A Commentary on Raumati Hooks’ Foray into Crime Control Policy

Critical Maori commentators have long expressed concerns about the over-representation of their people in the criminal justice system, and especially of the way(s) in which the agencies and agents of social control scrutinise and control Maori individuals, families and communities (see Jackson, 1988; Tauri, 1996 and Walker, 1990).  These concerns began to be articulated forcefully during the rise of the ‘Maori radical’ movement of the early to mid-1970s, when the police and other agents of social control were critically scrutinised for the criminalising impact of their operations (Poata-Smith, 1996).  Despite these concerns, there is a distinct lack of independent, empirical research and commentary on Maori interaction with the agents of crime control in this jurisdiction.  This is true not only of Maori commentators, but indeed for almost all academic criminologists in New Zealand (for exceptions see Bull, 2001, Jackson, 1988; McIntosh and Webb, 2003).  And so it is with this in mind that we should all welcome Gary Raumati Hook’s foray into the murky world of crime control policy.

In comparison to the other settler societies of Australia, Canada and the U.S, the lack of interest by criminologists in analysing Maori engagement with the agencies of crime control is perhaps the defining, negative characteristic of academic, criminological scholarship in our jurisdiction.  This peculiarity is somewhat puzzling when you consider that the statistical characteristics of crime and criminality in New Zealand is similar to most other Western jurisdictions, namely that the majority of recorded crime is committed by young men (aged 15 to 35 years) from working class backgrounds, and that ethnic minorities, especially Indigenous peoples, are significantly over-represented.  Despite the fact that Maori over-representation in the criminal has been a statistical ‘fact’ for nearly thirty years, there has been very little attention paid to the issue by policy makers and academics since the release of Moana Jackson’s 1988 report, He Whaipaanga Hou.  The one significant exception to this rule, in terms of government-sponsored research, is the Ministry of Social Development’s 2006 research report From Wannabes to Youth Offenders: Youth Gangs in Counties Manukau.  Or, more accurately, the exemplary research carried out by Mike Roguski and reflected in his draft report, as opposed to the departmental document that appears on the Ministry’s website.

From a governmental perspective, a counter-argument to my thesis would go something like this: over the past ten years government agencies have generated a vast amount of documents focused wholly or partly on the Maori over-representation problem.  These documents range from Cabinet papers (for example, the joint Ministry of Justice/Te Puni Kokiri paper Effective Interventions Package: Programme of Action for Maori, produced in 2007), research reports (for example, the Department of Corrections paper Over-representation of Maori in the Criminal Justice System: An Exploratory Report (2008)), and high level strategies, such as the Ministry of Justice-led Crime Reduction Strategy and Youth Offending Strategy, both released in 2002, the Effective Interventions work programme (2006), and the evolving Drivers of Crime policy initiative.  All this ‘strategic’ activity is underpinned by the large number of ministerial briefings and updates that invariably contain a section dedicated to ‘Maori issues’ that is usually no more than two paragraphs long.  One defining characteristic of all this activity becomes apparent when it is scrutinised with an independent, critical eye: none of the vast amount of documents, policies and strategies deal with what we know, anecdotally, if not empirically, to be a key driver of Maori over-representation, namely the actions of the Policy Industry and the agents of crime control (see Tauri, 2009).

This brings me to the two articles by Raumati Hook that appeared in the MAI Review journal in 2009, called The Criminalisation of Maori and Pacific Islanders under the Domestic Violence Act 1995, and The Potential Influence of Legislation in the Criminality of Maori and Pacific Islanders in New Zealand.  What is most pleasing about this work is the heavy focus on the activities of the Policy Industry, in particular the intersection between legislation and the activities of crime control agents like the judiciary.  It is the intersection between the various components of the crime control process that is long overdue for meaningful, sustained scrutiny by members of the Maori academy (Tauri, 2009).  It is pleasing to see another member of the Maori Academy undertaking critical analysis Maori issues with the criminal justice system and the activities of the Policy Industry, as it is becoming increasingly obvious that members of New Zealand’s criminological community are either incapable of, or disinterested in, directly critiquing the policy-making process (for exceptions to this rule see Bradley, 2005 and Newbold, 2008).

Raumati Hook’s thesis

One of the most interesting statements made by Raumati Hook is “[c]ould the 1997 18-fold higher propensity of the court to impose custodial sentences on Maori versus Pakeha for domestic violence violations be attributed to a major bias against Maori within the court system itself?”  A criminal justice official is likely to respond to this statement by citing the lack of scientific, empirical evidence that bias exists in the New Zealand jurisdiction.  And the official would be correct to describe the evidentiary record of the operations of New Zealand criminal justice system in this way.  However, such a statement is rendered somewhat meaningless when we consider that not since Jackson’s 1988 report has the Policy Industry in New Zealand carried out or directly supported, independent, critical research on the issue of bias.  Indeed, key justice agencies have a long history of actively discouraging external, critical observations of the sectors activities (Tauri, 2009).  A criminal justice official might also respond to the assertion that bias has something to do with Maori over-representation by arguing that the high number of Maori receiving custodial sentences is largely due to a combination of a) the severity of the offence for which people appear in court, and b) the prior offending histories of defendants, and not because of the biased operations of court officials.  Through these types of responses criminal justice officials seek to counter accusations of bias by emphasising the fact that Maori commit violent acts at much higher levels than anyone else, hence their over-representation crime statistics.  The reluctance of the criminal justice sector to critically examine its role in facilitating minority over-representation, and focus instead on the criminal antecedents of minority populations, underlines the importance of the critical observations made by Raumati Hook in the papers published in MAI Review.  His critical analysis serves to demonstrate how incomplete and self-promoting the Policy Industry’s formulated responses are to any critical scrutiny of its operations.

