Gesture policing and prosecutions (and political correctness)

(Long post alert!)

Not much comment around on the (now expelled) St Andrews University student who was convicted - and sentenced yesterday - of a racially aggravated breach of the peace in a hall of residence, despite the fact that such a case might have been considered meat and drink for the Scottish commentariat.

On the other hand, it's all a bit awkward in some ways, because the offence involved the student putting his hand doon his breeks and then wiping it on another student's Israeli flag and calling him a 'terrorist'. All of which resulted in the aggrieved individual feeling "utterly violated", anxious and fearing for his safety, consequently describing his term at the institution a "flop".

Thus while racism is one thing, the nation of Israel isn't perhaps a favourite of Scotland's so-called havering classes, hence the lack of opinion on the matter.

And the words 'state' and 'nation' should perhaps be read with care in relation to Israel, because prima facie denigrating a state can't amount to racism (or we'd all be racists!) but it seems that arguments about the Jewish race/religion or whatever being represented in terms of the Israeli state and flag - replete with the Star of David, of course - were axiomatic in relation to the prosecution.

This perhaps explains why a student who had never even been to Israel could reasonably be considered to feel sufficiently offended by the incident for the authorities to proceed with the case, because the whole thing seems little more than what might be expected to happen on occasion in a student hall of residence after a drunken night out.

Nevertheless, the evidence presented suggests that the Jewish student victim wasn't just crying wolf. On the other hand, this kind of thing does bring to mind Dundee's infamous puppy on a postcard incident, when one of my local councillors forced Tayside Police to apologise for distributing a promotional postcard featuring a black puppy, the sight of this "ritually unclean" beast apparently causing offence to those adhering to the precepts of the religion of Islam, at least according to the city's first Muslim councillor. But when the Dundee press sought evidence to substantiate the claim little was forthcoming.

But that Tayside Police felt the need to apologise at all perhaps provides an indication of their priorities. Not to mention the kind of matters preoccupying the good councillor, which are certainly at odds with those of this long-standing resident of the 'community'. Ironic, also, that police elsewhere in Scotland effectively ignored a significantly more self-evident case of racism in the case of murder victim Simon San.

Nevertheless, in general terms all this merely underlines the trend away from traditional definitions of policing and criminality. And also highlights in particular a more specific trend - in what might loosely be described as crimes of discrimination - for the victim to decide whether the offence is aggravated by an element of discrimination. Which in turn seems to drive a coach and horses though the principal that the application and definition of the criminal law should be for the state to decide objectively rather than be based on the subjective opinion of individual citizens.

But this shift in the law enforcement trend to what might be termed a politically correct basis was underlined by justice secretary Kenny MacAskill in a speech delivered to police officers, summarised thus by Gerald Warner(!) in a recent Daily Mail(!!) comment piece:

Early in his term of office he revealed his distorted mindset when he told the Scottish Police Federation conference in 2008 that the notion the police had a duty to protect the public from criminals was 'an anachronism in this day and age'. What mattered was that they should be recruited from diverse ethic and sexual backgrounds.

Of course, it's not just the victimisation of people on racial/religious/sexual grounds that's seen a shift in official priorities, but also the extent to which people are excused from their own more traditional criminal behaviour because they are perceived to be at the bottom end of the wealth/status/power political correctness pecking order.

Hence a Scottish Government/Executive document (from 2004) states that illegal gypsy/traveller encampments represent 'an expression of cultural identity'. Which - despite the typically ambivalent language about 'conflicting sets of rights, responsibilities and expectations' being involved - arguably gives such people the green light to flout the law and leave both public and private property in a state of, er, dishevelment, as many a news article in the Scottish (mainly local) press testifies.

On the national stage, moreover, taking this kind of thinking to its logical conclusion has resulted in overwrought claims that dismantling an encampment of Irish travellers constructed without planning permission would amount to 'ethnic cleansing'.

