New Labour’s moral panic
By Pat Murphy
Less than one month back in power, and New Labour has it sights on a fresh enemy. Popular opinion, so distrustful of politicians and leaders, is being encouraged to work out its frustration and discontent on a new public enemy number one. The latest anti-social scapegoat is…..young people.
A major London shopping centre (the Bluewater Centre) has banned the wearing of “hoodies” on the basis that some customers find groups of young males wearing them threatening.
The use of ASBOs has proliferated, and teenagers find themselves heavily targetted. In one recent case, an entire school on the Isle of Dogs had an ASBO imposed on it, limiting the pupils to a space within a short distance of the school site during the day. Part of the reason for that particular ASBO was the need to keep these noisy and scruffy kids out of the way of traders in the adjacent City of London. It wouldn’t do for hardworking and public-spirited investors to be reminded of the existence of unruly working class youth.
(Though one look at the trading floors of the stock exchange might suggest that the children of Millwall were mere novices in loutish behaviour.)
The Government have become extraordinary keen to feed the idea that modern youth are out of control and in need of a strong dose of law and order. They have set up a special task group — a “Respect Committee” — to consider ways of dealing with unacceptable behaviour in schools. They are encouraging the use of ASBOs. They have followed up their election victory with a promise to restore “a culture of respect”. But what is the reality behind the rising panic about youth?
First, there is no point pretending there is no problem. The reason Labour has been able to use ASBOs as a popular and cheap way of holding on to support in traditional working class communities is because too many lives are made a misery by certain kinds of behaviour — persistent vandalism and low-level violence, backed up by intimidation and victimisation for those who complain.
However ASBOs and other punitive measures of this type (e.g. curfews), do nothing about the causes of anti-social behaviour and can become a charter for score settling against innocent neighbours. At best they can provide short-term relief for a few, at worst they feed salacious headlines for tabloids looking for “Britain’s worst family” or “the real Vicky Pollard”.
While there are real problems, exploited by New Labour, the overall picture is nothing like the free-for-all crisis painted by the press. Youth crime, like all crime, has fallen. The regular moral panics about youth are generated by exceptional stories rather than trends or statistics.
There is also nothing at all new about the scapegoating of the young. For most of the twentieth century governments have fostered fear of youth culture and fashion — newspapers were keen to follow in their wake. There is something so tired and dreary about a 21st century Labour Party repeating about “hoodies” what previous generations of politicians trotted out about bikers, mods and rockers and punks. They look threatening, they don’t speak like us, they’re rude and abusive and they make us feel uncomfortable. Something must be done!
The whole anti-youth project is a toxic mix of rose-tinted nostalgia and middle-aged paranoia. Young people hanging around shops and bus shelters looking bored (and being bored) isn’t a new phenomenon. On the other hand the young of 2005 have a few advantages over previous generations when it comes to attitudes, morality and behaviour.
I have two children, aged 13 and 10, and their understanding of racism and sexism is leagues above anything around when I was their age. Not just learned reactions or rules either, but a real sense that racism is unacceptable lunacy. They are mystified by prejudices which I grew up with and accepted. Their knowledge and understanding of other cultures and religions is already greater than mine. And they are typical, it seems to me, of their age group.
Nieces and nephews who still live in small-town Ireland are less cosmopolitan and much less likely to have black and Asian, Muslim and Sikh friends. They are, nevertheless, a long way ahead of where I was at their age on tolerance, race, sex and sexuality.
This is the generation that goes on vigils and marches to end world poverty, to stop wars.
Yet this is the generation being demonised by government and press. Demonised not because of what it does, or any real threat it poses, but because, in common with young people for decades, it dares to be different.
We should reject out of hand the attempt to use young people as scapegoats. Violence, racism and intimidation are anti-social wherever they come from. A Government that targets asylum-seekers, bombs Iraqi civilians and lies to Parliament and press, has no business lecturing anyone on morality.
What's wrong with ASBOs?
First introduced in 1998, ASBOs have been the centrepiece of the Government’s anti-social behaviour strategy. The numbers of ASBOs has gone up every year since 2000. They have been widely used since 2003. In the nine months to September 2004, 1826 were issued (compared to 1035 for the whole of 2003). ASBOs are particularly popular in Greater Manchester, where nearly twice as many have been issued as in Greater London.
