Generally speaking, my students have all presented the following (as) facts:

1. Rule-breaking is a universal feature of human societies;
2. Punishment is the universal response to rule-breaking in human societies;
3. While the penalty must be “proportionate” to the offence, generally speaking, the harsher the penalty, the lower the rate of rule infraction;
4. However, regardless of how harsh the penalties are, rule-breaking continues at a greater or lesser rate.

To an extent, many of the students recognize that these “minor offences” have social causes of some sort: i.e., being non-white, being male, living in a city, and being poor. Nonetheless, these social causes are psychologized to the effect that even though they recognize that petty theft or dealing small amounts of drugs is caused socially (i.e., in a context of limited education, limited resources and, therefore, limited opportunities, the best option might be deal drugs), they nonetheless want to hold individuals responsible for their own social circumstances. The equivalent would be holding an infant responsible for being born with cancer–and then punishing the infant for having had the audacity of being born with cancer. My point is that they recognize the child is nonetheless not responsible for having cancer, but they want to punish the child all the same for having cancer because they are responsible for having cancer. Plainly, this does not make sense.

My replies to most of my students have been to take one of two (or both) approaches:

1. If punishment is a universal response to the equally universal rule-breaking and if rule-breaking persists despite punishment, why bother punishing at all? Either punishment is not about the offender and is about the punisher or people have recourse to punishment when it is plainly obvious it doesn’t work. Either way, punishment does not deter and, therefore, justifying punishment on the basis of deterrence is nonsense.
2. If the infractions under discussion–drug dealing/possession, minor theft, inconsequential street fights, unruly behaviour, etc–are attributable to social conditions, then isn’t the best response to address the underlying social conditions rather than holding black, urban, male youth responsible for being black, urban, male youth?

I’m curious to see how or if they respond to this line of argumentation, especially given that most of them are or have expressed interest in being “criminology” majors. I’m also curious to see what happens when they get to developmental psychology and social learning, if they’ll make any connection between positive reinforcement and positive outcomes.

We then have a rather crude comparison being made: Americans with respect to oil are the same as the aliens with respect to water. We are therefore being asked to identify with the colonizer-come-colonized. So long as the Marines are colonizing–that is, doing their traumatic tours of duty in Afghanistan or Iraq–there is no problem. But, once the colonizers are transformed into the colonized, there is a major problem. The point of the film, then, is to re-inscribe the lost role of America as colonizer and erase the aberration of America as colony. (Poignant, perhaps, that we watched it on what is the American Thanksgiving weekend which, among its ideological functions, is to represent America’s past as a partnership rather than a colonial invasion.)

While the main character–the retiring but called back into active service Marine (stop-loss, if you will)–is the one who is supposed to gather our attention: how he has been traumatized by the death of his team on the previous tour of duty, how he was the only survivor, how he was supposed to die, how everyone around him thinks he is responsible for the deaths of those Marines, and how his devotion to his duty has prevented him from having a wife and child (don’t worry: through performing his duty he will find a surrogate wife and a surrogate child). He is, by far, the least interesting character. Our attention should be focused on the one Marine–the team’s medic training to become a doctor–who has enlisted in order to gain access to America, to improve his life, and so on. This character is a Nigerian national who significantly says at one point, “I’d rather be in Afghanistan.” Again we are dealing with the play of colonized/colonizer: the colonized Nigerian wants to be the colonizer. The Nigerian soldier would rather be in Afghanistan colonizing than be in the United States resisting a colonial force.

Given the constant flip-flopping between colonized and colonizing, it is strange that we are being asked to identify with the colonized: the destroyed civilians and the rag-tag Marines who will single-handedly resist the alien occupation. But, this is illusionary because we are only being asked to identify with the colonized in order to re-inscribe the natural order of things; that is, we must resist the possibility that America can fall to a foreign force with unknown motives even though their technology is vastly superior and overwhelmingly powerful–no matter how strong the enemy, worry not, because we will prevail–and we must only see the truth of American exceptionalism. America is the uncolonizable; America is the only legitimate colonial force–even the colonized agree with that.

