Criminologists Behaving Badly

The following blog focuses on two related topics resulting from attending the Australian, New Zealand Society of Criminology conference, held at University of Auckland (jointly with AUT University of Auckland), from 27-30 November, 2012.  

Part 1 offers a brief summary of the Maori-focused papers presented at the conference, while Part 2, titled When Criminologists Behave Badly, provides commentary on some of the bizarre behaviour exhibited by senior members of the Academy in response to the Maori-centric presentations.

Part 1 - Maori focused papers.

A couple of things stuck out about this years ANZSOC conference; 1) unsurprisingly (given it was held in New Zealand) a decent number of papers focused on Maori perspectives were offered, and 2) all of said papers either spoke directly from the Maori perspective (by using 'engaging methodologies'), or (if delivered by a non-Maori  presenter) took a 'critical' view of issues of importance to Maori.  This situation was a distinct improvement on the trend evident at past ANZSOC's where the greater majority of 'Aboriginal papers' were delivered by non-Indigenous scholars utilising non-engaging methods while largely ignoring Indigenous-generated theorising, empirical evidence and literature (the specific session on 'Aboriginal issues' at the 2011 conference in Geelong a recent, classic example). 

In all, 8 papers were offered that privileged the Maori voice and experience of criminal justice issues.  The following section provides some brief comments on each paper; I will make available longer commentaries sometime early in the New Year:

Moana Jackson (Keynote speech): Taking the 'Crim' out of Criminology: Towards an Indigenous Causation Theory.  Moana's key points related to the weaknesses of Eurocentric criminology, in particular its lack of focus on the historical drivers of Indigenous marginalisation and the part this plays in over-representation, and the power of Indigenous theories and responses  to social harm, based on the (re)building of relationships, using a theory of relational distance to analyse and explain incidents of social harm, and why the state and criminology's responses are often ineffective.

Terikirangi Miheare (Victoria University of Wellington): The Misappropriation of Maori Culture in Prison.  A beautifully presented paper; started off with a gentle meander through the recent history of Corrections use of Maori culture to sell itself as 'culturally responsive', and ended with a devastating critique that demonstrated that the Departments so-called 'tikanga programmes' are little more than a misappropriation of Maori culture in pursuit of policy/political legitimation.  

Kristen Maynard: Ruru Parirau: The Power of Stereotypes and Potential Implications for Justice Policy and Practice.  This excellent presentation focused on the negative impact that stereotypes of Maori amongst policy workers is having on the development of effective policies and interventions.  Kristen used a recent example where she and her colleagues purposefully challenged stereotypes of Maori and alcohol to develop an effective policy programme aimed at minimising harm from alcohol consumption.  This paper provided a nice policy-in action case study to supplement the more 'theoretical/political/ideological' focus of other papers presented at the conference.

Antje Deckert (AUT University):  Neo-Colonial Criminology: Decolonising Research Methods and Discourse. Antje's paper was based on preliminary findings from analysis of the types of methods used by criminologists who publish journal articles on Indigenous people: her conclusion so far: about 75% don't bother to talk to Indigenous peoples directly, preferring instead to use silencing methodologies.  Interesting, one criminologist who attended this session seemed to think this was unfair as it implied that any criminologist who didn't write about Indigenous issues was therefore guilty of silencing, which is weird given that this has no bearing on the focus of the paper as was clearly stated by the presenter during her talk.

Juan Tauri (Queensland University of Technology): 'If You're so Good, Why is Your Policy so Bad?' A Critical Indigenous Appraisal of New Zealand's Crime Control Industry.  My perspectives on the poor quality of NZ policy making is well documented elsewhere :-)

Robert Webb (AUT University): Maori Offending: A Critical Analysis.  Rob's paper took us through the recent history of policy making in New Zealand and Maori in the criminal justice system, and how this has resulted in individualistic, poorly crafted interventions.  Anyone wanting to read his perspective simply type in Robert Webb, Maori and crime into google - there are at least 2 papers readily available on line. 

Tracey McIntosh (University of Auckland): Rethinking Over-representation: Maori and Confinement. This paper provided a Maori/offender informed critique of issues with correctional policy making with regards Maori (especially Maori women).  

Kim Workman Maori over-representation in the criminal justice system: the police response.  In this paper Kim decided to focus on policing and Maori issues.  Starting with an overview of research that evidences the drivers for the poor relations between Maori and the police, Kim then highlighted some of the genuine attempts by police to improve the situation (for example, Liaison Officers), but finished by highlighting that the recent Tuhoe incident and statements that no bias exists in police in NZ demonstrate that we still have work to do in this area. 

Part 2 - Criminologists Behaving Badly

A summary of the ANZSOC 2012 experience wouldn't be complete without commnetary on the behaviour of a small group of (prominent) Criminologists towards Indigenous issues (in general ) and a small group of Indigenous speakers (specifically). My reasons for mentioning these issues are 1) to educate these people about how to act respectfully when engaging with people they disagree with regardless of ethnicity, and 2) to forewarn our post-graduates about the types of people, attitudes and behaviour they are likely to experience as they go about their work as Indigenous scholars.

Overall, the majority of participants appeared receptive to the issues raised by Maori/non-Maori scholars who attempted to bring Maori perspectives into the conference; even if they did not fully agree with the perspectives they brought to the table.  Unfortunately, a small group of scholars offered the sad, old style of engagement reminiscent of the colonial era.  This generally entails talking about Indigenous issues while lacking detailed knowledge of the Indigenous context, Indigenous theory, research, literature, and socio-cultural/political context.  This same group appeared to believe that the conventions regarding respectful conduct towards other delegates did not apply to them, something that was especially evident when Indigenous delegates presented their papers.  Here is a small number of 'case studies' from the conference that illustrate these issues:

1. The 'I know bugger all, but I'll make an expert comment anyway' Criminologist

This is one of my favourite 'criminological types' who  frequent criminology conferences.  This sub-species is more often than not white, middle class and male; academics who have spent little time researching with First Nations, but who might have written a paper (or 2) sometime in the distant past about Aboriginal people (extensively panned by critics).  These individuals enjoy 'putting the natives right' about their past and current social context, but react badly to any critique of their perspective, especially if it comes from said natives.  

A classic example of the boorish behaviour of this 'type' occurred during the Post-Graduate day: In a presentation on comparisons of Romani and Maori youth and criminal justice, one criminologist began his poorly evidenced rhetoric by stating "I don't really no much about Maori and New Zealand'... but continued, regardless, to argue that because Maori have parliamentary representation they cannot be viewed as 'marginalised', or not as marginalised as other Indigenous/marginalised peoples (as though there is some sort of international league table of Indigenous marginalisation).  Now, if this statement had been framed as a question regarding empirical issues relating to problems with comparing one group to another, and across jurisdictions there wouldn't have been much of a problem.  Sadly, this was not the case, as the commentator chose  instead to offer it as a statement that they clearly did not expect a response to.  It was delivered with the 'perspective of an expert'; presented as an incontestable statement on the current situation of Maori in the New Zealand context.  This situation is highly problematic both in terms of the accuracy of the statement offered by said Criminologist, and their expectation that the statement was beyond comment.  I responded anyway, stating that it was simplistic to equate political representation with empowerment, and that because of this, Maori cannot be considered as marginalised as other social groups.  This kind of representation is simplistic because it is contradicted by plenty of 'empirical evidence' that political representation does not automatically = significant impact on or over the development of policy and legislation: simplistic because the statement demonstrates a lack of meaningful engagement with material on the contemporary social context in which Maori live.  Unfortunately, this particular commentator was simply replicating the same misinformed perspective that is offered on a regular basis in New Zealand by non-Indigenous scholars, policy workers and talk-back radio hosts.  

The speakers responded later that evening by accusing me of playing the 'Race Card' (a claim they repeated to my boss the next day).  I interpreted this to mean one of two things, either a) I had disempowered him by talking as an Indigenous person (can't really help that!) or b) I had unfairly lumped him in with other ignorant non-Indigenous commentators, which was true, but impossible to avoid given the poor quality of his statement.  As usual, this individual gave me little chance to respond as he simply walked away after making his allegation.  If he had stuck around and engaged with me as he should have, I would have politely but firmly told him that we had both played the Race Card, me when I spoke as an Indigenous person in response to his uninformed comment, and he when he chose to speak with authority on the 'Maori situation', despite his own admission that he knew very little about either Maori or the New Zealand context.  Hopefully in future this individual will consider their ignorance of such matters, and think a bit more before privileging their own voice in this way.  I am also hoping that in future they learn to cease such puerile behaviour as falling back on the use of allegations such as 'the Race Card' against their detractors, and instead choose to debate the issues directly with us.  

The same individual confirmed both their ignorance of Indigenous issues and arrogance in thinking they can talk regardless when he asked Moana Jackson if he had "Any evidence to back anything he said" during this keeynote speech.  The ignorance/arrogance of this question is highlighted by the fact that plenty of evidence exists to back all aspects of Moana's talk, whether related to his argument for socio-cultural genocide of First Nations (truckloads), his contention that First Nations had their own law and 'justice' processes (shitloads), and that these processes are applicable to some/all Indigenous peoples today and will likely work better for us (a small amount and growing).  I would expect this experienced Criminologist, who enjoys commenting on  Indigenous issues with regularity, to have engaged with this material.  Unfortunately, the tone and nature of his question hints that he hasn't, to which only 2 explanations are possible (in my view of course): 1) he hasn't engaged, which does not require further comment, or 2) he knows it exists but because the material is generated by Indigenous people it is 'probably unscientific, and therefore invalid and easily dismissed'.  Either way, all he did was underline the reputation of this particular sub-species of Criminologist, universally ignorant of First Nation perspectives, but all too willing to 'tell the natives how it is' regardless of their lack of knowledge of the Indigenous world. 

2. The 'conventions of right, ethical behaviour don't apply to me' Criminologist

A number of incidents highlighted that certain Criminologists think themselves above all others when it comes to respectful behaviour towards participants.  Unfortunately, and whether by design or not, these incidents occurred too often when Maori delegates were presenting:

a) to the senior Criminologist who walked down about 12 rows, in front of Moana Jackson as he delivered his keynote speech and thrust the microphone in his face; this is rude and obnoxious to Maori and non-Maori alike: instead of being rude, simply ask for something to be done, or sit closer to a speaker!  Next time you behave this way you will be told in no uncertain terms that your behaviour is offensive... in front of 180 other criminologists :-)

b) to the same person and a colleague who talked, moaned and bitched through the entire session on Maori perspectives, and who's ill-informed, prejudiced comments could be heard by those around them; if you can't handle different perspectives to yours being aired, especially by Indigenous peoples, and you actually believe it's ok to behave in such an unprofessional manner, perhaps you shouldn't come to our sessions?  You'll probably have more fun talking to each other anyway.  

To both individuals concerned I present my third and last 'Bullsh*t Artist of the Week' award for 2012.

Cheers and a happy New Year to you all :-)

The Imperialism of Western Knowledge

The focus of this blog is the issue of knowledge production and its use by the academy to silence Indigenous voices.

Out of the mouths of babe's

Recently I was taking a tutorial at the University where I work in Brisbane.  The topic of discussion was 'arguments for and against giving Aboriginal peoples autonomy to practice customary law'.  When I asked students for arguments against the proposition one replied "we can't implement their [Aboriginal peoples'] laws cause they didn't write them down".  I then asked the class 'so, if it ain't written down, it is not valid knowledge', to which a few responded 'yes, because if it isn't written we can't believe it to be true'. 

It is tempting, but wrong to dismiss this kind of argument as the uninformed views of a small group of undergraduate students.  Uninformed they may be, but we should remember that they are articulating an ideology shared by many who work in criminology and the public service.  The ideology I write of is a very simple one: knowledge disseminated via Western methods (scientific enquiry) is legitimate (for developing and implementing crime control policy) and those derived from non-Eurocentric processes are not.  Welcome to the world of the Knowledge Wars.

The Indigenous revival and the knowledge wars

All Settler Societies have witnessed the cultural and political resurgence of their First Nations.   Important components of Indigenous revivalism include concerted efforts to save their languages and resurrect political institutions including those that engender the gathering and dissemination of knowledge (e.g., Kohanga Reo (pre-school) and Wananga (universities)).  Maori revivalist activity has brought with it the usual neo-con, redneck backlash. In the 1970s and 1980s feminist activists and scholars suffered backlash from (mainly) men unwilling to contemplate the loss of masculine hegemony over society and the construction and dissemination of knowledge.  In similar vein Indigenous revivalists have been the target of ideological warfare from (mainly) non-Indigenous institutions and individuals fearful that their Western, scientific knowledge will lose legitimacy with policy makers. More importantly, it may lose its shine with those who fund policy-focused research (more often than not the same institutions and individuals).

The backlash against Indigenous revivalism (in this case, Maori) and in particular against our knowledge processes, has generally taken three forms, represented here as a question or statement:

1. All Maori are a 'problem', aren't they? The kind of comment you often hear from breakfast TV, talkback radio hosts, 'mainstream media' and politicians. Most know little about Maori either as individuals or communities, but are happy to educate us all with their puerile and uninformed comments about Maori culture and language being 'archaic' and 'stone aged', and representing Maori as 'problem darkies' who can only be saved if they shed their culture and join the modern, Western world. Prominent exponents of this rhetoric include John Banks, Michael Laws and anyone associated with the ACT party. 


2. Do Maori really exist? A position taken mostly by economists and demographers who question whether Maori culture and identity, as it is practised today, is 'valid' given the rates of intermarriage. A fair 'empirical' question to ask, but too often in attempting to answer it members of the academy rarely talk to Maori or read existing scholarly texts developed by us on this subject. In others words there is a tendency from those asking this question to completely ignore research and literature on the socio-politics of identity construction (for a classic example of this approach see Callister, 2004). 


3. Isn't Maori culture and knowledge unscientific (see 'stone age') and undemocratic? The focus of comments of this type are claims that contemporary Indigenous knowledge forms are unsuited to the modern era either because they are a) based on 'stone age' principles and beliefs, or, if that doesn't work, b) inauthentic because it is 'invented' by ideologically and politically driven natives to suck monies from Government or to empower tribal elites (see Rata, 2003 and Marie, 2010 for examples of this approach).

Connell (2006) argues that we can group the strategies used to silence the Indigenous Other into four main textual moves: 

• Claims of universality: silencing the Indigenous Other through the ideological belief that Western science is the pinnacle of human knowledge construction and, importantly, that knowledge derived from it is applicable to all humans regardless of 'race', social and historical context. 
• Reading from the centre: a tendency for the West to 'read the world' from its own position, and not from a position of the West's impact on other regions or peoples; 
• Gestures of exclusion: where Western commentators analyse and speak about the Indigenous Other by focusing on (mainly) Western texts and theories; and 
• Grand erasure: the process of writing about crime trends, etc as though any other context other than the 'West' exists, or is important, or similarly, discussing the neo-colonial present (for example, Maori over-representation) as though the colonial past never happened.  

All four moves are commonly found in criminological texts focused on Indigenous peoples.  For example, we can see it in the work of criminologists who publish tracts on Indigenous issues largely devoid of critical commentary or research carried out by Indigenous peoples; a classic example of a gesture of exclusion (see Newbold and Jeffries, 2010 - especially the section on New Zealand).  We see the strategy of universality in the claims of criminologists and policy makers that scientifically-derived interventions, based on Western social mores and norms, are applicable to all peoples regardless of 'race', culture and social context (for examples read anything published by New Zealand's Department of Corrections in relation to its criminogenic interventions and the Ministry of Justice re: its suite of crime prevention initiatives).  We see the systematic (and systemic) grand erasure of Indigenous justice knowledge throughout the work of the crime control industry, where Indigenous-derived commentary on justice issues is often totally absent from literature reviews, Cabinet papers and strategic documents.

The destruction of Indigenous knowledge in crime control policy

A recent publication by Marie (2010) is emblematic of attempts by members of the academy to support the policy sectors drive to exclude Indigenous knowledge from the policy making process.  In her article, Marie makes a number of contentious arguments, including two in particular that are closely linked, 1) crime control knowledge and interventions derived from Tikanga Maori are invalid in contemporary Western contexts because the methodologies used are non-Western and unscientific, and 2) New Zealand's crime control policy-makers have given power over to  Maori and 'Maori culture', which for the past 20 years or so has dominated the sectors policy, funding and intervention-related approaches to Maori crime.  Furthermore, these two interrelated issues explain why New Zealand's policy makers have made little impact on Maori rates of offending and imprisonment.  So, the crux of Marie's argument is that the ongoing over-representation of Maori in the criminal justice system is because our unscientific approaches do not work to control offending, and because we have been crafty enough to con white policy makers into giving us control of the sector's Maori policy work and service delivery.

The only words that describe these claims are 'uninformed' and 'rubbish'. Like so much of this type of work, when we peel back the thin veneer of 'science' we can see that the Western academic is wearing no cloths. With regards Marie's work, you only need to perform the basic literature and document review any competent 2nd year criminology student would undertake to complete an essay, to uncover evidence that:

1. Maori theory does not dominate policy making in any of New Zealand’s crime control agencies.  In fact the vast majority of policy, legislation, intervention design and funding decisions are informed by Eurocentric, imported ‘theories’ and interventions, such as Crime Prevention through Environmental Design and Rational Choice Theory in the Ministry of Justice and the Psychology of Criminal Conduct in the Department of Corrections (see the Ministry of Justice generated material on the recent Drivers of Crime project in New Zealand (2009a and 2009b); and
2. The vast majority of government spend in New Zealand’s criminal justice system goes to imported Western crime control programmes, including the environmental and psychological initiatives mentioned above.  It is interesting to note that during the now defunct Effective Interventions initiative (2006-2007), Te Puni Kokiri officials were informed by crime control agencies that Maori-controlled initiatives received less than 10% of the sectors spend on therapy and other forms of intervention (see Tauri, 2011).

Celebrate deviant knowledge!*

None of the strategies used to silence Indigenous knowledge will come as a surprise to Indigenous commentators and other critical academics.  Our knowledge is, as Walters (2003) so aptly describes in his critique of criminological knowledge construction, of the deviant variety.  We should embrace and celebrate this title; for at least our knowledge is derived from engagement with our communities.  I would rather our work be considered deviant than hide behind the ideological facade expressed in such terms as 'empirical', 'scientific', 'rational' and 'value-free'. 

Indigenous and other critical scholars, commentators, community workers and the like, need to be aware of the material produced by those working to silence the Indigenous voice.  It is good to 'know your enemy', but let's not get too dazzled by their attempts to blind us with their claims to be scientific, especially when Connell (2006: 257) reminds us that in the development of their work :

"Debates among the colonised are ignored, the intellectuals of colonised societies are unreferenced, and social process is analysed in an ethnographic time-warp". 

References

Callister, P (2004) Ethnicity Measures, Intermarriage and Social Policy, New Zealand Journal of Social Policy, 23 (online).

Connell, R (2006) Northern Theory: The Political Geography of General Social Theory, Theoretical Sociology, 35: 237-264.

Marie, D. (2010) Maori and Criminal Offending: A Critical Appraisal, The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 43(2): 283-300.  

Ministry of Justice. (2009a) Strategic Brief: Biological Risk Factors for Involvement in Crime.  Wellington: Ministry of Justice. 

Ministry of Justice. (2009b) Strategic Brief: Risk Factors and Causal Mechanisms for Offending.  Wellington: Ministry of Justice.  

Newbold, G. and Jeffries, S. (2010) Race, Crime and Criminal Justice in Australia and New Zealand, in A. Kalunta-Crumpton (ed.) Race, Crime and the Criminal Justice System: International Perspectives: 187-206. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Rata, E (2003) An Overview of Neotribal Capitalism, Ethnologies Comparees, 6: 1-22.

Tauri, J. (2011) Indigenous Perspectives (reconfigured chapter), in R. Walters and T. Bradley (eds.), Introduction to Criminological Thought (2^nd ed.): 187-210. Auckland: Pearson Longman.

Walters, R (2003) Deviant Knowledge: Criminology, Politics and Policy.  Cullompton: Willan Publishing.

* The term 'deviant knowledge' as it is used here is taken from the title and content of my colleague  Professor Reece Walters book Deviant Knowledge: Criminology, Politics and Policy.  

Ignoring Inconvenient Truths: Criminal Justice and Lazy Scholarship in Aotearoa/New Zealand

The purpose of this entry is to provide a brief overview of the current state of much of the scholarship that academics and social commentators are producing re: the issue of Maori and criminal justice.

Missing the Wood for the Trees

In late November 2011 I was in Wellington to give a paper at a Restorative Justice practitioners conference.  Soon after I arrived one of the 'demi-God's' of crime control policy in New Zealand, Kim Workman introduced me to another participant as 'Juan, the radical', effectively giving me a promotion.  He proceeded to tell his mate an interesting story: earlier that year after he had presented a paper on Maori crime at a conference in the Waikato region, a young man said to him 'any work about Maori and crime issues and doesn't cite Moana Jackson or Juan Tauri' is bullsh*t"!  Kim, laughing, tongue firmly set against his cheek, then said, 'Juan is famous'.... and our lovely chitchat ended there and we parted.  

I had read the paper he presented at the conference and agreed with the young man's comments, although I wouldn't go so far as to call it bullsh*t.  The paper was well-written and contained some useful information on the 'Maori situation', especially for policy wonks who would appreciate that it glossed over nasty fish hooks like, ah, institutional racism (at least in a meaningful way), or the failure of so many of the imported interventions both they and other liberal commentators have been supporting for decades, while providing a set of safe (largely 'business as usual') non-threatening policy options for them to consider.  The paper contained a number of the weaknesses that are sadly all too prevalent in mainstream criminological commentary on 'the Maori problem', including:

1. too much focus on the international perspective (and supporting the importation of overseas programmes and policies of dubious quality);
2. a tendency to ignore critical research and commentary produced 'at home' by Maori and non-Maori academics, researchers and practitioners; and 
3. a preference for analysing Indigenous issues from within the uncritical confines (and safety) of Eurocentric frameworks provided by the state (criminal justice systems and policies) and the academy (Law, Criminology, Psychology, etc).  This approach can be seen in a number of recent 'expert' commentaries by Danette Marie (which is an exemplar of this type of approach), Newbold and Jeffries (2010), Department of Corrections (2007) and to a lesser extent, Hess (2011) and  Tinsley and McDonald (2011: (the report can be found on line by typing in 'Kim Workman', or the title of the paper: Redemption Denied: Aspects of Maori Over-representation in the Criminal Justice System). 

The fundamental weakness in this approach is evident in Workman's paper through his inexplicable decision to ignore what is the only large-scale empirical research ever completed on Maori experiences of the criminal justice system; namely Jackson's 1988 report He Whaipaanga Hou.  'But', you might say, 'the report is too old'; and the answers to that are 'yes it is', and 'so what?'  Any author claiming to provide us with a thorough discussion of the 'Maori situation' must engage with the experiences of Maori represented in Jackson's report.  Not only is his work still the only in-depth, 'empirical' study of Maori experiences of New Zealand's criminal justice system, but more importantly, (and worryingly) the findings and recommendations are still relevant to the policy settings of 2012.

Furthermore, Jackson's findings have been backed by a range of government and non-government work, including the Maori and Police Perceptions research carried out by Te Whaiti and Roguski in the late 1990s, the range of papers presented (and reported) at the Nga Kaiwhakamarama I Nga Ture 1998 Maori and criminal justice conference, Te Puni Kokiri's 2007 research on Maori offenders experiences of prison... and the list goes on.  In other words, all the meaningful empirical work completed since 1988 (and by that I mean, with the exception of the Te Puni Kokiri report, carried out independent of government) demonstrates that the Maori experience of criminal justice has not fundamentally altered.  Ergo, what the 3,000 Maori who participated in Jackson's work put forward as solutions to the current racist, biased system, still hold value for any discussion of contemporary policy settings.

Similarly, given that Workman claims to be trying to identify existing 'gaps in research and policy', his lack of engagement with (or knowledge of) the work of critical commentators like myself, Mikaere, and Webb is baffling, especially since the issues emanating from all three authors' critical, Maori-centred work clearly constitute gaps in policy and intervention design and delivery, and demonstrate the disempowering nature of New Zealand's crime control processes for Maori.  Engaging with their work is important because their research identifies issues Maori have with recent crime control practises, including (but not exclusively) the increased tendency for uncritical importation of Western crime control policies, and the (recent but ongoing) retrenchment of public financial support for Maori initiatives (as evidenced by recent cuts by government to the much lauded Whanau Ora policy project).  Yet Workman's critical review says nothing about either of these empirically identified issues.  In fact, his work not only overlooks the 'wood for the trees', but bypasses the Maori forest to gaze lovingly at the various exotic, imported species of European and North American crime control initiatives much loved by 'commentators', jurists and policy wonks in the third world jurisdiction we call New Zealand.

Referencing dubious 'evidence': a comment on political opportunism
While presenting at the conference that I mentioned at the beginning of this blog, Workman described me to the audience as 'probably the person most critical of the Minister Sharples support for Maori run prisons and his belief in the efficacy of certain prison programmes'.  I sat and nodded politely, while reflecting sadly that most of what he said was inaccurate; the result perhaps of his lack of engagement with the range of critical work I and others produce.  It also highlights the dangers inherent in trying to read the minds of others who you know little about.  For the record, I don't have an issue with Sharples' broad crime control perspective as we share many of the same concerns with the performance of the criminal justice sector.  However, I do believe his view that Iwi will able to run better prisons is just a tad naive when you consider that what any private contracting entity will be running is a  'a prison' as defined and structured through a government agency-constructed contract.  Iwi will not be delivering a 'prison product' designed from thin-air by their corporate tribal arm.  Nor do I have a major issue with attempts to improve the quality and efficacy of prison programmes: I just wish Ministers, Workman and other prison advocates would drop their periodic tendency for displaying an unquestioning acceptance of policy workers' rhetoric about the scientific reliability of their programmes, especially when it aligns with their own interventionist and political agenda.

A recent example of this tendency was a press release from Rethinking Crime and Punishment that took the Sensible Sentencing Trust to task for disagreeing with the then Minister of Corrections, Judith Collins' who had released her own press release extolling the effectiveness of the agency's drug and alcohol initiatives, as 'evidenced' by its own research.  I think that Rethinking Crime and Punishment, Workman and others should be a little more circumspect before breathlessly extolling the so-called scientific claims of the Minister of Corrections and his/her policy wonks; after all this is the same agency that:

• worked every 'dirty trick' in the policy book to stop a thorough, independent analysis of bias in the criminal justice system as agreed and instructed by Cabinet in the 2006-2007 Effective Interventions work programme.  Part of Corrections strategy was the poorly crafted 2007 review of Maori offending which makes the dubious claim that only two primary theories dominate explanations of Maori overrepresentation, namely bias in the criminal justice system (the 'Maori' theory)  and life-course theory (the 'scientific', rational explanation preferred by policy).  The truth is that Maori and non-Maori commentators have used a vast range of theories to explain the situation and practioners' a diverse range of interventions to alleviate it, and the literature is readily available to demonstrate the falsity of Corrections claims (see Te Puni Kokiri, 2007 and Webb, 2003: a critical commentary on the range of theories will form the basis of another blog).  The reason for Corrections purposeful expunging of Maori and critical theories and related empirical evidence?  Quite simply, Corrections officials employed the report as a strategy to kill off the proposed bias project.  An interesting aside: Corrections officials had no issues with the project when they thought it would focus solely on Police.  It was only when Te Puni Kokiri officials proposed that the project consider bias at all stages of the criminal justice system, that Corrections support suddenly waned (nothing has been produced in the past twenty years in the New Zealand crime control policy context that comes close to the Corrections report as a classic example of an agency starting from a pre-determined set of findings and conclusions prior to carrying out the actual research: it is a must read for anyone with a critical perspective on crime control in New Zealand); and

• did everything in its power to try to hide the fact that analysis of the first set of data on the effectiveness of its criminogenic suite of programmes actually showed that Maori offenders who received their scientifically-derived 'therapy' had higher reconviction rates than the control group (when the data was reported as such the report was removed from the official who had authored it and given to another official to 'review'.... meaning an attempt was made at massaging the offending data into something more palatable to the organisation).

I suspect that members of Rethinking Crime and Punishment and like-minded individuals already know how unethical crime control policy wonks are when it comes to Maori issues.  The support for then Corrections Minister Judith Collins' statement about 'evidence' for the efficacy of certain initiatives, which was used by Rethinking Crime and Punishment to criticise their main competitors in crime control rhetoric in New Zealand (the Sensible Sentencing Trust),  makes their support for this type of propaganda unacceptable.  From my perspective it makes them look like political opportunists who feed hungrily on the morsels of ideological rhetoric Minister's and policy wonks throw their way  because it suits 'the relationship'.

I'm sure they have their reasons for this behaviour and can provide a number of rationale to justify it.   I have a couple of my own, one being that their critical silence on the often unethical nature of policy making comes from a fear (not unfounded) that to do so might result in government agencies retrenching some of the (already) inconsequential funding agencies throw at external organisations to keep them compliant.  Another unpalatable explanation is that some commentators consider the issues generated from a critical Maori perspective to be insignificant or 'unmentionable' because they do not align with their own policy agenda.  If that is the case then their arrogance is palpable given that Maori have time and again exposed the racism and ineffectiveness of crime control policy making in New Zealand with respect to their communities.  If you ignore our experiences, for whatever reason, then you are part of the problem and not the solution.  

References

Department of Corrections (2007) Overrepresentation of Maori in the Criminal Justice System: An Exploratory Report.  Wellington: Department of Corrections.  

Hess, J (2011) Addressing the Overrepresentation of the Maori in New Zealand's Criminal Justice System at the Sentencing Stage: How Australia Can Provide a Model for Change, Pacific Rim Law and Policy Journal, January: 180-209. 

Jackson, M (1988) Maori and the Criminal Justice System: He Whaipaanga Hou: A New Perspective.  Wellington: Department of Justice.

Marie, D (2010) Maori and Criminal Offending: A Critical Appraisal, The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 43(2): 283-300. 

Nga Kaiwhakamarama I Nga Ture (ed.) (1998) Maori and the Criminal Justice System: Ten Years On, conferencing proceedings from the Maori and the Criminal Justice Hui, July, Wellington.  

Newbold, G and Jeffries, S (2010) Race, Crime and Criminal Justice in Australia and New Zealand, in A. Kalunta-Crumpton (ed.) Race, Crime and the Criminal Justice System: International Perspectives: 187-206. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Te Whaiti, P and Roguski, M (1998) Maori Perceptions of the Police.  Wellington: Victoria Link Ltd. 

Te Puni Kokiri (2007) Report on Engagement with Maori Providers, Practitioners and Offenders (draft: available from Juan by request).  Wellington: Te Puni Kokiri. 

Tinsley, Y and McDonald, E (2011) Is There any Other Way?  Possible Alternative to the Current Criminal Justice Process, Canterbury Law Review, 17: 192-221.

Webb, R (2003) Risk Factors, Criminogenic Needs and Maori, Conference Proceedings of the Sociological Association of New Zealand, Knowledge, Capitalism, Critique, December, Auckland. 

Workman, K (2011) Redemption Denied: Aspects of Maori Overrepresentation in the Criminal Justice System, paper presented to the 'Justice in the Round' Conference, University of Waikato, 18-20 April.

It's Not So Black and White: An Outsiders Observations on Racism in Australia

In this blog I will be making observations on racism in Australia.  I have to preface this piece by clarifying that:

• I am a New Zealander, which in the minds of a lot of Australian's automatically disqualifies me from making any observations about their country or culture (too bad!);
• I am indigenous, which for a small group of Australian's disqualifies me from having an opinion about any subject, 
• I've only lived here for two years (three if you include 1990);
• I am not racist or prejudiced against Australians... some of my best friends are Australian....
• Yes, I will be making sweeping generalised statements about Australia and Australians, but those of you are not racist will know who you are :-)
• Mostly importantly, I live in Brisbane, which most Aussies living south of Tweed Heads don't consider part of Australia at all, but some weird, backward place stuck in the 1950s.

Putting all that aside I believe that as an 'outsider', in being both non-Australian and Indigenous, I am able to bring a unique perspective to an analysis of racism in this country.

So, here are some observations that hopefully will cause debate:

Observation 1: casual racism

Most of the courses I teach at University in Brisbane focus on Indigenous justice.  A couple of times I have been asked by students 'are there any differences between Australia and New Zealand with regards racism'.  In my experience there is a significant difference in how racism is expressed in social settings and I explain it to them in this way: in New Zealand we have 'polite racism', here in Australia you have 'casual racism'.

To clarify the difference between the two sets of behaviour - in New Zealand if someone is about to make what might potentially be considered a racist comment they will preface it by saying 'I'm not a racist, but....', and then proceed to make a completely uninformed, racist remark about people of colour.  They make this comment not because they do not think they are racist (I suspect the majority know) but so they can feign hurt, shock and surprise if they are pulled up for their racist behaviour.  Another possible explanation is that they hope that the Maori or Pacifica guy who overheard them, the one built like the All Black front row, doesn't decide to pummel their racist ass.

Here in Australia, especially where I live in Central Brisbane, racists don't appear to be concerned about being pummelled - mainly because you see very few people of colour in social contexts here (by that I mean drinking!) apart from the odd Maori of Pacifica man who work in nearby building sites.  They see no need to preface their racist comments with a qualifier like 'I'm not racist, but...'.  Instead they just say it, and say it loud and proud: 'I hate Abo's, Wog's, Nigga's, Chinks, Maoris, Muslim's, Boat People'.. and occasionally, 'New Zealanders'.  I have heard it all and I have heard it often.

In a two week period last year an English friend and I counted four different occasions when we went out that we had a white Australian standing next to us or talking directly to us make these types of comments - always unsolicited.  The worst incident was when a Torre Strait Island friend and I went to a pub where two young Australian men and two Canadians had a competition to see which country's Indigenous peoples were the worst (the most drunk, violent, poorest, laziest, etc), judged by telling the best (as in the most racist) joke.  The funniest part of this incident was when they finally realised the two guys sitting next to them were 'brown', one commented... 'only joking guys', we aren't racist'.

I have a feeling that particular idiots mother is a New Zealander.

Observation 2: it is better to be white....if you stuff up

Sports is a big thing in Australia: If you are good at sport people will like you.  If you excel in Rugby League, AFL, Rugby or Athletics and Swimming  a lot of people will adore you.  So, when a sporting star stuffs up in some way it brings a lot of media and public attention.  My observation is this: how you get treated and how your behaviour is explained by media and sports insiders depends a lot on your ethnicity.  

This issue arose recently when a high profile Aboriginal AFL player was charged with a criminal offence while on leave in the Northern Territory.  Soon after an article appeared in a newspaper quoting a AFL club scout who said that problems such as this made clubs weary of contracting Black Fellas and that they were more attractive propositions if one of the parents was white.  The implications of this attitude is obvious: if a 'Black player' behaves it is because of his 'whiteness', if he is all Black, well....

Naturally these comments and the newspaper articles caused controversy and the AFL scout resigned.  Amongst all the commentary one thing stuck out for me, how come when white players misbehave, say abuse drugs, shag their team-mates girlfriend or wife (perhaps not 'illegal' but dodgy, unethical behaviour nonetheless), sleep with and use young women after making 'school visits', get drunk, fight, fall over, urinate in public, etc - all behaviours that are common in sports populated by young, fit, well-paid and well known men -  their 'whiteness' is never raised as an issue?  In comparison to Black Fellas, the poor behaviour of white sportsmen (yes, they are almost always men) is explained by focusing on them as individuals and never on their ethnicity.  I long for the day when I read the newspaper headline: 'White Player Behaves Badly'.

Observation 3: being Australian means being white, anything else is 'UnAustralian'

My last observation relates to the propensity for some white, middle class or wealthy, middle aged men to use the term 'UnAustralian' to criticise and silence a political view or action that differs from their own.

The first time I heard that comment was when the Federal Government talked about making Mining companies pay more taxes on their not inconsiderable profits (making them pay more tax = 'UnAustralian').  Aussie friends tell me the term has been around for some time, but is being used more frequently.  Since Xmas I have heard the term used against anyone who dares criticise the rich and powerful (more often than not mining magnates) and especially against the Aboriginal tent protesters for their actions on Australia Day.

As I said at the beginning of this section, the people who use this term most often come from a small section of Australian society.  What they appear to be saying is that unless you behave and think like I do, as a white, middle class or rich, middle age male, you are not truly Australian.

So, I would like to hand my second Bullsh*t Artist of the Week award to anyone who has used this term in the past, or in the future, in order to silence views and ways of life that differ from your own.

God help this country if this self-important group were to one day dictate how to live as an Australian.

Control Freaks and Criminologists

Control Freaks and Criminologists

The focus of this blog entry are non-Indigenous criminologists who build their careers on the backs of Indigenous peoples yet demonstrate little commitment to First Nation issues or engagement with the communities they write about with such authority.

One of the most influential criminologists in the world today is Biko Agozino, a Nigerian academic currently teaching at Virginia Tech in the US. I regard Biko as one of the key criminologists of the 21st century for a number of reasons, in particular the fact that he dares to speak truth to power, namely the discipline of criminology and the part it plays in the continued subjugation of First Nations peoples and other marginalised communities.  Biko's importance to the development of Indigenous perspectives on social harm/crime, and critique of Eurocentric criminology is beautifully captured when he asks and answers the question:

"What is criminology? A control freak discipline!"(Agozino, 2010).

Control-freak indeed: has any academic discipline (apart from psychology) failed so dismally to achieve what it tells everyone are its key objectives namely to 'understand and reduce crime'? When the celebrated Institute of Criminology at Cambridge University was set up in the 1950s, the British Home Office gave it the task of 'identifying crime and solving the crime problem', meaning that it had to identify the causes and discover a cure.  If that is what we were meant to be doing then by every measure the academy has been a dismal failure.  The same can be said of the disciplines main host, supporter and funder, government (yes, if government is the host, then the discipline of criminology is a parasite).

Throughout the 20th century and so far in the 21st, we have offered ever more sophisticated theories of criminality and cures such as boot camps, tough on crime policies including New York's much praised (but greatly exaggerated) broken windows approach, longer prison sentences, ever more sophisticated prison regimes (for example, New Zealand's Integrated Offender Management process) community policing, militaristic policing strategies, conferencing and restorative justice, crime prevention through environmental design (for example, CCTV) and my favourite academic discovery of the moment, crime science. Anyone out there feeling any safer due to all these successful solutions?  Seen any significant reductions in offending rates? Of course if they are confronted with difficult questions like 'why do your scientifically-derived interventions not = meaningful, long-term reductions in crime', criminologists, clinicians, practitioners and policy wonks will invariably produce a small, localised evaluation of their pet project and say 'here, we reduced crime for this group over 12 months.....' or something similar.  Dig deeper and invariably you will find that those who designed the solutions manufactured (and often carried out) said research, or paid someone to do it for them while maintaining control over research production (a particular skill of the policy sector). One thing that can be said with accuracy about criminology is that it is extremely skillful in the art of self-promotion and self-preservation through making itself relevant.  And how does it make itself relevant?  Well, too often by kissing the backside of the state via gazing uncritically at its activities while gazing from afar at the life-world of First Nation peoples (Tauri, 2011: by 'from afar' I refer to the tendency of some criminologists to analyse statistics whilst sitting at their desks, then write with authority about the Indigenous context while getting no closer to engaging with us than staring out the window).

Of course I need to qualify the previous statement by stating that when I talk about the failures of criminology, I am referring to particular schools within the discipline often referred to as administrative criminology or positivist criminology. In short, these criminologies are characterised by a) a focus on issues, definitions (of crime), policies, etc deemed by the state to be important and worthy of empirical enquiry; b) take as their theoretical and epistemological (a word so loved by post-modernists that simply means 'world view') framework from dead white guys or live ones, that are sprinkled liberally over social and cultural contexts for which the said framework lacks explanatory power; c) 'job for the state', meaning take the Crown's coin and do the Crown's bidding; d) knowing little about the communities they research and write about, highlighted by the fact they prefer to use non-engaging methods (statistical analysis, written questionnaires, etc); and e) ignore or are uninterested in key issues for  marginalised communities like the impact of colonial dispossession, genocide, institutional racism and bias and the historical lack of meaningful infrastructural investment (see Cohen, 1988 and Young, 2011 for excellent discussions of these forms of criminology).

In neo-colonial jurisdictions there exists an even more virulent form of the criminology described above, to which I give the title Authoritarian Criminology. This form shares many of the identifying markers of administrative criminology highlighted previously, but is distinguished by:

• confining its criminological gaze to issues relating to state-defined ‘problem populations’, more often than not people of colour and working class youth, and issues without significant engagement with individuals or communities from these populations; and
• the utilisation of methodologies/methods that highlight Eurocentric knowledge construction  and ‘expertise’ devoid of meaningful engagement with First Nations, while silencing our methods of knowledge construction and dissemination through labelling them non-scientific, ideological and value-laden.  

This form of criminology can be called Authoritarian because it purposely seeks to ingratiate itself to the Policy Industry by isolating the Indigenous experience and voice and seeking to speak for us.  It perpetrates our disempowerment through its blindness to the role played by colonisation, genocide and institutional racism in ongoing Indigenous over-representation in the criminal justice system (or through focusing on individual antecedents of crime while sidelining structural drivers because they are 'unmeasurable').

Of particular concern to me is that there is far too much of this type of criminology happening in New Zealand and Australia at the moment.  Too often the work produced by this school is being peer reviewed and published in journals, edited books, etc, that are produced by like-minded colleagues, and without the necessary critical scrutiny of the First Nations about which these experts say so much (for those of you wanting to engage with this type of criminological material I suggest starting with Marie (2010), Weatherburn (2010), Weatherburn and a myriad of colleagues who provide exemplars of this type of work in the Australasian context).

Understandably the work produced by Authoritarian Criminologists is extremely popular with the mainstream media in Australasia, in part because it silences the Indigenous voice and offers simplistic statements on the causes of brown crime whilst avoiding nasty, complex issues like institutional racism, and the impact of neo-liberal social and economic policy on marginalised communities.  Remember, darkies behaving badly = revenue, and we can't let these people speak for themselves and offer informed commentary because they must be biased. Commentary must be left to outsiders, because after all they are objective aren't they?  The body of work is popular with policy makers for similar reasons and because its data is derived scientifically and practitioners don't ask political risky questions like 'what does the community want to do about this issue'?  For the very same reasons the work of Authoritarian Criminology is worthless to many Indigenous peoples.  Why?  Because it looks and sounds nothing like our experience of police, courts, prisons and the work of the Policy Industry.

It is imperative that First Nation commentators and practitioners take Authoritarian Criminology to task for the lazy, disempowering, culturally inappropriate research activities of its practitioners.  If you are doing this kind of research, then do us a favour and put aside your pretence at objectivity, because the fact that you choose to silence our voices while empowering yours through the use of non-engaging methods, invalidates this particular claim to authority.  Put aside your pretence at value neutrality because what you do as just as value-laden, ideological, and political as my commitment to Indigenous peoples and indigenous issues.  The difference between an Indigenous empowerment approach which I and the likes of Biko Agozino aspire to, and your approach, is we actually talk to First Nations and let them speak for themselves.  Try engaging with Indigenous communities in a meaningful way (with our permission and guidance); you might find it liberating to give voice to actual experiences and not just statistics.  

References

Agozino, B (2010) Editorial: What is Criminology? A Control-Freak Discipline! African Journal of Criminology and Justice Studies, 4(1): i-xx.

Cohen, S (1988) Against Criminology. New Brunswick: Transaction Books.

Marie, D (2010) Maori and Criminal Offending: A Critical Appraisal, The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 43(2): 283-300.

Tauri, J (2011) Criminology and the Disempowerment of First Nations in Settler Societies, paper presented at the Crime, Justice and Social Democracy: An International Conference, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, 25-28 September.

Weatherburn, D (2010) Guest Editorial: Indigenous Violence, The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 43(2): 197-198.

Weatherburn, D; Snowball, L and Hunter, B (2006) The social and economic factors underpinning Indigenous contact with the criminal justice system, Crime and Justice Bulletin 104. Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.

Young, J (2011) The Criminological Imagination. Cambridge: Polity.

The Media, Politics and Darkies Behaving Badly

A few years ago I was driving the prominent and respected Maori lawyer (or as mainstream New Zealand media prefers to call him, 'radical') Moana Jackson, to a meeting in Hastings.  On the way he told me a story about a seminar he gave to a room of media workers (radio announcers, journalists, etc), most of whom were European, some of them well known.  Moana began his presentation by asking them an interesting question, did they recognise names such as the Chris and Cru Kahui and other Maori children killed by parents/relatives and care giver?.  Everyone in the room knew these names.  He then mentioned others, all Pakeha children killed by their parents, at around the same time, yet not one of the media present had heard of any of them.  He then asked 'how is it that you know of Maori children killed by whanau, but not non-Maori'?  Moana informed me that his question made many of the participants uncomfortable, with one asking him 'are you implying we are racist', to which Moana replied 'no, just putting that point out there for you to think about' (my paraphrasing and apologies to Moana for any inaccuracies).  I will go where Moana did not go that day and state that mainstream media reporting in New Zealand and Australia of First Nation issues, including crime, Treaty rights, welfare dependency, etc, etc, is often uninformed, poorly evidenced, biased and racist.

I expect the mainstream media's response will be to accuse me of playing the race card in order to silence their voices.  In response I ask when has any criticism, no matter how well founded and evidenced, ever stopped mainstream media from commenting on the Indigenous social context that, given how poor so much of the writing and commentary is, many of them appear to know little about?

Or the response might be that Maori commentators like me don't like uncomfortable truths being told about our communities.

So, let me kill off that rubbish right here: first, as a criminologist I am well aware of the damage we do to our own and to a degree alot of mainstream media lack, because I actually live in/research with, Indigenous communities.  But of course that direct engagement, the hallmark of good research in my experience, also makes me aware of the range of drivers and explanations for such behaviour; including individual proclivity, mental health issues, drug and alcohol abuse, histories of violence and abuse, institutional racism, violent/biased/over-policing, and long term impact of social and economic dislocation via the colonisation process (Tauri, 2004).

In other words, scholars who engage are aware of the complexity of the causes of the social ills facing First Nation communities, the multiplicity of drivers and the difficulty in constructing solutions in the messy context of the social world.  Although it has to be said that the creation of effective responses  might be made easier if the policy sector would stop making 'policy from afar' and work directly with communities to develop solutions, and cease relying on the importation of socially and culturally inappropriate interventions (Tauri, 2009).  

Secondly, I agree with many non-Maori commentators, including the venerable Michael Laws that we need to take ownership of the issue of violence/crime in our communities.  However, unlike Mr Laws, I know that some Maori are taking responsibility, something he would know himself if he left the radio booth and went and visited the Maori Women's Refuge in Hamilton that works with Maori women abused by men, and their male abusers, or the youth/social service providers like Mana Social Services in Rotorua, CART and Eugene Ryder who work with Maori (and non-Maori) youth offenders in Wellington.  If he and his fellow media experts were to engage with Maori in this way then perhaps they would stop making silly comments like 'what are Maori leaders doing about these issues'.  What Maori leaders (that includes all who work in this area and not just Iwi/tribal leaders) are doing is working...  they haven't got time to stop and educate mainstream media.  I suggest that  ill-informed journalists, breakfast show hosts and the like get off their backsides and go see what Maori 'leaders' and communities are actually doing... but please try not to get in their way while they are doing it.

Another response is likely to be a statement along the lines that they are simply reporting the facts.  Well if your facts are based on only ever telling one side of the story, or focusing your attention predominantly on brown people for a behaviour that occurs in all communities, then I stand by my claim of racism.  If you tell me that you are 'only giving the public what they want', then I say bullsh*t.  In any media outlet there is a process in place for selecting and managing the construction and dissemination of news (see Barak, 1994; Herman and Chomsky, 1988; Sloan and Mackay, 2007; Valverde, 2006), and it is clear that in all Settler Societies (such as New Zealand and Australia) Darkies Behaving Badly = sales, revenue and readership, especially if the story is about crime.

Media responses to Raema Merchant's child abuse research

The story Moana told me came to mind recently when I read online and media responses to Raema Merchant's Masters thesis, titled Who are abusing our children? An exploratory study on reflections on child abuse by media commentators (2010).  In short, Raema argued that while Maori were over-represented in child murder statistics, a significant portion were still committed by non-Maori, but that media outlets predominantly focused on Maori victims and offenders. The media reaction was, as usual, uninformed, biased and vitriolic.  A classic example was posted on the blog CrusaderRabbit and described Raema's work (2010b) as 'dishonest and propogandist'.  And because she drew attention to the uncomfortable truth that non-Maori also kill their children, she must be racist.  The irony of such a rant is astonishing, and actually provides evidence to support one of the key issues Raema studied in her thesis: 'why do media focus so much on brown people who kill, and not other ethnicities'?

The CrusaderRabbit blog proceeds from there to state the obvious, that Maori disproportionately kill their children (although the writer somehow misses the fact that Raema acknowledges this point), while conveniently ignoring an uncomfortable truth, that 60-70% of New Zealand children are not killed by our people.  Similar stances were taken by other media and bloggers such as No Minister whose response was "So..... 80% of the population account for about half the child abuse cases. Stop trying to minimise the disgrace that is Maori child abuse by using the "they do it too" excuse. Master thesis without maths. Nice".  Actually it is No Minister whose maths is wrong, and just like the commentator on CrusaderRabbit, misses the crux of Raema's argument.  Nowhere in Raema's work (2010a and 2010b) does she minimise the damage we sometimes do to our children.  Instead, she asks the valid question 'why media, policy workers and politicians scrutinise our communities to such an exaggerated extent, while others are largely ignored'?

I am tempted to turn No Ministers question around and ask why it is that non-Maori commentators like him (I'm assuming from the style of writing that it is a male) and CrusaderRabbit are driven to deny the reality of non-Maori/brown people's rates of child murder and abuse.  I would like to ask these commentators why they are so keen to deflect attention away from Pakeha child/wife abuse and crime with the 'it's only the Darkie's that do it' kind of rhetoric and logic so often espoused by enlightened social commentators like Michael Laws and Paul Henry in New Zealand and Andrew Bolt in Australia?

In case any of you feel like reading the blogs and other media cited here, you might first want to read some of Merchant's findings and comments on the issue, such as:

• Almost 9000 children were victims of physical abuse between 2000 and 2008, yet only 21 became “household names”’ in the media.
• Just one-third of child deaths were reported in the press, and they were predominantly Maori cases.
• Merchant urged the public and media to focus on real problems of child abuse, rather than making Maori the “face of abuse”.
• “The real danger I have seen from a social worker point of view is that there are a lot of children being abused but as far as the public are concerned they only seem to know about the ones that are Maori".
• “Child abuse is a problem for all people, not just for Maori".

A Comment on Riots, Non-Riots and Bullsh*t Media in Australia

I would like to end this blog by handing out the very first 'bullsh*t artist of the week award'.  The winner of this prestigious award goes to Henry Ergas, a writer for the Australian for his coverage of the so-called riot that supposedly took place in Canberra on Australia Day (The Australian, 2012).

For those of you who don't know, on Australia Day in Canberra (January 2012) 200 heavily armed Aboriginal protesters stormed a restaurant, attempted to kill the Prime Minister and leader of the opposition, maimed and wounded 30 police officers with knives, guns, machetes and the like, resulting in 3 dead and 56 arrested.

Well, actually that didn't happen at all; but you would think so after reading the rubbish that a lot of mainstream media were reporting in Australia at the time.  The Australian and many other newspapers, radio shock jocks and the like continuously referred to the 'rioting, violent, aggressive' nature of the crowd, as did police when called on afterwards to explain their bizarre behaviour, which saw the Prime Minister being dragged out by police as though caught in a firefight with armed rebels.  What we saw on TV was a protest action, and nothing more than that.  Yes it was loud, and angry, with people shouting slogans, banging on windows and the like, but it was not a riot.

What occurred in some cities in Britain recently, violent clashes between protesters, youth and police involving weapons, death, the burning of businesses, homes, vehicles, looting... now THAT is a riot.  The same goes for the 2005 Cronulla riots involving an estimated 5000 people and on the first day resulted in 26 people being treated for injuries, violent clashes with police, arrests, property damage and such like (note that the Cronulla riots did not involve Aboriginal peoples in any significant way). Nothing of the sort occurred in Canberra on Australia Day.  

And yet in The Australian we have Mr Ergas comparing what happened in Canberra to Cronulla, when the two incidents are clearly dissimilar in both scale and impact.  However,completely exaggerating the Canberra incident is not THE reason Mr Ergas receives this award.  The reason is the stunning, illogical argument he poses that the Australia Day incident shows that Aboriginal peoples and their supporters received special treatment, based on the fact that no one was arrested.  He hints that this demonstrates 'how far Australia has come' in Aboriginal affairs.  Wrong on all counts Mr Ergas: firstly, the protesters weren't arrested because unlike events in Cronulla in 2005 and recently in Britain, participants were not rioting, they were not stabbing, shooting, impaling police or politicians or members of the public.  Nor were they setting fire to vehicles and buildings.  And lastly, the argument that the protesters were in some way protected from arrest because of their Aboriginality would be offensive if it was not so (unintentionally) funny.  My gut feeling is that many Aboriginal communities experiences of policing are vastly different from Mr Ergas.  If their experiences are anything like that of First Nation peoples in New Zealand, Canada and the US, then many Aboriginal people in Australia will tell you that police rarely pass up the opportunity to arrest them whether it is deserved or not.

References

Barak, G (ed) (1994) Media, Process, and the Social Construction of Crime: Studies in Newsmaking Criminology. New York: Garland.

Herman, E and Chomsky, N (1988) Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of Mass Media. New York: Vintage.

Merchant, R (2010a) Media representations of child abuse, in J. Te Rito and S. Healy (eds), Kei muri i te awe kāpara he tangata kē: Recognising, engaging, understanding difference: 241-244, 4th International Traditional Knowledge Conference, June 6–9. Available from http://www.traditionalknowledge2010.ac.nz/sites/default/files/NPM2010TraditionalKnowledgeConferenceProceedings.

Merchant, R (2010b) Who are abusing our children? An exploratory study on reflections on child abuse by media commentators, unpublished Masters thesis, Massey University, Palmerston North.

Sloan, W and Mackay, J (eds) (2007) Media Bias: Finding it, Fixing it. Jefferson (NC): McFarland and Company.

Tauri, J (2004) Conferencing, Indigenisation and Orientalism: A Critical Commentary on Recent State Responses to Indigenous Offending, keynote speech to the Qwi:Qwelstom Gathering: 'Bringing Justice Back to the People', March 22-25, Mission, British Columbia.

Tauri, J (2009) The Maori Social Science Academy and Evidenced-based Policy, MAI Review (June - available online).

The Australian (2012) Enforcing One Rule of Law For All, 30 January.

Valverde, M (2006) Law and Order: Images, Meanings, Myths. London: Routledge.