The Orders ban individuals from specific acts for a minimum of two years. They can currently be applied for by the police and social housing agencies. The Government plans to soon let ordinary members of the public apply for an ASBO.
The standard of proof for obtaining an ASBO in an Magistrates court is lower than for criminal cases. Hearsay is allowed as evidence. People who breach an ASBO can be locked up for up to five years.
What else is wrong with ASBOs?
- They criminalise people for often non-criminal offences.
- According to research, around two thirds of people issued with an ASBO are vulnerable in some way — are victims of abuse, chronic drug and alcohol users, or are mentally ill. For instance, a 37-year-old drug addict, who turned to begging to fund his habit, was jailed for three months under the terms of his order for “courteously” asking a motorcyclist for money. And a 50-year-old woman with a paranoid personality disorder was served a six year order after she threw three sticks of rhubarb at her brother in the latest instalment of a family feud.
- ASBOs have been increasingly used to evict ill pensioners (perhaps with some kind of dementia) from their sheltered housing.
- Children as young as ten can be served with an ASBO. Behaviour which in the past may have been thought of as “cheeky” or “naughty” is now considered wild and dangerous. For instance ten-year-old twin brothers were served with an order for misbehaving on their housing estate. Simply looking through the windows of other flats on their estate would have constituted a breach.
- ASBOs were meant to be targeted on adults, but so far 45% of them have been served on juveniles. There are 1001 better and positive ways to improve the behaviour of childre, starting with better youth, play and sports facilities, and more financial and other kinds of support for their parents. What about better educational and job opportunities, or drama and music groups? And the less expensive befriending, and mentoring?And simply somewhere to go to “hang out”?
- The definition in the legislation of anti-social behaviour is subjective — anything that is considered “harassment” by the “victim” is a high enough standard of proof of offence. The risk is of an escalating number of ASBOs being served for trivial offences or for “offensive viewpoints”. For instance one man was threatened with an ASBO for publishing a joke about the Pope’s death on his website.
- ASBO are used to “police” what would have been considered in the past normal friction between neighbours. For instance an 87 year man in Liverpool was given an ASBO to stop him swearing, shouting and saying things that are sarcastic to his neighbours.
- ASBOs cover a wide range of offences — from opening a crack house to dropping litter.
- None of the underlying causes of each type of behaviour is dealt with by an ASBO.
- ASBOs don’t work even in the short-term. 42% of all ASBOs served on juveniles are breached. 50 children a month are incarcerated as a result of breaching their ASBO.
- Because ASBOs don’t work authorities have taken to issuing “name and shame” leaflets about persistent offenders, putting those people — including the youngest of children with ASBOs — at risk of violent recrimination.
- People who have been convicted of a criminal offence can have an ASBO served on them at the end of their punishment. They are effectively punished twice. A 40-year-old builder, jailed for three and a half years for deception and theft, had to serve an order upon his release which banned him from self-employment in the building industry, advertising his services, or actively seeking money from people for building work.
- ASBOs are increasingly being used to stop protestors. A 38-year-old animal rights activist was served a five-year order banning her from going within 500 metres of a number of the country’s largest animal research laboratories.
- ASBOs are used to “clean up” areas councils want to gentrify.
Partly in preparation for the Eurostar extension to St Pancras station, Camden council has handed out a total of 38 orders to beggars, drug users and prostitutes in the area.
Sick children victimised
Children with autism and other serious psychological conditions are being targetted for ASBOs, according to reports from mental health charities and professionals. In one case in the south west, a 15-year-old boy with Asperger’s syndrome, a form of autism, was given an Asbo to stop him staring over his neighbours’ fence into their garden.
In other words, police gave in to the prejudice of this boy’s neighbour. In other words, the police and magistrates had no knowledge about Asperger’s Syndrome and couldn’t be bothered to find out.
People with Asperger's syndrome have a normal intelligence but can display obsessional behaviour and a tendency towards repetitive routines which may seem peculiar to people not familiar with the condition or have not had it explained to them.
This young man had no previous criminal convictions, but if he breached the order by “continuing to stare” he faced jail — a completely inappropriate and inhumane place for anyone with his condition to be.
ASBOs have reportedly been used against a number of autistic children.