Now, this is a strange genre of film. The majority of stories about the destruction of the United States have auto-immune causes–losing control of military technology (“Terminator,” “Battlestar Galactica”–the killer robot hypothesis), a sudden viral epidemic (the various zombie and “contagion” movies), or a secret cabal or government within the government. The America-destroyed-by-aliens genre is comparatively narrow. Off the top of my head, I can only think of “Mars Attacks,” “War of the Worlds,” “Independence Day,” “Skyline” (which came out almost at the same time as “Battle: Los Angeles”) and, of course, “Battle: Los Angeles.” What’s particularly interesting about these films is that although America is easily invaded–initially, at least–by an overwhelming force of hostile aliens seeking to colonize us for various nefarious reasons and despite their vastly more advanced technology, the colonizers are always idiots: in the case of “Battle: Los Angeles” all you have to do to defeat the enemy is destroy each of the twenty command units. You see, the colonizers are so dumb that they’ve made all of their forces centrally controlled. Destroy the centre and you win. But, given that the point of the movie is re-inscribe the view that America is uncolonizable and that only America can legitimately colonize the world–that is, America is an alien to all others–doesn’t this suggest that Americans are profoundly stupid and their colonial power is rather fragile? Why, then, haven’t a rag-tag bunch of Muslims or Africans or whatever risen up and easily dispatched America? Likely because they haven’t embraced the American Dream. Who knows.

Regardless of how stupid the movie was, at least the images of destroyed cities were nice to look at.

I read in the paper today, in reference to foreclosing the Occupy Ottawa camp, that Ottawa Police Services “want[s] this to be a non-event.” To the end of the achieving that result, could I give you some advice? In order to ensure that the foreclosure is “a non-event” I suggest that your officers refrain from pepper spraying, beating, and shooting protestors with rubber bullets. Do we really want the next Lt. John Pike to be among Ottawa’s finest? I certainly hope not. Indeed, rather than foreclosing the camp, I suggest that you and your officers make a display of solidarity with the protesters: you should promise to refuse to carry out any politically motivated order to forcibly remove legitimate dissent from public spaces, including but not limited to, the Occupy Ottawa camp. Take direction from the police of Edmonton and Calgary: do the hard thing and stand up for the legitimacy of dissent rather than acting as repo men for the city. Indeed, Ottawa Police Services should promise to protect protesters–should the Occupiers be willing to have your protection–from any and all violence directed at the Occupiers and their camp.

Yours most sincerely,

Craig McFarlane

The Georgia Supreme Court rejected petitioner’s “actual-innocence” claim on the merits, denying his extraordinary motion for a new trial. Davis can obtain relief only if that determination was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” It most assuredly was not. This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.

Walter Benjamin, “Critique of Violence,” 1921:

For law-preserving violence is a threatening violence. And its threat is not intended as the deterrent that uninformed liberal theorists interpret it to be. A deterrent in the exact sense would require a certainty that contradicts the nature of a threat and is not attained by any law, since there is always hope of eluding its arm. This makes it all the more threatening, like fate, which determines whether the criminal is apprehended. The deepest purpose of the uncertainty of the legal threat will emerge from the later consideration of the sphere of fate in which it originates. There is a useful pointer to it in the sphere of punishments. Among them, since the validity of positive law has been called into question, capital punishment has provoked more criticisms than all others. However superficial the arguments may in most cases have been, their motives were and are rooted in principle. The opponents of these critics felt, perhaps without knowing why and probably involuntarily, that an attack on capital punishment assails not legal measure, not laws, but law itself in its origin. For if violence, violence crowned by fate, is the origin of law, then it may be readily supposed that where the highest violence, that over life and death, occurs in the legal system, the origins of law jut manifestly and fearsomely into existence. In agreement with this is the fact that the death penalty in primitive legal systems is imposed even for such crimes as offences against property, to which it seems quite out of ‘proportion.’ Its purpose is not to punish the infringement of law but to establish new law. For in the exercise of violence over life and death, more than in any other legal act, the law reaffirms itself. But in this very violence something rotten in the law is revealed, above all to a finer sensibility, because the latter knows itself to be infinitely remote from conditions in which fate might imperiously have shown itself in such a sentence.

