[Marvel: News and Television]
[The interview with Professor Charles Xavier airs on prime-time cable affiliates throughout Marvel. It's picked up on social media sites, transcribed on blogs, and cut for gifs and vines within the hour. By midnight, the buzz is everywhere.]
Charles had been talking to media people mostly by phone, Captain America had agreed to make a statement reminding people that the mutants were victims as much as anyone else was during the recent tragedy. He’d agreed to some interviews that were hostile, others that were accepting. He’d answered email questions and said no comment more than once just to try and get some rest himself.
But here he’d be on camera, sitting in his high tech wheelchair, with his tie and his newly cut hair and freshly shaved face. All blue eyes and baby fat really when the rest was stripped away. He wasn’t nervous, though he wasn’t excited. He knew the work he was doing was important, and some people would agree with him and others wouldn’t. But he had to keep trying.
And in this case trying meant sitting between two fake ferns on a fancy stage on a big name news network with bright lights shining in his eyes while he waited for the next barrage of questions that probably didn’t have any answers.
Interviewer: You mean for the American people to believe that these so-called mutants are victims? Aren't they, in fact loaded guns? We require permits for weapons in this country, Mr. Xavier. We wouldn't let any citizen carry a concealed weapon without a permit.
Charles: They’re victims of this illness just as others were. This was done to them, and the non-mutants reacted violently and out of control with the weapons they did have permits for. The comparison isn’t the same, these are people, ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances that they had no control over. People can choose to conceal a weapon, no one chose to become a mutant. And certainly no one chose to become ill.
Interviewer: I agree that it's very unfortunate, Mr. Xavier. No one is more sorry than I am for these poor men and women. But compassion is not safety. Don't you think they'd feel safer knowing they were making those around them safer? If the CDC had a list of these mutants, then they could've received first treatment. Someone was seeing throwing cars, Mr. Xavier. With all due respect, that's a threat to every citizen of this fine country.
Charles: [Smile before slight correction] Doctor. [Now to answer the questions.] Compassion absolutely is safety. Compassion is safety in numbers, not us against them but compassion for each other is where safety comes from, perhaps it’s a bit sentimental for a medical professional but I look at widespread compassion on the same level I view herd immunity. What you’re doing is assuming that mutants are more violent than the average person with no mutation on a day to day basis. You saw someone throwing cars and I saw people being gunned down in the street and petrol stations being lit on fire, with matches, not a mutation. Not all mutants, and not all non-mutants are violent and dangerous. But some are, but the fact that mutants reacted in what is a fundamentally identical way to the non-mutated population is not a reason to hold them more accountable than others. They’re victims.
Interviewer: [The eyebrow lifts.] My apologies. I thought we were speaking as peers, equals. [Smoothly.] No, Doctor, I am saying mutants are capable of more damage, unarmed, than the average person. If I became infected by this toxin, I couldn't throw cars around with my mind. I would need to find a match or a gun, as you stated in your examples. Unaided, I couldn't lift the wheel of a car, much less an entire car or twelve. I am, therefore, a much smaller risk. I speak only of facts. Simple facts, Doctor. [A sigh, very genuine, truly.] It isn't equality to have inequality. Who ensures these mutants remain in check? What prevents the ones who can read minds from doing so? What prevents a mutant from escaping from prison, if their ability permits it? How can we keep our citizens safe? That is what the public is asking, and what I ask you.
Charles: We are speaking as peers and equals, but I think it bears repeating that this is what I study, this is what my life’s work has been about. You want to be peers and equals but you would also sleep better at night if my name were on some government list giving you a false sense of security in the end. Do you know who goes on government lists? Terrorists, sex offenders, the FBI’s most wanted. Those are the kinds of lists we have. I could turn that round really, who ensures non-mutants remain in check? What prevents a man who was approved to buy a firearm from using it in a crowded coach station? You’re pre-emptively judging people who have no control over what has happened to them. And who have done nothing wrong. You’re immediately saying that they’re a threat just by the very nature of their existence, and that is enough to deny them liberties provided to you without question. And where would it end? Or where would it start for that matter? Who decides what kind of people with what kinds of mutations would be listed? There are mutations that don’t cause any harm at all, there are mutations that you may have that you don’t even know about. You’re dealing with people here. These mutants are our citizens. And their safety is just as important.
