Theft of our rights

A new database is due to come on-line, with the sole purpose of blacklisting people whose previous employers have accused them of theft - even when no criminal charges were brought (BBC News: Bust-up with the boss?).

I have always been against the use of unproven criminal allegations being used to stop people getting jobs; I never liked the use of the 'enhanced disclosure' section of CRB checks for working with kids, which included failed convictions (as opposed to actual convictions, or even formal cautions). Indeed, in the past, people were blacklisted by employers for activities which weren't even criminal - both the state organisation MI5 and the private Economic League held lists of left-wing and anti-Establishment political activists and even union activists, which employers (both state and private) used to avoid employing people who they did not agree with politically.

It also seems to me that the Establishment's attitudes towards employing criminals have changed massively in the past 10 years. Back in 1999, the British Army was actually recruiting in prisons (BBC News: Army prison recruitment confirmed). Maybe I'm missing the point, but I'd personally feel just a little safer if a criminal had a cash register than if he had a gun!

The biggest problem for me with this blacklist is that it relies on unproven allegations. miscarriages of justice occur even within the legal system, where a crime must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. How many more miscarriages of justice will occur within a system where the mere say-so of the boss, even another employee, who an employee has had a personality clash with, could ruin someone's chances of working again? And would this not be a charter for racists etc who, rather than dismiss someone overtly due to prejudice, can instead concoct allegations of theft or dishonesty?

The National Staff Dismissal Register was set up by as a joint venture between the British Retail Consortium and the Home Office - hardly surprising, considering the Home Office also introduced ASBOs, which similarly rely upon unproven allegations and can severely restrict a person's rights without needing the burden of proof required for a criminal conviction :-(

Then again, some thieves will remain secure in their jobs. Bosses of big business have fat salaries which are largely dependent on how much profit they make their company - and profit is nothing more than exploitation, ie the theft of their workers' labour. Yet such thieves, far from being placed on a blacklist, would be welcomed on the boardroom of a rival company even more if they increased the level of theft of their workers' labour, meaning higher profits.

Capitalism is a crime - together we can crack it!

Two wrongs can take a right

Still on the subject of New Labour's fanaticism for law and order, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has urged Police to 'harass young thugs' (BBC News: Harass young thugs, police urged)

There are a number of problems with this tabloidocratic idea. Firstly, it legitimises police harassment, which is unsavoury at the best of times. Even worse, what is there now to stop incidents of police racial harassment, which have occurred in the past - indeed, it is understood to have been police harassment of young black people which was the flash-point triggering riots (such as those in Brixton, Handsworth and Toxteth) in the 1980's. Even now, black people are significantly more likely to be stopped and searched by Police than white people, a problem which is hardly likely to be helped by Ms Smith saying that police harassment is a good thing!

Then, there's the nature of the harassment that Jacqui Smith is advocating - namely, the persistent checking of 'thugs' for fairly trivial offences such as benefit fraud and TV licence evasion. Is this an admission that the government has passed so many laws (literally hundreds, possibly even thousands since 1997!) that the Police can't enforce them all, so they need to enforce them selectively? If so, I guess this kills the myth of everyone being equal in the eyes of the law :-P

Finally, what is a 'young thug'? Don't get me wrong, I have no time at all for bullies who threaten people, i've been on the wrong end of quite a few myself over the years. But I don't think 'playing them at their own game' is the answer, especially when the Establishment's definition of 'thug' seems to not necessarily be the same as how ordinary people understand the term. One of the criteria mentioned in the BBC News article is 'street drinking' which, like drug use, underage drinking etc, is not a violent or threatening act in and of itself. Also mentioned is breach of ASBO's - yet some of the ASBOs served are unfair, occasionally ridiculous (some examples are quoted on the ASBOwatch website).

This isn't the first time a Home Secretary has suggested the increased use of a flawed practice by the police. Back in 2004, David Blunkett urged police to increase the use of police informants ('coppers' narks', 'green giros'. 'PFI CSI's', call them what you will) - despite the fact that many informants abuse their near-untouchable status to commit more crimes, violence and bullying included :-(

Then again, if Ms Smith really wants the Police to harass some thugs, I can point them in the direction of a few. In Westminster, there is a gang of people who have instigated mass violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, and have indulged in threatening behaviour towards Iran and Syria. Maybe the Police could also investigate these people for theft from low paid workers, vandalism of public services, milking House of Commons expenses , etc, etc :-P

Black police showing out for the white cop?

The outgoing (good riddance!) president of the National Black Police Association has called for an increase in the stop-and-search of young people by Police (BBC News: Call to increase stop and search). Such a move would not only alienate young people, who have already seen their rights eroded by dispersal orders, ASBOs, increasingly strict age restrictions, etc. Even some senior black police officers have warned that it would, in effect, lead to more black kids being targeted, as a result of racial profiling - already, black youth are 6 times more likely to be stopped and searched than whites.

Before I go any further, I'd like to point out two points.

First, I have no sympathy for gang members who engage in criminal activity, or carry weapons such as guns and knives - one only has to look at America to see the horrendous results of guns being in common use (freely available in the USA), namely an appallingly high murder rate, including the horrendous school campus shootings which are becoming increasinly common.

Secondly, I have no animosity towards individual Police officers - many joined the Police with the laudable aim of making their communities safer, many are from working class backgrounds (it should be noted that crime disproportionately affects working class communities).

My argument is with the Police as an institution - an arm of the state, which is run by the capitalist Establishment, the Police's job is to do the bidding of said Establishment. Indeed, the same capitalist Establishment, and its puppet political parties, are responsible for the increasingly unjust and repressive laws which the Police's job is to enforce.

In addition, the alienated (in the Marxist sense) nature of policing tends to make police officers see people as either victims or criminals, rather than as people. This can encourage stereotyping of groups of people (eg racial profiling), and is exacerbated by the "canteen culture" which is notably strong in the Police.

It is these factors which have led not only to the call for more stop and search, and for increasing Police powers in the form of ASBOs etc, but also to horrific mistakes such as the killing of Brazilian "terror suspect" Jean Charles de Menezes in 2005, and the botched hunt for the murderers of black teenager Stephen Lawrence in the early 1990s.

At the same time, the Police are not immune from the pressures affecting other public sector (and most private sector) workers, to meet targets. The resulting need to "keep the numbers up" on arrests etc runs the risk of Police anding up chasing easy targets, often petty criminals, rather than the real scumbags whose arrest and conviction takes more time, effort and resources. The need to meet targets may also lead to the increasing use of police informants (a practice which is locally nick-named the "green giro"), which can sometimes do more harm than good to the community when these informants abuse their near-immunity from arrest and prosecution.

So what is the answer? We don't agree with vigilanteism, which leads to self-appointed vigilantes meting out their own definition of "justice". The dangers of vigilante "justice" were epitomised by the "anti-paedophile" mobs of the early 200s, which led to innocent people being killed due to hearsay, and even a paediatrician (child doctor, for any News of the World readers out there!) being hounded out of his home by threats.

What I would like to see, is the laws being made by working class people for working class people, to protect us and our community rather than the Establishment and the capitalist system. The enforcement of these laws could not be carried out by the existing state - it would necessitate the creation of a workers' militia, run by and for workers.

For this to happen, workers would first need a revolution to overthrow the capitalist Establishment and smash the capitalist system.