I’m not sure what “likes” means, but I included the number of “likes” each comment received. I assume it means that a certain number of people mutely assented with what had been said. With the “Score” provided by The Globe & Mail, I take that to mean something like “likes minus dislikes” to provide an aggregate score. Although The Globe & Mail moderates its comments–something many of the participants complains about–it would seem that there is a great deal of bigotry that is permissible at their website. The Star is even stronger in its moderation, which weeded out most of the really horrendous comments. As a result, I didn’t bother to include anything from that site. I didn’t have the heart to go to the Toronto Sun site.

None of the comments below are edited–by me, at least.

From the National Post. Headline: “Man shot during London riots dies,” but check out the URL: http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/08/09/this-is-criminality-pure-and-simple/

passerby69 — 21 “likes”

I think that 26 year-old shot and killed for looting and criminal behaviour should not have been the only one. I think the PM is not doing much by simply describing the behaviour instead of advocating for marshall law and a shoot to kill policy.

Proud Surrey Man — 9 “likes”

Not only would I advocate the same for Canada, Brian, I’d cheerfully shoot all the looters the government would let me, then spike their heads on Lions Gate Bridge. These people are worthless, unemployable dead-enders who have demonstrated a willingness to prey on their fellow man. There really is no reason for letting them live.

watchdoghugh — 33 likes

A failed immigration system that has believed in multi-culturalism has led to a general failure in social bonds and shared values. The result is what you see here and in many places across Europe where liberalism has failed to appreciate the problems that overly quick, large scale immigration from outside existing communities brings.  England has become a such a disaster after allowing a rush of immigrants from third world and developing countries with looks, beliefs/ values and behaviours causes friction.

Claude-vi — 25 “likes”

Third world people create third world problems.

The anti-white policy of filling every white country and only white countries with millions of racial aliens and trying to blend my race out of existence with them, is genocide. It also creates situation just like this one, if you think this is bad just wait a couple decades for when the next generation of whites are in an even more vulnerable position.

What a horrible future we are creating for our children. I don’t know why we let the anti-white establishment get away with it but we must make it clear to the government that we have a right to our own countries and communities and should not be forced to live with non-whites, our children will thank us,

Willy18 — 22 “likes”

We allow these terrorists to attack the police with all

kinds of weapons such as chemical bombs spears and other such items and destroy

the cities just as they did in Toronto.

The police or army that was needed should go in and be prepared to shoot

to kill.  The only way to get the trash

of the streets.  The remainder can be

rounded up and loaded into some kind of floating devise and sent out to sea.

Replying to Willy18: alphamel1 — 14 “likes”

Float them at sea? Hope not. They’d head for Canada, claim refugee status, get accepted under our Charter, receive immediate aid, released into society at large

Replying to alphamel1: toomanyhobbies — 6 “likes”

I think Willy actually meant something that would sink about 100 miles out.

Nestor James — 8 “likes”

And now that your cities are in flames, and your people are divided and fighting among each other and your bright future is all blackness: the time has come to admit that there is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his Messenger. The Imams of Cairo must be falling off their prayer cushions with laughter right about now as world events unfold in their favor. Our governments are mysteriously paralyzed and seem unable to deal with events; how many people will be eager for a change, no matter what that brings? Fascism anyone? I’ve never seen the News look so bad as long as I have lived.

anon259132556 — 10 “likes”

After actually reading the article it ‘s obvious and disheartening what the causes of all this are. ”Well we heard other folks were getting free stuff and thought well why not us”  does not speak of systemic racism, failed multiculturalism or any policy good or bad, it’s pure lack of respect for anything and greed.  An unemployed person with a sense of entitlement and no education has no one to blame but himself and possibly his parents. Don’t soul search too hard greater Britain this is not your fault at all.

One could probably end the riots by handing out free ipods and flat screen TV’s…

Replying to anon259132556: Socialism Kills — no “likes”

Wrong.

The rioters are almost exclusively non-white.   Further, even if they were only half non-white, the truth remains that rampant immigration has flooded the UK with people it simply does not need and is rapidly discovering that it cannot support.   With more people than jobs, there are going to be large numbers of unemployed.  So, why let foreigners in when you have ghettoes full of born-in-the-UK unemployed?

Immigration from third world countries MUST end, otherwise the west is doomed.

crocodile dundee — 15 “likes”

Not hard to figure out, is it. The Labour gov’t from 1997 to 2010 allowed massive immigration from third world countries in order to destroy British culture because of some white guilt, imperialist guilt complex. There weren’t enough jobs for these people, they weren’t skilled and the native British didn’t want them. So the problem was created by the dopey lefties with their totally failed multiculti policies. Immigration should be stopped immediately! But hey, just look at the ‘cultural richness’ they bring!!

