Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.

Last week, the world watched London as burned, in disbelief. Stores burned, buses burned, police cars burned, and people died. It was violent and senseless. And it could happen again.

It could happen again because it changed very little. Because its causes, which were various and deep-rooted, won’t be easily addressed.

Last week’s “disorder,” as the Brits seem fond of calling it, was a riot. It was random, widespread lawlessness.

What began as a peaceful protest over a police shooting in Tottenham turned into several days of mayhem. But by the time things started burning, the violence had very little to do with shooting victim Mark Duggan.

White people, black people, poor people, but most of all young people, were smashing, stealing, and burning across London. Some were in gangs, and some were in college. Some were upset about the police shooting; most, I suspect, didn’t really care.

As a group, the London rioters appear to have been united only by opportunity. Students were upset about recent austerity measures. Minorities were upset about police violence. Gang members wanted to steal DVD players. And they all took to the streets because they could. Once unleashed, they were unstoppable.

A riot, by definition, cannot be controlled. It can be crushed by force, or prevented ahead of time.

But as a collective rejection of the socialized legal order, riots simply cannot be controlled. When people start throwing bricks, they stop listening to moral exhortations. When police cars start burning, police commands stop working.

So it’s somewhat disconcerting to hear all the talk, from politicians, police and media observers, about riot control.

“Riot control,” in most contexts, means overwhelming police violence. It means water cannons, body armor, rubber pellets and tear gas. These aren’t measures of control; they are weapons.

And now British officials are talking, it seems seriously, about new, preemptive weapons. British Home Secretary Theresa May has suggested aggressive new curfew powers, which may be imposed on entire areas of cities. Prime Minister David Cameron told the House of Commons he is working up new methods of blocking social networking sites. Meanwhile, these same leaders, along with many in the media, the police are being criticized for being too lenient and taking to long to use violence to stop the rioting

You have to wonder about these people sometimes, when “V for Vendetta” starts to sound like a documentary.

Preemptive curfews, social media blocking, blanket surveillance and a beefed-up police force aren’t the tools of leaders. They are the weapons of wardens.

If we start using these weapons to prevent rioting, we’ll be using these weapons all the time. And I say “we” because the underlying grievances – things like high youth unemployment – are just as serious here in the States.

With systemic tensions percolating, as they always are, one unpredictable event can set off bedlam. This time, familiarly, it was police violence.

So when we start imposing curfews to prevent possible rioting, we’re doing that why? Just in case the police kill a minority?

Reach the columnist at john.a.gaylord@asu.edu


Continue supporting student journalism and donate to The State Press today.

Subscribe to Pressing Matters



×

Notice

This website uses cookies to make your experience better and easier. By using this website you consent to our use of cookies. For more information, please see our Cookie Policy.