There are a small number of key themes or statements running through the Raumati Hook papers, namely that 1) Maori and Pacific peoples are overrepresented in criminal justice statistics, 2) differential outcomes at the point of sentencing means the system “must be viewed with a degree of suspicion”, and 3) that “data suggest[s] that either Maori and Pacific Islanders are much more violent than Pakeha (Europeans), or there is bias against Maori and Pacific Islanders within the judiciary and police systems of New Zealand” (emphasis mine).  These statements are based on analysis of existing data on apprehensions and convictions for domestic violence.  The statistics presented in Raumati Hooks’ papers undoubtedly make for disturbing reading, and he does a thorough job of demonstrating empirically the extent of the problem.  However, things become shaky when he begins to speculate on the drivers of statistical over-representation, and the differentials in sentencing of Maori compared to non-Maori offenders. 

Both papers contain a number of speculative questions about what might be causing the significant disproportion of Maori receiving custodial sentences, and appearing in court in the first instance.  The papers would have been strengthened had the author extended his analysis to examine these speculative questions with reference to existing national and international literature on bias in the criminal justice system.  It may appear a little unfair to focus on what Raumati Hook has not included in his papers, but in this instance it is difficult to avoid this kind of scrutiny.  This is because reference to the small amount of empirical evidence on bias in the New Zealand context (see Bradley, Tauri and Walters, 2005; Ferguson, 1993 and Jackson, 1988) and the vast amount of international research on bias and ethnic minorities (see Carrington and Schulenberg, 2004; Denny; Ellis and Barn (2006); Ontario Human Rights Commission, 2005 and Weich and Angulo, 2001), would have greatly strengthened the analysis and conclusions.  Utilising this body of work would have enabled the arguments contained in the papers to move beyond speculative questions about the possibility of bias, towards piercing statements about the prejudicial, biased reality that Maori confront every day when dealing with the criminal justice system.  Perhaps this is one of the dangers of relying primarily on statistical analysis as the basis for analysing complex issues like the causes of crime and complex institutions like the criminal justice system and the Policy Industry.

Throughout his work, Raumati Hook utilises a dichotomous approach to analyse the significant over-representation of Maori and Pacific peoples in domestic violence statistics.  We are told that these statistics are the result either of our propensity for using violence to settle interpersonal disputes, or courtroom bias: If only it were that simple.  As many criminologists have demonstrated over the years, crime is a complex phenomenon (see Hart, 1998; Henry and Lanier, 2001).  While there are significant variations in theoretical perspective, most administrative and critical criminologists at least agree on that particular point.  Raumati Hook himself acknowledges this complexity when he states that “[a]nalysis of complex social forces is permeated with difficulties.  The factors that influence the conviction rates… are probably a complex mixture of legislation, attitudes, assumptions, biases, perceptions..:.”.  This is followed by the observation that “[f]ew of these can be measured reliably”.  I agree, and yet it is these ‘hard to measure things’ that most likely explain the role of the Policy Industry in the criminalisation of Maori (Tauri, 2009).  Neither the extent nor nature of the violence occurring in our communities, nor the apparent differentials apprehension, conviction and sentencing statistics, can be explained via an either/or dichotomous construct. 

In the case of apparent disparities in sentencing of Maori males for domestic violence-related offences, it is just possible that both of Raumati Hooks ‘drivers’ are leading causes of over-representation: meaning that we are both more violent (in comparison to other ethnicities) and treated with prejudice b agents of crime control.  Statistical analysis alone will not enable us to uncover bias on the part of court officials, no matter what the quantitative methodologist might say.  Statistical analysis tells us little about the mind-set, prejudices and lived experiences of judges.  Statistics and surveys might play a part in an in-depth analysis of judicial practice, but any attempt to expose the nuances of prejudice, bias and racism within the criminal justice system requires detailed, lengthy observation of the operations of the court and engagement with the experiences of offenders and victims.  Furthermore, any attempt to examine Maori experiences of the criminal justice system must begin with a critical examination of how they ended up there in the first place.  We must first look at the processes through which Maori are policed and end up in court.  But before that we must critically analyse the way in which the Policy Industry goes about its business, and before that we must scrutinise the process through which Cabinet directs the development of policy and legislation. 

Yes, crime and criminalisation processes are indeed complex phenomenon, but at least with the intervention of Raumati Hook’s and the questions he asks, and hopefully in time the involvement of more of the Maori academy, we will begin to better understand the role the agents of crime control play in constructing the apparent differentials in sentencing outcomes for Maori, as well as their significant over-representation in all phases of the criminal justice system in New Zealand. 

References

Bradley, T (2005). Community Crime Prevention: The New Zealand Experience.  Unpublished PhD thesis, Victoria University of Wellington. 

Bradley, T; Tauri, J and Walters, R (2006). Demythologising Youth Justice in Aotearoa/New Zealand.  In J. Muncie and B. Goldson (Eds.) Comparative Youth Justice: Critical Issues.  London: Sage: 79-95

Bull, S (2001) The Land of Murder, Cannibalism, and all Kinds of Atrocious Crimes? An overview of "Māori crime" from Pre-colonial Times to the Present Day,  Unpublished PhD thesis, Victoria University of Wellington.

Carrington, P and Schulenberg, J (2004) Prior Police Contacts and Police Discretion with Apprehended Youth.  Ontario: Canadian Centre for Justice Studies. 

Denny, D; Ellis, T and Barn, R (2006) Race, Diversity and Criminal Justice in Canada: A View from the UK.  Internet Journal of Criminology.

Department of Corrections (2008) Over-representation of Maori in the Criminal Justice System: An Exploratory Report.  Wellington: Department of Corrections. 

Fergusson, D (1993) Ethnicity and Bias in Police Contact Statistics, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 26(3): 193-206.

Hart, T (1998) Causes and Consequences of Juvenile Crime and Violence: Public Attitudes and Question-Order Effect,  American Journal of Criminal Justice, 23(1): 129-143.