Replying to crocodile dundee: Royal Canadian Navy…..Retire — 8 “likes”

You’re absolutely right dundee, time for the immigration dept to “grow a set” and stop the retards from illegally entering the country!

Replying to Royal Canadian Navy…..Retire: alphamel1 — 1 “like”

Guess who man our immigration dept. – immigrants.

Proud Surrey Man — 8 “likes”

Get out the machine guns.

Sassylassie — 1 “like”

Nothing to lose, yea that’s right an entire generation raised on entitlements they sleep all day and gang bang all night then whine they can’t find a job. Hello ever tried working from a bed, well excluding hoes of course.

From The Globe & Mail. “‘Everyone’s on edge:’ a Canadian in London describes the riots.” http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/everyones-on-edge-a-canadian-in-london-describes-the-riots/article2123995/ 

Sh5 — Score: 10

The problem starts with young women who decide to ‘have babies’ (breed) at the age of 16. They have multiple births from different unemployed males who are both unwilling and/or unable to stay in the relationship. The problem then escalates with underfunded and low grade public schools and hospitals. U.K. doctors, teachers, nurses and police officers – social services sector are poorly paid and in what is considered to be, low status annoying occupations. This state of affairs exists because resources, status and wealth are for the transaction class only and those who serve them – in short, the City of London as opposed to London mainstream. Continental Europe is better. There is less social and wealth stratification and more mobility between classes. Also, more respect for non-transaction occupations. Trust me, the U.S. will be next and it will far, far worse than anything seen in the U.K. The core problem can be summed up in one phrase – the State has been weak – too weak to cope.

passerby — Score: 6

The Reasons Behind this Riot: Western democracies are too hand tied with multiculturalism and anti-racist drivel for them to be effective enforcers of the law. Young hooligans know this as they chastise the police.

It happens in schools too. Kids know they won’t be punished.

People are being told to strip naked by thugs as their clothes are stolen off their backs. Don’t trust main stream media to tell you the whole story. Google London – riot – strip – naked or see some of the video for yourself. You’ll see who is really committing these crimes.

The police should shoot to kill. This is terrorism. And the police should respond appropriately. I support them. Do you?

Jan Burton — Score: 26

Young women having babies from multiple partners…the men taking off….no cultural regard for education or hard work….a state that pays them to do nothing….a sense of entitlement and victimhood.

It’s the same toxic mix we find at Jane-Finch in Toronto.

mbryant — Score: -2

Bring out the army (not the police) with loaded rifles and fixed bayonets to handles these rioters and looters. Should have used the military in Vancouver last June also. How far would I go ? Well, just watch me (Trudeau)

What’s in a name — Score: 8

Just like burqas, hoodies should be banned as well, they are disguises and anti-social.

johnnyleroux — Score: 2

It’s quite obvious from viewing the videos on youtube that the London police have had extensive training from our own OPP & RCMP. They simply sat back and watched the show knowing that public support for ‘needing’ them will be at an all time high once this nonsense settles down. There’ll be overtime galore for everyone that wants it. Taxes will go up to pay for the every increasing police presence and life is once again good for the deadbeat-cops. When, as a society are we going to give the police authority to take these mutts down and take em’ down hard. Guaranfuckintee you that if the London police killed a few hundred protestors, this would all be over – permanently with no chance of rioting in the future. The police and the government are bigger losers than the protestors for showing no ‘balls’ through this exercise.

Jan Burton — Score: 6

What gives you the idea that these 2Pac wannabes actually want to work?

Indeed they are lacking in education. And whose fault is that? Mine? Yours?

SassieLassie — Score: 2

Oh spare me your socialist’s propaganda, England has bankrupted herself providing cradle to grave welfare to healthy people, education is free but those yobs have no intention of getting educated or employed why should they Nanny gives them everything for nothing that’s why they riot.

nononsense — Score: 1

Burnabite You must be dreaming, IT IS about sneakers, gold chains and seeing how many dumb girls you can get pregnant. , Thats the total extent of the ambition and mindset. Go to trinidad, jamaica and parts of toronto. Same thing. throw in white british toughs and welfare addicts and look what you get.

