|

|
Standing out in the crowd
“Doing things sober is no way to get things
done”
|
Only the most demandingly optimistic – or perhaps the most
seriously deluded – could have expected anything original to spring
from Tony Blair’s infamously airy assurance that his governments would
be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. In unashamed voter
appeal, the process of ascertaining, and then dealing with, the causes
of such a massive social problem was made to sound very simple. Except
that it ignored the direct co-relation between crime and the poverty
which is inescapable in this society of privilege and alienation. There
was no need for an expertly number-crunching statistician, or a
professor of history, to cast doubt on Blair’s assumption that crime
could be diminished through brushing up some of the more threatening
housing estates, or manipulating the benefits entitlement system to
make it even more baffling than before. Blair’s dream was that crime
could be refashioned from an electoral liability into a vote winner.
But that first part of Blair’s promise – to ensure that
appropriately punitive measures would be taken to repress crime – has
been rather more fertile than the second. So we have had ten years of
new laws flooding onto the Statute Book; as the lawyers have thrived
thousands of new offences have been created, harsher penalties have
been applied by the courts and the prisons have been full to bursting.
In the background are the plans for a new generation of titanic prisons
– in the building of which the contractors will thrive – to accommodate
the predicted rise in demand for cell spaces. The fact that none of
these panic-stricken measures has been effective has only served to
stimulate more, equally false and doomed, supposed remedies.
Humiliation
The latest of these lays it down that offenders who have been
sentenced to a spell of what used to be called Community Service must,
while working under that Order, wear brightly visible jackets on the
back of which, to distinguish them from men emptying refuse bins or
mending telephone lines, the words “Community Payback” - of a minimum
size laid down in some official circular – must appear. The idea is
that when the offenders are working – scrubbing off graffiti, clearing
undergrowth in the park, sorting goods in a charity shop – they will be
openly identified as people who have broken the law. This example
of what Blair meant by getting tough on crime did not meet with
universal approval; there were those, including organisations
benefiting from the work, who objected to what they saw as the
offenders’ public humiliation – as outdated as the stocks and the
pillory and excessive, when the work ordered by the Court was
punishment enough. Some members of the Labour Party might have wondered
about their place in an organisation they had joined on the assumption
that it would deal with something as sensitive as crime in a
manner which would be, before all else, humane. They could not have
expected that their party would be more concerned with gaining the
approval of the leader writers of the Daily Mail.
Predictably, the government denied any intention other than to
re-assure the voters that offenders are being suitably punished.
Justice Minister David Hanson put it: “The public expects to see
justice being done and this is what the jackets achieve”. He did not
dwell on the fact that those who are allocated under Community Payback
to work in public places are, except in very rare cases, not guilty of
the kind of offences serious enough to make “the public” particularly
anxious to witness their punishment. A recent example was the case of
22 young people who were sentenced by an Essex District Judge to
periods of between 50 and 90 hours Community Payback. Many of them had
impressive academic records and are already voluntarily engaged in
community work. Members of the Plane Stupid group, their offence was to
disrupt flights out of Stansted Airport by blocking the runway; “I
accept,” said the Judge “There is an honourable tradition of peaceful
protest in this country, and long may it continue. But…”
Tsar Of All She Surveys
More to the taste of David Hanson and other Labour ministers is
Louise Casey, currently known as the Criminal Justice System Tsar,
whose CV includes spells as the Homelessness Tsar, ASBO Tsar and
Respect Tsar. Casey responded incandescently, and predictably, to
those who expressed reservations about the jackets by alleging that
they are “on the side of the criminal rather than the victims ”. She is
something of a controversial figure, remembering herself as a “restless
teenager” who longed to leave home .During her time as ASBO Tsar she
raised a few ministerial eyebrows by telling an audience of senior
civil servants, chief constables and the like “I suppose you can’t
binge drink any more because lots of people have said you can’t do it.
I don’t know who bloody made that up; it’s nonsense…doing things sober
is no way to get things done”. Warming to her theme about the
professional advantages of inebriation, the Respect Tsar suggested that
some ministers might perform better if they “turn up in the morning
pissed.” It says a lot about New Labour’s views on the effects of
capitalism on its people, that its government employs someone like
Casey to pressgang us into official ideas of acceptable behaviour.
T ypical of capitalism’s many and varied assaults on human well-being,
crime is a massive, extremely nasty problem which causes loss, distress
and fear to workers who are already under the pressures of survival.
But that can also be said about the events and policies which are
massively more damaging to human community but are unpunished because
they are perfectly legal. Today’s examples of this are the wars in
Iraq, Afghanistan and Gaza and the devastating poverty in the
recession. Those who, as capitalism’s leaders, organise and defend
these outrages are tricksters. It would be consistent, if not crucially
constructive, for them to have to parade their impotence, dishonesty
and malice by publicly wearing something instantly recognisable. Like a
jacket? But it would be difficult to think of wording for it to carry,
adequately to express their wretched
futility.
IVAN
|
|