Henry, S and Lanier, M (2001) What is Crime?  Controversies Over the Nature of Crime and What to do About It.  Plymouth: Rowman and Little Field Publishers.

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

Ministry of Justice (2002) Crime Reduction Strategy.  Wellington: Ministry of Justice.

Ministry of Justice (2002) Youth Offending Strategy.  Wellington: Ministry of Justice. 

Ministry of Justice and Te Puni Kokiri (2007) Effective Interventions Package: Programme of Action for Maori.  Wellington: Ministry of Justice. 

Ministry of Social Development (2006) From Wannabes to Youth Offenders: Youth Gangs in Counties Manukau.  Wellington: Ministry of Social Development. 

Newbold, G (2008) The Problem with Prisons: Corrections Reform in New Zealand since 1840.  Wellington: Dunmore.

Ontario Human Rights Commission (2005) The Impact of Racial Profiling on the Aboriginal Community.  Ontario: Ontario Human Rights Commission.

Poata-Smith, E (1996) He Pokeke Uenuku, Tu Ai: The Evolution of Contemporary Maori Protest, P Spoonley; D Pearson and C McPherson (Eds.) Nga Patai: Ethnic Relations and Racism in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Palmerston North: The Dunmore Press: 160-179. 

Raumati Hook, G (2009a), The Criminalisation of Maori and Pacific Islanders Under the Domestic Violence Act 1995, MAI Review (online).

Raumati Hooks, G (2009b) The Potential Influence of Legislation in the Criminality of Maori and Pacific Islanders in New Zealand, MAI Review (online).   

Tauri, J (1996) Indigenous Justice or Popular Justice? Issues in the Development of a Maori Criminal Justice System, in P Spoonley, D Pearson and C Macpherson (Eds.) Nga Patai: Ethnic Relations and Racism in Aotearoa/New Zealand.  The Dunmore Press: Palmerston North.

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

Walker, R (1990) Struggle Without End.  Wellington: Penguin Books.

Webb, R (2003) Maori Crime: Possibilities and Limits of an Indigenous Criminology, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Auckland.

Weich, R and Angulo, C (2001) Racial Disparities in the American Criminal Justice System.  Washington D.C: Citizen’s Commission on Civil Rights. 

Beware Restorative Justice Advocates Bearing Gifts: A Commentary on the Glorification of Family Group Conferencing

The following is a commentary on the glorification of the family group conference (FGC) forum, motivated by a reading of Carolyn Henwood and Stephen Stratford's book A Gift to the World: The Youth Justice Family Group Conference, published by The Henwood Trust (2014).

Introduction

Thus planetarised, or globalised in a strictly geographical sense, by this uprooting at the same time as they are de-particularised by the effect of false rupture effected by conceptualisation, these commonplaced of the great new global vulgate that endless media repetition progressively transforms into universal common sense manage in the end to make one forget that they have their roots in the complex and controversial realities of a particular historical society, now tacitly constituted as model for every other and as a yardstick for all things.

                                                                                Bourdieu and Wacqaunt (1999: 42).

The quote from Bourdieu and Wacquant came to me part way through my first reading of Carolyn Henwood and Stephen Stratford’s offering A Gift to the World: The Youth Justice Family Group Conference.  The sentiments expressed in the quote neatly summarise their stance on the purpose of the FGC forum, and the place they believe it has in New Zealand’s youth justice system  In short, Henwood and Stratford’s text represents a recent edition to the growing lexicon that is providing the ideological fuel that has been driving the globalisation of the FGC forum since the mid-1990s (see Richards, 2007; Tauri, 2014).  I will return to the links between the quote and the book under review later, but first I wish to provide a brief overview of the focus and aims of the book.

The Aims of ‘A Gift to the World’

Early on, the authors of A Gift to the World make it clear that the book is intended as a celebration of the FGC forum, a justice process they believe “can be a life-changing process for all involved and for New Zealand” (Henwood and Stratford, 2014: vii). The aims of Henwood and Stratford’s book are fairly straightforward: a) to provide a detailed description of how FGC’s ‘work’ (as in the process and the impact of the forums); b) give voice to the experiences of youth, their family members and professionals involved in the process, and c) challenge a number of ‘myths’ associated with the forum, including that it is “an indigenous, Maori response to offending”, that “ it is a soft [sentencing] option”, and that it “doesn’t work” to reduce crime (ibid: 85).

To achieve these aims the author’s utilise a combination of methods including analysis of FGC plans, and interviews with participants and justice practitioners.  This material was in turn used to construct seven case studies that are employed to inform the reader of the types of offences, offenders, victims and families an FGC forum can deal with, and the sorts of ‘outcomes’ the process leads to.  While the case studies appear to have been purposely selected to provide positive stories about FGC practice, nevertheless they represent one of its key strengths by providing critics and advocates alike with detailed descriptions of the FGC process that has till now been largely absent from the literature. 

I wish now to return briefly to the quote from Bourdieu and Wacquant that introduced this piece, before I launch into the substantive commentary:  This quote came to mind because the Henwood and Stratford present the FGC forum as a gift not just for New Zealander's, but to the world.  It is true the forum has been uprooted and planitarised; transferred across and into numerous jurisdictions over the past two decades.  It has been globalised to such an extent that advocates readily describe it as one of the most innovative and popular justice products developed during the 20^th century (Maxwell, 2008).  Policy makers and advocates alike wax lyrical about the crime reduction potentialities of the forum, and the ability of practitioners to create communities of concern that can work together to find meaningful ways of restoring social harmony, whilst holding youth offenders accountable for their behaviour (see Cary, 2000; Consedine, 1995; Zehr, 2002). 

