Warning: this article contains descriptions of violence and murder.
“The young man concerned was, in everybody’s estimation, an absolute delight.”
John Collier is, in everybody’s estimation, as fine a judge of young men’s characters as one could find. After all, he has for many years been entrusted with their formation, as principal of St Andrew’s Cathedral School and currently Shore School. And he knew this particular young man, Paul Thijssen, as a St Andrew’s student.
“He was not a monster; rather, in the last five hours of his life, he committed a monstrous act which was in complete contradiction to what everyone who knew him observed in the rest of his short life.”
When the predictably outraged reaction to Collier’s letter to Shore parents broke, Collier explained — through a school spokesperson — that he had only been “struggling to make sense of the seemingly senseless”. Thinking aloud, as it were.
I read Collier’s lengthy epistle in full, to better understand his insensitivity. It is titled “Looking into the face of savagery”, and its theme is that Collier’s mystification regarding Thijssen — “I knew him years ago as a fine student, a prefect, a role model” — reflects society’s incomprehension of the nature of evil.
Jesus taught, Collier says, that “the principle of evil is ubiquitous across all humanity”. The “Enlightenment Project”, in its assumption that we will improve with more education and less poverty, is a mirage; “Jesus’ analysis is much more compelling for it is sadly consistent.” Basically, we all have it within us to commit unspeakable acts, and the question isn’t why did Thijssen do it, but “why does this kind of event not occur more often”?
“What led to his mental disintegration?”, Collier asks, and he has the answer: “We will never know.” While he concludes with the importance of continuing the excellent work of Shore’s “Building Good Men” program, the context within which that sits is a mystery that we will just have to simply abide.
The secular consequence of this worldview is straightforward: we did not see Thijssen coming, because we never see them coming, because we can’t. Its corollary is equally simple: we needn’t bother looking for them, since we’ll fail anyway. It’s an interestingly defeatist attitude for an institution whose sole stated purpose for existing is to raise “good men”, albeit rationalised by the perspective that “to see the face of savagery within, we only need to hold up a mirror”. We are all, apparently, potentially men who might murder a woman.
What I find interesting is the degree of incuriosity required for a person in Collier’s position to sadly shake his head and dismiss this as one of those mysteries of life, not ours to wonder why. Bear in mind what Thijssen actually did: he acquired a murder weapon, went to where his victim Lilie James was, followed her into a bathroom, attacked her with a hammer with such violence that she couldn’t immediately be identified, then walked to his car and drove away. His subsequent suicide only underlined the moral depravity and cowardice of his choices.
For choices they were, consciously considered and made. It’s true that he wasn’t a monster, because monsters don’t exist. Nevertheless, what he chose to do, and then carried out, would at any time in human history have been considered exceptional and intolerable.
However, Thijssen decided that this method of resolving his unhappiness with his situation was a tolerable one. Somewhere along the way of his life, he learnt that it was not only possible but acceptable, not in the sense of being socially acceptable but as a viable choice.
The question we surely should be asking is where?
Collier flags two possibilities for explaining Thijssen’s acts — “a psychotic episode which was deeply out of character”, or “pornography” — but leaves it at that, since we’ll never know either way why he really ended up going with “the extreme mode of ending a relationship”.
Ah. Let’s just back up there; Thijssen, by his former teacher’s account, ended the relationship with James (by murdering her). The slip was no doubt unintentional, but very telling.
The truth is that the only thing Thijssen ended was James’ life. His belief in his entitlement (to her) came from somewhere. An obvious dotted line might be drawn within the boundaries of his education, back to a deeply rooted set of values regarding what a “good man” consists of, and that man’s relationship to the opposite sex. It’s not controversial, after all, to note the sexism inherent in Christian teaching, in particular its notion of women as possessions of men.
It’s unlikely to be that simple; we will indeed never know exactly where Thijssen learnt his corrupted understanding of the limits of humanity, and he was like all young people exposed to myriad overlapping influences.
The fact remains, however, that there is no warrant to be sourced from human history for us to accept that the horrific murder he committed is a risk that should be copped by women and girls as their lot, an occupational hazard of sharing their world with boys and men. That’s a lie, told by men to comfort themselves and each other.
Collier’s offence was not just insensitivity; it was that his supposed homily was in truth an apologia.
If you or someone you know is affected by sexual assault or violence, call 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732 or visit 1800RESPECT.org.au. In an emergency, call 000. For counselling, advice and support for men in NSW, Victoria and Tasmania who have anger, relationship or parenting issues, call the Men’s Referral Service on 1300 766 491.
Seems to me every time some man kills his ex ( and far too often her children as well ) someone always comes forward to say “But he was a good bloke really.”
Sick and tired of hearing and reading it, myself.
Me too. I cannot count the number of times I’ve seen it play out. Violent man does something horrific to a woman, everyone falls over themselves saying “oh but he seemed like such a nice fellow”. It’s bad enough that women have to spend our lives constantly on edge and constantly vetting every single man we interact with. Somehow it just adds insult to injury having to listen to apologias for violent men every time something like this happens. I honestly don’t care what kind of person he was. What matters is what he did, and what he did was monstrous.
To be specific: some bloke always comes forward to say…
It’s almost always some privileged male whose judgement is based around “Well, he always showed me the respect that is my due”.
