Hate the sin, not the sinner (but hate the sin)

Empathy and right judgment should not be enemies

Golriz Ghahraman has announced her resignation in the wake of multiple shoplifting allegations (all of which are still unproven). As is common with politicians, the now former MP used the rhetorical strategy of “paralipsis” to feign taking full responsibility. This where a speaker or writer introduces a topic by claiming to omit it.

Donald Trump is the master of this. In his speeches and press conferences, constantly claims not to be saying the things he clearly says. For example, in 2016 he declared that he "refuse[d] to call Megyn Kelly a bimbo, because that would not be politically correct", clearly labelling Kelly a 'bimbo' while pretending to take the high ground.

Not everyone in politics is as obvious about it as Trump is. It is no less pervasive when it is more subtle, however.

In her resignation statement, Ghahraman expressly claimed that she was not excusing her actions (still unspecified). She then said she did not want to shelter behind her mental health struggles. This expressed desire is undercut by the pervasive explanation of what happened through the lens of that exact supposed non-excuse.

Whatever protestations to the contrary, the statement clearly characterises mental health as the catalyst for her actions. She writes, "It is clear to me that my mental health is being badly affected by the stresses relating to my work. This has led me to act in ways that are completely out of character." Note the passive formulation.

This is not the taking of responsibility. It is the subtle shifting of agency to an outside cause, which functions at least partly as a plea for partial absolution. How else are we to interpret phrases like “led me to act” and “stress response” other than as the presentation of her actions as a consequence of her mental state, rather than deliberate wrongdoing.

Mental health issues are a serious and pervasive concern. However, it is crucial to remember that, except in the most extreme circumstances, they do not rob us of our free will or agency. They do not turn us into passive creatures incapable of discerning right from wrong.

I do not wish to be too harsh here, especially given this is undoubtedly the worst day of her professional life.

Ghahraman is hardly the first politician to do this. Politicians now routinely claim not to make excuses, while simultaneously offering exculpatory explanations rooted in mental health. And that’s almost certainly a reflection of a broader human need to seek understanding and empathy as we confront our mistakes.

Just as none of us are without error in our own conduct, none of us are without sin in terms of rationalising the bad decisions we have made. I know I am not.

To her credit, Ghahraman also does not fully skirt responsibility. If nothing else, her immediate resignation demonstrates a level of accountability that is more important than any words could be. The price she will pay for the mistakes she has made will be severe.

Ghahraman’s time in public life is now at an end. As a politician, she inspired both irrational devotion and irrational hatred in equal measure. Her tenure in office elicited strong emotions from admirers and detractors alike.

All that is open for Ghahraman to do is to make the best of her given circumstances. That will require courage, resilience and humility. We ought to allow her to find those things in peace. She is no less deserving of respect and dignity in her life as a private citizen as anybody else.

In the meantime, however, those who have power to shape the narrative must be cautious not to validate the negation of free will. Personal empathy and responsible condemnation of antisocial behaviour should not be twisted into an excuse for such conduct. We should gently but firmly push back against the emerging norm of using mental health as an explanation for bad behaviour.

Our moral imagination is something to be cultivated, not coddled. It is not cruel but kind to demand of our fellow citizens the exercise of their own moral judgement. Even in times of great stress.