one answering the door, they apparently gave up further enquiries. Again, Birmingham social services has instigated an enquiry and, eventually, this matter will become clearer,
Finally, there is the question why none of Khyra’s neighbours signalled the alarm when there had been no sightings of any of the six young children for several weeks?
This last question is the one which exercises Minette Marrin in her column in last week’s Sunday Times. There she opined:
‘Perhaps, people in this street are so indifferent to each other, so unconnected by any ties of culture, so mobile, so dysfunctional and so asocial as not in any sense to form a community.’
Might I hazard an alternative explanation of the inaction of Khyra’s neighbours, given that several were co-religionists of Khyra and her family?
Khyra’s English mother was a recent convert to Islam of Afro-Caribbean extraction, as were Kyhra’s father and step-father.
Upon converting to Islam, Khyra’s step-father assumed the name of Junaid Abuhamza, a fact of which any next-door neighbour, especially if Muslim, is likely to have been aware.
Personally, were I to have as a next-door neighbour someone whom I knew had recently chosen to change his name to ‘Abuhamza’, I would strenuously avoid doing anything that might arouse his ire – apart, that is, maybe from suddenly acquiring a keen interest in the lists of all local estate agents.
Even if such a name-change as his was entirely innocent, the fact remains the hyper-diversity that has become pervasive in so many of our cities in recent years does undermine local community cohesion and solidarity. In the face of it, people ‘hunker down’, ceasing to take any interest in their neighbours even when of the same ethnicity or religion as themselves.
This was the principal finding of a massive four year long survey undertaken by American sociologist Robert Putnam beginning in 2000 of social capital in diverse communities across the USA. He has since admitted having sat on the results for several years before publishing them, because of not knowing – and, although he doesn’t admit this, he still doesn’t -- how to respond to the truth that they revealed. This is that human beings are psychologically ill-equipped for living in conditions of great cultural and ethnic diversity.
The present Government can introduce all the community cohesion initiatives it wishes. Sadly, it will not be able to alter this simple fact about human nature.
Given present urban conditions in Britain, only state agencies can be relied on to display the necessary vigilance to safeguard the most vulnerable members of society. Manifestly, they failed to in this case.
In her column about Khyra’s death in today’s Times, Libby Purves points out how inured social workers become to the sight of neglected children after visiting dysfunctional families. She quotes a child protection expert from the LSE as saying: ‘They get used to seeing low-level parenting. That then starts to look average. They rightly fail to appreciate how much harm it is doing.’
As a society, the choice we face, therefore, seems to be between diversity, plus the development of a dedicated and efficient welfare state, or else cultural and ethnic uniformity and reliance on the informal mechanisms of social monitoring and support that accompany vibrant and cohesive local neighbourhoods.
What we should not expect to find is great diversity combined with vibrant and cohesive local neighbourhoods.
Perhaps, therefore, we should ascribe partial responsibility for Khyra Ishaq’s death to the misguided and naïve optimism of the present Government -- or was it grossly cynical indifference all along? For it has given our cities their present hyper-diversity and then expected residents to form into cohesive communities enjoying strong informal networks of mutual support.
Comments (4)
I am aware of certain elements of the media and the way Child Protection is reported. I emphasize that I do not subscribe to such elements of presumptions, blame and culpability especially when such elements are more to with the comments made by a certain politician rather than actual facts. Instead, I refer to the statement by Wes Cuell Senior Worker for the NSPCC who says:
"The main problem we have is a lack of continuity in council social services departments due to a shortage of permanent, experienced social workers..." (The Daily Telegraph, 24/05/08).
This statement is further compounded by Councilor Keith Barton Chairman of the Vulnerable Children Scrutiny Committee who says that:
"The local authority is short of up to 100 Social Workers.." (The Sunday Mecrcury 25/05/08)
The most distressing aspect of this case is that the local Area Office that deals with Child Protection is but a few minutes walk from the child's address. The School the child attended is across the road from the said Area Office. Furthermore, another council service 'The Rights of Children'
is also nearby.
It is unfair to blame the parents at this stage when appropriate intervention could have prevented the child's death from happening. Neither do you have any right to generalise on the hardships that people dont speak of. Some people wil always struggle but will continue to live their lives on a day to day basis with pride, depsite their hardships. Lets be realistic: we are talking about parents who live in Handsworth, an area considered to be low budget, an area that has been ignored by funding bodies, an area where nobody wants to live and that is still trying to pick itself up from the previous race riots few years ago...
You can discuss whatever you wish about race and so called social cohesion. This isnt about race, its about the death of a child in this age of big brother whereby we are all being watched, particulary the local council who have already been accused of spying on people.
It is said that the upbringing of a child is the responsibility of EVERYONE. This may have been true at a certain time, but in this age something else is becoming depressingly familer.. nobody really cares.
Posted by Shoxx | June 15, 2008 1:06 PM
Posted on June 15, 2008 13:06
We always want to blame someone or something else for tragedies that occur. A faith or a name change does not result in starving your children to death.
Living in diverse communities does not result in lack of neighbourly caring.
We need always to look at first inside ourselves and consider whether we are a loving, caring human being, parent or neighbour. Do we have the capacity to reach out to a child in pain, a mother who cannot cope or does not know how to cope? Can we challenge ourselves or others who do not meet the basic requirements to support a baby that they or we bring into this world?
As a parent, I knew as soon as I set eyes on my children, I had a duty, no, a compulsion to love and protect them, guide them, feed them, and clothe them. Nothing extra-ordinary.
I do not know why this mother, this step-father or this father failed to do the same. Maybe in time we will know, but for now to blame diversity or faith or name changes or social services just misses the point. We each have a responsiblity to do the best we can for our families.
If there is blame then it falls on the shoulders of the three parents in the first instance.
Posted by sajidah chaudhary | June 1, 2008 12:33 PM
Posted on June 1, 2008 12:33
helen li:
It is not cultural diversity per se which is causing these problems. It is the degree to which and the rapidity with which it has been introduced over the past half-generation which is causing massive societal upheaval.
And, let's face it, it is also the characteristics of certain cultures which many people in the UK don't know how to deal with. If I see a woman walking down the street, completely covered from head to toe save her eyes, how can I interact with her if she so willingly shuts herself off from the world?
Posted by John F | May 29, 2008 1:02 PM
Posted on May 29, 2008 13:02
1.On 'low-level parenting becoming the norm for dysfunctional family': the central issue really is' at what point can the State justify intervention?'- is it when the parenting does not conform to a model as set up by the govt? driven by a middle class beliefs?
Of course the social services cannnot hide their incompetence; because whatever model we adopt, if the children are not fed at all, the parenting breaches basic human decency.
2. On 'Libby Purves- choice issue': cultural diversity will always be there. We tend to blame it for all ills in the society. We have used it to justify our indifferences. Surely there must be a set of core values which is broadly shared among us? such as caring for others?
Posted by helen li | May 27, 2008 12:38 PM
Posted on May 27, 2008 12:38