The Tribune

By IVOINE INGRAHAM

A PARTICULAR kind of cowardice is quietly eroding the moral foundation of our society. It’s not the cowardice of someone who runs from physical danger or trembles before an obvious threat. It’s the cowardice of those who see evil, recognise wrongdoing, know the truth, and yet refuse to speak because they fear losing a friendship, offending someone influential, damaging their social standing, or falling out of favour with those they consider important.

These are the people who know better but refuse to do better. They have eyes but pretend not to see, ears but pretend not to hear, and voices they conveniently silence when courage is required. They are prepared to sacrifice principle on the altar of popularity, loyalty, convenience, and self-preservation. And we must stop pretending that such silence is harmless.

At some point, remaining silent in the face of wrongdoing is no longer neutrality. It becomes complicity. It becomes the invisible hand that protects the wrongdoer, strengthens the corrupt, emboldens the predator, and abandons the innocent. We have become far too comfortable with the culture of looking the other way.

We witness theft, fraud, dishonesty, and the deliberate abuse of public and private resources. Yet, we convince ourselves that no real harm has been done because the victim is wealthy, the institution can absorb the loss, or the government has enough money to spare. What a dangerous and morally bankrupt justification!

Theft does not become acceptable because the victim can afford the loss. A crime does not become less criminal because the perpetrator is our friend. And wrongdoing does not become right because the person committing it is powerful, popular, wealthy, or politically connected. Yet that is precisely the moral confusion we have allowed to take root.

We see the law being broken, but instead of asking what is right, we ask who is involved. Is the offender a relative? A political ally? A church member? A business associate? Someone whose friendship might open doors? Someone whose displeasure could cost us an opportunity? Suddenly, our principles become negotiable.

The same people who loudly demand accountability when an opponent is accused of wrongdoing become remarkably quiet when the accused belongs to their own circle. They condemn dishonesty in strangers, but manufacture excuses for dishonesty among friends. They demand justice for some, while pleading for understanding, discretion, and forgiveness for others.

That’s not loyalty. It’s hypocrisy dressed in respectable clothing. And it’s eating away at the conscience of our communities.

Consider the exploitation of vulnerable children and young people. We have seen situations in which adults take advantage of impressionable girls and boys, exploiting their innocence, financial vulnerability, emotional needs, or lack of experience. Sometimes the warning signs are obvious. Sometimes neighbours, relatives, friends, and other adults have serious reasons to suspect that something is terribly wrong.

Yet the familiar excuses emerge.

"It’s not my business."

"I don't want to get involved."

"That family is well connected."

"I don't want to cause trouble."

"What if they stop speaking to me?"

Meanwhile, a child may be suffering. A young person's future may be slipping away. An abuser may be growing more confident because the surrounding community has decided that protecting relationships is more important than protecting the vulnerable.

What kind of society puts adults' comfort above children's safety? What kind of moral reasoning tells us that maintaining a friendship is more important than stopping exploitation?

We cannot keep calling ourselves caring, decent, God-fearing people while turning our backs on those who desperately need someone to speak for them.

And let us not overlook what happens in our neighbourhoods. We observe suspicious activities. We notice unusual movements. We hear threats. We become aware of possible criminal conduct. We may even possess information that could help prevent violence or assist investigators after a serious crime. But we remain silent.

Then tragedy strikes. Someone is murdered. A child disappears. A family is devastated. A neighbourhood is plunged into fear. Suddenly, the same community that refused to share information begins demanding answers.

Where were the police? Why was nothing done? How could this have happened?

The uncomfortable question is whether some of us knew enough to raise a concern but chose not to.

This is not to suggest that every suspicion proves criminality, or that citizens should make reckless accusations. Nor should we ignore the genuine fear of retaliation that keeps some witnesses silent. People must be able to report concerns confidentially and responsibly, without putting themselves or their families in unnecessary danger.

But legitimate fear must not become an excuse for a wider culture of deliberate indifference. There is a difference between being unable to speak safely and simply being unwilling to speak because the truth is inconvenient.

Some people know where evidence may be found. Others may possess information about serious crimes, including where victims' remains are located. Yet they keep that knowledge silent while grieving families wait desperately for answers. Imagine the agony of a mother who cannot bury her child because someone who knows something has decided that protecting a criminal relationship matters more than giving her family closure.

Imagine the torment of parents who suspect that their child's abuser is known to others, but those individuals value social acceptance more than justice. Imagine the suffering of innocent people whose lives could have been spared if credible information had reached the proper authorities in time.

How do we reconcile such indifference with our constant claims of being a compassionate society?

Our relationship with law enforcement reveals another disturbing contradiction. We’re quick to criticise the police, and where criticism is justified, we absolutely should. Officers must be professional, accountable, fair, and worthy of public trust. But policing cannot succeed through enforcement alone. Effective crime prevention and investigation also depend on cooperation from the communities the police are sworn to protect.

We cannot withhold useful information, protect offenders, obstruct investigations, and then expect law enforcement to perform miracles.

Yet when crime arrives at our own doorstep, our expectations change immediately. When someone steals our property, we demand urgent attention. When our children are threatened, we want immediate protection. When violence affects our families, we expect investigators to work tirelessly, find witnesses, identify suspects, and bring offenders before the courts. We want everyone to cooperate when we are the victims.

But where is that same commitment when someone else's family needs our help? Why must tragedy become personal before responsibility becomes important?

The truth is, the shoe can easily be on the other foot. The victim we ignore today could be our child tomorrow. The neighbour whose suffering we dismiss could one day be us. The criminal we protect because of friendship may eventually become the person who destroys something precious in our own lives.

Wrongdoing does not remain neatly confined to the people we consider expendable. Crime spreads. Corruption deepens. Predators become emboldened. Communities lose trust. And eventually, the consequences reach people who once believed they were safely removed from the danger.

This is why the familiar principle, "If you see something, say something," must become more than a slogan repeated after tragedy. It must become a civic responsibility.

But saying something requires judgment, not just courage. It means reporting credible concerns through appropriate channels, distinguishing facts from rumours, refusing to spread malicious allegations, and allowing lawful investigations to determine guilt or innocence.

It also means recognising that moral courage is not measured by how loudly we condemn strangers. It’s measured by our willingness to confront wrongdoing when the person responsible is someone we know, admire, love, support, or depend upon.

Anyone can denounce corruption committed by an enemy. The real test comes when the dishonest person is our friend.

Anyone can demand punishment for an unknown offender. The real test comes when the suspect is a relative, colleague, benefactor, political ally, or respected community figure.

Anyone can speak passionately about protecting children. The real test comes when protecting a child requires challenging someone powerful.

A principle that disappears when friendship is threatened is not principle at all. It’s convenience.

We must also reject the notion that loyalty requires blindness. A true friend does not encourage another friend to become dishonest, abusive, corrupt, or destructive. A true friend does not shield someone from accountability while letting that person's conduct harm others. Sometimes the most loyal thing we can do is tell someone the truth, insist that unacceptable behaviour stop, and refuse to become an accomplice through silence.

Finally, a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG), also known colloquially as a rocket launcher, a portable, reusable, unguided, shoulder-launched, anti-tank grenade launcher, was discovered in one of our neighbourhoods.

How serious is this? What does this mean? Is there more hidden? How did it get in undetected?

Friendship should never require surrendering conscience.