Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Michael Howard pledges to abolish 'Politically Correct Policing'

Goodness Gracious Meme

10:39 / 10.08.04

fuckfuckfuck.

Michael Howard and Anne Widdecombe on the news. Attacking 'political correct policing'.

Proposing to abolish measures around monitoring of racial harassment/S&S by the police. Measures recommended by the Macpherson report.

Because 'what we care about is law and order'. No matter if Blacks and Asians are unfairly stopped/jailed/prosecuted, eh?

Is this scaremongering from a party who know they can't win and are attempting to force the debate ever further to the right (like New Labour need help) or an attempt to portray Moral Tony as soft on crime.

Whale... Whale... Fish!

11:05 / 10.08.04

I caught the tail end of his speech when I was nipping out for a cig but didn't pay too much attention to it.
After reading the Gaurdian link and the
BBC report, I get the impression that I didn't miss much that was of any actual substance and it just seemed to be a lot of scare-mongering on the part of Howard and co., blaming crime on drugs etc etc and not actually wanting to look at the causes of crime because they don't affect the average, decent, law-abiding person, only those pesky criminals do.

Goodness Gracious Meme

11:44 / 10.08.04

Well yes, but I think it's alot more serious than that. As a tactic, it seeks to divorce issues of racial harassment from Law and Order using the PC bogeyman.

Racial bias and harassment is not a political correcntess issue, nor is it 'merely' cultural politics. It is about the just operation of the Law: therefore a Law and Order issue.

Regrettable Juvenilia

12:07 / 10.08.04

I actually blame Tony Blair for this in a very big way: his disgusting "no more social liberalism, the 60s generation went too far" speech, designed specifically to appeal to Daily Mail readers, pushed the terms of the "law and order" debate still further to the right. This does two things to the Tories. On the one hand, it forces them to be even more right wing than New Labour. On the other hand, it shifts the definition of what is 'acceptable', 'respectable' discourse for a mainstream political party to engage in, in yet more horrible directions. And since Blair made sure to pay lip service to some of the reforms that have taken place over the last 30-40 years to decrease inequality on the grounds of race, gender and sexuality, it's not surprising that the Tories are gunning in those directions (again).

I guess the other thing it reminds us is that anyone who uses the term "political correctness" is part of the problem and should be dealt with as such.

13:01 / 10.08.04

Is it bad that I originally (before reading the actual names involved) thought that these things were being said by David Blunkett, and found that quite believable?

This is just the usual bollocks, though, isn't it? Nobody's got any responsibility any more, no sense of right and wrong, bring back the cane, can't even call a darkie a darkie without being called a racist these days etc etc. I don't really see it as a shocking development - Tory Party In "Reactionary Bastards" Shock. Take out the specific references to recent events and it could have been said at any time that I've been alive, certainly. The only thing missing is a "trendy teachers" reference, and he couldn't use that one because he's using "teachers aren't allowed to discipline kids because of PC". (Did violent video games get in somewhere, I wonder?)

I'm not sure I agree with Flyboy that it has much to do with Blair - sure, Nu Labour have pushed the debate (amongst other things) to the right, but this doesn't seem like a change of position or degree for the Tories, nor something they wouldn't have said previously.

14:18 / 10.08.04

I think all Howard's trying to do here is shore up his support with the party faithful, in advance of his now almost inevitable pasting at the next election. While I think Labour's pretty clearly going to get less votes this time round, I'd imagine they'll to be losing them to the Lib Dems or None Of The Above, and that Howard, being well aware of this, is just grasping at straws so he lives to fight another day.

At least apart from The Mail and the blue rinse brigade, it's hard to imagine who he thinks he's impressing. Except from David Blunkett, that is.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

10:58 / 11.08.04

Yes, what's worrying is that the Tories come out with policy statements that either just won't work or are demonstratably nuts (pace Oliver Letwin's plan to put all immigrants on a special island somewhere), but that the Government counter them as though they were workable schemes, rather than challenging then Tories not to talk rubbish. It would surely be easier for Labour to puncture the ridiculousness of the Tory policies rather than try to treat them as sensible policies that could work?

Whale... Whale... Fish!

08:56 / 12.08.04

Well yes, but I think it's alot more serious than that. As a tactic, it seeks to divorce issues of racial harassment from Law and Order using the PC bogeyman.

Racial bias and harassment is not a political correcntess issue, nor is it 'merely' cultural politics. It is about the just operation of the Law: therefore a Law and Order issue.