However, in some instances advocates, including Henwood and Stratford, make such claims largely in the absence of empirical evidence derived from critical engagement with population groups most often impacted by the practice of the forum; including Maori in New Zealand, and Indigenous peoples residing in settler-colonial jurisdictions into which it has been transferred (Tauri, 2014).  In doing so, advocates create supposed ‘common sense’ understandings of the purpose and impact of the forum that “make one forget that they have their roots in the complex and controversial realities of a particular historical society” (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1999; 42).  What is often written out of the history of the FGC forum and similar interventions (such as Sentencing Circles), is the fact that it was introduced at a time when it was commonplace for policy workers in settler-colonial jurisdictions to respond to Indigenous justice ‘issues’ by creating and/or importing indigenised justice forums that utilised ‘acceptable’ (meaning civilised) elements of Indigenous cultural practice.  Often shaded from view, is the part played by interventions like the FGC in the settler-colonial states multi-pronged strategy for blocking Indigenous attempts to attain a measure of jurisdictional autonomy (Lee, 1997; Tauri, 2004; Victor, 2007). 

FGC Advocacy and the Silencing of  the Critical Indigenous Perspective

Like many academics, upon receiving a new book or journal article that falls within my research interests primary areas of research - driven as much by a concern that the material reflect the Indigenous experience as to replenish my  ego - I turn to the bibliography to see if the authors have engaged meaningfully with the work of critical scholars.  For example, when reading a text that claims to offer an in-depth discussion of myths associated with the FGC, one can reasonably expect to find that the authors have engaged with the work of Shad Maruna, Chris Cunneen, Kelly Richards, to mention but a few.  Similarly, it is eminently reasonable to expect that when an author claims that their book or article on the FGC forum engages with Maori/Indigenous ‘issues’, to find the work of Wenona Victor, Harry Blagg, Chris Cunneen, Gloria Lee and myself, given a dismissive mention in a footnote at the very least.  Tellingly, none of the critical Indigenous material appears to have been on the reading list of the authors when they were contemplating writing ‘A Gift to the World’. 

A ‘Gift to the World’ suffers from one of the common weaknesses the FGC-related advocacy literature; namely that research and critical perspectives of Indigenous scholars, practitioners and community members is largely missing.  Instead, ‘expert’ commentary on issues of importance to Indigenous peoples is almost entirely based on the views and experiences of middle class justice professionals,  While members of this group have a right to be heard, one can also reasonably argue that they have a significant stake in presenting the forum in the best possible light. 

What is largely missing ‘A Gift to the World’ is the critical lived experiences of Maori/Pacifica professionals or participants whose experience of the forum have been less than positive, or that expose the mythology that sits behind many of the ‘truth claims’ of FGC advocates, such as the belief in the ability of the forum to accommodate any and all ‘difference’, be it based on class, gender, sexuality of ethnicity (more on this issue below).  As indicated above, it is no longer possible to contend that materials that report the negative experiences of Maori and Pacifica participants, or Indigenous peoples in settler-colonial jurisdictions that have imported the forum, are rare or difficult to source.  The work of Love (2002), Moyle (2013) and my own work (Tauri, 1998; 1999; 2004; 2014) on the New Zealand context, and Rudin, Lee, Victor, Cunneen and others I mention above who report on the experiences of Indigenous peoples in other jurisdictions, leaves little room for advocates to justify ignoring these perspectives. 

In failing to engage with the critical research and literature, the authors create an interesting contradiction, in that they end up lending weight to some of the myths they seek to discredit.  For example, on page 89 they attempt to debunk the myth that “the family group conference is an indigenous, Maori response to offending”.  Given that a lot of my own work in the FGC forum focuses on this issue, it was heartening to see that Henwood and Stratford were willing to tackle it head on.  Unfortunately their approach to this issue reinforces key issues identified earlier, including failing to engage meaningfully with the extant, critical literature, and an over-reliance on the views of justice practitioners.  Furthermore, their argument that while the FGC is not a Maori justice form, it nevertheless “promote[s] participation… by a young Maori who has offended” by offering Maori participants “the opportunity to have the conference in chosen familiar surroundings, including on marae (traditional meeting area) (Ibid: 89) is severely compromised by a lack of engagement with research that contradicts this position. 

A cursory glance at the critical literature and government sponsored reviews of the process demonstrates that Maori whanau and communities are rarely ‘offered’ the gift of holding FGC’s in “familiar surroundings” (see for example, Morris and Maxwell, 1993; Maxwell, Robertson, Kingi, Morris and Cunningham, 2004; and Tauri’s 2011 analysis of their research in demonstrating the failure of the implementation of the FGC to enhance Maori ability to ‘practice justice’).  The failure to critically engage with the relevant research underlines the importance of distinguishing between what advocates and policy makers claim to be the aims of particular interventions, and the actual outcomes that result from practice.  In this instance, practice does not match the rhetoric that the FGC is a forum that offers Maori the opportunity to ‘lead’ the justice systems response to  the offending of their own (Tauri, 2014). 

Another key myth of the FGC supported by the authors of ‘A Gift to the World’, is that the forum responds easily to the cultural values and practices of diverse ethnic groups.  On pages 15-20 the authors replicate the oft-told myth of the forums ability to accommodate any and all ‘cultures’.  In comparison, a number of Indigenous and critical non-Indigenous scholars argue that the forum is more accurately described as a Eurocentric, standardised youth justice process that utilises fragments of Indigenous cultural practice others, but does little to empower us (see Blagg, 1997, 1998; Cunneen, 1997, 2002; Lee, 1997; Moyle, 2013; Tauri, (1998; 1999; 2004; 2014) and Victor, 2007).  I employ the term ‘standardised’ to describe the FGC forum with intent, for it is one of the great self-deceptions of justice practitioners and policy makers in settler-colonial jurisdictions is that justice forums derived from western criminal justice and criminological paradigms, can work for everyone or anyone regardless of ‘race’, differences in social or historical context (Tauri, 2009). 

