When I first heard about the death of Ian Tomlinson, the G20 protestor, I tried to keep an open mind. I had no information available apart from the death itself, and no reason to suspect anyone was to blame, or that no one was. Perhaps he had been crushed in the crowds, or had suffered dehydration on a very warm London day; maybe he had actually been involved in some of the violent scuffles that took place among those very few protesters looking for a fight.
The following day, more and more footage of the protests surfaced; videos of protesters smashing bank windows, of people fighting, but also of people peacefully demonstrating, singing together and setting up tents for an overnight camp. It was in this time too, however, that a manifestly more dark, sinister and troubling brand of footage was emerging, accompanied by accounts that the violence was not all being caused by those protesting. In the days that followed, more details about the death were released, provoking a growing concern and discomfort regarding these videos and the witness statements that shadowed them. Reports that it was the protesters who were causing all the trouble were being questioned. And finally, when these events culminated with a video clip of Ian Tomlinson minutes before his death, it came as a surprise to no one that his death had followed a horrific assault at the hands of the police.
The footage I refer to is, of course, the coverage of the police behaviour during the protests; videos that showed protestors ‘kettled’ into crowded areas for up to 7 hours without food or drink, demonstrators pushed violently with police shields and attacked with battens regardless of whether they were causing any harm or not. Accounts suggested that no one was allowed to leave these enclosed areas without having their photograph and address taken by police, before being forcibly dragged out one-by-one. A peaceful protest at Bishopsgate was allegedly stormed by riot police who viciously pushed and hit anyone protester unless they moved out of their way quick enough. This was footage that showed the police doing nothing less than violating the right to protest, assaulting innocent people under the guise of calming crowds, and committing no less violence than those few protestors so condemned in the media. It was in the context of these actions that the death of Ian Tomlinson occurred.
One of the most remarkable reactions to Tomlinson’s death came from the video showing him walking calmly and peacefully in front of police before being attacked. Suddenly, he could no longer be assumed a violent and juvenile ‘thug’, merely looking for a fight. No, he was an innocent man on his way home from work, and for this the police actions were unforgivable. What is revealed in this reaction is the implication that his innocence somehow makes any difference. Of course, there were people who chose to reflect their anger by retaliating to the police containment; but it is indicative of a society where civil liberties can not be taken for granted that were he engaged in conflict with police, he would have deserved to be violently beaten and hit to the ground.
The investigation into the events, by the IPCC, will now determine how much force the police were permitted to use on the day, and whether their attack directly led to Tomlinson’s heart failure, and a likely defence of the police will come from the latter question. However it is the former that is so troubling; just where is the line being drawn under what police are allowed to do in protecting the public? The method of ‘kettling’ (in which a crowd is contained within a small space for hours at a time) is still deemed a legal practice (though, significantly, this judgment came from the police force itself); yet it was this behaviour that led to so much violence in the first place. Likewise, the right to use battens to push back crowds, even when aimed at the head, is unquestioned, despite the fact that the police clearly weren’t acting in self-defence, and weren’t at any great risk themselves. Clearly, the line is now being drawn when police damage reached its absolute maximum, and a life is taken; so just why does anything less than this seem reasonable?
Following the events of September 11th, the western world was forced to accept that terrorism was now a very real threat, something confirmed by the train bombings in Spain and in London six years later. In 2009, it is still perceived as the biggest menace to national security. Accompanying that is a growing concern about knife and gun crime in the UK; indeed, as ever when a recession hits, crime increases and a new concern enters national consciousness. As fear and paranoia has grown, the government and police have implemented ever more stringent measures and punishments in the name of countering these issues. Examples of this include the 42-day act, and the right to search citizens at will. The problems stem from here, however. Firstly, this has led to a situation where the abuse of people’s rights has become more acceptable as long as it is for an overall good cause; no one cares about the plights of asylum seekers and young teenagers from troubled homes, as long as they feel safer; they no more deserve their treatment and rights abuses than those vandalising the RBS building at the protests, and yet people are all too quick to turn a blind eye when it’s in the name of ‘public safety.’ But the G20 protests revealed another problem with this strategy; under the guise of containing violence, the police have now licensed themselves to remove civil liberties in order to make their jobs easier. By playing on fears of violent protesters and mass riots, the police now feel they have the support they need in order to contain crowds, assault them and remove the right to protest. Civil rights in this country have been reduced quite drastically in many respects, and much of it is to ease the job of the police.
The death of Ian Tomlinson is frequently being compared to that of Jean-Paul de Menezes. While some commentators have argued that the cases should be separated, I think there is a troubling similarity in both cases. Under the line of public protection, the police have played a hand in abusing the rights of two British citizens. The problem with this approach, as the police are now finding out, is that every so often it is an innocent person that is affected, and the police are left with cold blood on their hands.
No comments:
Post a Comment