Is Nothing Sacred: The Creation of a Criminal Other

How cultural genocide has led to the Australian indigenous population to be viewed as a ‘criminal other’.

Andy Diaper is an independent social researcher. He works with vulnerable and excluded people within the community. His main research interests are groups that are excluded, harmed, and criminalised, including indigenous populations.

On 24th May 2020, two ancient rock shelters in the Juukan Gorge in the Pilbara region of Western Australia were destroyed by blasting. The Anglo-Australian multinational mining corporation Rio Tinto carried out the blasting work.  This was to increase the size of their open-cut iron ore mine named Brockman 4. These shelters were sacred sites to the indigenous population and of great archaeological/spiritual importance. This was the only site in Australia  to show continual human occupation stretching back forty-six thousand years.

Rio Tinto were fully aware of both the historical (they had commissioned an archaeological survey of the site) and the spiritual importance. It was not the only option for the expansion, they had investigated four options: three of which would not have damaged the rock shelters. The reason this option was chosen was it would yield an extra eight million tonnes of high-grade iron ore with a net value of seventy-five million pounds.

The traditional owners of the area the Poutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura People (PKKP) only learned of the blasting nine days before the detonation. Lawyers acting on behalf of the PKKP contacted the Federal Indigenous Affairs minister to intervene on heritage grounds. The minister’s office never replied to the lawyers. It should be made clear that Rio Tinto were acting under  section 18 of the Western Australia Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972.

Was this act a singular event? Or a misunderstanding? Rio Tinto has a very poor record in its dealings with the environment and indigenous populations. This event can be viewed as a continuation of the cultural genocide of the indigenous people of Australia.

This cultural genocide is not carried out in an overt way. There is no single perpetrator creating death camps, destroying cultural symbols and sites in the name of some form of purity. This could be called the ‘banality of genocide’. That is there is no single perpetrator, no monstrous ‘other’. This is genocide by a thousand cuts, this is not just a simple metaphor. It was borne out of colonialism with its inherent racism and profiteering which has been reproduced by governments over time. With the ever-increasing move to neoliberal politics this has created the space for other actors to exploit the continuing destruction of the indigenous population to meet their own wants. It can be argued that the neoliberal project is harmful to all vulnerable and disempowered populations. Any concentration on the meritocratic path holds an expectation for the individual to improve their position within the social structure. If however, you are denied the means to achieve this, it can only lead to aspirational failure, despair, and frustration. In the case of the indigenous population this is particularly toxic. With the ongoing destruction of their culture, they become a people with no ‘roots’ or ‘culture’ within what is their own country. In effect a diaspora within their own country.

Genocidal acts against the indigenous population began with colonisation: both physical and cultural. They lost all rights to their land when it was declared ‘Terra Nullis’, as this legitimised the seizure of the land. The indigenous population was decimated by diseases brought in by the colonisers, to which they had no natural immunity. Also, there were deliberate acts of slaughter. These state-sanctioned massacres were not just committed in the early years of colonisation but continued up to the late1920’s.

It was not until 1967 that the Australian government recognised the indigenous population as individualised people. However, even with this recognition it has not eliminated the discrimination, inequality and other harms being perpetrated.

Examples of these harms are 3.1 percent of the Australian population is indigenous, however, 19.3 percent live in poverty compared to 12.4 percent of other Australians. Approximately 20 percent living in non-rural areas live in overcrowded accommodation. The combination of poor housing and poverty impacts on health and mortality outcomes which are also poorer and higher than other Australians. Youth suicide between the ages of five and seventeen is five times higher than non-indigenous people. There is an overrepresentation in the Australian Child Protection system of indigenous children. It is argued that this system supports thousands of jobs from various professions. For example, lawyers, social workers, medical professionals and psychologists, these groups benefit financially from ‘indigenous disadvantage’ A causal reason for this overrepresentation is poverty and systemic racism. It has been likened to a second ‘stolen generation’.

 The indigenous population is also heavily overrepresented in the criminal justice system. Indigenous people are 12.5 times more likely to be in prison as opposed to non-indigenous people. Indigenous females are 21.2 times more likely to be in prison than non-indigenous women. This imprisonment rate is also higher than the rate for non-indigenous men. This overrepresentation has been recognised as symptomatic of the historical and current harms to this population. This also applies to the higher death rate in custody.

