Showing posts with label justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label justice. Show all posts

Tuesday, 1 October 2013

Which is the greater crime – poverty or shoplifting? by John Wight



A guest post from my friend, John Wight. First published at Socialist Unity, 27 September 2013.

I personally wouldn’t shoplift unless I was pauperised and hungry, but maybe that's the bourgeois brainwashing I acquired as a kid growing up in Hackney.

I would add, however, that when my purse containing not only cash and all my cards, but a fifty quid note my late dad had given me for my last birthday before he died and which I couldn’t bring myself to spend, was lifted from my bag in the fruit and veg aisle at Finchley Road Sainsbury’s, the staff and security were insultingly unhelpful. They refused to call the police, allow me to view the cctv tapes or view it themselves and report back their findings. Neither did they file a report to management. They could not have cared less about theft in their store if it was from a customer. So I would applaud any little old lady nicking a joint of beef or her favourite tipple. Or anyone, actually.

In retrospect I should have yelled for the cops as quickly as Sainsbury's would have done had it been someone nicking a loaf of bread from their store.

Over to John ...

Which is the greater crime – poverty or shoplifting?
by John Wight

Periodically, I am invited on the Call Kaye radio phone in show on BBC Scotland to give my views on various issues. Presented by Kaye Adams, it’s on every weekday morning and covers stories particularly relevant to Scotland, though invariably UK wide in this regard.

Earlier this week I received a call from one of the producers. They were planning an item in response to a new campaign initiated by the Scottish Government clamping down on the illicit trade in counterfeit goods. Looking for guests to speak to the issue, he asked me for my thoughts – whether I thought it was right or wrong for people to knowingly buy counterfeit goods – clothes, perfume, mens and womens accessories, etc – this on the basis that according to the police and the government people who do so are essentially funding criminal gangs that also deal in drugs, people trafficking, and are involved in more serious criminal activities.

I detected surprise when I told him that the issue came down to well off middle class people pointing the finger at poor working class people and telling them how bad they are. As for the argument about propping up organised crime, which deals in human misery, I told him there was no moral difference between that and buying an item from a high street retailer produced by workers kept in conditions of near slavery throughout the Global South.

Further, if we don’t want people buying counterfeit goods we need to make sure they have enough money to buy the real stuff. Why should poor people be locked out of society and its norms? In the West we have been conditioned to believe that we are what we buy, signifying our value and status.

Poverty doesn’t just have a material impact on those who suffer it, it has a psychological impact, crushing the spirit. Counterfeit designer goods allow those without to enjoy the feeling of belonging, to being part of the mainstream, which is vital to a person’s sense of self esteem, however false.

In the end, the producers decided not to have me on the show to discuss this particular item.

But what struck me about this exchange was the extent to which it revealed a widening disconnect between the haves and have nots, on the level of morals as well as income, exacerbated by the recession and the current government’s policy of making the poor pay for an economic mess effectively created by the greed of the rich.

The values of the rich are dominant everywhere you look. They literally scream at us every minute of every day, holding up individualism, materialism, consumerism, money, and success as the sine qua non of human happiness and worth . Neoliberalism, or untrammeled capitalism, sits at the foundation of these values, an economic system predicated on competition and with it the separation of society between winners and losers.

In the current climate the number of ‘losers’ in this ugly scenario are increasing at an alarming rate. Worse, given the aforementioned role of the Tory-led coalition government currently in power, the consequences of ‘failing’ are more grim than they have been for a generation.

The normalisation and acceptance of foodbanks up and down the country – a concomitant of the assault on wages, benefits, and incomes of the poor, both in work and out – is proof positive of the callous disregard for the well being and dignity of the victims of poverty in Britain in 2013.

The idea that the dominant values and morals of the rich and well off should or even could have any purchase among those whose lives have been reduced to a daily struggle to keep body and soul together merely adds insult to injury.

This is further illustrated by a recent story that appeared in the Mirror on the revelation that shoplifting is on the increase, particularly of basic food items such as meat and cheese.

Is anyone surprised? Moreover, it begs the question of whether people struggling to feed themselves and their children are morally justified in stealing food in order to do so.

I believe the answer to this question is unequivocally yes. Those who take the opposite view – both on the issue of purchasing counterfeit goods and shoplifting – will argue that neither is a victimless crime, as many seem to believe.

