Racism, White Privilege and Scary Brown Boys... and the Development of a Critical Indigenous Justice Studies

Hi all

Below is a link to an interesting commentary on racism, white privilege and the demonisation of brown boys - enjoy:

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/01/27/there-problem-discerning-racism-white-privilege-southwest-airlines-flight-30000-feet

Research Project - Maori, Pacific and Indigenous Scholars Experience of the Academy

As reported previously there have been a number of positive developments within the Indigenous Academy, some of which will be discussed below.  I want to take this opportunity to provide background detail on a research project that I am involved with at present, focused on Maori, Pacific and Indigenous scholars experiences of the academy.

The project was developed by, and led by Dr David Mayeda, a researcher and lecturer at the University of Auckland in the Department of Sociology.  The aim of this study is to explore Māori, Pacific and Indigenous experiences of the Academy, with a significant focus on the role of Indigenous academics as leaders, both in the academy and their communities development.small group or individual interviews with Māori, Pacific and international Indigenous academicians. The research project aims to identify the factors that assist Māori, Pacific and Indigenous academicians in their professional development. Some of these factors may include relationships with colleagues, balancing research, service and teaching responsibilities, family support, and professional mentoring.  The research also aims to identify the barriers Indigenous academics face in advancing their careers, and carrying out the research that they and their communities believe is essential to enhancing the social well being of Indigenous peoples.  

If you would like more information on the project, or wish to participate, please contact Dr Mayeda via his email address d.mayeda@auckland.ac.nz, or the author of this blog, Juan Tauri, on marcellos2006@hotmail.com - we will happily forward a detailed information sheet to you.

Advancing Critical Indigenous Justice Studies

A key highlight of the last 12 months was evidence of an increasing number of Indigenous and non-Indigenous colleagues publishing critical material that privileges the Indigenous perspective on social justice issues.  I had the privilege last year of collaborating with many of these individuals while developing of a special edition of a journal on counter-colonial perspectives (see below for information on the edition).  The work of Stolo academic Dr Wenona Victor on the inequities of the Canadian criminal justice and child care and protection systems and Dr Tamari Kitossa on the policing of black youth, augers well for critical Indigenous scholarship in that particular jurisdiction.  There has also been an increase in critical Maori/non-Maori scholarship in New Zealand, driven by the likes of  University of Auckland academics Dr Robert Webb, Dr Khylie Quince and Assoc. Professor Tracey McIntosh, and Dr Antje Deckert of AUT University.  

Tracey's ground breaking work on Maori experiences of the borstal system of the 1960s/1970s and imprisonment generally, is especially important given the paucity of research on this issue. In the Australian context the rise of Dr Thalia Anthony has given me hope that the golden age of critical Indigenous-inspired research in Australia, is not yet over.  Her recent publications and presentations on the history of colonial, racist policing on Palm Island, and the criminalisation of Aboriginal peoples through social policy in the Northern Territory, are as good as critical, engaging research gets in the contemporary context.  What is also pleasing (and important) is the support we are receiving from the 'old guard' (no disrespect intended), including Professors Chris Cunneen, Harry Blagg and Gillian Cowlishaw in Australia, the esteemed Maori lawyer, Moana Jackson in New Zealand, and the Nigerian criminologist Biko Agozino.

It seems to me the that recent increase in scholarship coincided with a parallel increase in the number of Indigenous academic journals in the last 10 to 15 years.  In the past we relied on the A and B journals of the Western academy for publication of our work.  However, as Dr Antje Deckert's recent research has demonstrated, these so-called 'top shelf' journals rarely publish Indigenous-centred, critical work that privilege the experiences of Indigenous peoples.  It is obvious that we are increasingly turning to Indigenous journals to publish our work, such as the New Zealand-based journals Mai Review and AlterNative, the African Journal of Criminal Justice, and North American based publications such as International Indigenous Policy Journal and Indigenous Policy Journal.  There is a definite trend in the increase of critical Indigenous justice scholarship, namely that we are increasingly turning away from the journals of the Western academy, and choosing to publish in our own.