SassieLassie — Score: 2

Gang bangers and welfare hoes rioting and looting for fun, greedy scum who want for nothing. And yes gang bangers riot for sport it’s not like they’ll ever work for a living.

The Shocking Truth — Score: 13

Enoch Powell was right. ENOCH POWELL WAS RIGHT.

Replying to The Shocking True: Jack O’Douley — Score: 9

Yes, he was wasn’t he? I remember as a student in London thinking how dreadful it was what he said. I’ve reread it now. It is an erudite description of what lay in our future because of our stupidity.

mattp2182 — Score: 14

Social engineering run amok. This is Canada’s future, citizens completely neutered of any right to defend themselves. Criminals running around freely because the law has handcuffed those who live within its bounds.

Common Sense has been turned on its head and the politically correct B.S has to go. Citizens should not have to suffer because someone, somewhere thinks thugs and lowlifes deserve to be given more rights then the hard working people who make countries great.

walkerny — Score: 9

This is a perfect demonstration of why all Western countries should immediately restrict new immigration, deport the criminal, the welfare dependent, and the dangerous immigrants (radical Imams for a start).

nononsense — Score: 13

This is no surprise, If you have hundreds of thousands of young people, whose only idea of making it in life is wearing certain sneaker brands, gold chains and getting as many dumb girls pregnant. Same mentality here in certain parts of Toronto. Rife in the carribean i.e. Trinidad, jamaica. In the uk add into the mix a million or so virtually illiterate whites who leave school at the earliest and live off the state. The females get pregnant as soon as possible as the state guarantees ythem an apartment and welfare allowances. Uk turning into a sinkhole. I hope we are finally in Canada monitoring who gets into canada much more closely than in the past or we will have just as big a problem.

Seedy How — Score: -1

Mass immigration is pushing aside any chance white youth have of upward mobility.

1941 Senior — Score: 11

This is becoming a trend in our Western Countries perpetrated by ‘mostly’ immigrant societies and/or lower status societies struggling under duress!

Our Countries’ laws should be amended to counteract this type of domestic terrorism! If they are born in our countries, punish & jail them appropriately. If they are not yet citizens, deport them to where ever they came from. New Citizenship should be only bestowed on those who live a lawful life in our countries……otherwise, rescind their Citizenship and deport them.

In this situation…..screw human rights! I’m a senior Citizen who can NOT afford higher taxes to compensate the millions of dollars for this type of destruction…….and, in the end, it will be you & me who has to pay for it……..SHAME ON VANCOUVER, SHAME ON LONDON & anywhere else which allows this terrorism.

beaches — Score: 14

I am a Canadian in London and really don’t see any social agenda at play here. This is not Mississippi Burning and there is no well thought out grievance being disputed here. Millions and millions of pounds have been squandered on social programmes in this country to no avail. The majority of these thugs are simply 17-18 year old hoodlums who have nothing to lose. These people are the products of single parent families where the father is either in jail (where he typically belongs) or has buggered off because he has no sense of responsibility. The multicult social enginineering project is a failure and we are now seeing the proginy of this experiment run feral in the streets.

Albertalad — Score: 9

This is a group of thugs and criminals nothing more fully intent on stealing, looting and even stripping citizen naked on the streets looking for valuables. They even use Facebook and Twitter to coordinate their actions. None are looting and burning for a job or even a way up – none are even targeting any government buildings or anything of the sort. These are deadbeat, school drop out, and welfare bums intent on stealing their way through life. Society gave them the chance to get an education and they blew it themselves. Society even helped support them through welfare – how does burning down other people’s homes, businesses in your own neighborhoods help any one of those idiots? They merely deprived countless of working people for making a living.

Its time for the UK to take back the streets by what means necessary. The time for being nice is OVER!

urban ranger — Score: 2

I saw a Londoner on BBC News describing the rioters as “feral rats”. Found myself nodding my head. It’s way past time to use some real force with these people.