Interviewer: [Kindly, very kindly.] But you're hardly unbiased, Doctor. I would sleep better if mutants were required, like every gun owner, to register. There must be accountability, and there isn't any. I understand the difficulty, but you must admit that the incidents since the unfortunate "Oscorp Pulse" have been escalating. Without the aid of a chemical agent, we have seen murders by lightning, fire, claws, and shattering windows, to name a few. The amount of telepathic crime is on the rise. How can we manage a society where someone can compel others to do things with their minds, Doctor? You are concerned for the welfare of your people, which is understandable, but at the price of everyone else? [A very sad headshake.] Who protects the innocent child without powers from the bully with them? We must, all of us, be protected, or there will be chaos. Gun laws exist to protect everyone. Mutant laws must be created that do the same. If a mutant is law abiding, no harm will come to them, just as no harm will come to a gun owner that doesn't fire without reason.
Charles:Not every gun owner is required to register. Only certain kinds of weapons are required to be registered. Because the law doesn’t presume guilt right out of the gate. The law doesn’t assume every gun owner is going to commit a crime with the guns they purchase. By requiring mutants to be put on a list you’re telling people that they are inherently dangerous. For every strong mutant you cite in this discussion you’re discounting the thousands that can’t do more than hover half an inch off the ground. Those people would be put at much greater risk, I understand that people are concerned. But you can’t demoralize an entire subset of the population because you’re concerned. Just because a person may be powerful does not mean that they are going to do something bad. Bad acts come from bad choices and any person is capable of making those. Who protects the innocent mutant child from non-mutant bullies who have been taught to fear and hate them as something dangerous? We can’t pick and choose who we protect. We must all be protected. You’re asserting that all mutants are going to break the law at some point.
Interviewer: I'm merely stating what others have been stating for weeks; we currently have no way to judiciate against a segment of the population that cannot be held to the same standards as their peers. In the same vein, can we have telepath jurors? No, we can't. This situation calls for a change in the way we do everything. It takes a system that has taken years to get to some semblance of function - and I'll be the first to admit that it has flaws - and makes it entirely untenable. Are you implying that mutants with lesser powers are akin to low-impact weapons? If so, fine, but how do they prove that without some kind of examination process? Are we taking their word for it? Would we take the word of a non-mutant who wanted to buy a semi-automatic? No, we wouldn't. Fairness, Doctor, applies across the board. Your agenda here is clear. Your concern is noted. I appreciate the situation the mutant Americans are in. I don't want that to overshadow the fact that non-mutant Americans are now at greater risk.
Charles: Of course we can, once again you’re assuming that someone with these powers would automatically abuse them. That a telepath on a jury would automatically behave without honor. Is that what you would do? And no, I’m not calling them weapons at all. I am just saying that there is no blanket gun registration because this is not a country that automatically assumes its citizens are criminals by their very nature. Non-mutant Americans are not at a greater risk, you say you appreciate the situation but that is only because you are not in it. We can’t be a culture that continuously marginalizes entire subsets of its own population. Everyone has basic civil liberties and to take those away because of the small potential that they might commit a crime sometime in their lives shows a shocking amount of distrust for a country that prides itself on individual freedoms. Everyone has the right to exist free from persecution.
Interviewer: You're asking the American people to trust without checks or balances, without means of protection, without guarantee of non-abuse. You're asking too much, Doctor. In order to keep those with mutations secret, you're asking the rest of the country to accept a blindly uneven playing field. You say to me that I automatically believe mutants to be without honor. I say you automatically believe them to all be honorable. I wish we lived in a world where I could trust that, but we don't. Unfortunately, we don't. Like in all other groups in our fine country, there will good and there will be bad, and we make the laws to protect one from the other; this situation must be no different. But I thank you for coming to speak to me. You've made your point most clear. For someone who projects a policy of unity, you're refusing to even consider the other side of the argument. Your bias defines you, and I am sorry for it.
Charles: The government asks that of the American people every day, people ask that every day of each other. It’s nothing new. There is no guarantee of non-abuse in any aspect of life. How do I know that when I leave here I won’t be shot by some anti-mutant militant? I wouldn’t judge the entire non-mutant population on that. You’re talking about punishment and condemnation before any crime has taken place, and no, I won’t consider that. If that makes me biased in your view, then we can agree to disagree.
Interviewer: I'm not talking about punishment. I'm talking about accountability, Doctor.
The thank yous were brief, the smile was perfected and fake. The cameras stopped rolling, and the hand that was extended was still and without tremor. This was bigger than both of them, and there was no point in pretending otherwise.