The harms perpetrated on the indigenous population, colonisation, post-colonial actions, institutional racism, and an increasing turn to neoliberal politics, is a toxic mix. By its nature neoliberal politics opens the ‘space’ for the private sector to run roughshod over the weak and vulnerable. The belief that it is the responsibility of individuals – not the state – to improve lives, becomes a potential breeding ground for the perpetuation and increase of racism in the wider public. The overrepresentation of the indigenous population in the justice and ‘social care’ system and entrenched racism has led to a misrecognition. The indigenous people are viewed as the architects of their own plight. They are viewed as a criminal ‘other’ and not worthy of help and protection.

On January 26th, each year, the Australian nation celebrate ‘Australia Day’. This marks the raising of the union flag in 1788, some two hundred and thirty-three years ago, beginning the colonisation of Australia. For the indigenous population it is not a day of celebration but a day of mourning. A visceral reminder of the divisiveness, harms and abuses perpetrated upon them historically and continuing  in the present. These harms will continue until those in positions of power move away from tokenism and introduce and strengthen equal and human rights and the protection of indigenous lands.

The article will conclude back in the rock shelters at Juukan gorge, more than seven thousand archaeological artifacts were discovered. One of these was a fragment  of a belt made from plaited human hair. After scientific analysis it was found to be four thousand years old. The DNA results revealed that the owner of the hair was a direct descendant of the PKKP indigenous people still inhabiting this region today.

Contact

Andy Diaper, Independent Researcher.

Email: andy.diaper@btinternet.com

Twitter: @andy_diaper  

Author image courtesy of Melissa Diaper.

Cave art image copyright free.

A Seminal Moment for America’s Campus Police?

Demonstrations at U.S. colleges and universities over alleged improprieties by campus police are forcing schools to rethink all aspects of these agencies.

John J. Sloan III is Professor emeritus of criminal justice at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. His research interests include specialized police agencies, criminal justice policy, and professional ethics. His work has appeared in outlets such as Criminology, Criminology & Public Policy, Justice Quarterly, and Social Forces.

In recent months, demonstrations have been occurring at multiple U.S. colleges and universities over alleged improprieties by campus police that include charges of  racial profiling, using excessive force, and increasing “militarization.” Questions have also arisen over the legitimacy of campus police and whether they are “real” police. Demonstrators’ proposed solutions  have included disarming, defunding, and even abolishing campus law enforcement agencies found at 95% (n=905) of all U.S. colleges and  universities enrolling over 2,500 students. A movement is clearly underway at many U.S. colleges and universities that is forcing institutional administrators to rethink all aspects of having “cops-on-the-campus.”

Having studied and worked with campus police agencies since the 1990s,  I am not surprised a day-of-reckoning has arrived for them and suggest three specific reasons why this reckoning is occurring. First, the historical roots of campus police reveal they were specifically created to address student unrest on campus and protect school property from the damage that often accompanied it. Second, in creating campus police agencies, school administrators adopted mimetic isomorphism as the mechanism for creating them and imbuing them with legitimacy. Finally, in an effort to further professionalize campus policing and increase its perceived legitimacy, nearly all aspects of campus law enforcement ranging from officer training to within agency specialization have mirrored those associated with municipal police more broadly. Because campus police sought legitimacy by mimicking the structure of, and processes associated with, municipal police departments, they are also confronting the same existential threat faced by the police more broadly.

Sworn police officers – those having the power to detain and arrest – have patrolled the campuses of American postsecondary institutions since 1894 when Yale University hired two off-duty City of New Haven police officers to patrol the campus. However, as they are now known and configured on American college campuses, campus police have only existed at U.S. colleges and universities since the late 1960s and early 1970s when American college and university campuses increasingly became sites of protests over U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, civil rights, the “free speech movement,” and the rise of the “new American left.”  Many of these protests became violent when student protestors confronted local or state law enforcement, or in some tragic instances the National Guard, that had been ordered to campus to restore order and protect institutional property. School administrators soon realized that unless they did a better job controlling the protests, outside political authorities, such as governors, would do so for them. What to do?

With assistance from existing law enforcement agencies and state legislators, postsecondary administrators decided to create institutionally-based law enforcement agencies, dubbed “campus police departments,” that would be part of the fabric of the campus community but also have state-accorded power to address lawlessness on campus. State-level enabling legislation was quickly drafted and passed by multiple state legislatures, and thus was born a new, specialized, police agency whose jurisdiction (at least initially) was limited to the geographic boundaries of the postsecondary institution but whose sworn officers would enjoy full law enforcement power and authority including the use of deadly force.