To add gravitas to their portrayal of the cultural flexibility of the forum, Henwood and Stratford (2014: 20) cite Judge Fred McElrea who claims that “[t]he family group conference model is receptive to different cultural influences and can accommodate indigenous, European, and immigrant cultures with little  difficulty”.  Unfortunately for Henwood, Stratford and Judge McElrea, critical literature that exposes the diversity of Maori experiences (and of Indigenous peoples in other settler-colonial jurisdictions), says otherwise.  For example, what are we to make of the Judge’s comment in light of the experiences of Maori social work practitioners and whanau participants surveyed by Paora Moyle (2014; forthcoming) for her Masters and Doctoral research, who state that:

The family group conference is about as restorative as it is culturally sensitive... in the same way Pākehā [European] social workers believe they are competent enough to work with our people... Pākehā think they’re the natural ordinary community against which all other ethnicities are measured (participant 19).

In the FGC we were talking about how ‘Pākeha’ the caregiver training was when most kids in care are Māori.  The social worker said, “our training teaches all prospective parents how to be culturally sensitive... culture is important to us (to child protection) but the health and wellbeing of a child must come first.”  Like, being Māori is secondary, an add-on, or a choice!

And finally participant 21, a kaumatua (respected elder) who pointedly stated that:

CYF (Child Youth & Family) said I couldn’t attend the FGC because I wasn’t whānau [family].  But the whānau wanted a tikanga [philosophy] process and I was the kaumatua. Then the next week CYFs ring and ask me to attend a different FGC... talk about ‘dial a kaumatua.’

The material drawn from Moyle’s research demonstrates that the FGC forum does not always meet our specific cultural and social needs.  In particular, it highlights that in some instances justice officials actively work against whanau in ways that contradict claims that the forum responds to the needs of all ethnic groups with ‘little difficulty’. 

A Gift to the World?

If, as Henwood and Stratford infer in the title of their book, the FGC forum is New Zealand's ‘gift to the world’, then it would be a good idea to find out how it is being experienced ‘out there’.  And, being a critical Indigenous scholar and given  the propensity for RJ advocates to over egg the ‘Maoriness’ of the forum (see Richards, 2007), by ‘the world’ I am referring to indigenous individuals, communities and organisations residing in settler-colonial jurisdictions, and not members of the judiciary or government agencies, or FGC/RJ advocates motivated at least in part to ensure the forum is marketed as positively as possible (Tauri, 2014). 

For example, engaging with the critical work of the Stolo First Nation criminologist Dr Wenona Victor (2007) or the Cree scholar Gloria Lee (1999), reveals a world in which the cross-jurisdictional transfer of the forum is experienced less as a gift, and more as the imposition of a Eurocentric, standardised crime control process that impedes the development of Indigenous-led initiatives (Tauri, 2011).  Furthermore, engaging with the work of Kelly Richards (2007) reveals that the transfer of the FGC forum from New Zealand and Australia out to ‘the world’, was made possible in large part because policy makers and RJ advocates purposely exaggerated the Maori/Indigenous basis to the forum, especially to jurisdictions such as as the U.S and Canada that were also experiencing high level of Indigenous over-representation in the criminal justice system (see also Tauri, 2005; 2014). 

If the authors  of ‘A Gift to the World’ took time to engage with the critical research of Indigenous and our critical, non-Indigenous collaborators, they would find a world in which the FGC is a gift of the Trojan Horse variety.  They would find a world where once you dig through the thick veil of rhetoric about the cultural appropriateness of forums like the FGC, there lies a different reality.  They will find a situation where the forum is being experienced by some participants as an orientalised, state-dominated processes that has been imposed on Indigenous peoples, and impedes their attempts to develop responses to social harm based on their own cultural contexts (Tauri, 2004, Victor, 2007). 

Overall, the lack of attention given by the authors’ of ‘A Gift to the World’ to the range of experiences of Indigenous peoples of the FGC forum, detracts from the powerful stories revealed through the case studies.  In particular, the lack of attention to the negative impact the cross-jurisdictional transfer of the FGC has had on Indigenous people around the world, provokes me to conclude this commentary by paraphrasing a well known Indigenous dictum that underlines why Indigenous peoples should be wary of works that glorify the FGC forum: ‘Indigenous peoples everywhere, beware RJ advocates bearing gifts’. 

References

Blagg, H (1997) A Just Measure of Shame?  Aboriginal Youth and Conferencing in Australia, British Journal of Criminology, 37(4): 481-501.

Blagg, H (1998) Restorative Visions and Restorative Justice Practices: Conferencing, Ceremony and Reconciliation in Australia, Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 10(1): 5-14.

Bourdieu, P and Wacquant, L (1999) On the Cunning of Imperialist Reason, Theory, Culture and Society, 16(1): 41-58. 

Cary, M (2000) Restorative Justice – A New Approach with Historical Roots: Corrections Retrospective 1959-1999.  St Paul: Minnesota Department of Corrections. 

Consedine, J (1995) Restorative Justice: Healing the Effects of Crime.  Wellington: Ploughshare Publishing.

Cunneen, C (1997) Community Conferencing and the Fiction of Indigenous Control.  The Australian New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 30: 292-311.

Cunneen, C (2002) Restorative Justice and the Politics of Decolonisation, in E. Weitekamp and H. Kerner (Eds.), Restorative Justice: Theoretical Foundations.  Devon: Willan Publishing: 32-49.

Henwood, C and Stratford, S (2014) A Gift to the World: New Zealand’s Family Group Conference.  Wellington: Henwood Trust.

Lee, G (1997) The Newest Old Gem: Family Group Conferencing, Justice as Healing, 2(2): 1-3.

Love, C (2002) Maori Perspectives on Collaboration and Colonisation in Contemporary Aotearoa/New Zealand Child and Family Welfare Policies and Practices, paper presented at the Policy and Partnerships Conference, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo.

