I’ve been criticised before for speaking “too soon” or “speaking ill of the dead” after the death of someone whose life, or demise, catches public attention. But it seems to me that that’s the time when such things get discussed and that opinions are formed based on discussion of such news items just as they are by any other news item. And that is the case with the news that a woman who regularly got into
the pool at a zoo was killed
yesterday by a killer whale. Particularly, as that link from the Times shows, when there is discussion of putting down the animal down, we ought not to let "respect for the dead" cloud our judgment or hinder our ability to contemplate issues rationally.
My position can be stated simply. If it comes down to it, I'm on the whale's side.
I of course feel sympathy, on a personal level, for the family of this poor woman. But it seems to me that large wild animals kept in captivity pose a certain element of danger to the people who visit them, particularly to those who keep them and get into their enclosures, and that that is or should be obvious to anyone, and that this woman, a grown adult who knew her own mind and her own business, knowingly accepted that risk in pursuing the course she took.
This logic is particularly the case, you might think, with this creature.Isn’t the clue in the name? They’re not called cuddle whales, are they?
