Surge in Stop and Searches by Police

Workers' Daily Internet Edition : Article Index :

Surge in Stop and Searches by Police

Iraqi Leadership Studies UN Resolution 1441
Iraqi President: US, Britain Seek Control of Middle-East Oil

US Elections 2002:
The Non-Election Elections

The Home Office statistics released last week show that black people are now eight times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police than white people. In London, police use of stop-and-search against black suspects has surged by 30 per cent. But stop and search overall has also shot up, for example, by 18 per cent in London last year. Stop and search of Asian suspects leapt by 40 per cent, although the statistics try to excuse that by saying that it was from a much lower starting point.

These figures have come when the government has been taking reactionary measures all along the line. In a climate where it feels it has carte blanche to target national minority communities, and has forced through its Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, with some minor changes, which is based on targeting "asylum seekers" and criminalising whole sections of the people, it is no surprise that arbitrary and racist actions by the police have increased.

After the Macpherson Report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence which branded police "institutionally racist" the figures had dropped for two years. But then voices were heard in the police force complaining that they were hampered in carrying out their duties by fears of being branded "racist". The police have now more reason than ever to feel that they can exercise arbitrary authority without fear of being punished or brought to book.

Ravi Chand, president of the National Black Police Association, commented on the statistics: "Very little seems to have been done to address the real concerns the black community have. Clearly the figures indicate to us that the biggest drop in stop-and-search is for white."

With the publication of the figures, it is being suggested by police and politicians that stop and search is a legitimate tactic against street robbers and people carrying drugs. But what is overlooked is that where the government itself is acting as a partner in crime with the Bush administration in its role as international gangster, it is to be expected that criminal behaviour in society will also be on the increase. Furthermore, the state singles out sections of society for attack and harassment, and finds it in its interest to ride roughshod over the rights of all to turn especially the youth into criminals and encourage them to violate their own interests. The state also wishes to make the issue one of "racism" – that is to say, some supposedly inherent quality in the "white" community or within a "white"-orientated police force – to prevent the people from viewing it as a political question and to demand that the rights of all are defended.

An official Baghdad source informed the Iraq News Agency on November 10 that the Iraqi leadership is studying UN Resolution 1441 despite its infamy and injustice. The source added that the Iraqi leadership will issue the proper reply in the coming days.

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein accused the United States and Britain on Saturday of acting against the principle of the UN charter by pressuring the Security Council into adopting the resolution aimed at controlling Middle-East oil.

"The US and British administrations have rebelled against the principles of the UN charter and international law and behave with the international community as if it must execute their orders," Saddam Hussein said. The Iraqi President said, " The issue is tied to evil designs to dominate the world and control Middle Eastern resources and oil."

He went on to say that the resolution exemplifies the "new US-British trend at the UN to consider power and opportunity instead of international right and justice." Saddam Hussein urged countries across the world to adopt a stand of fairness in order to defend themselves and safeguard their own interests, and not just for Iraq's sake.

The following news analysis is taken from Voice of Revolution, Publication of the US Marxist-Leninist Organisation (USMLO) — November 5, 2002. USMLO draws the conclusion that, as broadly brought out in many demonstrations throughout the US, what is at stake for the people is bringing about regime change at home, and not just at the presidential level. The entire electoral system is being questioned as being completely non-representative of the will of the people. The people of America are utilising and will utilise this period of transition to organise for alternatives, for an electoral system created and decided by the people themselves.

The 2002 federal elections include the entire 435 member House of Representatives and one third of the Senate (34 for this election). There are 36 Governor races, including those for the 5 most populous states, California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Texas. For the House elections, of the 435 races, only 50 are considered even "competitive," and of these less than 20 are said to actually have "no clear favourite." For the Senate, less than 10 of the races are considered close.

In the US electoral system, it is not unusual for the vast majority of seats to be considered decided before the elections. Incumbents routinely win 95% of the seats, leaving only 5% to be contested. What is unusual is that in an election where control of the House and Senate, as well as Governorships, are considered very close, the public is not witnessing a knockdown battle between the big parties. The media is complaining about the lack of competition and their own difficulty in endorsing candidates with any conviction. This is true not only at the federal level but the state level, where competition is usually greater as costs for campaigns are far lower and the ability to get on the ballot less difficult.

In New York State, for example, The Buffalo News describes elections this year as "one of the most dispiriting State Senate campaign seasons in recent memory," where only four of six area incumbents have challengers and, according to them, only one candidate has "any credibility." They say the State Assembly races also have "a lack of credible opponents," and "poor choices" for voters. In New York, as elsewhere, there is no effort on the part of the two big parties to rectify this situation or even the usual attempt to present the elections as actual elections.

Another indication that these elections are part of a transition where control by one or the other party of either the House or Senate is not at issue are some of the Senate races. In a situation where every race would be considered decisive by both big parties, they are not. In Georgia, for example, where Max Cleland, currently a Democrat, is being challenged by Saxby Chambliss, Cleland has raised far more money and is expected to win. Cleland is well known for voting with Bush and routinely supports the "centrists" from both parties, including Bush, on all matters of significance. A similar picture can be painted in other races, as well as those for Governor. What is at stake is election of "centrists," from both parties.

The Minnesota race, where leading candidate Paul Wellstone was killed in a plane crash, is considered one of the exceptions. It was, in the sense that a campaign was being waged, unions organised to get out the vote, and people felt there was a choice. Now, many think that what Minnesota most represents is the effort by the "centrists" from both parties to eliminate those, like Wellstone, who oppose them. Mondale, chosen to take Wellstone’s place, is not considered a threat by anyone.