Senior-level postsecondary administrators quickly hired upper-echelon commanders from local (county or municipal) agencies to oversee creation of the new campus police department. Because these individuals came from law enforcement, they chose a familiar organizational model, that of the municipal police department,  to adapt to a new set of circumstances. Like its municipal counterpart, the new campus police agency would have a rank structure, a chain of command and a paramilitary orientation, task specialization, and training, both academy-based and in-service. Officers employed by the department would have full arrest powers and be decked out in the accoutrements of law enforcement, including uniform with name tag, badge, rank, and shoulder patch with department name sewn onto it, and the familiar utility belt holding weapon(s), handcuffs, communication devices, chemical weapons, and baton. By copying the look and feel of municipal police departments, postsecondary administrators believed the new officers would be accorded legitimacy by students, faculty members, staff, and visitors. Campus cops are real cops!

Over the next few decades, the number of campus police departments steadily  grew and with that growth came a push to professionalize campus law enforcement. As campus departments recruited and hired new officers, they were sent to training at established police academies around the country. There, they received basic law enforcement training over the course of 4-5 months alongside new recruits who had been hired by state, county, and municipal police agencies. Also included in the push was creation of a professional association of campus law enforcement officials, the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators (IACLEA), whose articles of incorporation were filed in the State of Georgia in 1980 and which was recognized by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as a non-profit organization in 1981. What had been a monthly newsletter for the organization became a full-fledged publication, the Campus Law Enforcement Journal which continues to publish six issues annually and is “the” trade publication for the industry.

The end result of the push to professionalize campus police is that they have become increasingly like their municipal counterparts both tactically and organizationally. Tactically, because it is now the norm for new hires to attend basic law enforcement training at one of the over 600 police training academies operating in the U.S., as part of basic training new hires learn not only about firearms and use of deadly force, but also about use of “less-lethal weapons” including batons, chemical irritants (e.g., tear gas, “pepper spray”(oleoresin capsicum)), and conducted energy devices (e.g., Tasers). Campus officers now carry on their person an approved set of “tools” that includes both lethal and less-then-lethal weapons that become available for officer use during encounters with students, faculty members, staff, and visitors but the presence of which has been shown to elicit variation in constituent perceptions of the officers as hostile, helpful, friendly, and answerable for their actions.

Organizationally, campus departments are becoming more specialized in their operations, including creating “tactical operations teams” (i.e., SWAT teams). To illustrate, during 2011-2012 – the most recent years for which data on campus police agencies are available – 27 percent of campus police agencies using sworn officers indicated they had officers assigned to a tactical operations (SWAT) team. What this translates to is that of approximately 615 campus police departments using sworn officers, about 167 had a unit using specialized military tactics and/or equipment to address so-called “high-risk” situations (e.g., threats of terrorism, for crowd control, or to address a hostage-taking situation) that exceed “ordinary law enforcement” capabilities. 

The militarization of the campus police may simply reflect a growing trend by different types of police agencies in the United States to utilize SWAT teams to perform routine tasks (e.g., serving search warrants) that can ultimately lead to unnecessary casualties and property damage. Peter Kraska was among the first to note this trend when he spoke of the “militarization of law enforcement” back in 2007, while Radley Balko’s Rise of the Warrior Cop became a best-seller in 2013.

A second organizational trend is extension of both arrest and patrol jurisdiction of campus police to areas well-beyond the physical boundaries of the campus itself. During 2011-2012, for example, 86% of campus police agencies’ arrest jurisdiction included properties adjacent to campus and 71% of agencies’ jurisdiction included areas beyond the area immediately surrounding the campus. Also during 2011-2012,  81% of agencies employing sworn officers had patrol jurisdiction that extended to properties immediately adjacent to campus and 57% of agencies’ patrol jurisdiction extended even beyond properties immediately adjacent to campus. Thus, it is now common for campus police to engage in routine patrol in the neighborhoods surrounding the campus and have the power to arrest people in those areas.

For several decades, campus police agencies in the United States have grown larger, become more professionalized, and more complex organizationally. Gone are campus “watchmen” and “rent-a-cops” of bygone eras. They have been replaced with sworn police officers trained at state- or nationally-accredited academies, who are then equipped with all the tools of 21st century policing including weapons and technology, and whose patrol jurisdiction and arrest powers are steadily expanding. However, like their municipal counterparts, campus police are also encountering significant pushback and criticism. This past June, for example, Johns Hopkins University announced it was putting on hold for two years a plan to create its own campus police agency in light of protests over the school’s plan to create such an agency. Campus police are also being criticized for their opacity, militarization, use of excessive force, and racial profiling. Whether and how campus police in the United States weather this seminal moment in their history remains an open question.

