Brooms vs. Crowbars

There are several theories on why the riots have been raging, none of them really seem satisfactory. The left wing loons are intent on claiming that this has something to do with the ‘cuts’ or because of not helping poor people. The right wing loons are determined on blaming it on a failure of multiculturalism or some other nonsense.

These are not a response to any current political action: it is much deeper than that. People on the left seem intent on portraying those who they seek to help as savages who are looting because the means of production are in private in hands or because the tax rate is 50% and not 60%. What this explanation involves is the demonization of the working class: oh, they’re poor and we’ve taken away their youth centres, EMA and increased their tuition fees, what else are they supposed to do apart from loot local businesses and set fire to people’s homes? Believe it or not, working class families have morals which is why it is this is not a rising of working class. Not even of most of them, not even a significant part of them. It is a rising of a minute minority of thugs. 

And, just as an aside, there is no empirical evidence for the claim that someone’s economic condition makes them more likely to riot or commit crime: DiPasquale and Glaeser (1996) using ‘international data’ conclude that there is ‘little evidence that poverty in the community matters’ to the incidence or intensity of riots. (As for the connection between poverty and crime, see this report by James Wilson in the Wall Street Journal or this lecture given by William P. Barr).

These vary same arguments which seek to relativise, justify or remove moral culpability from their actions could equally and just as wrongfully be applied to the EDL – poor, working class, uneducated, sidelined – can you blame them for threatening innocent British Muslims? Yes, I can - and should. This is a point already made by Edmund Standing (for an elaboration see his post or my previous post).

The whole explanation thus not only rests on the demonisation of the working class but it has no empirical basis. These are not normal people, they are not making a political point, they are criminals. As one rioter told Radio 4’s Today Programme after admitting that he could afford what he was stealing:

NR: “The fact you’re nicking shoes you can afford, thats to do with the government?”

R: "It's not about that, the government are not in control. If they were we wouldn't be able to do it"

NR: "So because the government isn't stopping you, thats why you're doing it?"

R: "Yeah, government tried and they failed. How many people have they arrested, like, 10 people?... I'll keep doing this every day until I get caught... [be]cause everyone else is doing it.”

As LibbyT from Harry’s Place rightly states this was not limited to poor, unemployed, socially excluded people who had no options before them: there were teachers, youth workers, university students among them. She goes on

Just how were these people – a cross section of society if there ever was one – “socially excluded”? None were “unemployed”. All had opportunities there for the grabbing. But instead of grabbing opportunities offered them, they chose to smash-and-grab hi-tech gear and flashy clothing through shattered windows on the High Street.

I also happen to agree with Sunny Hundal of Liberal Conspiracy that elements of the rich do, in effect, go out looting by other means through fraud, ‘tax evasion and avoidance.’ Neither the middle or the working classes are worthy of our disdain for the thugs among them. It follows that one should not make political points based on these points – particularly when particular parties are supposed to be those fighting for their interests.

I also just want to make a quick point about the working class in this country. We have issues with poverty; people live in damp houses, people live in the streets, some go without three meals today. But let us not kid ourselves, as LibbyT, rightly says again

The truth is that the spoilt youth of Britain – including the poorest and most ‘excluded’ – still have more care, comfort and opportunity than 90% of the planet. It’s time we stopped helping them to feel aggrieved

20% of people in Egypt live below the poverty line, they were subjected to authoritarian rule, little democratic rights and hard repression. Their revolution was mostly non-violent. They, like the working classes here, did not start looting, they did not start burning homes, stopping officers. And yet, people on the left believe that these riots are a ‘reaction’ and that it has many ‘complex causes.’ It’s little wonder that Egyptians are now mocking the rioters. Here is just one example via the New York Times:

The debate about helping the worst off in our society is a different and necessary one. I have avoided the issue of whether the cuts are justified, whether I agree with increased tuition fees or scrapping EMA. I believe to do so is to send out the wrong message: namely, that these riots are making a political point or they are because of those things. Issues or welfare and representations are pertinent now as they were before: crime reducing programmes should and always be run. But this is not about that. 

Two days after the riots started, I began collecting quotes from people on the ground experiencing the events. Here is a small collection of them to help reinforce the argument that I have made above and for future reference:

"We want to make it absolutely clear - they have nothing to protest against. There is nothing in a sense of injustice and there has been no spark that has led to this. This has been senseless violence and senseless criminality of a scale I have never experienced in my career before" – Assistant Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police Gary Shewan.