Maxwell, G. (2008) Crossing Cultural Boundaries: Implementing Restorative Justice in International and Indigenous Contexts, Sociology of Crime, Law and Deviance, 11: 81-95.

Maxwell, G, Robertson, J, Kingi, V, Morris, A and Cunningham, C (2004) Achieving Effective Outcomes in Youth Justice.  Wellington: Ministry of Social Development. 

Morris, A. and Maxwell, G. (1993) Juvenile Justice in New Zealand: A New Paradigm, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 26(1): 72-90. 

Moyle, P (2013) From Family Group Conferencing to Whanau Ora: Maori Social Workers Talk about their Experiences, unpublished Masters thesis, Massey University.  

Moyle, P and Tauri, J (2015) Indigenous Peoples and the Mystifications of the Restorative Justice Movement, unpublished paper. 

Richards, K (2007) ‘Rewriting History’: Towards a Genealogy of ‘restorative justice’, unpublished PhD thesis. Penrith: University of Western Sydney.

Rudin, J (2003) Pushing Back – A Response to the Drive for the Standardisation of Restorative Justice Programmes in Canada, paper presented to The 6^th International Conference on Restorative Justice, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, 2 October. 

Tauri, J (1998) Family Group Conferencing: A Case-Study of the Indigenisation of New Zealand’s Justice System, Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 10(2): 168-182.

Tauri, J (1999) Explaining Recent Innovations in New Zealand’s Criminal Justice System: Empowering Maori or Biculturalising the State, Australian New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 32(2): 153-167.

Tauri, J (2004) Conferencing, Indigenisation and Orientalism: A Critical Commentary on Recent State Responses to Indigenous Offending (key note address), paper presented at Qwi: Qwelstom Gathering: ‘Bringing Justice Back to the People”, Mission, B.C, 22-24 March.

Tauri J (2009) An Indigenous Commentary on the Standardisation of Restorative Justice, Indigenous Policy Journal, 20(3), online.

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

Tauri, J (2014) Criminal Justice: A Colonial Project in Settler-Colonialism?  African Journal of Criminology and Justice Studies, 8(1): 20-37.  

Victor, W (2007) Indigenous Justice: Clearing Space and Place for Indigenous Epistemologies, research paper for the National Centre for Indigenous peoples Governance. 

Zehr, H (2002) The Little Book of Restorative Justice.  Scottsdale (PA): Good Books. 

'I, Too, Am Auckland' and Racism in the Academy

In the past few weeks 3 video's have appeared on Facebook produced as part of a research project on racism in the academy.  Motivated by a project on racism in the U.S Academy called 'I, Too, Am Harvard', ' I, Too, Am Auckland' is a project undertaken by Maori and Pacifica students at the University of Auckland and guided by a member of the Department of Sociology, Dr David Mayeda.  The project also involved a number of Pacifica and Maori members of staff, some of whom appear in the third video that deals with perceptions of  targeted admission schemes. 

As someone currently researching the topic of racism within the Academy, and particularly within my discipline, criminology, the material produced by Dr Mayeda and his research team is a godsend.  To my knowledge, the project represents the first significant social science research on academic racism in Aotearoa/New Zealand; well at least one that goes out of its way to share the lived experiences of participants.  The videos that are embedded below provide details of the many and varied micro-aggressions utilised by racist assholes (my interpretation and expression, not those involved in the project!) to belittle and disempower their fellow students; descriptions enriched with the lived experiences of the participants. The decision to use video to transmit the experiences of participants was inspired as reading about them on the printed page, while important, does not have the same impact as being able to see people speak for themselves.    

One of the issues raised by participants was that academics were also responsible for behaviour they experienced as disempowering. This comes as no surprise to me, having experienced racist conduct at various points in my career, and having recently conducted research that involved Indigenous colleagues in New Zealand, Australia and North America recount numerous stories of racist, unethical conduct they had experienced during their time in the Academy.  But it does trouble me greatly that Maori and Pacifica students are also experiencing this type of behaviour from people who are meant to be working to create a safe environment for their learning.

The fact that students involved in 'I Too, Am Auckland' project reported experiencing disempowering conduct by academics, places recent statements by a spokesperson for the University of Auckland, in an interesting light.  On the weekend media asked for the University's response, which pretty much followed the standard, 'dot point', 'drag sh*t from the strategy document' response institutions rely on in the face of criticism or research that does not present the organisation in the positive light it prefers: the response was of the 'if racism occurs students should report it' and 'the University supports Maori and Pacifica students', etc, etc, kind... well for me the experiences of the students presented in the videos kinda makes these 'strategic statements' appear a little vacuous.

If the micro-aggressions and racist conduct are being perpetrated by staff, what are the chances that students will feel empowered enough, or safe enough, to report it?  After all, we are talking about students having to go up against the weight of an institution that, in my experience, will be hell bent on killing off the issue as quickly as possible.  And often 'killing off the issue' involves turning the problem back on the Maori or Pacifica student or academic, in a process that can involve a whole range of silencing strategies, from dismissives like 'you are being too sensitive' to 'your response was angry and/or aggressive'.  In other words, the focus moves from the racist act, to our response, or even (as reported by academics in my research) on the fact that we actually made a complaint, as in 'your complaint makes the institution look bad'! Seriously, this shit happens; I'm not making it up.

Anyway, back to 'I, Too, Am Auckland'.  There are so many things about the project and those involved in it to praise, including the fact that it provides further evidence of the widespread racism that occurs at academic institutions; grounded in the lived experiences of Maori and Pacifica students and academics.  But what I find most impressive is that the research took place at all given the increasing corporatisation of the tertiary education sector.  The neo-liberal education policies of recent governments have created tertiary institutions that are hyper-sensitive to research, publications and dialogue that throws anything less than a positive light on their business.  If you think about it, this situation is kind of funny given that so much of the research activity of said institutions involves critical analysis of a whole range of external institutions and their activities, including government agencies... but turn your critical gaze towards the universities themselves and sit back and watch the dummy fly across the room... but I digress: 

I am calling the research for what it is... bold, powerful and heartening. 

