Policing

Black Lives Matter!

A recent incident of concerning behaviour by police has been referred to IBAC for investigation. That the referral has been made is good, although there are concerns with IBAC, and I've written about my concerns with policing previously (e.g., see here, here, and here). There are two other aspects I would like to touch on in relation to this matter.

Firstly, I have been pointing out for some time that police service seems to lead to a hardening of attitudes - it, in effect, scars the psyche of police. That scarring makes those police, in my opinion, unfit for their job - it is the civilian equivalent of combat fatigue in the military. I have no quantitative data, and the IPOCs who research these things are too incompetent to think of checking it, but my experience (see posts of mine I have linked to above) supports that - and I would love to see police surveyed every year for signs of increasing authoritarianism.

Is that unfair because other workers aren't subject to that? No - other workers do not have the power to abuse and kill that police do. 

Secondly, I consider that the oath police take has be reversed, and changed. Instead of putting the queen's peace before upholding the law, which psychologically promotes adherence to supporting social elites ahead of anything that is different, non-conformist, or even just associated with being part of the lower classes of society, before upholding the law, the first emphasis should be on upholding the law, and then peace - and the peace should be for and of the community, not a foreign monarch whose very existence is elitist. 

(I spoke recently to my local Commonwealth MP about this at a "Big Block of Cheese" day.)

I also want to talk about the problem of ignorance of the law, which is not accepted as an excuse for breaking it. That applies to a recent case of irresponsibility that made the media, with the woman subsequently releasing more information and apologising for not knowing the law. 

That also applies to police, and includes, in my opinion, being aware of the consequences of their actions. There is now very good guidance, for instance, on how to interact with TGD people (e.g., see here) - and, in fact, with LGBTIQ people more generally. That appears to be being implemented at force command levels in my home state's police, and there is a benefit that younger people have grown up in a more decent (progressive) era and thus are inherently more accepting of LGBTIQ+ people (although lack of awareness of discrimination can be and is a problem), which means it is probably a few dinosaurs at mid-levels of authority who are doing the most damage - people whose taught bigotry is being exacerbated by the flawed oath and the psychological scars-induced authoritarianism I mentioned above. 

What to do about all this? 

Well, firstly, back up and support those police who are decent people, or who have managed the psychological scars of their service.

Secondly, continue to implement change to being a more modern organisation - including dealing with the problem of the police's paramilitary principles. In several incidents I've seen recently, there have been some police who seem to want to be reacting differently - for instance, in the case where three police were found to have assaulted a disabled pensioner (and got off scot free, in the minds of many people), there were three others involved who didn't. Why did they not challenge the behaviour? I suspect the hierarchical nature of being paramilitary was a key problem. 

Thirdly, fix the oath, as discussed above, and fourth, introduce the annual authoritarianism survey. 

I will also be looking at the behaviour of the police union. They've made appalling comments about TGD people in the past, and the recent comments about not being called to incidents where people are experiencing mental health issues are, frankly, grossly irresponsible, unprofessional, and make a mockery of the FACT that police are meant to be serving their community. 

It also ignores multiple recommendations around training in this area over at least two decades. If police cannot cope with such training I question their fitness to wear the uniform. 

The former Deputy Prime Minister Jim Cairns was in the police in the 1930s, and once stopped a criminal being shot - murdered, basically - by his colleagues (that used to be on the Wikipedia page: who took it off, and why?). I don't think we're at risk of going back to those bad old days, but we are at risk of police being so behind the times, militarised (see here and here), biased (see here, here, and elsewhere on this blog) or inappropriately violent that they are seen by people other than minorities as too problematic to rely on, call upon or use. 

There are signs of improvement - which, after the force went backwards with the departure of Christine Nixon, is good, but more needs to happen. 

When the police union talks about respecting members of the community that the police serve - which includes TGD people, members of other races, victims of domestic violence, and people with mental health issues - I'll start to think about whether we've arrived there. 

PS - some of the problem attitudes are zombie ideas - bigotry that has been debunked decades ago

Black Lives Matter!