Perhaps, but neither is poverty. In fact, more than a crime poverty is an abomination, especially when it has become as widespread as it has in the UK – one of the richest economies in the world – in the 21st century.

The real criminals in society are not those who steal food from supermarkets in order to keep food on the table. The real criminals are those responsible for creating, championing, and maintaining the grotesque inequality, despair, and poverty which compels people to do so.

As the 19th century German philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach wrote: ‘Where the material necessities of life are absent, then morality necessity is also absent’.

Wednesday, 24 August 2011

Vincent Chin and Simon San: two murders, same indifference


Vincent Chin and Simon San were born and murdered decades apart on two different continents, but the common factor is the callousness and indifference with which their cases have been dealt with by the investigating police and prosecutors.

Justice is off the menu when it comes to these Chinese deaths. While the police finally admit that an acknowledgment of the racist dimension of Simon's murder by a white mob outside the family-run takeaway in Edinburgh in Scotland would have resulted in stiff sentences, the men have been given 24 months, 26 months and five years for the thug who landed the killer blow that smashed Simon's head against the pavement. As we all know by now, they will walk after serving only a third of that minus remand time. Only one year more than the sentence imposed on the laptop rioters who posted their encouragement of the unrest on Facebook. What is this telling us about values in Britain today?

This insulting sentence echoes the $3,000 fine and three years probation imposed on the white Detroit car-workers, Richard Ebens and Michael Nitz, who beat Vincent Chin to death with a baseball bat in front of witnesses one summer evening in 1982. Out on a bachelor party, Vincent was hunted down before finally being cornered in a McDonalds where he was held by Nitz while Ebens pulped his skull with the bat.

Both killings were preceded by racist epithets. The Wikipedia account says:
Ronald Ebens was arrested and taken into custody at the scene of the murder by two off-duty police officers who had witnessed the beating. Ebens and Nitz were convicted in a county court for manslaughter by Wayne County Circuit Judge Charles Kaufman, after a plea bargain brought the charges down from second-degree murder. They served no jail time, were given three years probation, fined $3,000 and ordered to pay $780 in court costs. In a response letter to protests from American Citizens for Justice, Kaufman said, "These weren't the kind of men you send to jail... You don't make the punishment fit the crime; you make the punishment fit the criminal."

After an appeal and a retrial, Ebens was cleared of all charges despite witnesses including two off-duty cops. The lenient sentences for Ebens and Nitz led to a galvanisation of US Asian Americans who then formed the pan-ethnic Asian American movement that's given the community some clout since Chin's murder. I wonder if San's case will prompt an equivalent marshalling of Asian community forces in Britain.

On Monday 12th September, Amnesty International is screening a film about the case by Curtis Chin: “Vincent Who?”, a documentary on Asian American political empowerment. He'll be part of a Q&A session afterwards, with Paul Hyu (Chinese Elvis) and Col. Brian Kay OBE TD DL, Chairman of Islington Chinese Association.

Asian Pacific Americans for Progress & Islington Chinese Association presents
"Vincent Who?"
Monday, Sept. 12, 2011
7-9 pm
Amnesty International – The Human Rights Action Centre
17-25 New Inn Yard
London EC2A 3EA
Free Admission
Ticket reservations here



The Leith police dismisseth us, but the Lothian community pay their respects in this tribute.

Thursday, 18 August 2011

Martin Rowson on the UK riots sentencing: cartoon



Martin Rowson does it beautifully.

And John Harris sums up the hypocrisy of MPs lining up to condemn looters for stealing items such as water worth £3.50 and accepting a pair of shorts someone else had nicked (six months and five months in prison). Who could not feel distinctly ill as Labour MP Hazel Bears — who felt compelled to return £13,332 to the public purse for capital gains tax she shouldn't have had — called for harsh sentencing for looters?

Or how about this paragon of virtue?
The then shadow education secretary, Michael Gove, lately heard bemoaning an "absence of discipline in the home and in the school", agreed to pay back £7,000, spent on furniture and fittings for his house in north Kensington. They included a £331 Chinon armchair, a Manchu cabinet for £493 and a pair of "elephant lamps" worth £134.50. Also: a £750 Loire table, a Camargue chair worth £432 and a birdcage coffee table that cost £238.50.