Bold - because it takes guts to stand up and be heard.

Powerful - because the methodology that drives the project empowers the participants to speak for themselves, thus ensuring their experiences and perspectives are the focus of the work, and not, as often occurs in academic research, mediated through the interpretative lens of an academic.  This is Indigenous Emancipatory Methodology, or Kaupapa Maori Research, or whatever term you prefer, at its best.

Heartening - because despite dealing with serious issues that can and do negatively impact Maori and Pacifica students, the project highlights a number of positives, including a) the aroha (love) and support the students give to each other, b) the depth of their strength and resilience in the face of adversity, and c) the commitment Maori and Pacifica (and no doubt some non-Maori and Pacifica) staff have to support them to succeed.

I am thankful to all those involved in the project for their wonderful, insightful work.  I am especially thankful to the students involved, and in awe of them, because if they are willing to stand up and speak out while they are STILL enrolled in their studies, given the power institutions can weld over them, just imagine what they will do when they graduate.  

Despite the racism and micro-aggressions, the students (clearly supported by Maori and Pacifica staff, and each other) are getting on with their mahi ('stuff') and succeeding.  Now imagine how much easier things would be if the White Privileged Academy got over itself, and responded meaningfully and with purpose, to the racist assholes that exist in its midst.  

The videos are inserted below:

The Death Penalty and the 'Bali 2'

Let me start by stating that I do not support the use of the death penalty as a response to crime.  The reasons for my position can be summarised as follows:

1. I find it difficult to trust the settler-colonial state to use the ultimate punishment against its citizens 'fairly', given its use of genocide against Indigenous peoples, and the propensity for the formal justice system to deploy state-sanctioned violence against the poor.
2. The state's exhortation that we 'shalt not kill' is contradicted somewhat when it gives itself the right to do so.
3. There is little evidence that the death penalty has a deterrent effect on serious offending. Research on the impact of the death penalty in the US has shown that in some of the states using this form of punishment over the past 2 decades, the rates of serious offending have either not changed or in fact increased.
4. Because the use of the ultimate, irreversible penalty requires that the 'system' be perfect.  And no justice system is perfect; not the various jurisdictions here in Australia (where I live), or New Zealand (where I grew up). These so-called 'civilised' systems of justice routinely get it wrong, as recent exoneration's demonstrate. The same can be said for the justice system of our neighbour, Indonesia.

Dominating media and political commentary right now is the possible execution of the Bali 2 Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran. As a New Zealander living in Australia the massive amount of commentary on the situation has highlighted a number of interesting contradictions and patterns of behaviour on the part of Australians, particularly members of the mainstream media, political class and the much broader group of 'social commentators' (namely those who write letters to the editor or engage with talk back radio). A number of recurring 'themes' are present in a lot of their rhetoric on this issue, including:

Indonesia's justice system is barbaric

While Australia does not use the death penalty as a response to crime, it is nevertheless difficult for some international observers like myself to take seriously claims made by some Australian's that the Indonesian justice system is barbaric and uncivilised. After all, Australia is the country that incarcerates Indigenous peoples at higher rates than anyone else, and the upward trend is not, as some argue, related solely to increases in serious offending by Indigenous peoples (see discussion below). It is the jurisdiction that suspends the legislation giving all Australian's the same protections against racial discrimination so it can deploy discriminatory policies against the Aboriginal peoples of the Northern Territory. It is the jurisdiction where police corruption and racist practice has long been established via research and formal enquiries. It is the jurisdiction that currently avoids its international obligations by processing 'illegal immigrants', including children, in off-shore detention centres; not to mention imprisoning under-age Indonesian youth for people smuggling in contravention of international covenants against such practices. It is time that many Australian's woke up to the fact that your country's 'way of doing justice' is not viewed by some as the exemplar of western, civilised practice that you think it is.      

Australian's have contradictory attitudes towards the use of the death penalty

It appears that the majority of Australian's are opposed to Indonesia putting the Bali 2 to death by firing squad.  As someone opposed to the death penalty I am happy that this is the case. But I do wonder where all the anti-death penalty Australian's were when Indonesia used the death penalty against the Bali bombers back in 2008? At the time there were a few commentators, those consistently against the death penalty who expressed opposition to the executions on the grounds of their opposition being a moral absolute (see for example, the editorial in The Sydney Morning Herald, March 2015 and the 2 editorials that commentary refers to in the same newspaper back in 2008). In the main, the majority of the media and political commentary was of the 'Indonesia is a sovereign nation and has the right to determine what they believe is the appropriate way to respond to crime' kind. Or, as expressed by John Howard and repeated by many Australian commentator at the time, the bombers were simply 'getting what they deserved'. In other words when Indonesia's use of the death penalty suited the response some Australian's wanted to the killing of 202 people in Bali, there was little talk of the barbarism of the Indonesian justice system or criticism of its use of the death penalty. And before people email me to say it is not appropriate to compare the Bali bombings to drug smuggling let me just say that a) the death penalty is either barbaric and an inappropriate response to all offences or it is not - the moral absolute referred to in the Sydney Morning Herald editorial mentioned above - and b) remember the devastation wrought against the Indonesian population by the drug trade, the reason why, whether we agree with them or not, many Indonesians support the use of the death penalty in drug smuggling cases.  

The mainstream media and political class routinely express condescending, colonialist attitudes towards our South Pacific and Asian neighbours

Certain attitudes support the aforementioned 'themes', in particular a slightly racist condescension on the part of some members of the mainstream media, political class and 'social commentators' towards our nearest neighbours in the South Pacific and Asia. Colonialist ideals of the inherent social and racial superiority of the 'Australian way' stinks up much of the rhetoric about Indonesia's political and justice systems. Belief in the superiority of the 'western way' lurks behind the smirks that often accompany comments about police and judicial corruption, and the barbarity of Indonesia's prison systems and use of the death penalty. Is there some truth to these allegations/attitudes? Yes, corruption of the judiciary occurs, and anecdotal evidence of the need to bribe police in order to avoid being charged is so vast that it simply cannot be ignored.