And these somewhat contrived cultural definitions don't end there. Consider this from Inspector Gadget's blog:

Spitting is a cultural issue. Young, jobless working-class men spit on the ground as a way of expressing frustration and powerlessness. It is also a way for young men from poor communities to mark territory, a kind of warning to other men in the street that they are present. For successful men, spitting on the ground is a way of demonstrating victory against the harsh realities of modern life, a challenge to others who may wish to rob them of their success.

It is judgemental for a police officer to challenge this behaviour. It shows an ethnocentric approach; why are the cultural norms of the young jobless community less acceptable than those of their more fortunate peers? To achieve the Public Confidence aspirations required by the National Policing Plan, police officers must begin to embed themselves in these cultures. This way, we can achieve our ultimate aim of policing our diverse communities with fairness and
understanding.

Well perhaps this is a well constructed spoof rather than an extract from a genuine police 'diversity training' session, but even if it is a caricature it certainly contains a large element of truth. Of course, the problem regarding these issues is that the facts of the matter are rarely articulated, and the official stance on such things is largely a question of conjecture. Indeed, there is probably no official stance on many of these things at all, and in view of the nature of policing and prosecutorial discretion it's probably often the result of a several-decades-old shift in individual attitudes, practices and day-to-day decisions rather than anything formally promulgated from on high.

Who, for example, decided that instead of slapping the wrists of kids who might cycle without lights - and wouldn't even consider using their bikes on the pavement - most children and adults probably don't adhere to either rule these days, and with total impunity. Well no one actually decided such a policy and promulgated it. Instead, the shift has been one of creep over several decades, and the result of thousands of police officers deciding millions of times to turn a blind eye, with the eventual result being that no one actually bothers now. Apart, of course, from the odd tokenistic example of enforcement, which like the approach to littering offences seems almost wholly pointless other than as perhaps a box-ticking or PR exercise rather than any real and genuine attempt to enforce the law and encourage adherence to it.

However, perhaps the rationale for the shift in attitudes is neatly encapsulated in a letter to the Herald last year, and maybe this represents the culmination and averaging of the myriad changes in attitude and practice which shift dominant thinking over time and society in a largely nebulous and imperceptible manner:

However, the latest views [regarding cyclists] are so extreme that they raise a paradox which extends to a much deeper malaise in Scottish society. Cyclists as a minority pose no significant threat to motorists, yet are the scapegoat for the most fervent of wrath.

Historical parallels of intolerance of minorities are so much more serious than this bias against cyclists that it would be offensive to compare them. However, the parallels are obvious. Let us pick out a vulnerable and defenceless minority, and pile all our troubles on them.

This curious attitude to the cycling minority, and the fear which it inspires in novice cyclists, is a considerable barrier to healthy transport. Much more seriously, it is a stumbling block to a fair and balanced society.

Hence, as in the case of gypsies and travellers, complaints about cyclists' disregard of and disdain for the law is elevated to a Nazi-esque threat to society. Never mind the rules, what's important is the status of the 'victim' in relation to the wider milieu, in this case the 'vulnerable' cyclist vis-à-vis those higher up the road user pecking order such as cars, vans and trucks. And indeed never mind the huge detriment to safety caused by the recklessness of cyclists resulting from this way of thinking, not to mention the self-evident conflict that this engenders, all of which actually represents a microcosm of a more lawless and conflictual society generally.

And this cultural sensitivity with the concomitant abandonment of more traditional legal norms is also nicely represented in the new SNP Government's approach to two of Scotland's most pressing problems, namely sectarianism and alcohol-fuelled crime and anti-social behaviour.

Thus despite the fact that both problems are largely - but by no means wholly - confined to working class males, the SNP's approach to the two in terms of legislative remedy are fundamentally different.

Therefore sectarianism is to be addressed directly, which accords with official distaste for and the approach to what is essentially conflict between different cultures.

On the other hand, drunkenness and the associated crime is to be tackled indirectly by way of minimum pricing for alcohol, with the ethos being that drunks are 'victims', indeed the victims of irresponsible large corporations considered to be selling alcohol too cheaply. Never mind that this mindset - and thus an increasing reluctance to tackle drunkenness directly - has very probably caused the problem to escalate in the first place. Hence the SNP's limited ambition here seems to amount to little more than stopping people getting drunk so often rather than providing a wider deterrence to getting drunk per se.

