April

POLICING

What We Need, What We Want:

What is Possible

POLICING DEBATE, CONWAY MILL, 3^RD APRIL 2001

IRSP SUBMISSION, DELIVERED BY PAUL LITTLE

Policing, what we want, what we need and what is possible is the working title for tonight�s debate and as the political process lurches from one crisis to another the question of how our communities are policed remains one of crucial importance to those of us who care passionately about the environment in which we raise our families.

The Republican Socialist Movement has been quite clear and consistent in regards to the policing debate, the RUC in any way, shape or form, under any set of initials, wearing any uniform is unacceptable to our people.

�Patten� itself is a compromise, not on policing but on fair and equal policing, why should anyone have to make compromises to secure fair and equal policing is beyond us. Let us say clearly here tonight that our communities have the right to fair and equal policing, nobody has the right to negotiate a compromise on fair and equal policing. The �Patten� compromise was entitled a consultative process, many political parties and community groups attended public meetings and made written submissions, the IRSP were no different and made our views quite clear on the issue. However, after the report was published not one political party came back into these communities and asked the ordinary working class people what we thought of the report, almost silently �disband the RUC� became �implement Patten.� The British through Peter Mandelson turned the Patten report on its head and essentially concentrated on cosmetic changes to the RUC, uniforms, the name, emblems, this is what change is being delievered. No mention of banning plastic bullets, no disarming, white land rovers instead of gray ones. Lets send a clear message from this hall tonight we are not buying it, it is not enough. The RUC/PSNI still remains a paramilitary force that is in a position to implement British rule in Ireland by force of arms and some of the most draconian legislation in the world today. The IRSP reject this as we are sure most within the working class community do. The fact that the British could not deliver a fair police service, nevermind implement the flawed Patten recommendations is a clear indication that the British are not serious about social change. They are still wedded to a military strategy in Ireland. They have neither the courage or the will to deliver this most basic tenet of civil rights.

COMMUNITY RESTORATIVE JUSTICE

On the issue of local restorative justice schemes the jury is still out, without a doubt they are a wonderful opportunity for the community to operate a fair and equal system that seeks not to criminalise but to assist in the gelling of community spirit. Unfortunately, there is evidence that in the nationalist community that it is being operated by people of a singular political affiliation and therefore it is dogged with allegations of favouritism and far from being a unifying community initiative it is proving to be a divisive force within the community, turning neighbour against neighbour. In the loyalist/Unionist community some of those involved in implementing restorative justice are associated with organisations who remain the largest importers and suppliers of illegal drugs in Ireland. The issue of community policing needs to be taken away from singular political identities and applied evenly across the board by a wide range of community personnel. There needs to be much more community discussion on the remit of community restorative justice, it should be remembered that whilst restorative justice is quite new to Ireland it is not new elsewhere, especially in Australia where the initiative originated. We need to hear the experiences and see the results before we can judge the system that we have here.

All is not lost on the issue of CRJ, but it will be if it continues down its present course where it is viewed by most as another branch of a movement which persistently fails to deal with its own community offenders but has no problem in dishing out any amount of punishment to others outside their organisation.

The very issue boils down to who is the �community�. We believe that all who live within a community are deserving of equal treatment, not just those who agree with a particular political viewpoint. Community Restorative Justice needs to speak out clearly and unambiguously against all anti community behaviour, not just the old chestnuts of joy riding, theft, underage drinking and drug related crime. We are all agreed that this type of behaviour is unacceptable in our communities, it is also essential that community restorative justice schemes speak out clearly against the type of anonymous leaflets that are flooding working class districts at present, these leaflets which name persistent offenders are also being used to malign, demonise and set up political opponents, leading to lynch mobs outside people�s homes. Is that really the road we want to go down? I don�t think so. There will always be those who place themselves on the outside of the community, but the one scenario that cannot be allowed to develop is that Community Restorative Justice no matter how good it does, is brought into disrepute by those who seek to exploit it for their own narrow political aims.

COMMUNITY RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IS FOR EVERYONE!

 

The Voice of the Lark is a new monthly public forum for open debate and discussion.
The Lark forum intends to present debate from a wide variety of views, excluding no one and including all.

Monthly series of open public debate sponsored by
The Devine Family * The O�Hara Family
Bernadette McAliskey
Eamonn McCann
Sandy Boyer