There are a number of projects on the go for 2014 and out-years that are designed to support the increase in activity in the area of critical Indigenous justice studies, including:

Publication of a Special Edition on Counter-Colonial Criminologies and Indigenous Perspectives

As stated in an earlier blog, a special edition on 'Counter Colonial Perspectives on Indigenous Justice' is currently being developed for publication in the African Journal of Criminology and Justice Studies. Right now, Dr Antje Deckert, my co-guest editor and I are in the process of completing the peer review process.  We hope to have the edition formally published in the next few months.  The contributors to the special edition include:

Professor Biko Agozino - Virginia Tech

Dr Tamari Kitossa - Brock University

Dr Andrea Smith - University of California

Associate Professor Tracey McIntosh - University of Auckland

Dr Robert Webb - University of Auckland

Dr Antje Deckert - AUT University

Juan Tauri - University of Wollongong

Professor Harry Blagg - University of Western Australia

Dr Thalia Anthony - University of Technology Sydney

Dr Wenona Victor - University of Fraser Valley

Joey Lywak - University of Winnipeg.

Dr Deckert and I are extremely grateful to Professor Biko Agozino for organising the transfer of the special edition to the AJCJS.  We can think of no better home for critical Indigenous/non-Indigenous scholarship like this.

The International Journal of Indigenous Justice (IJIJ)

Given the experiences of myself and other contributors to the above special edition, we have decided to develop a new journal, tentatively titled The International Journal of Indigenous Justice.  We have found a home for the journal at the University of Wollongong (Australia).  A big thanks to Associate Professor Evan Poata-Smith for making this happen.  The new journal will focus on publishing critical commentaries on the Indigenous experience of criminal justice.  Professor Poata-Smith, Dr Robert Webb, Dr Antje Deckert and I will be developing the journal throughout 2014, with a view to launching the first edition in 2015.  Watch this space for further information.

An International Conference on Aboriginal and Maori Social Science

Lastly, Assoc. Professor Evan Poata-Smith and I are currently organising a conference on Aboriginal and Maori social science, to be held at the University of Wollongong in late 2016.  Further information on the conference will be made available through this blog and my Face Book page Indigenous Criminologists, over the coming months.

Cheers

Juan Tauri

Critiquing Arguments Against Extending the Jurisdiction of Indigenous Law

The following post is not written in the 'academic style', just notes I use when discussing with students in my Indigenous Justice unit at Queensland University of Technology, arguments for and against extending the use of 'customary law', or what I prefer to call Indigenous Law.  My apologies to colleagues if I haven't referenced as per the academic convention (as long as I've presented our ideas accurately!).  Nor have I rewritten the piece to correct grammar, etc; instead it is written very much how it is spoken in class; in general, not specific terms. I've simply uploaded the notes as prepared for the lecture; in other words posted 'as is' in order to contribute to debate on this issue:

A Few Comments on Customary Law to my QUT Indigenous Justice Students

For JSB381 students to consider:

The term customary law: is something that should give you all pause to think; why is it that any other ‘law’ besides European (British) law is often described as ‘customary’? 

This is an issue within ‘law’ and justice that has been pondered by great Indigenous theorists, jurist and thinkers.  For example, the great Nigerian Criminologist, Biko Agozino refers to this type of ‘reasoning’ – that all European law is ‘the law’ while all others are ‘customary’ - as a continuation of the Imperialist Reasoning used to legitimise the colonisation of Indigenous peoples and the imposition of European legal jurisdiction over subjugated peoples.

The Maori jurist, Moana Jackson, goes a little further, describing this kind of representation of Indigenous law as being based upon racist assumptions of the superiority of Eurocentric law, and the baseness of the law of coloured folk; of its inherent weakness due to its not being written, codified or institutionalised.  Building on the work of the legal Anthropologist Fitzgerald, who wrote about the mythology of law, we might describe these assumptions as forming the Great White Myth of Law, one based on the racist assumption of the inherent superiority of ‘White Ways’ due to a related belief that the legal system we now practice in Settler Societies is the end point of legal evolution; that is it the ‘best way’ of 'doing law and seeking justice'.

Let us take a moment to consider and dissect these notions:

1.    That Indigenous law was not codified: we are able to demonstrate that this is pure myth; at the time of colonisation, Europeans were writing of the codified laws of the Dine (Navajo), and of the six Nations of the Iroquois peoples who straddled what is now the Eastern US/Canadian border, and who’s Confederation the founding fathers of the American constitution and the Republic, actually based that constitution upon (at least in part). 