Contact

John J. Sloan, III, Dept. of Criminal Justice, University of Alabama at Birmingham

Email: prof@uab.edu

Images courtesy of the author and “IL – Benedictine University Campus Police” by Inventorchris is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0

SNC-Lavalin: Charges to settlement, have lessons been learned?

The significance of corporate criminality and leverage is illustrated through the business activities of a Canadian multi-national company. Economic and political impropriety are often welded together to reap dividends, however is it not time to redress the balance in favour of the collective good?

Sharon Hartles (002)

Sharon Hartles was awarded a Master of Arts in Crime and Justice (with distinction) from the Open University in December 2019. She has an interest in crimes of the powerful, including state and state-corporate crime.In an explicit attempt to move beyond criminology, she draws upon a zemiological approach to evidence the social, political and economic context in which crime is produced and interwoven into society via socio-economic inequalities.

Liam Miles

Liam miles is a Criminology student at Birmingham City University and has a passion for writing on a range of topics including structural inequalities, systematic violence, conflict in the Middle East, Corporate and White Collar crime, and various theoretical paradigms to crime and deviance. He also works in the Students Union as Vice president for Academic Experience.

 

 

 

On the 19th of February 2015, corruption and fraud charges were filed in the Court of Quebec by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) against SNC-Lavalin and two of its divisions (SNC-Lavalin Construction Inc. and its subsidiary, SNC-Lavalin International Inc.). The alleged criminal acts took place between August 2001 and September 2011 and consisted of an exchange of ‘almost $47.9 million to Libyan government officials to use their positions to influence government decisions’ and defrauding ‘the Libyan government and other entities of “property, money or valuable security or service” worth almost $129.8 million.’  According to a statement released by RCMP, the then Assistant Commissioner Gilles Michaud, “The charges laid today demonstrate how the RCMP continues to support Canada’s international commitments and safeguard its integrity and reputation,” It will come as no surprise to note that the charges and statement were met with a counter public statement issued by SNC-Lavalin in which it declared the charges to be without merit.

The potential harm and wider-reaching ramifications which a guilty verdict would have incurred should not be understated. If SNC-Lavalin Group were to have been convicted of offences under the Canadian Criminal Code (or under these acts: Competition Act, Controlled Drugs and Substance Act, Corruption of Foreign Officials Act, Excise Tax Act, Financial Administration Act, Income Tax Act, Lobbying Act) they would have been ineligible to compete for federal contracts for ten years. In line with the Integrity framework regime which was introduced in 2015, a government–wide ban prohibits federal departments from doing business for a period of 10 years with companies who have engaged in improper conduct. This 10 year ban is in place to ensure the Canadian government does business only with ethical suppliers in Canada and abroad.

In 2018, SNC-Lavalin was ranked Canada’s top contractor, for the third consecutive year, generating around US$9.8 billion in revenue. Such an assertion is supported by SNC-Lavalin’s annual reports financial highlights for  2019, 2018, 2017, 2016 and  2015. On its 2015 report as at 31st December, SNC-Lavalin declared a figure of 36,754, as the number of people employed, of which around 9,000 of these reside in Canada. With this in mind, it is clearer to comprehend the potential global harm a conviction outcome would have set in motion and therefore why this may have been deemed not to be in the best interests of the Canadian government. With that noted an alternative arrangement to a 10 year ban had to be devised.

A solution presented itself in the form of a remediation agreement, also known as a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) which defers or suspends criminal charges. However, in 2015, when the charges were filed against SNC-Lavalin Group remediation agreements did not exist within Canadian law. Taking that into account, in 2016 SNC-Lavalin successfully lobbied government officials, and the direct result was that as part of the 2018 federal budget, Canada’s Criminal Code was amended to encompass the newly adopted DPA regime for corporate wrongdoing in Canada. This truth cannot be dismissed because it is reinforced in the report published in August 2019, by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion: Ethics Commissioner’s report on Justin Trudeau and the SNC-Lavalin scandal.