Mmm, good taste, Michael.

Even the Prime Minster David Cameron had to return £680 for home repairs he should have paid himself. Sense of entitlement? Culture of greed? How can we possibly compete with our political class?

The real damage to this country is the erosion of our democracy, its values, and its replacement by Thatcherville.


Saturday, 31 October 2009

Water into whine: PepsiCo fined $1.2 BILLION for court no-show


I hate capitalism, that great big behemoth squishing us all into a greasy smear while a global super-aristocracy floats off into some platinum-plated diamond-studded dimension of their own where hopefully they choke on their million-pound handbags (I kid you not — see pic below). So I welcome those rare victories when you think, yes, there is a God.

I'd like to go down on my knees and thank US Circuit Judge Jacqueline R. Erwin for handing down a righteous judgement that is so awesomely fitting, fair and fantastic that I am writing this through tears of glee.

Lucky plaintiffs Charles A. Joyce and James R. Voigt have performed a miracle and turned water into over a billion dollars, sticking it to one of the biggest corporations in the world. In 1981 they went to Pepsi with the bright idea of selling bottled water, an idea considered so ludicrous at the time that they were laughed out of the offices of Pepsi products distributor Wis-Pak Inc. and Carolina Canners Inc., but not before securing a confidentiality agreement.

Cut to years later when Pepsi catches on and starts selling Aquafina. Joyce and Voigt's lawsuit claims that PepsiCo used information it knew was secret when it began selling its posh water.

What could have dragged on for years and maybe netted our heroes a few million was neatly truncated when Pepsi failed to show up to defend themselves on September 30th despite the case being filed since April. According to the Wisconsin Journal Sentinel:
One of the reasons for PepsiCo's delayed response, according to court documents, was that a secretary in PepsiCo's legal department was so busy she did not tell anyone about a letter regarding the case or enter it into a log that tracks such matters.
I feel sorry for the secretary who I'm guessing is looking for a new job. But thanks for inadvertently striking a blow for the little guy. Perhaps the little guys in question will buy her one of those handbags as a thank you gift out of their loot.

The million-pound handbag made of platinum and over 2,000 diamonds

(Yes, I know, the judgement will probably be reversed when Pepsi appeal but I can dreeeeam, can't I?)

Water into whine: PepsiCo fined $1.2 BILLION for court no-show


I hate capitalism, that great big behemoth squishing us all into a greasy smear while a global super-aristocracy floats off into some platinum-plated diamond-studded dimension of their own where hopefully they choke on their million-pound handbags (I kid you not — see pic below). So I welcome those rare victories when you think, yes, there is a God.

I'd like to go down on my knees and thank US Circuit Judge Jacqueline R. Erwin for handing down a righteous judgement that is so awesomely fitting, fair and fantastic that I am writing this through tears of glee.

Lucky plaintiffs Charles A. Joyce and James R. Voigt have performed a miracle and turned water into over a billion dollars, sticking it to one of the biggest corporations in the world. In 1981 they went to Pepsi with the bright idea of selling bottled water, an idea considered so ludicrous at the time that they were laughed out of the offices of Pepsi products distributor Wis-Pak Inc. and Carolina Canners Inc., but not before securing a confidentiality agreement.

Cut to years later when Pepsi catches on and starts selling Aquafina. Joyce and Voigt's lawsuit claims that PepsiCo used information it knew was secret when it began selling its posh water.

What could have dragged on for years and maybe netted our heroes a few million was neatly truncated when Pepsi failed to show up to defend themselves on September 30th despite the case being filed since April. According to the Wisconsin Journal Sentinel:
One of the reasons for PepsiCo's delayed response, according to court documents, was that a secretary in PepsiCo's legal department was so busy she did not tell anyone about a letter regarding the case or enter it into a log that tracks such matters.
I feel sorry for the secretary who I'm guessing is looking for a new job. But thanks for inadvertently striking a blow for the little guy. Perhaps the little guys in question will buy her one of those handbags as a thank you gift out of their loot.

The million-pound handbag made of platinum and over 2,000 diamonds

(Yes, I know, the judgement will probably be reversed when Pepsi appeal but I can dreeeeam, can't I?)

ShareThis