[ad_1]
In a free society, equality before the law is imperative. Colour-blind policing is an essential component of that. Yet for decades that has been distorted by identity politics. Instead of treating people as individuals – and arresting those engaged in crime without fear or favour – that has been distorted by considering us according to different categories with a hierarchy of victimhood. The police have been sent off for diversity training to check for “unconscious bias”, to swat up on “Critical Race Theory” and all sorts of other pernicious nonsense. Given the harm all this can lead to, it is extraordinary that some Conservatives still mutter about “not wanting to get drawn into irrelevant culture wars.”
Previously there was a different problem of policing – widespread corruption and racism. I was at school in 1981 when the Brixton Riots took place and I remember discussing it with some of my black classmates who recounted resentment at being unfairly picked on by the police. Now we have “positive discrimination” which is probably even more damaging for black teenage boys. Gangs are formed. Stop and search is avoided. The police find it easier to pass by on the other side.
The memoirs of Brian Paddick indicate the rot set in a long time ago. When Ian Blair was Deputy Commissioner at the Met, 20 years ago, Paddick asked for an investigation over a malicious campaign against him. The proper procedure was not followed. Blair responded:
“The trouble is Brian, when we’ve got a senior ethnic minority officer and a senior gay officer involved we don’t know what to do.”
Paddick writes:
“The correct response, of course, is that it should not matter what colour somebody is or what their sexuality is; if you are having trouble with the concept, you should look at the case as if both parties are straight, white male officers and make a decision on that basis.”
I wonder if there was ever a time when chief constables grasped that discrimination of any kind was wrong and instructed their officers to proceed on that basis. Perhaps around 1990.
Social cohesion requires that we don’t “take the law into our hands.” That we don’t form vigilante patrols imposing summary justice. That one tribe does not form a mob to defend itself from a mob from another tribe. The contract is that the police will uphold the rule of law – so we leave them to do so. It gets a bit tricky if the police fail to do so. Lynch law, or no law. Thus during the London riots in 2011, we had Sikhs in Southall taking to the streets with swords to defend their homes and businesses.
The recent outbreak of rioting has seen claims that the police have failed to prevent crime by asylum seekers. We have also seen Muslims gathering to ‘defend mosques’ as they lack confidence that the police will do so – though in some cases it has escalated to attacking media crews and others.
An empatic rejection of “two tier policing” is needed – from the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary as well as from the police themselves. Sir Keir Starmer “took the knee” for Black Lives Matter on June 9th 2020, two days after the protests turned violent. That was a blunder which he does not seem to have learnt from.
We also need a rapid and more robust police response to rioting regardless of who the culprits are. Greater practical assistance should be given to the police where possible. For instance, it was a great mistake of Theresa May to block the purchase of water cannon. More Special Constables should be recruited to the flexibility of extra manpower to be on call in an emergency.
It should be much easier to sack police officers who aren’t up to the job. Last year, over a thousand Metropolitan Police officers were suspended or on restricted duties but on full pay. On the other hand, we have good, brave police officers ground down by cumbersome, vexatious complaints to the Independent Office for Police Conduct.
Not that preventing the recent riots was ever going to be easy. Should the anti immigration protests have been banned? How could that be justified when other protests are allowed? Should they be allowed outside hotels housing asylum seekers, or is that inherently intimidatory even if no violence takes place? How can the police manage the process when some of these demos are damp squib and others have a huge turnout?
But despite the challenges modern policing does also have advantages – not least with new technology helping to identify the culprits and ensure they are brought to justice.
So we must be tough on the riots. But, to adapt a New Labour mantra, we must also be tough on the causes of the riots. Some of those involved will have been simply “up for a ruck” – fuelled by drink and drugs, another weekend football hooliganism might be their favoured recreational pursuit. Some will be opportunist looters. But there is also a political aspect. Extremists will feed off each other – just as the National Front and the Socialist Workers Party did with their high profile clashes in the 1970s.
Resorting to rioting is a rejection of the democratic process. Yet there are many angry people who feel that democracy is not working. They don’t want people entering the country illegally and then put up in hotels. But voting in a General Election does not appear to resolve the matter. Most of them are not racist or violent but they feel betrayed by mainstream politicians. That results in resentment which those wishing to promote hatred and division can exploit.
Of course, we should keep a sense of perspective. The United Kingdom is the least racist country on the planet. Contrary to Enoch Powell’s fears about “rivers of blood” the dominant narrative has been one of tolerance, integration and staunch British patriotism from those of different ethnic backgrounds. Even during these awful riots, we have also seen acts of resilience and kindness. As Michael Gove put it, after the 2011 riots, for those who “picked up a brick in anger or greed on the night of violence” there were “many more who picked up a broom in optimism and hope the next morning.”
We must defeat the rioters. Most obviously by locking them up. But also in ensuring that we live in a country that works and is seen to work. Where the rule of law is maintained. Where the borders are secure. Where free speech is upheld rather than those with grievances “cancelled.” Where schools don’t teach our children to hate our country – that “black history” is different to “white history”. Where politicians keep their promises and thus we have a functioning democracy. Under those conditions George Galloway and Tommy Robinson will still be free to speak. But they will find fewer will listen.
[ad_2]
Source link
