2014-12-18
Maria Rodriguez
In the early hours of December 16th, news outlets around Australia began to report that the gunman who held siege in Martin Place had been 'known to police'. As further details were released, a picture of the gunman began to emerge: a troubled man from a conflict-ridden community; a perpetrator of violence against women; a man with a history of paranoia and delusions. Images showed the man walking the Sydney streets on his own, holding emotive political placards, wearing chains. Man Haron Monis was known by police, but was he 'known' by local mental healthcare providers? If not, why not?
In the days that have followed, I have grown increasingly concerned that so many important questions surrounding the gunman's interaction with mental health services remain not only unanswered, but largely unasked. As a researcher for a consultancy that often works in the mental health sector, it strikes me that the stigma surrounding mental illness has coloured the dialogue far more than the research and practice of mental health. Journalists, commentators, and politicians repeatedly use terms such as 'mentally unstable', 'disturbed', and (to quote the Prime Minister) 'consistently weird' in describing Monis, but fail to follow up with important questions raised by these descriptions: was Monis ever diagnosed with a particular mental illness? Did he have access to mental health services? If so, was he undergoing any treatment? If not, what were the barriers preventing him from receiving the treatment he needed? More broadly, and perhaps most importantly — could mental health providers play a role in preventing attacks like the one in Martin Place?
We don't like to think of the perpetrator as a person who might be suffering and in desperate need of support, because it feels like a betrayal to the people who were shattered by his violence. It is incredibly uncomfortable to think about how we might have helped the person who held innocent people at gunpoint and murdered two highly valued members of the community. Surely, though, the true betrayal would be to walk away from this tragedy without asking the important questions, simply because they are difficult for us to stomach.
At the legislative level, politicians don't like to talk about mental health when it comes to violent offenders because they are afraid that it will make them look 'soft' on matters of security. It takes courage to stand up in Parliament and say 'Let's look at how we can help people who may be prone to violence. Let's look at how we can reach them before they commit violent acts; before they even think about committing violent acts'.
The siege in Sydney, however, represents a new challenge that will most likely require us to do just that. At this point in time, it appears that the attack was carried out by a single individual heeding a blanket call by a terrorist organisation. In these cases of 'lone wolf' terrorism, there is no intelligence for authorities to pick up on. It is much harder to predict when, where, and how such an attack will take place. We do not know how to defend our society from this type of attack: our current approach to national security appears to be inadequate to protect us from this type of attack.
Tony Abbott himself has pointed out the limitations of traditional security strategies when it comes to lone wolf incidents, remarking that: “even if [Man Haron Monis] had been monitored 24 hours a day, it's quite likely, certainly possible, that this incident could have taken place". Yet, the inquiry being launched in response to the Martin Place attack is still set to focus on policing and security agencies, with investigations into legal concerns ranging from gun control to immigration law to bail regulations. While the inquiry will undoubtedly raise a number of important questions that we should consider in the wake of this tragedy, the topic of mental health appears to have been completely sidelined. As long as mental health remains missing from the dialogue, there will continue to be a gaping hole in the nation's strategy for preventing 'lone wolf' terrorism.
Let's be clear: the vast majority of people suffering from mental illness pose absolutely no threat to the public. Conversely, though, it would appear that most people willing to walk into a café, hold hostages at gunpoint, and demand a conversation with the Prime Minister are likely plagued by some form of mental ill-health. Recent studies on the lone wolf phenomenon support this claim — a literature review produced last year by the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism presents strong evidence that lone wolf attackers are significantly more likely to suffer from mental illness and social isolation than perpetrators of more traditional forms of group terrorism.[1] One researcher found that out of five case studies, four lone wolves' had been diagnosed with a mental or personality disorder at some point in their lives.[2]
This research suggests that serious efforts at counter-terrorism will require significant input from the mental health sector. When we consider reports that lone wolf attacks are likely on the rise, it becomes increasingly clear that the gaps in Australia's provision of mental healthcare pose problems not only for individual and community welfare, but also for national security.
Filling these gaps will undoubtedly require significant investment in the mental health sector, but the benefits will reach far beyond the occasional 'lone wolf'. There is growing international recognition of the high level of return on investment in the sector, with the UN and WHO both linking mental health indicators to socio-economic outcomes.[3] Examples of investments worth considering in terms of national security may include:
- Better mental health screening, referral, and support within the criminal justice system;
- Community mental health programs to assist vulnerable individuals in building healthy social support systems;
- Culturally informed social and mental health services to help new migrants deal with the stress of adjusting to life in a new country;
- Further research into the links between psychopathology, domestic violence, and public violence.
Determining which mental health services are strategic priorities in terms of counter-terrorism will require in-depth discussion both within the mental health sector and cooperation across governmental departments.
A mental health perspective could offer current counter-terrorism strategies a whole new dimension: more than just trying to detect and intercept the elusive lone wolf, a mental health approach would aim to identify people suffering from psychological distress and social isolation in order to prevent them from turning to violence. It will take political will, however, to bring a mental health perspective into discussions surrounding national security. So far, the official inquiry into the Martin Place incident has yet to invite the mental health sector to the table.
Maria Rodriguez is a Research Associate at Community Works, a consulting firm that takes a mental health approach to community development, and acts as the Australian affiliate for BasicNeeds, an NGO that focuses on mental health advocacy in low- and middle-income countries.
[1] Teich, Sarah, “Trends and Developments in Lone Wolf Terrorism in the Western World: An Analysis of Terrorist Attacks and Attempted Attacks by Islamic Extremists,” International Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT), October 2013.
[2] Spaaij Ramon, “The Enigma of Lone Wolf Terrorism: An Assessment,” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 33, no. 9 (2010): 854-870.
[3] Bradshaw, Catherine et al, 'Mental Health Matters' (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2014); 'Comprehensive Mental Health Action Plan 2013–2020' (World Health Organisation, 2013).