2.  The myth of codification is based on an assumption that Indigenous law is inherently weak(er) than White Law because it was not written down; it was practiced and hand down thru generations orally.  And yet we have 19^th and 20^th century European Anthropologists recording and reporting the sophisticated, orally derived legal processes of numerous First Nations; of Tohunga, legal specialists trained in linking genealogy with ‘cases’ that demonstrate precedence and an evolving jurisdiction, the supposed hallmark of the superior, codified Western European law.

3.   Indigenous law is inferior because it is based in the distant past: things have changed, so therefore it is not applicable to the contemporary moment: and yet we see in Africa, over the past 2 decades, more and more jurisdictional autonomy being given to First Nations in various countries, to mould a contemporary justice system based on ‘ancient’ philosophies and practices, carried out via resurrected, localised justice institutions.  We see in New Zealand over the same period (in a small number of largely rural areas), the resurrection of communal, marae-based justice processes, based on tikanga (think about Aroha Terry's marae-based justice process for dealing with sexual offending, practiced in the Waikato region in the 1990s onwards), blended with contemporary notions and practices of human rights, which yet again highlights the racism inherent in the assumption that Indigenous justice and cultural is incapable of ‘evolving and changing’, and incapable of being applicable to the modern world. 

      If this were so, then how do we explain the movement amongst Western, European jurisdictions to adopt so many of our justice philosophies and practices; FGC’s, Circles, significant elements of what they call restorative justice, etc?  It is evident that continued moves by existing legal institutions, law makers, politicians and the like, to block the extension of jurisdictional autonomy to First Nations, has little to do with the inherent weakness of Indigenous law, or the inability of our peoples and culture to ‘evolve’, but instead has everything to do with maintaining the status quo, namely the hegemony of their way of law.

4.   So, let's look closely at the law and legal institutions of contemporary Settler States:  does the fact that it is written (in fact almost all contemporary Indigenous justice processes are now written and codified, yet again underlining the myth of our inability to grow and adapt), that it is codified and institutionalised make it inherently more just than Indigenous justice?  If your answer is yes, then think about the growing numbers of exonerations being passed down in American, Canadian, New Zealand jurisdictions, and becoming a not so rare feature of Australian jurisdictions: decisions that come about, in the main (or in part, depending on your ideological persuasion!), because of judicial and police racism, classism and sexism.  Think about the racist laws passed (or the laws and powers used in racist ways) that drive people of colour in to the system, or drive them ever deeper into it; e.g. the anti-drug laws of America, search and seizure laws in Great Britain targeting black youth, ‘move on’ and search laws in Australia, the NTER, and so on.  Think about the massive amount of research evidence gathered by white criminologists and Indigenous researchers on the failings of our legal system; of its class, race and gender bias, of the myriad unjust sentences/decisions, and of the inhumanity of our correctional regimes….. consider all this body of evidence and think twice about arguing, as some do here in Australia, that Indigenous justice should not be promoted or extended because it promotes/supports child rape, violence against women, and is founded on archaic, inhumane punishments.

5.   On the argument of the violence of Indigenous justice: we often hear or read non-Indigenous commentators saying that ‘customary law’ supports violence, that it is inhumane – let us be frank, in times past our responses to social harm were by today’s standards, ‘inhumane’, but as previously discussed, this presupposes that those same penalties will be employed in a contemporary, reconstituted Indigenous legal system.  In others words, those espousing such views are falling back on the tired, racist assumptions about our inability to change with the times.  And with all the injustice and inhumanity practiced in Western jurisdictions, as stated previously, can anyone truly argue that the contemporary system is always just and humane? 

 

Lastly, on the argument that Indigenous law supports violence against women and children, we have no evidence to that effect so we can’t argue definitively either way on this matter: unfortunately, what we most definitely have is evidence that western influences have permeated some Indigenous communities, re: ‘imported’ notions and practices of gender and familial relations, power and authority, that have framed ‘institutionalised’ violence within our communities (and yes, a trend we must acknowledge, own and respond to ourselves).

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 :-)

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.