The proposed solution to the prison is probably one which no right-thinking person could agree with: flogging. Strangely, Moskos views this as the only humane solution: at least so long as corporal punishment is a free choice on the part of the criminal between flogging and incarceration. One might, of course, quibble as to whether it is a “free” choice when you are given the option of five to ten years in prison versus five to ten lashes. This is a point that Moskos does address directly–indeed, at the level of argumentation and evidence, the book is somewhat of a disappointment. (There is a bizarre footnote on Foucault’s Discipline and Punish [157-8] and an equally bizarre “reading” of Marx as being objectively in favour of prisons [102-3].) It is also disappointing–albeit not surprising that a former patrolman in Baltimore’s Eastern District (recall Herc, Carver et al in the Eastern Western)–would endorse dark alley beatings as a key component of justice. (You see, policemen are highly trained professionals who are, at the core, good people and they need a wide range of discretion to deal with wife-beaters, bullies, and dealers selling drugs around children–it’s all part of the game, as Omar Little might point out.)

Moskos’s view–and one that I agree with–is that the prison cannot be reformed. Reform and regulation, as animal advocates know, has the unfortunate consequence of legitimating a bad institution by making concerned people feel alright about their guilt. And, worse, reform and regulation leads to limited–at best–improvements in the quality of life of those trapped in the institution. Reform, in effect, is having your cake and eating it, too: it misses the point and, over time, leads to something far more monstrous than what you began with. Clearly, this should be unacceptable to any right thinking person. There are some good reasons to keep the prison in a minimal capacity, such as to prevent truly incorrigible people who have committed horrible crimes from ever hurting people again. He has in mind here repeat, violent sex offenders, serial killers, and the like: the sort of criminal that we routinely see on television, but rarely ever encounter in our lives. This seems agreeable and correct to me. I don’t see any good reason why Paul Bernado or Russell Williams should ever be allowed out of prison. The question remains, however, regarding what to do with the remaining 99.9% of prisoners.

The effectiveness of American prisons is confounded by the so-called War on Drugs; that is, while it is the case prisons don’t work anywhere, they are especially dysfunctional in the United States such that a strong case could be made that the penitentiary system is akin to the Gulag or Apartheid given that prisoners are overwhelmingly black, their rights and interests are significantly violated (many cannot vote while incarcerated and many are permanently disenfranchised after “doing their time”) and blacks are significantly more likely to be incarcerated for a crime that a white will not be incarcerated for (let alone prosecuted for). Much of Moskos’s argument comes down to efficiency: not only do prisons fail to meet their stated goals (a failure on any terms), their cost doesn’t justify that failure. Indeed, “the cynical among us might even say we’re spending billions of dollars to pay poor rural unemployed whites to guard poor urban unemployed blacks” [77]. Surely there are better means to address the socio-economic needs of the permanently poor than incarcerating the ones with dark skin and employing the ones with light skin to make sure the dark skinned ones don’t try to escape. Further, it must surely be the case that even the most generous social welfare system–complete with full medical!–would cost less than what the penitentiary system presently costs.

Predictably, given the above, the defence of flogging is primarily on economic grounds: lashing costs significantly less than incarceration, even when antibiotics are figured into the cost of lashing in the rare case of infection. Moskos is even willing to go so far as allow lashings to replace the criminal record: after all, if you’ve got giant scars on your ass, it’s pretty clear that they were inflicted by the judicial system. Moskos’s proposed system would allow for summary judgment: arrested, charged, guilty plea, lashing all in one night and, a month later, the criminal’s wounds are healed and he is able to return to work. While liberal human rights regimes defend the body’s integrity as sacred, it is kind of hard to argue with this logic: on the one hand, the criminal can freely submit to a lashing and get on with his life and, on the other hand, it’s not like bodily integrity is protected in any meaningful way in prison–indeed, the long-term physical, mental, social, and economic consequences of incarceration likely far outweigh the consequences of a half-hour of excruciating pain.

Despite the detour into back alley justice meted out by well-meaning, professional, and basically good cops in the second half of the book, there was one passage that was particularly interesting. Moskos notes the similarity between the factory farm/slaughterhouse and the prison [136-9]: both are excessively violent and are almost entirely closed to outsiders. This connection is often missed in discussions of animal rights and it is one that should be taken up more vigorously. There is no good reason to make the comparison between the animal abolitionism and slavery abolitionism but not also prison abolitionism. Sadly, Moskos’s solution to the slaughterhouse is to kill your own meat because it is the least that a meat eater can do–anything else is disrespectful, or some-such. It is a palpably silly argument, but at least Moskos’s thought is taking him, more or less, in the right direction.

