THE Mel Gibson film The Passion of The Christ has stimulated the debate about violence in society. The scene in which Christ is tortured by the Roman soldiers takes cinema gore to a new level and the nailing to the cross leaves nothing to the imagination.

There are those who link violence on film or TV with any increase in real life violent crime. I don't suppose they are suggesting people will now go round using a scourge on their enemies but the argument goes that as violence becomes an acceptable form of entertainment, so it becomes a part of everyday life.

But when people suggest society is now more violent than before, I do wonder what they are comparing it with. The Passion of the Christ illustrates how cheap life was 2,000 years ago. It reminds us that throughout history empires have been won and lost through violence.

When tourists gaze in wonder at the pyramids I wonder if they spare a thought for the countless slaves who died building these monuments. Rome is a stunning city seeping with architectural and artistic treasures. But this splendour is built on a savage and bloodthirsty past.

In many wealthy countries today, including Britain, there are major companies doing very well thanks to the sound financial footing the slave trade provided them with. So if we view Britain today as civilised, we should not ignore the fact that violence played a crucial role in this journey. Hopefully it is a journey we have learnt from.

Of course violence and genocide still exist in the world. The harrowing news bulletins, which bring the shocking images of Rwanda into our living rooms, are more horrifying than anything Hollywood has so far dreamt up. That's probably because we know it is real and it is happening today and also because it reminds us that man is still capable of such brutality.

So what do we in supposed civilised countries do about such horror? To be frank the rebukes of the outside world and threats of isolation have little impact on tyrannical leaders only interested in their own back yard. And UN sanctions seem to have no affect on those responsible for the situation - I've yet to see a starving dictator.

We can help to mop up the blood, patch up the bodies and bury the dead but when countries implode can we actually do anything to bring the genocide to a halt?

The answer is yes. If the will is there we can establish a force prepared to police the world. I see this as quite separate from taking pre-emptive action against the likes of Saddam Hussein amid fears that he poses a threat to Britain. I am talking about a force stepping in to prevent the slaughter of innocent civilians by tyrants, irrespective of whether they pose a threat to the rest of the world.

Of course it is a massive task to decide on the make-up and leadership of such a global police force and invariably members of such a force risk losing their lives.

But the alternative is for us to continue to watch the horror on TV, express sympathy but do nothing except wait for the whole cycle to repeat itself. Which of these options is the civilised way forward?

Published: ??/??/2004