But as highlighted on this blog several times before, one manifestation of all this appears when journalists and members of the public find themselves in the middle of late-night policing in the UK's towns and cities, and usually express surprise at the light touch attitude of police:

The two officers I was with encountered a drunken brawl in the street between two groups of revellers, numbering a minimum of 12. Firstly, I was surprised they broke up a brawl that size without back-up, but then I was amazed to watch them send both groups on their ways with no more than a verbal warning.

Of course, there are many reasons for this approach - and indeed the article is about how paperwork and red tape generally impedes a more robust approach to law enforcement - but as with drug taking the zeitgeist seems to be expressed more in terms of victimhood rather than personal responsibility. (The word 'robust' is also interesting in this context, because like other words and phrases - such as ' the full force of the law' - it's often used by police to convey an impression for the consumption of a particular constituency that's perhaps at odds with the reality of the situation, and indeed this kind of misleading spin and soundbite perhaps reflects the politicisation of police, at least in terms of their approach to public relations rather than specific ideologies.)

Equally, the official narrative as regards crime often ignores all of the above to a greater or lesser extent, and instead the focus is simply on crime in the traditional sense, and of course the rationale here is often simply the political imperative of conveying a different narrative to a different audience. Hence the Scottish Government's soundbite-level message of crime being at its lowest level for 35 years, never mind that all of the above perhaps helps demonstrate the misleading nature of the bare statistics and their comparison over time (and clearly a proper appraisal of the figures is beyond the scope of this blogpost). By the same token, the Daily Mail looked at the same statistics from a similarly traditional but at the same time wholly different perspective politically, headlining something along the lines of 'A crime committed every minute' (the article in the Scottish edition doesn't seem to be online, but this in the context of England and Wales is effectively identical in approach.)

Indeed, Kenny MacAskill himself neatly demonstrated the differing approach to different audiences in this regard in the course of his 2008 speech, when he said: 'Too often we judge our police only on the numbers of arrests they make and the crimes they clear up."

Which, apart from casting doubt on the SNP's more recent approach, also underlines the lack of statistical efficacy and rigour in the whole crime debate as it is normally dutifully reported in the Scottish press. Which of course is often the bulwark against a lack of political scrutiny, but on the other hand here the politicians bicker and seek partisan advantage on the basis of the bare numbers, while at another level there's little in terms of critique and polemic at all.

And, moreover, despite the recent hand wringing and posturing as regards the centralisation of Scottish policing, the one place where accountability has often been largely absent is at the level of local police boards, which in Tayside at least seems to be merely an excuse to drink cups of tea and push the Gypsy Creams (oops, politically incorrect language alert!) around the table, at the same time telling each other what a braw job everyone is doing in an object lesson in self-importance, self-congratulation and self-aggrandisement. Indeed, even if there is a degree of scrutiny and accountability going on behind closed doors it certainly only very rarely makes its presence felt in the public domain, with the puppy on the postcard incident perhaps being the only such occurrence locally in recent years.

And when Audit Scotland accused Tayside joint board members of not understanding their role in terms of scrutiny, councillors harrumphed that everything in the garden was rosy. Hence what's the problem precisely, they opined, which seemed to fundamentally miss the point being made.

Thus as with the weekend post about councillors and criticism of municipal bureaucrats, it's all kept under wraps so that the voting hoi polloi aren't aware of the ugly truth. Of course, there are plenty of exceptions to that particular rule, particularly when there's a political axe to grind, as demonstrated when the often sleepy world of municipal politics was catapulted onto the national stage in the shape of the Edinburgh trams shambles.

But - and getting back to the core subject matter of this post - the culture of gesture, posturing, grandstanding, spin and soundbite isn't confined to mainstream politics. It's reflected to a greater or lesser extent throughout the public sector, and the often extra-democratic ideology of political correctness from police and prosecutors represents yet another facet of this.