As I returned to Nassau recently from London, I heard on the radio more of the notion that we, as a country, need to be 'tuff on crime' and incarcerate offenders. This debate made me ponder where it is we live and what we are saying about ourselves as a nation.
In the aftermath of the London, Tottenham riots, a number of issues have become more glaringly obvious. Young men are rapidly being criminalized as the ring leaders if not the sole cause of violence and crime in our societies. This trend is not just a fact for the U.K., but also in other countries, both white and non-white. It has been a fact for years, especially during the 2007 riots, that young, black and brown men in France were seen as the cause of all problems and the system sought to exclude them from many aspects of French life, while insisting that they fit in and become French through its assimilation policy.
The recent riots in England have shown an entirely new side to this. As the footage was played in homes world-wide, the public saw young people, many hooded, looting and shooting, not to mention committing other random acts of violence against their fellow countrymen and women.
Of course, the government's answer has been that these youth are criminals - they have turned against a benevolent system that has done its best to provide for them. The U.K. prime minister and his ministers have declared that the disaffected youth are problems and their actions were unprovoked transgressions. Never mind that community and youth programs and centers have been closing at the speed of knots. They are criminals and must be treated as such; the heavy and swift hand of the law has been loosened from its constraints and is inflicting justice in warp speed. The community has become a problem and the government bears no responsibility for any of its problems.
The U.S. Troy Davis matter, a more recent case of a black man being "thrown away" by the state, provides more evidence of the way non-whites are disposed of even under questionable circumstances. Davis' execution speaks to the 'accepted' or internalized perception of black males as dangerous, which may lead to this sort of legal injustice.
Class and the response to young people
Meanwhile in the Caribbean, the language is much the same. The politicians and leaders all declare that young males are a problem. The laws must be strengthened to deal with the vicious underbelly that is bursting out and inflicting crime on the safe and happy, idyllic country. Public opinion is that all these young men should be locked away for decades not to see the light of day. Sadly, according to the people, the law does not work like this. The answer then must be vigilante justice. Much like the purported result of the Dudus debacle in Kingston, Jamaica where it is rumored that dozens, if not hundreds, of young black males who were going to be mischief-makers were relieved of their potential to create havoc. The system simply encouraged their disappearance.
Many celebrate this as foresight in housekeeping before the problem destroys the country. What did we say about Haiti when so many were being killed under Jean Claude Duvalier and then the interim government of the early 1990s? And what of the Dominican Republic? And what of Bosnia and Serbia? Yet we celebrate such violence when it comes to protect us?
Where does this lead us? The issues that have been glaringly revealed much to no one's surprise unless they were unaware that this fact was existent prior to the postcolonial thrust, is that class matters. In Britain if you riotously destroy a pub in an Oxbridge brawl then the criminal act of destruction of property is forgiven because the fathers of those in question have trotted off to the pub, paid the owner damages and then off to the constabulary and sprung their promising youngsters from the bowels of holding cells. That only required a few thousand pounds. Is there a difference in The Bahamas? Could a similar fact not be offered of those who can afford it? In the case of the sods who have run amuck during the riots, their parents cannot trot off to the pub owner and pay to have the building righted.
And sadly, the damage was often done to those who could least afford it too. The large companies whose premises were ransacked and merchandise looted, were up and running within days of the inconveniences. The others had to either go into debt or close down. However, the disaffected youth's parents or guardians, despite arguable cash-richness, could not afford to even spring their youngsters, so the system would have to deal with them.
In the case of France, swift attacks on the blacks and browns were apparently okay, because they were non-white lads and lasses who were disturbing French civility. The French have a penchant for dismissing assimilation when it suits them and relegating the other to the junk heap of history. But the acrimony between the French and the Arabs and blacks from its former or present-day colonies is renowned. What was not so 'apparently apparent' was this relationship in Britain, though this seems odd, given the history of race riots in that country. However, the ministers can forget historical fights and damages because they were never left on their records and because the situation was quickly corrected. They are, however, quick to gloatingly reveal that the youth involved in the riots were overwhelmingly known to Her Majesty's forces. The system has them carded. There is a certain flavor of class divide in this debate that sours upon close examination; the same class divide that was arguably dismantled decades ago when the north-south divide was taken down.
Our disaffected youth
On this side of the Atlantic, the same discourse is used to frame the same people in the same way. The state has not failed the people by leaving them in poverty or allowing them to become poorer while the upper crust flourishes. These disaffected youth have failed the state and the latter can take no responsibility for anything therein. Not to mention that the failing average in education is a D. How many millions does government spend on education annually? How is it that they are not held at all responsible for the masses of young people that they are encouraging to fail? How is it that they are not challenged for inappropriate handling of money? Is there no accountability for misspent funds? Notwithstanding this deviation, the fact remains that the working class youth, overwhelmingly black, are the problem in the country and must be dealt with severely. Woe to the young man who cannot afford to call up his parents and have them trot to the police station to pay his bail and secure a 'good' lawyer to get the charges dropped.
The parallels in meaning and implication in these trans-Atlantic debates are alarming and the racism and classism they espouse are tragic, given the color of the leaders of most Caribbean countries. However, we seem to be following a perfect example set out by France and Britain. The country will be safer if we simply criminalize all young, working class people, especially males. Why not follow Jonathan Swift who suggested that the working class youth be eaten or used as shoes and clothes for the wealthy? Or, perhaps we could begin to discuss more preventative and proactive ways of working through social problems before they begin.
Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian
