Monday, June 22, 2020

Black Lives Matter: Will it lead to reform of Police Forces in the USA?

This article is by

Share this article

Article Contributor(s)

Kanika Bajaj

Article Title

Black Lives Matter: Will it lead to reform of Police Forces in the USA?

Publisher

Global Views 360

Publication Date

June 22, 2020

URL

Police in riot gear

Police in riot gear | Source: AJ Alfieri-Crispin via Wikimedia

The spontaneous eruption of the “Black Lives Matter” protest after the unfortunate death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police has once again put the spotlight on the operational methodology of the police department at different cities around the USA. There is a chorus across the country, more so in the Democratic Party strongholds to do fundamental reorganization of the police force by focussing on community policing. Some of the extreme and radical activists have gone so far to demand “defund the police” and re-distribute its budget to marginalized communities, municipal corporations and necessity institutions.

“There is no magic switch to turn off and boom there’s no police department,” said Alex Vitale, a sociology professor at Brooklyn College. She released a book named ‘The End of Policing’. The book has become a manifesto for protests and police-reform advocates. The defund development calls for diminishing networks' dependence on police for various administrative problems like, observing the homeless, settling household quarrels, restraining understudies, reacting to upheavals by individuals with mental illness, paring down violence in neighbourhoods, and proportional reaction to minor inconveniences like somebody attempting to pass a fake $20, the allegation that set off the police call that resulted in Floyd's demise. The funds saved by reducing the workload of police could be utilised by social and community workers to resolve street feuds. “When we talk about de-funding the police, what we're saying is invest in the resources that our communities need,” Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza told NBC News.

There are cities which have approached this reform in a positive manner. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio has decided to shift the money from NYPD budget to youth recreational programs. A whopping $150 million is being pulled out of the LAPD by Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti. This money is proposed to be invested in healthcare systems and build peace centres. Similarly Portland and Oregon have consented to pull police from state funded schools. A few Minneapolis organizations, including the government funded school region, the University of Minnesota and the Park and Recreation Board, have moved to diminish or end their agreements with city police.

Dallas has earlier experienced the positive results of diverting emergency mental health calls, not only on hospitals but also police to non-police establishment when in 2018 RIGHT Care  was provided $3 million funding to look after these issues. Since the program started, ambulances and emergency vehicle calls for individuals encountering emotional wellness inconveniences have declined in the south-local region of Dallas where the program works, which has opened up officials to manage different calls, authorities said. This transition was also done after the outcry over the shooting of a schizophrenic man holding a screwdriver in 2014 and subsequent defence of police personnel by the police boss David Brown.

Law enforcement officials and conservative activists believe that de-funding police would lead to an upsurge in criminal activities. President Donald Trump has started making this as a key plank of his re-election campaign while the Former Vice President Joe Biden, who is running against Trump, also came out against de-funding police.

It is therefore too early to predict whether the current phase of “Black Lives Movement” after the death of George Floyd will be successful in bringing some substantial reform in the working of police forces across the cities of the US or the momentum will be lost with some incremental tweaking here and there.  

Support us to bring the world closer

To keep our content accessible we don't charge anything from our readers and rely on donations to continue working. Your support is critical in keeping Global Views 360 independent and helps us to present a well-rounded world view on different international issues for you. Every contribution, however big or small, is valuable for us to keep on delivering in future as well.

Support Us

Share this article

Read More

February 4, 2021 5:00 PM

With a new Anti-Terror Act: Philippines take another step towards authoritarianism

On July 3, 2020, President of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte signed a new Anti-Terrorism Bill, which was rushed through the houses of Congress without appropriate discussion, and has amassed protests and disapproval within the nation and abroad since its draft was first announced.

The Confederation of Lawyers in Asia and Pacific (COLAP) has raised concerns that anti-terrorism bill of the Philippine government is “violative of human rights and the due process of the law.” It's statement opposing the the bill stated following concerns with the bill:

  1. It punishes suspected individuals for organizations who are proscribed as terrorists and that the very broad and vague definition of terrorism under the bill poses danger to the basic freedoms of the people.
  2. The suspect’s right to due process of law is virtually denied and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty by a court is virtually negated.
  3. It enable the President-backed Anti-Terrorism Council to label any individual or group as a terrorist “without the opportunity of being heard.
  4. Any member or sympathizer of a proscribed organization is punished as a terrorist even if he or she does not actually take arms against the government.
  5. The bill encroaches on one’s privacy as it gives the government access to personal and bank information and freezes bank accounts and assets.
  6. The bill violates the sovereign rights of states and the internationally mandated norm that criminal jurisdiction is confined to the territories of a state, citing its extraterritorial nature.

Hundreds of protestors took to the streets of Manila protesting the bill on 27th July when President Duterte gave his annual State of the Nation address. While it is true that the has nation faced the threat of terrorism in recent years, it is also agreed upon that Duterte’s response has been perhaps equally brutal.

This bill was also criticised by the Christian religious organisations which issued a joint declaration on this law. They stated “We are bothered by the broad and vague definition of terrorism and terrorist. It can include acts of dissent, free speech, right to assemble, right to organize, freedom of belief, among others. By such a broad definition it is open to abuse and misuse.”

An opposition Congress member, Edcel Lagman and two lawyer groups of Philippine approached the Philippine Supreme Court and asked it to strike down the new anti-terrorism law, or parts of it, as they called it unconstitutional for infringing on civil liberties.

The Philipino American Student Association (FASA) also denounced the new anti-terrorism law in its Instagram post which stated, “FASA sa UW denounces Duterte’s signing of the Anti-Terrorism Bill to which its terms do nothing to resolve the true terrorism in our nation and instead conducts an outright assault on the freedom of speech from our people living on the motherland and even Filipinx abroad,”

International Human Right organisation, Amnesty International’s Asia-Pacific Regional Director, Nicholas Bequelin, in response to this law said, “Under Duterte’s presidency, even the mildest government critics can be labelled terrorists. He further stated, “This law’s introduction is the latest example of the country’s ever-worsening human rights record. Once again, this shows why the UN should launch a formal investigation into ongoing widespread and systematic violations in the country.”

Prior to this, Duterte’s ‘war on drugs’ received global scrutiny, especially for the numerous extrajudicial killings that have occurred since he came to power and the effect of this aggressive policy on the poorest citizens of the nation.

Apart from this, he has also repeatedly voiced opinions in favour of martial law and silenced news media that spoke against him. But he seems to be encouraged largely by his own people, among whom Duterte continues to be popular.

Many have called Duterte the ‘revival’ of authoritarianism in the small Southeast Asian country, which has only recently seen some semblance of democracy after years of dictatorship under Ferdinand Marcos (of whom Duterte was a close family friend).

The Philippines is walking a thin line between fascism and democracy, and which side it ends up on depends not only on the actions of its government, but just as much on the actions of its people.

Read More