Foucauldians–or anyone studying biopolitics or biopower in general–likely don’t spend enough time talking about bioethics. I’m not sure why this is the case. There are, of course, a few notable exceptions to this. For instance, Lorna Weir’s excellent Pregnancy, Risk and Biopolitics: On the Threshold of the Living Subject (Routledge, 2006). When Foucauldians take up ethics, they tend to take up ethics in the ancient sense of “ethos,” an interest largely derived from Foucault’s last lectures at the Collège de France and the final two volumes of “The History of Sexuality.” Another important exception is Giorgio Agamben’s Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life, especially the chapter on the coma dépassé. But, like many Foucauldians, Agambian immediately attempts to connect such concepts to politics and sovereign power (“in modern democracies it is possible to state in public what the Nazi biopoliticians did not dare to say”). Perhaps Agamben is correct that bioethics is inherently political, but what I don’t think he is able to account for is why bioethicists insist that their discourse is inherently non-political and that it is only politicized by their opponents.

There’s a nice passage in an essay, “The Nature of Bioethics,” by Peter Singer pointing to the importance of looking at bioethics critically. Indeed, he sounds almost exactly like Agamben, but comes to the complete opposite conclusion:

New developments in medicine have made it possible, on the one hand, to keep alive extremely premature infants, even when they have no functioning cortex. This forces us to ask what it is that makes a life worth preserving, and how we may treat a human being once we have decided that the life of that being is not worth preserving. At the same time, other new developments offer the possibility of using organs to save lives. Of which of these possibilities should we make use? To which should we say: `no, we do not want that done’? A bioethicist approaching these questions will consider all the relevant issues and principles. By our present definition of death, a cortically dead infant is still alive, and to remove the heart is to kill the baby. Therefore if we apply conventional principles which absolutely forbid the intentional killing of an innocent human being, it seems that we cannot help Mary. Or could we perhaps argue that in removing Paul’s heart, we are not directly intending Paul’s death, but only obtaining an organ that will save Mary’s life? Is this a legitimate application of the distinction between intention and foresight, as embodied in the doctrine of double effect? Is the distinction itself a morally significant one? Alternatively, should we revise our definition of death so that the cortically dead may also be counted as dead, and used as organ donors, as we now use those whose entire brain is dead? Or should we consider the even more radical step of accepting that the cortically dead infant is not dead, but may nevertheless be used as a source of organs, because a life without consciousness is of no intrinsic value? What of the more remote consequences? Will the removal of Paul’s heart prove to be a step onto a slippery slope that makes us think of all humans as disposable sources of organs for others, and so cheapens respect for human life in general?

Anyway, as far as I can tell, there is no satisfactory history or sociology of bioethics and it is a topic that not only should be taken up seriously, but needs to be taken up seriously.

The police officer, at a panel on sexual violence at York University, said: “You know, I think we’re beating around the bush here. I’ve been told I’m not supposed to say this, however, women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized.” The judge in Winnipeg apparently concurs, “They [the rape victims] made their intentions publicly known that they wanted to party,” which was demonstrated through the “evidence” (how was this even admissible?) that they were wearing tube-tops without bras, high heels and “lots of make-up” (yes, all of this was mentioned in the judge’s decision). The judge notes that the rapist, like most rapists, was “insensitive to the fact [she] was not a willing participant.” (The victim disagrees: “That’s bullshit. I did say no to him. I kept saying no. He knew that I didn’t want [sex].”) As a result, said the judge, “Protection of society is not advanced one iota by putting Mr. Rhodes in jail.” But, don’t worry, the rapist “was also ordered by the judge to write a letter of apology to his victim.” The victim notes: ”This is beyond sexist. I don’t even know how to comment on it. No woman asks to be raped.”