"And let me say this; this was not an angry crowd, this was a greedy crowd. What we were dealing with was dishonesty and disorder.” – West Midlands Chief Constable Chris Sims

“So I think the prime motivators behind the looting are greed and jealousy, rather than sorrow and anger. Basic human failings that have been around forever. Not contemporary political gripes but certainly contemporary social malaise." – Stephen Williams MP (Lib Dem)

"I am capable of differentiating between such mindless violence and political protest. I will always defend the latter but this is not political any more. They are looting and burning cars not because society has pushed them there, but because they can. I can’t muster an ounce of sympathy for them.” – Sunny Hundal of Liberal Conspiracy

"I don't think it is anger. A lot of it is motivated by people sending messages to one another... looking for something exciting to do." – Simon Hughes MP (Lib Dem)

"Come on, being fed up and emotional doesn't lead you to brick in a bookies. I mean a lot of this is greed and mindless violence and we need call it what it is.. Lets not stigmatise black people as whole, for every looter, there are hundred of black children that are really trying." - Dianne Abbott MP (Labour).

There are a few really good articles to read on the riots; Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi’s article ‘The root causes of the British riots’, LibbyT’s article ‘An ‘Underclass’ Rebellion?’ at Harry’s Place, Sunny Hundal’s article ‘Only poor people go looting and other claims’ at Liberal Conspiracy, Talal Rajib’s article ‘The riots that will define my generation’ at The Urbanite. 

Twits

Using descriptions from Twitter, the above picture of a Metropolitan Police officer was generated.

I’ve been using Twitter to follow the recent riots in London – for its many virtues (people were tweeting actual videos and photographs), there were an equal amount, if not more, vices. Aside from rumours raging (false reports of riots in areas there were no riots), the fringe elements of British society decided to come out and make as many political points as they could. The radical rapper Kareem Dennis, known as Lowkey has several tweets which sum up the kind of nonsense that was being posted:

Unfortunately this is the only language the Metropolitan Police understand or respect.

Rich people don't loot and happy people don't riot. Nothing is black and white

When you collectively brutalise a community why wouldn't that community respond brutally?

To answer his question: this isn’t the “community” doing anything, it’s a group of thugs. According to Dennis, two wrongs really do make a right, or at least allow for an “understanding.” I handle this baloney about the false distinction between understanding and excusing in another post so I wont handle it here. But you can clearly see it: if someone is treated brutally and the only language the ‘aggressor’ understands is attacking shops, post offices, public transport – can you really blame him? No, you have removed moral culpability.

When people have NO other way of holding the police accountable for their brutality, what do you expect?

What do I expect? If that were the case, I expect you to use your democratic rights, to protest, to lobby, to hold members of parliament who refuse to deal with the issue accountable using your ballot. It’s called being civilised in a democratic society. And thats assuming that these protests are exclusively about brutality, they are not. Currys, Vodafone has nothing to do with brutality, the local curry house, the people made homless have nothing to do with this. 

The British army is burning Afghanistan and Libya as we speak, so I think you can get over a Bus.

There is a difference between sovereign nations responding to an attack by clearing out an illegitimate government, with massive human rights violations, which harboured the responsible individuals to stop future attacks in self-defence. The Afghan people have consistently supported the assistance. And we responded to the call of the Libyan people to stop their manic leader from killing them.

When the British Army burns whole countries you know nothing about and loots them of their natural resources where is your indignation?

You’re obviously referring to Afghanistan, Iraq and possibly Libya. Who do you know that knows ‘nothing’ about these wars? You may have uneducated friends, I do not. As for ‘looting’ their resources, in Iraq there was an auction for Iraq oil deals in 2009: the winners were mostly Russians and Chinese. Even after the rise of oil prices in the U.S, the Iraqi government refused to lower the price. “Looting” indeed.

In this country you are factually more likely to die at the hands of the police than at the hands of a terrorist.

Oh really? According to the IPCC’s report ‘Deaths in or following custody’ only 5% of the 333 deaths between 1998-2009 were a result of police restraint. That’s 16 people. And even then, 13 officers were brought to trial, and they were all found not guilty. But, let me guess, a British court of law isn’t good enough for you? There were 52 victims of the 7/7 attacks. That was one attack: as I mentioned in the last post, 12 attacks were stopped between 2000-2009. And to really make your conspiracy-laden head explode, the current threat level for international terrorism is “substantial – this means there is a strong possibility of an attack.” So, there are more victims, more frequent and higher risk from terrorism.

Another radical self-described activist Jody McIntyre re-tweeted:

Don't salute people terrorising small business' but love hearing bout major corporations being set alight #salute

Lowkey also said that he didn't ‘have sympathy for M&S or footlocker.’ Yeah, because these major corporations are part of “police brutality” right? Because its not people who live in the community who use and work in these shops? Because it’s not individuals who own corporations? Because small businesses don’t strive to be bigger and better? Cool story bro.

