London Riots 2011: Looking Deeper

Posted on: August 12th, 2011 by Smart on Crime

My heart goes out to the people of London and other cities in England. Having lived there from 1979 to 1984, England remains one of those countries for which I have a personal soft spot. Many of my friends remain there, I recently visited London, and I still have a good sense of its culture and its people. Naturally I have been following the tragic events of rioting that have unfolded within a very short time and the immense impact it has had on those victimized, but also those who are hopelessly watching as they see a country formerly mostly safe and secure slip into fear. Police and the justice systems are clearly overburdened by the task at hand, stories of individuals supporting them best as they can rain in daily along with stories of devastation.

Against this backdrop, I was keen to read Prime Minister David Cameron’s speech to parliament. When a country is in crisis, what leaders do and say is critical for setting a tone for the future and for aiding understanding. Safety is an essential mandate of all orders of government. When insecurity sets in, people look for calm to be restored, reason to prevail and explanations to make sense. Unfortunately Mr. Cameron’s analysis is too confused to accomplish that. One reason for the confusion may be the lack of evidence for what he sees as the roots of the problem.

Yes, England had not seen this type of rioting in decades. But why have we not learned from the last time?

It is hard to look deeper. Mostly, we humans prefer to stick with answers that comfort us and sustain our world view. Simple is more palatable than complex. One year ahead of the summer Olympics it is also more opportune to condemn the criminality of a few than to ask the public to engage in a dialogue about broader social issues. In Mr Cameron’s analysis, that would be a waste because there is no “justifiable causal link” when it comes to crime.

The opportunities contained in any situation where we are struggle to react let alone think of how to prevent such issues in the future are immense. We owe it to future generations to not wait for another few decades to pass and then return to the same old answers that answered nothing in the past.

But there is more to the speech than at first meets the eye. It is clearly a statement that says: nothing is broken in our society, just a few people within it. And yet Mr. Cameron then goes on to propose measures that will indeed impact society as a whole. He proposes to extend the punishments beyond the courts to other services where those who are caught for rioting may well be cut off from social assistance and forced to leave their social housing. While that might satisfy the need for an immediate emotional release, (a “Take THAT” variety), it can only serve to make those who act in anger more disengaged and even angrier. In fact, Mr. Cameron’s answers are textbook avoidance of evidence. In his world view criminality has no connection to social and other conditions. Criminality is about “culture” and, more specifically, the culture of families that raise their young as if there were only rights and no responsibilities. This culture, I can only assume, floats in an ethereal distance above the community and is unaffected by its institutions and developments. Meanwhile, in the rights debate, Mr. Cameron is prepared to put sweeping powers in place and not get tangled in the questions of “phony human rights”. Phoney!? When our response to injustice starts to undermine the very basic principles of justice such as human rights, I don’t feel reassured at all.

As for victims, there is little that is reassuring even there. Business compensation is “possible”. But there is nothing mentioned of post trauma supports and other victims services. At the end of the speech I was left confused and disappointed at the level of analysis. The only glimmer of hope I saw was in the demand for a national gang policy. But a policy is a long way of from a national action plan that can get back to the business of being tough on causes.

Crime prevention practitioners the world over have frequently looked at England for promising practices. Now what?

Author: Christiane Sadeler
Christiane is the Executive Direcotr of the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council and writes occasional commentary on current events for the Smart on Crime blog.

Leave a Reply