I stated that in respect to Micheal Howard not being the serious issue because as it stands the Conservatives and him are totally unelectable and look very unlikely to make any serious gains at the general election.

But I do agree with you with the abhorrant nature of his statement but I am more worried about Blunkett et al, as they are far more likely to be in the same position come next year. This story from the BBC is, IMHO, slightly more worrying as it comes from those actually in power.

13:21 / 12.08.04

For more details you should really look at this summary, containing such gems as:

* Testing people for drugs on arrest rather than when charged.

* Allowing courts to remand a person into police detention for up to 12 days if they are suspected of swallowing drugs. (wtF?)

* Courts to be directed to draw inferences from a suspect's refusal to submit to an intimate search.

* Ensure that the law to deal with demonstrations outside Parliament is effective - possibly to ban long-term protests.

* Allow police to take DNA samples, fingerprints or foot/shoeprints covertly - for example, by undercover officers - to determine identification of suspects and their possible involvement in an offence, although such material would be for intelligence use only and not for use as evidence in court.

14:27 / 12.08.04

Scrap the one month time limit automatically placed on search warrants.

Scrap the rule limiting entry to one occasion only.

Jeez...

14:34 / 12.08.04

This makes me so angry (and thus inarticulate), everywhere I look they seem to be reducing my freedoms while extending the government's ability to fuck with my life. What's worse is that no one seems to give a damn that Blunkett is hell bent on turning this country into some kind of police state. How come no-one is standing up and shouting about this kind of thing. All the government needs to do is mention "security" and the "war against terror" and no one says a word.
*deep breath* Sorry, rant over, go back to your serious discussion.

Brigade du jour

17:23 / 12.08.04

That was a highly articulate rant, if it makes you feel any better!

Staying with the 'anti-terrorism' angle if I may: As tempting as it is to refuse to take these kinds of crazy-ass policy ideas seriously, and simply put it down to the geriatric dribblings of a discredited and unelectable party that hardly anyone likes anyway, I think it would be a big mistake.

As has been said here already (but I think it's a point worth reiterating, I hope you'll forgive!), the erosion of civil liberties is being made palatable among many, many people (and more to the point, voters) simply by pointing out the 'constant threat of terrorism' every time it seems like people are complaining too much about being sacked for having a beard or arrested for carrying a mobile phone with a suspicious ring tone (ok I made the second one up).

But given that point, as well as publicly remonstrating with the government for imposing such draconian policies, it might be worth trying harder to subvert their argument.

For one thing, point out that countries like Saudi Arabia that have, by our European standards, hard-right governments are breeding grounds for what the government calls 'terrorists', and that following our government's current rightward path will only serve to exacerbate the circumstances that generate such radical fervour. Hating 'The West' is, thus, demonstrably tantamount to hating 'the government'.

I don't think we even have to agree that the above is strictly true, in fact I myself think it's far more complicated than that. But my point is that with a government that seems reluctant to engage in detailed and intelligent debate about the causes of 'terrorism' we have to try to talk to them in their own language, and convince them that the route they're taking (rounding up and demonising asylum-seekers, singling out Muslims for, ahem, special treatment although it's not on religious grounds, honest!) is not only wrong but also counter-productive.

I guess I've gone way off-topic here, but I'm just exploring what I think is a root cause of the sorry situation this thread is addressing.

Whale... Whale... Fish!

17:54 / 12.08.04

Sorry for hijacking this thread but...

This makes me so angry (and thus inarticulate), everywhere I look they seem to be reducing my freedoms while extending the government's ability to fuck with my life. What's worse is that no one seems to give a damn that Blunkett is hell bent on turning this country into some kind of police state. How come no-one is standing up and shouting about this kind of thing. All the government needs to do is mention "security" and the "war against terror" and no one says a word.
*deep breath* Sorry, rant over, go back to your serious discussion

it's not true that no-one cares, it is just those who actually give a damn about this have no means to legally articulate there objections, without being labelled as a best loonies or trouble-makers and at worst terrorists.

The democratic system brought us this and I have no faith that democratic system as it stands will fix it. As I have said in previous threads maybe it is time that we seriously look at civil disobediance as the only democratic means of protest available to us. I do not support violent protest as a means of achieving change as there are many ways that civil disobedience can achieve its objectives without resorting to violence.

Sorry once again for hijacking this thread but I'm pissed off and drunk.