I haven't mentioned Mark Duggan because I think it imprudent without waiting for the conclusions of the IPCC. However, even if the police stabbed him in the face repeatedly, the response is not attacking public transport and terrorising communities. It is holding people through the democratic and justice system. But somehow I doubt people like Dennis are able to engage in rational discourse. We should count ourselves lucky that 9/11 truther extremists like him are a fringe.

Tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner #2

†d. to understand, to wit, namely. Obs.
a. To give heed to, attend to.

This is the second post I’ve written with the title ‘tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner’ (to understand is to forgive). The first post was about the (lack of) an Iraq war-linked explanation for the 7/7 attacks. In it I wrote the main point of the title:

There is a thin line between explaining something and excusing something. If I tell you that someone has done something because of a wrong committed against him, it sanitises the action of the criminal. This encompasses the kind of nonsense that while it is wrong to blow people up, it is nonetheless 'understandable.'

I want to elaborate on that a bit more. When someone “explains” or “understands” something, there is an underlying point that is being made: that the person is less culpable. To be clear, the people who make these points are not disinterested academic parties making observations. They are in effect providing an alibi to make a political point. As an example, Robert Fisk said the following after being attacked by Afghans:

"I don't want this to be seen as a Muslim mob attacking a Westerner for no reason. They had every reason to be angry - I've been an outspoken critic of the US actions myself. If I had been them, I would have attacked me."

Ben White (author of ‘Israeli Apartheid: A Beginners’ Guide’) is infamous for making the same argument about the hatred of Jews:

I do not consider myself an anti-Semite, yet I can also understand why some are... I do not agree with them, but I can understand.

The key to distinguishing between genuine academic explanations (of which the politically activist White and Fisk are not) and excuses is the language that is being used: does it entail pointing to the evil of the victims and the helplessness of the perpetrator? For Fisk, the perpetrators were ‘angry’ and had ‘every reason to be’ (clearly implying legitimacy). For another person who I conversed with recently, these same Afghans were helpless because they were ‘illiterate’ from a ‘dirt village’ where there is no ‘bastion of morality.’ (And no, the person did not realise how borderline racist he sounded).

What is the result of all this “explanation”? Well if a person has had a deprived upbringing and ‘had every reason to be angry’ – can you really, truly blame him for what he did? He was not responsible for his anger - the American planes were! Can’t you understand what he did? Can’t you find it in your hearts to find it understandable to attack someone?! What is being proposed amounts to a caveat: ‘She stole – because she was hungry.’  

The extremist impulses of assaulting an innocent person – whether its Afghans attacking innocent Western journalists, terrorists blowing themselves on public transport or the EDL targeting innocent British Muslims – are a fringe. They are not a natural reaction of civilised, moral human beings in the vast majority. They are an aberration.  

There is nothing ‘understandable’ (i.e., worthy of taking heed to) about someone who wishes to hate or attack someone because of an act they did not commit: hatred of Muslims because of 9/11 or hatred of all Westerners because of an inadvertent strike. Nothing. The fact that people like to “explain things” despite these ‘explanations’ making no difference to majority shows they are not serious academic explanations rather they merely seek to sanitise immoral actions.

It’s not surprising that people who resort to this nonsense have to revert to blaming Americans or British imperialism. It is no less surprising that some actually utilise the thought behind British imperialism: the uncontrollable, irrational, emotional, poor brown people who can’t read who don’t know its bad to hit an innocent person are the true victims, after all they are uncontrollable, irrational, emotional, poor brown people who can’t read.

For more, Lucy from Harry’s Place wrote a post about Ben White on his “understanding” which I highly recommend reading. She rightly starts her post off by saying “‘Understanding’ is a weasel word, isn’t it.”

Exile from Eden

I recently watched Dylan Moran's stand up show 'What it is.' In the show, he went on a rant against those who have negative nostalgia. And he said something that I think sums up the problem with nostalgia when it comes to people being nostalgic about public matters: "I have no time for nostalgia. All that rubbish, people going '£2 for a Mars bar?! I remember..' - What?! What do you remember?! Fucking slavery!"