Perhaps the judge and the cop were avid readers of Peter Worthington’s column at the Toronto Star. Writing on Lara Logan this past week, Worthington says, “Should women journalists with small children at home, be covering violent stories or putting themselves at risk? It’s a form of self-indulgence and abdication of a higher responsibility to family… Her son (from a second marriage) was born in 2009 and should have taken precedent over her wishes to cover the world’s biggest story for the moment… She is not someone easily deterred and she will be back, but hopefully with a greater sense of responsibility to her child.” While mocking Le Monde for its suggestion that Logan was complicit in her own rape at the start of his column, two hundred words later, Worthington can’t help himself and jumps on the blame-the-victim bandwagon: “Maybe it means little in Washington or America, but in the midst of a Cairo mob a blond white woman it has a hell of a lot to do with everything. Put bluntly, it is probably why she was attacked.” “Blond,” of course, is code for “hot.” In other words, if you don’t want to be raped, avoid having blond hair or wearing make-up.

Little wonder, given the judges, police, and columnists we have in Canada, that less than one in ten sex assaults are reported to police. Of those sexual assaults reported to police and brought to trial (only a third of complaints result in a charge), only 49% of those cases tried in adult court actually result in a conviction.

“It is the opinion of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association that police conduct during the G20 Summit was, at times, disproportionate, arbitrary and excessive. In our view, despite instances of commendable and professional conduct, the policing and security efforts, especially after 5PM on June 26 and June 27, failed to demonstrate commitment to Canada’s constitutional values.” Canadian Civil Liberties Association Preliminary G20 Report

“I know that some folks feel that their rights have been abridged, and there are avenues available to them and I would encourage them to pursue any remedies that are available to them through those avenues.” Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario

• Passing secret regulations in Cabinet designating (not published in The Ontario Gazette until after the G8/G20 meetings had ended)–or not!–a five meter perimeter around the gathering site as a “public work,” effectively suspending civil and political rights (e.g., in Canada, outside of public works, you are not required to identity yourself to police if they ask you to nor are you required to submit to searches–within public works, you are required to identity yourself and submit to searches; public works are ordinarily police stations, government offices, court houses, prisons, and the like); the Canadian Civil Liberties Association is apparently working on a lawsuit, however this would only address the particular handling of the regulation and not the regulation as such;
• Not only were huge numbers of peaceful protesters arrested without knowing the charges against them, many of the “detainees” were completely uninvolved in protesting at all–bar patrons, tourists, the homeless, spectators, people passing by, and even a LARPer; a Globe & Mail journalist reports her story here; and reports submitted to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association;
• The “black bloc” segment of the protest was allowed to riot unhampered by police (despite the police blocking off cross-cutting streets with human fences) and fortuitously stumbled upon abandoned (and stripped) police cars, which were then destroyed (but the video and photographs, frankly, look no different than a post-championship sports part in North America or after any hockey game in Montreal); video footage by journalist Joe Wenkoff;
• After plainclothes police stormed a protest outside the temporary detention centre (formerly Eastern Avenue movie studios) in a series of targeted arrests, a woman received a “muzzle blast” at short range for no apparent reason–of course, we shouldn’t fall into the error of believing this was exceptional violence: coercion and brutality are normal modes of being for the police;
• It seems highly probable that the police acted as “agents provocateur” in the “black bloc” segment given that it is highly improbable that participants in the “black block” would wear new Nike clothing (I am reminded of the scene in “The Wire” when Sydnor dresses up as a junkie and Bubbles makes fun of him for looking like a cop trying to look like a junkie); another video;
• Among the “weapons” seized by police over the course of the weekend, was a copy of Upping the Anti journal (clear confirmation of Althusser’s thesis: “Philosophy is class warfare in thought”) and a fantasy knight’s costume and foam weapons for use at a live action role playing game:

Note "Upping the Anti" journal at middle left

• Lastly, a video of a citizen refusing to submit to a search, captured by (what appears to be) a Toronto-based animal rights activist–the citizen is told that “we don’t live in Canada anymore.”

Some points to remember: police work for the society of capital and not for society as such (this is easily confirmed in any history of police), however, police always justifies their violence in the name of society as such. One of the originary functions of the state, created when power is separated from the control of the collective, is to concentrate the means of violence via the transformation of force into violence: the weak can use force, but they cannot use violence. Only the state can use or authorize violence. The significant victory of the police since Seattle has been shifting the terrain of the debate: rather than having capital under discussion, the issue of police violence is under discussion. Further, popular anger has been successfully directed at the police rather than at their masters.

(Later I’ll recount my story about being interrogated by military police on Friday evening for the crime of consuming a coffee and a snack in my car in a parking lot at the university where I work.)