In one case in the Midlands, the authorities applied for an Asbo against a 12-year-old girl with Asperger’s who had been swearing in the street. It later emerged that she had heard her parents arguing with neighbours and had mimicked them.
Don’t stereotype youth!
Nicky Laville, 17, Hackney:
I think banning hoodies is out of order. It’s basically stereotyped to people that any youth wearing hoods is a bandit or a crook. Now, apparently, in Bluewater, you can wear a hoodie but you can’t wear the hood up. But funnily enough, in Bluewater they sell hoodies! Does this make sense?
Now, all youth are being scrutinised to feel like if we’re seen with a hoodie, the police may stop us or that we’re going to cause some damage. When, really, the hoodie has been a fashion since how long? Maybe since the 80s or 90s.
And now, we’re being made to feel like we’re outcasts. It only means that people are going to go out there and buy more hoodies to wear!
The youngsters are the ones that pay, and give the shops their money and their business. It’s not older people that go to buy the latest Akademiks, it’s youth.
I don’t think it’s a very good idea at all, because not all youths that wear hoodies are bad. Say if it’s raining or you’re having a bad hair day, you’re going to wear your hoodie. We all do it, cos it’s quick and something you can just pull up.
I think it’s a real shame that that’s what our country’s coming to. Soon they’ll be banning caps, because they can’t see your face, or bandanas cos they’ll say it’s gang colours or something.
Banning hoodies is not cracking down on young kids doing crime. What would maybe help crime go down is if they opened more youth clubs, but the Council doesn’t want to help, and Blair obviously is not interested.
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
I Agree - Now What's The Alternative?
I agree with nearly all the comments above. many people have been convinced that there is a massive problem with crime, old people are afraid to go out of the house at night, as soon as people (particularly old people) see a group of young people they think automatically they must be up to no good. I recently received a questionaire from my local Council about crime and anti social behaviour, and rather than giving the answers they obviously desired from the questions asked I said that something should be done about local planning policies which led to new houses being built in such a way that they encouraged problems with neighbours, and that something should be done baout inconsiderate homeowners parking cars blocking pavmenets, and finally in response to a question about what should be done I said they should stop frightening people with questionaires like the one I had been sent.
However, having been the parent of two children I also know that there are problems that need to be dealt with. For nearly ten years my children couldn't go out of the house because of anti social behaviour from other young people. This is not some run down Counci, estate, but a semi-rural estate of detached and semi-detached houses. Nor were the main young people involved from a deprived background - far from it. The intimdiation was not confined to my kids but the whole family and grandparents. As a local councillor I had to deal with many cases like this, and much worse. There clearly is a problem which has to be addressed.
As a Marxist my approach to crime and criminals (and unfortunately many of those who begin with serious acts of anti-social behaviour either already are, or go on to become criminals of some sort) is that which Marxists developed long ago. I understand the social roots of this behaviour, I have sympathy with those who resort to such activity because of understanding the social roots that lead to it, but that is not to be confused with condoning such behaviour, or siding with those who commit such acts against those (usually working class people) who are the victims. It is the case, as it always has been the lumpen elements that are involved in anti-social, and especially criminal behaviour, are the source not of support for militant, working class, socialist politics, but are fodder for the far right. It is more often the victims of such behaviour who are the ordinary, working class people who our propaganda and activity has to be directed towards.
In not being carried along in the moral panic engendered by the media and taken up in populist fashion by Blair we canot bury our head in the sand and pretend that there is no problem. I cannot accept the comment that some of the behaviour such as hurling abuse at people constitutes normal "friction" (especially when such behaviour is usually the tip of an iceberg). Its okay criticising Blair's policy on ASBO's, but the fact is the vast majority of people support them. If we want to criticise them, then we should be prepared to offer an alternative that deals with the very real problems that ordinary working people do face from such behaviour. The ideal solution would be for estates to be managed by committees of tenants and residents, who would be able to draw up their own ideas of what was needed both to improve the environment in which they lived, and to take control of policing their own neighbourhood. Unfortunately, we live in a society where people have been encouraged to leave everything up to somebody else, and in the areas where this would be most needed the degree of violence and intimidation is so great that few people would be prpeared to risk their lives in such a course of action.