I'm quite nostalgic, but not when it comes to politics and society. If something in the past has been a good policy, it is a good policy or a bad policy regardless of the time it was set. And, generally, I think we live in a great era of change, improvement and freedom. I have little time for Daily Mail-type rose-tinted backward looking scare mongers. Yet, its not just the right who is guilty of this baseless nostalgia:

I don't intend to fisk through the whole song but I will go through some of the claims that are made. I'm using the lyrics that are pasted in the Youtube underbar of the video (which has extra commentary from the author). To give a clear idea of who made this video; his name is Olly and he has posted several videos on youtube. He doubts that 9/11 was carried out by Al Qaeda. One of his songs says: 

If you think 911 was done by Al Qaeda,

Well you have got a lot to learn, 

And youre probably a Telegraph reader.

Yes, the only type of people who believe that a group of Islamist fundamentalists, who claimed responsibility, who have continued to attack Western targets since, carried out 9/11 are people who read the Telegraph. In the underbar of that song he states that "doesn't know" whether 9/11 was a conspiracy or not despite the song. In his 'A Call to Arm For Hippies' he also fantastically claims that Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and Jim Morrison were assassinated -- by the CIA. In the lyrics, he also adds "fuck, not to mention JFK, Malcom X and Martin Luther King." Obviously, none of this is remotely true. 

The whole song is a glorification of the Sixties. He says that the year 2009 are "dangerous times" and the 60s were a time where "people realised they could change the world if they gave a shit." Yes, all those who have been campaiging for more freedom from the streets of Tehran to the millions who manage protest in China in the last decade are not real, apparently.

He says that 'Now its forty years later [2009 and] the sexual revolution left a fishy smell / of teenage pregnancies in council estates.' Well no, the teenage pregnancy rate in 1964 was 1.1 per 1,000 (of under 20 year olds), in 1969 it was 1.6 and in 2009 it was back down to 1.1 (ONS, Alison MacFarlane & Miranda Mugford (2000)). In America, the results are similiar;

the birth rate among American teenagers is now the lowest it has been in the 70 years since such records were kept. In 2009, 39.1 in 1,000 teenagers had a baby, down from 41.5 in 2008, a 6 percent decrease.

And while we're on the subject of the sexual revolution, its important not to overstate the case for a radical change in the 60s. According to Cutright (1972), 'Careful examination may well indicate that the extent to which young unmarried people are sexually active today [in 1972] may not have increased very much, after all.' His article also explains that the reason for the the increase in the 60s of teenage pregnancies may be explained by health status changes. He concludes that there was only 'an increase of sexual activity among young girls not intending to marry their sexual partners affecting less than 2.5 percent of either white or black teenagers since 1940... the image of an abstinent past and a promiscuous present is highly exaggerated.' This is not to deny completely a change in fact or a cultural change, but the myth, as Cutright rightly calls it, should not be used to overstate the case of a 'sexual revolution.'

Olly goes on to (approvingly) say that 'people' in the 60s 'Took the pregnancy pill, and whatever else they could get hold of.' Well, this again is just misleading. In the sixties, 19% of married couples and 9% of single women used the contraceptive pill (Waller, 2008). Currently, 25% of all women use the contraceptive pill. Incidentally, its good news that general contraceptive use is on the rise all over the world.

He also talks about drugs; he says at the end of his songs that 'politicians except Barack Obama don't inhale' (again, approvingly). It might give him a heart attack to realise that (presumably) his arch enemy George W Bush also smoked canabis, as did David Cameron. 

He also says that 'And we've still got war / .We've still got famine.' Except, according to Stephen Pinker 'the last decade saw the lowest number of global deaths in war since records began in 1945 and the fastest ever reduction in global income inequality.' If the current upward trends of per capita GDP continues, Matt Ridley notes 'then by the year 2050 the average citizen of Earth will be earning and spending over $30,000 a year in today’s money, roughly the same as the average American spends today' meaning that there is a 'prospect of Africans and Afghans having the disposable income of today’s Americans within the lifetime of your own children.' Thats not to deny problems with war and poverty, its to discredit trying to compare the 60s with 2009 - a time when people are better off as a whole. 


If the 9/11 denial, the 60s nostalgia didn't get you, then the sheer political ignorance that follows in his song definitely will. In his song he says that 'Now Iraq's been invaded /The Gaza strip's in Israel's grip / Even Syria's been raided.' There is no possible way I could begin to discuss Iraq and Cast Lead but for the purposes of this post, his point about Syria deserves some discussion. 


When I heard that section, I knew he was clearly talking about the 2007 Israeli strike and I thought he might have either a typical pacifist or principled objection to Israel striking Syria's nuclear reactor. And then I scrolled down and saw this: 

It's not that he has a principled position, its not that he even has a position - how can he if he doesn't even know the basic facts? There is clear evidence of Syria's nuclear reactor and that was the reason Israel attacked. It had nothing to do with terrorists on the border.