Aidan Burley MP (c) altogetherfool |
From what the papers say, the objective of those attending the party was:
"We are trying to intimidate as many people as possible. A lot have been quite offended, especially one guy who was both Jewish and gay."Another member of the party allegedly toasted the ideology of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party. This makes Burley an accessory to inciting to intimidation, and potentially hate crimes.
Returning to the UK riots, and those who incited them on Facebook, even though none occurred as a result of their actions, why is it that someone in political power is facing nothing more than an internal inquiry into his conduct into something that caused harm?
What took place in France is little different to what took place on the internet. The objective in both cases was to intimidate and incite. Whilst one might argue that these incidents took place in separate geographical locations (France and the UK), I would counter this.
The incitements to riot took place online. This is a space not confined to geographical boundaries, as Brown (2003) makes clear:
"Cyberspace can not be treated as a neutral space, or as a definitvely different space, but neither can it grasped by existing notions of crime and the law."Besides, as Wall (2007) points out we have two separate ways of policing cyberspace. Distal (offline), as in traditonal, conventional policing and proximal (online) through the likes of internet service providers and community vigilante actions. Therefore, this space is different, in that it has different crimes, bound by more than just the UK's criminal justice system.
Buchenwald disabled Jews (c) United States Holocaust Memorial Museum |
I understand that what happened in France is illegal, although not in the UK. Given our recent political spats, it is possible that Burley will criminal charges. If he were to, then beware the political and mainstream media fallout.
By recreating ideas of an 'us' and 'them' and a 'right' and 'wrong', we will no doubt hear that this incident was not really a crime, just because under UK law it is not. As such, he would have people in powerful positions distancing him from being constructed as a criminal.
Due to these unequal power relations in society, the notion of crime is no longer an adequate term for understanding the experience that victims suffer and face. Ideas of 'social harm' would seem to be more appropriate for determining what constitutes what we call a crime.
Because as things stand, this case is just another example of what the face of crime looks like.
No comments:
Post a Comment