The Dion Ethics Report sheds light on the political interference which surrounded the issuing of a DPA for SNC-Lavalin Group. Jody Wilson-Raybould, Minister of the Attorney General (2015–2019) stood before the Justice Committee on the 27th February 2019, and stated that between September and December 2018, she “experienced a consistent and sustained effort by many people within the government to seek to politically interfere in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in my role as the attorney general of Canada in an inappropriate effort to secure a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) with SNC Lavalin”.

According to the Dion report findings, the Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau (2015 – present) and members of his party had breached section 9 of the Conflict of Interest Act. This conclusion was reached with evidence that detailed how the former clerk to the Privy Council Michael Wernick, (2016- 2019) allegedly telephoned Jody Wilson-Raybould on the 19th December 2018 and stated “The Prime Minister wants to be able to say that he has tried everything he can within the legitimate tool box, so he is quite determined, quite firm, but wants to know why the DPA route which parliament provided for isn’t being used”. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion concluded that Justin Trudeau made attempts to influence the Attorney General’s Department to politically steer the case against SNC-Lavalin to see a remediation agreement achieved. In his defence, Justin Trudeau maintained that he was looking to protect Canadian jobs after the company warned a conviction at trial risked damaging its business.

What is of interest is that in November 2018, SNC-Lavalin was categorised in the top 27% of all companies registered in the Corporate Political Engagement Index as being a key government stakeholder and donator to the Trudeau administration. Since the genesis of the prosecution case against SNC-Lavalin in 2017, the company exerted a very broad lobbying effort to secure legal and political assistance. Such assistance extended beyond the lobbying of numerous staff within the Prime Minister’s Office (and the Prime Minister himself) and went as far as the Minsters of the Department for Finance, International Trade, Innovation, Science and Economic development. In the words of criminologist John Muncie in his work titled Decriminalising Criminology this may evidence ‘the legal transgressions routinely employed by those wielding political and economic power and their ability to deny or conceal the harms they unleash under the protection of the law.’

On the 18th December 2019, SNC-Lavalin pleaded guilty to fraud over its Libyan activities. Its construction division pleaded guilty to a single count of fraud. All other charges were withdrawn in the settlement. The outcome of which was a probation order and a fine amounting to C$280m ($213m; £163m) to be paid over five years and a three-year probation order. SNC-Lavalin stated:

  • ‘It had cleaned house and changed its ways since 2012.’
  • ‘openly lobbied for an agreement that would allow it to avoid prosecution and instead face alternative penalties’
  • ‘admitted that over the course of a decade almost C$48m ($36m; £28m) was directed to Saadi Gaddafi’’

In the aftermath of the SNC-Lavalin and the political scandal, damage has been done. On the one hand, by midday, the date the settlement of criminal charges was imposed, trading had resumed and SNC-Lavalin shares jumped 20 per cent to C$29.01. On the other hand, SNC-Lavalin reported a 6% drop in revenue during the first six months of 2019 to US$3.5bn from US$3.8bn in the corresponding period. This drop in revenue is a side-effect of what Ian Edwards (who was promoted to the post of interim president and chief executive officer of SNC-Lavalin from the 11th June 2019) referred to as a ‘really tough quarter’. Furthermore, data generated by the 2019 Transparency International index of global corruption, indicates that Canada has slipped and now ranks 12th on the list of 180 countries assessed. This is a decrease of three places compared to the 2018 index.

SNC-Lavalin avoided being barred from applying for lucrative federal contracts, meaning it has been able to return to generating billions in profit and billions in revenue. There is no disputing that SNC-Lavalin is one of the world’s largest engineering and construction companies and in line with its Annual Report 2019, as at 31st December 2019, it employed 47,000 people around the world. Having said that, this provides a broader understanding of SNC-Lavalin’s impact within an economic and social context and why it has a duty to enhance society. By investing in Corporate Social Responsibility and implementing this into practice, corporate citizenship can benefit society whilst simultaneously boosting companies reputations. To safeguard its world-wide workforce it is essential SNC-Lavalin be mindful of the consequences of its future profiteering endeavors. Only time will tell if lessons have been learned and if SNC-Lavalin has truly drawn a line under its corporate-wrongdoing.

 

Also posted on:  sharonhartles.weebly.com  and  https://liamcrime.blogspot.com/

 

Contact

Sharon Hartles   

Email: sh28739@ou.ac.uk

Twitter: @shartles1

Liam Miles

Email: liam.miles@mail.bcu.ac.uk

Twitter @liam_miles1

 

Images: courtesy of the authors