Arthur Bough
The subject and emphasis of t
The subject and emphasis of this article was "anti-ASBO"/New Labour's moral panic. However we also say, and have said before, that we think there is a genuine problem and that anti-social behaviour is not to be condoned. The box on "what is wrong with ASB Os" also points to some alternatives each of which could be massively expanded. This was a news article.
On the other hand ought to try to do something a bit more ambitious and some further debate about the issues would be helpful in that respect.
I agree the problem is real and huge and the roots of it are not just poverty and what people nowardays call "social exclusion". In my view the roots of it are as much do with the a decline of social solidarity and maybe even human solidarity and that in turn is linked to the weakness of and lack of confidence in the labour movement. Anti-social behaviour is a sympton of a society in distress; for all the weeping and wailing over the death of a princess, this is a society without a heart, where dog-eat-dog pri nciples and looking after number one are valued.
So to do a proper analysis you probably need to look at the question historically (not least the idea that there had enver been "anti-social behaviour" before), also such things as the shape and disintegr ation of working class communities around particular places and industries; the problems of design in social housing and its privatisation etc.
There's another really tricky question about changes in, for want of a better term, social mores. There has be en a long decline in "authority" figures and principles in society. For the most part this is a good thing, because most "authority" was in fact "authoritarian". Parents aren't so able to scare their children into behaving by threatening to ring the police these days. But then parents never should have done that in the first place! But what do you replace the old "authority" figures with? Both parents and children end up pretty confused.
But then again we shouldn't forget, because to do that would be to let Blair et al off the hook, years and years of unaddressed social problems play a huge part in this: poor education (the number of children leaving school uneducated is going up not down), drug misuse, the stress and reality of poverty, poor housing etc etc... and above all, the lack of secure, well-paid jobs.
So I agreee we should at some point attempt to deal with all sides of this issue.
Cathy Nugent
Thank You
Thank you for that comment. As you say the whole issue is very complicated, not to say conataining all the dialectical contradictions we would expect in a social phenomena. The problems for socialists are that on the one hand we do not want to give any credibility to the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade, or to the populist pretensions of New Labour, which is why I tried to begin by saying as much in terms of the extent to which this issue is blown up by the media (not to mention the whole industry that is growing up in Local Government and the myriad quangos that now surround it dealing with "Regeneration" or "Community Safety", most of which just give jobs to middle class people). On the other hand there definitely is a problem and it is ordinary working class people that tend to be the main victims of it, and our main concern should be to adress that, whilst explaining as best we can the causes of the problem.
To simply excuse the problem, whilst not trying to work with ordinary working people on estates and elsewhere to find a progressive solution runs the risk of alienating those we wish to attract to our banner whilst gaining no political benefit from those whose actions we justify.
I agree entirely that the breakdown of some of the servile attitudes that dominated previous generations in terms of attitudes to authority, parents, teachers etc. is positive, but there is a difference between servility and to unfortunately use the word Blair has used "Respect". Whilst bearing in mind that respect has to be earned as well as given, there does seem to be a sense in which our society on a very widespread basis has lost the ability for individuals to show respect to one another even where it is just a matter of treating one another in a civil manner. One can think of "Road Rage" for instance, which is just an extreme variant of the way most drivers show a total disregard for one another as being just one area of life where people seem to have a totally self centred mentality.
We can no doubt find all kinds of reasons why these attitudes have developed including the "There is no such thing as coiety" culture developed by Thatcher. I have pointed elsewhere on the Board and referred to it above about the way so called planning policies have created housing solutions which seem almost guaranteed to cause friction between neighbours, and at the same time mitigate against the kind of natural communities that once existed.
As Bruce Robinson argued in a piece concerning the election, and parachuting people into communities the place where you live is as much a place where political action is required as the place where you work, sometimes more so. As Trotsky comment about the woman in the village emphasises. Whatever else socialists might say about Sinn Fein, it seems that one of the reasons for their electoral success in replacing the SPLD (who should have had the historical advantage here) is the fact that they did get stuck into dealing with some of the day to day concerns of people within their constituencies as local politicians. The Lib Dems have done the same.
Socialism is about the way people live as well as how they work, and it is necessary to address these problems too, but the emphasis should be on addressing the problems of ordinary working people, not on excusing those who often are no friends of the labour movement.
I hope as you say that some discussion on this can be undertaken in the paper.
Arthur Bough