Step back from the right-wing brink

© Jeroen Bennink

The time for tough action was during the riot. The last thing we need is a raft of new police powers

Look out for leitmotifs

The politicians’ speech competition can go hang. Don’t tell me we need new laws. Don’t tell me that there’s nothing on the Statute already, that allows the police to deal with arson and looting.

You see, the police were criticised for being heavy-handed at the G20 and other demonstrations, but now it’s clear they need to be … altogether now … more robust!

Do you notice how they are bracketing together, as if there is no distinction, political demonstrations and full-blown rioting? One is a legitimate democratic right, the other is an orgy of felonies, and there are certain bridges which must be crossed from one to the other. What we cannot allow, is for the riot to be used to legitimise heavy-handed treatment of political protests, or to over-react in such circumstances.

The wisdom, or otherwise, of the crowd

I have experienced, as I’m sure my readers have also, being a member of a large crowd at a large event; such as a football match, Glastonbury or the Notting Hill Carnival. When a large body of people come together, there can be a change in our perceptions. A current of connectivity flows through us. We are not used to being so surrounded by other people. If there is an identification between us, in other words we are all together for the same purpose, the inherent power of the crowd becomes focused.

Police brutality towards a demonstration immediately produces such a focus, and therefore provokes trouble. That is a fact which must be remembered. As I said above, a riot is not a political demonstration. When the riot was at its peak, yes the police had carte-blanche. If they had actually raised a stick to someone that night, we would have all looked away. But that’s past now, and the last thing we need is the police waddling about, trying to reclaim some street cred, picking on 13-year-olds and extending indefinitely the appearance of a state of emergency.

As libertarians, we should try to offer something different to the political debate. The right-wing are busy imagining all the things they’d like to do to the little bastards. The left-wing is singing their usual song. We don’t need to play along. Let us stress the differences in our interpretation.

For starters, let us remember the case of Mark Duggan. It seems quite likely that the police did mess up. If they shot him dead simply for carrying a gun, we should be brave enough to point out from a libertarian point of view that’s a victimless crime, which we would abolish.

© BBC

Also, let us congratulate those citizens who stood up against the looters. A society where people will do this is far safer than one with ‘robust’ policing. The people standing up helped quell the riot. That is a fact. We must disrupt the official narrative before it succeeds in pasting on top a false conclusion; that being; ‘we’ need more police, more policing, new police powers. Not at all.

The riot’s over, folks, at least for now. Back to the old enemy: the state, and it’s about to try a number of predictable things on the back of recent events, which we will need to resist, and we will need allies.

4 Comments

  1. Absolutely right that we do not need any new laws. All the crimes committed by the rioters are amply covered by the common law.

    I want to take some care about whether Duggan’s death was necessary or not. Like most libertarians I support people having the ability to defend themselves and to carry weapons if they feel they need to do so for that purpose.

    What we are being told is that the police had intelligence that required them to act to prevent a violent crime. It is unlikely that we will get the information necessary to know the full truth of this, but if Duggan was on the way to avenge the death of his cousin, I want the police to act to stop it. Armed police stopping a person who they believe to be armed and potentially dangerous are in a difficult situation. If I was in that position myself I would hope that I wouldn’t shoot needlessly, but I wouldn’t wait to be shot.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Sorry for the slowness of moderation Malcom. For some reason your comments always go to moderation, so they require disproportionate attention which I had not provided. Did you perhaps upset another Akismet user?

      The urgency of the scenario you describe here would be reduced if Mr Duggan’s cousin was permitted to carry a gun for the purposes of self defence, and that might have helped police to make a careful assessment of the situation.

      Like

      Reply

      1. “your comments always go to moderation, so they require disproportionate attention which I had not provided. Did you perhaps upset another Akismet user?”

        No idea Simon, but I upset most people at some time so who knows!

        “The urgency of the scenario you describe here would be reduced if Mr Duggan’s cousin was permitted to carry a gun for the purposes of self defence, and that might have helped police to make a careful assessment of the situation.”

        If gun ownership were common there is no way of knowing whether Kelvin Easton (the cousin) would have been killed and sparked the revenge motive. Easton was involved in an argument and was stabbed with a broken bottle. If either party in the dispute had more powerful arms there is no way of knowing what the outcome would have been or what later consequences would have occurred.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s