You are forgetting those women, typically close family such as mothers, who defend their darling boy to their last breath while execrating anybody who says a contrary word, no matter what. When sufficiently wealthy and well connected these women often play a critical role in demanding and getting the most lenient outcome after their beloved boy has committed appalling crimes.
Ah…so it’s the mothers’ fault? We can sometimes hear this from mothers…as usually there is no father around to speak for the actions of their sons…but please……….
Obviously in a comment specifically about women who do not condemn such gendered violence, there would be no point in mentioning the role of men or fathers in particular, because in the context given by all the preceding discussion that can be taken as a given. Neither did I say or imply that it is the mother’s fault. The point is, like it or not, some women do behave that way. Really.
No one mentioned “fault”. But mothers who are a part of the system, are programmed to defend it.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/proudshoremums-stand-up-for-their-sons-after-muck-up-day-controversy-20200926-p55zi2.html
What is the madBot’s problem with mentioning their mother’s denfence of the Skaf gang after they were convicted?
Two previous attempts were blocked.
Both AWAITENEDING comments have been disappeared – this place is growing worse & worse with censoriousness and refusal to face facts.
It seems that the name S-k-a-f is the problem. Can’t imagine why.
Absolutely. There is too much finding reasons to excuse a man for his violence while finding excuses to lay blame at the woman who became their victim.
Understand and it’s a symptom of the times i.e. anti-woke, men’s rights, anti-Teal etc. misogyny promoted by white male (& female) conservative Christians, LNP, RW MSM, alt right etc. and their influence in public discourse where sympathy is given to men by excusing their behaviour, while disappearing or ignoring actual victims if female, minority or centre left?
More evidence of how too many support the Overton window moving to the right, and Christianity, for a minority of males, to denigrate everyone and everything else, to supposedly protect their interests…..
When John Collier insists without any qualification that Paul Thijssen “… was, in everybody’s estimation, an absolute delight… [but] in the last five hours of his life, he committed a monstrous act which was in complete contradiction to what everyone who knew him observed in the rest of his short life,” the clear implication of Collier’s words is that an exemplary young man was driven to extremity by the woman he killed. Collier, and all who think like that, are the problem, and it cannot be a surprise that Collier’s educational institution turns out young men like Thijssen.
I think it is safe to assume that “everybody” in the above quote does not include Lillie as she broke off the relationship, without doubt because of some of the aggressive, controlling behaviours that are always shown prior to intimate partner violence (shown to the partner and hidden from others including his ex-principal). Instead of Collier deciding that his perception of who is an absolute delight must be faulty and seek to find answers from experts in this kind of violence to at least try to prevent a repeat, he shrugs his shoulders and says what can you do? Anyway, I wonder what is actually taught to the Shore “Good Men” program?
Perhaps a start might be considering whether the school creates an excessive sense of entitlement in giving accolades and a fancy blazer to perceived alpha males.
Going further, perhaps it (a) gives alpha males status (as opposed being to a warning label for others, which would be a more correct interpretation of the blazer) (b) accepts/implies that possessing women is a key to that status.
I know, right? Sure, there’s such a thing as monsters. Every one of us, to the extent that we’re privileged above hunter-gatherer status. We’re the One True Vermin. I’m a monster because I drive my car instead of riding my bike, and so on… Private schools obviously turn out the very worst of our breed.
Congratulations Michael. An efficient and eloquent insight into the real reason men kill women.
The superior, entitled attitudes of men towards women have evolved since the beginning of mankind, with organized religions, including Collier’s Anglican version – previously known as the Church of England when Henry the VIII had women killed because he couldn’t divorce them – cultivating and nurturing the attitudes under the guise of religious freedom, traditions and rituals in order to retain power and control. That is not Christianity. Christ, if he existed, was a good man who saw men and women as equal.
To link the killing with mental illness is abominable by any standard, let alone by a person who is well educated, well-resourced in every way and extremely influential amongst a cohort of malleable young men and their fathers. While I don’t have the stats in front of me, the very high rate of mental illness in Australia is well reported. Yet, I can only recall one reported incident in the last six months where a psychotic person killed another person (who was unknown to him). However, I can tell you the names of the five women murdered by men – known the them – over a ten day period in the last three weeks. And they are only the ones reported in the media. The catalyst for men killing women known to them is not a psychotic event; it’s rage that takes over when they don’t get what they want, when they can’t control the woman. Rage kills women.
People in Collier’s position have the power to influence the change in attitudes required to reduce and cease the onslaught of violence against women, and children, and the pervasive gender inequality in Australia. His comments have on the contrary, fuelled the attitudes, set us back once again, and he had not been held to account sending a clear message that it’s acceptable to perpetrate violence against women.
Psychosis or pornography. Perhaps the temptations of Eve. (Collier forgot to mention drugs, a staple fall-back excuse for when privileged young men act well beyond the bounds of social tolerance). Anything but the notion that Thijssen was at least in part the product of his education, his religion, and his society.
An expensive private boys school is exactly where you would expect this behaviour to come from because it is where boys learn mysogeny and entitlement. Their privelege protects them from consequences in the normal course of events but this is beyond that. There would have been plenty of clues along the way for people alert to them.
St Andrews has been co-ed since the 90s
There is plenty of misogyny in all boys schools in underprivileged areas. I speak from direct observation.