Anything for a quiet life means some Austrians have a "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" attitude - and so evil triumphs , writes Anneliese Rohrer
'WELCOME TO Austria!' It was a weird opening statement in English by the chief criminal inspector of police, made for the benefit of the massive international media at a press briefing on Monday. He was not the only one reacting strangely.
An employee of the Hotel Gürtler where the briefing was held had her photo taken. "You don't get something like this in this town every day," she said.
Indeed! The gruesome details of a 73-year-old father/grandfather Josef Fritzl who held his daughter in captivity for 24 years are not the sort of things announced every day.
Austria in shock could do without all the international attention.
Politicians, police and the people will have to deal with the fourth case within the last 12 years of abduction, captivity and abuse. The international media is quick to blame Austrian society, asking questions like: "What is it about Austrian society that makes this possible?"
And it is quick to provide answers. Sigmund Freud's theories about repressed sexuality are cited, as is the authoritarian fabric of the Hapsburg society, as is the lack of courage in a lame civil society.
These are sweeping statements. The truth of the matter is that there is nothing Austria specific about serial criminals, incest or abuse, as cases in Germany, Hungary, the US or even South Africa have shown.
But there is something distinctive about the Austrian way of dealing with deception, suspicion and finally consequences.
It might be fair to say that Austrians are very reluctant to interfere in somebody else's affairs, out of fear of possible consequences such as libel suits. Or maybe it is just that we don't like to confront unwanted problems.
There certainly is a tendency not to look too closely, not to want to know too much, not to have to take action. In case of accusations without merit, there might be trouble and denunciations.
In such a mindset, people choose not to notice rather than take action, inform authorities, voice suspicion; in such a mindset, people might let themselves be deceived more easily because the deception allows them to remain inactive.
Thus in nine out of 10 cases where intervention might be called for, none is made. The reason is not repression, as the fans of Freud might say, but rather fear of taking responsibility for one's actions.
History might also play some part in this. This country - as part of Nazi Germany - has seen the days of the blockwart, a term that describes people responsible for certain areas who denounced their neighbours for their own profit under the dictatorship.
Not to hear, not to see, not to tell was a method of survival for the majority of Austrians during those dark years. Over generations such behaviour can become habitual.
The second burning question that politicians, police and ordinary people will have to face is the lack of dynamic actions by the authorities that have to deal with any information they might get. In the case of Amstetten, for instance, 21 visits by a social worker to the family of the 73-year-old man have been documented.
If that is so, why then was his deception not detected?
The same issue surfaced with the police in the case of Natascha Kampusch, the girl who had been abducted at 10, held in captivity for eight years and freed herself in 2006.
The answer is simple if not endearing for Austrian society: there is a tendency to accept explanations at face value in order to be able to close a case; to stop asking the right questions; to investigate robustly, to stay with a case. In order to avoid further action, the police or social workers and anybody else seem to jump at every opportunity to close an inquiry.
In the case of Amstetten, for instance, social workers might have been satisfied that the three grandchildren were in good care of their grandparents. The fact that three babies landed on the doorstep in a rather short period of time should have prompted them to investigate further. Apparently that did not happen.
In the case of Natascha Kampusch valid information, which could have rescued the girl after a short time, was obviously neglected or not taken seriously enough.
In both cases members of the authorities involved were clearly unable or unwilling to join the dots or put two and two together.
The woman who was held in captivity for 24 years and bore her father seven children had escaped his abuses twice from the age of 11 to 18 when he locked her away. Latest information says that the police were involved then. When her father finally reported her missing as a member of some sect (as he claimed), the right action would have been to insist on finding her or to persist in questioning the father about his claim.
As far as it is known this was not done.
If there is anything exclusively Austrian about this it might be an odd reluctance to inquire fully, and deal with the consequences.
It is a streak that runs through the entire political and social fabric of Austria. As Sigmund Freud might say: the country is very talented in diagnosis but totally inept in therapy.
Anneliese Rohrer is columnist for the Kurier newspaper in Vienna