But, this country is hardly in a position to cast such dispersion's at its neighbours. Putting aside the usual response that while your own justice system is not perfect it is not as bad as others as a) an exaggeration of how 'just'  your justice system is and b) ignorance of the degree to which the system is classist, racist and misogynist, let us highlight a few home truths about the 'Australian way' (and the same can be said of the New Zealand way as well): first, as I intimated above you have probably the worst record of incarceration of Indigenous peoples in the world, and while you continue to drive up their rate of incarceration through - in part - the biased application of police discretion, implementation of racist legislation like the NTER, and through arrests related to driving offences (in the Northern Territory) and imprisonment for non-payment of fines (Western Australia) you have little justification for intimating that other country's justice systems are 'uncivilised". Similarly while you continue to incarcerate refugees including children in contravention of UN conventions, many of whom are fleeing war zones that your country was involved in creating, you don't get to condemn anyone else for unethical conduct. And lastly, while your political class is more concerned at stopping potential 'terrorists' from returning from Middle East conflicts than doing something concrete about the 'gendered terrorism' occurring every day in this country, then it is increasingly difficult to accept the inferences many of you make that country's like Indonesia are 'less civilised'. And Mr Abbott, announcing the 'strategy/taskforce or whatever photo opportunity your advisers devised recently to make you and your government look serious about domestic violence doesn't nullify my argument, given that your government recently cut funding for the community-centred DV-related services required to support survivors of domestic violence.

The last point I want to make on this issue relates to the tendency of the mainstream media, political class and social commentators to 'feign outrage' - to look for reasons to make disparaging, negative comments about Indonesian officials involved in the row over the fate of the Bali 2. A classic example of this strategy occurred recently in response to the massive police and military deployment when the Bali 2 were transferred to another prison. It was reported that up to 700 personnel were deployed during the exercise, along with numerous armoured vehicles, jet fighters, etc. Yes, the response was completely over the top and unnecessary. But the outrage from some media and Abbot et al is hard to take seriously when a similar situation recently occurred here.  I am referring to police and 'security' institutions across Australia deploying up to 800 personnel in an anti-terrorist exercise, called Operation Appleby, that netted a massive total of... 2 arrests. The Australian Federal Police and others involved were heavily criticised by the Muslim community and so-called 'lefties' (as they were described by mainstream media) for the excessive force deployed against their communities. They were accused of political opportunism; of carrying out an exaggerated response to the situation in order to display - through media, an exaggerated level of threat. The official response, that the number of people involved was required to ensure 'safety' etc, simply didn't stack up. My point is that the political class and justice officials of this country are not above using exaggerated responses  to 'threats' for political purposes in order to gain positive media headlines, any less than their Indonesian counterparts are. In the case of Operation Appleby the population of convenience for an exercise in exaggerated moral panic were Muslims; Australia's current 'go to' community for the expression of exaggerated outrage, fear and risk.  In the Indonesian context what better community to target for an exaggerated response than Australian drug smugglers, a target group officials know is easy to justify due to decades of condescending rhetoric and behaviour towards that country from Australia's politicians and populist media. And for those New Zealander's reading this, it wouldn't pay to get too cocky; you might care to recall the massive deployment of police against the Tuhoe peoples in the Bay of Plenty to arrest all those 'terrorists' a few years back - you know the ones that were eventually charged with firearm offences?

As for the Bali 2, Andrew and Myuran, I hope current attempts to halt their execution are successful. I hope that one day they can return to Australia and demonstrate to their families, friends and communities the extent of their rehabilitation, and to teach young people here the price that can be paid for getting involved in the drug trade. I only hope that the ham-fisted, condescending and colonialist rhetoric that spews forth from this country's mainstream media, politicians and 'social commentators' has not pissed Indonesian officials off so much that Andrew and Myuran's chances of avoiding the ultimate punishment have in any way been diminished.  

Breaking the Criminal Justice-Criminology Nexus - Empowering Indigenous Communities

Introduction

I want to begin by telling two stories in order to provide context for the issues I will cover in this presentation:

The stories

The 2013 European Criminology Conference: (see description of this case study included in the Indigenous Criminologist post of 29/10/2013).

Drivers of Crime: In 2008 New Zealand's Ministry of Justice organised a 1 day hui (meeting) with a range of service providers, researchers, academics, and community members as part of the consultation process for the development of what is now called the Drivers of Crime project.  In the lead up to the hui various government agencies 'bargained' with the Minister of Justice (and by extension, senior officials at MoJ) to ensure that the list of invitees represented a cross-section of the 'community'.  Te Puni Kokiri (the Ministry of Maori Development) was one of those agencies, and attempted to have added to the list myself and other 'critical Maori commentators', and current and past gang members who worked with this particular community to deliver social services.  Officials from the Minister's office and MoJ attempted to block our inclusion on the list and if not for Te Puni Kokiri officials standing their ground and persuading the then Minister for Maori Affairs (firmly supported by Dame Tariana Turia) were we eventually invited, thus ensuring a range of Maori voices were heard on the day.  But it would be wrong to think that 'we' won: when MoJ summary of the main points of discussion was released some weeks later the vast majority of issues raised by the critical Maori caucus was excluded; including repeated concerns expressed about the lack of Maori input into the development of crime control policy, racist/biased policing, overuse of imprisonment, and other significant, structural failures on the part of the formal justice system.

Since then a number of other similar incidents have been experienced by Indigenous scholars residing in Settler-Colonial jurisdictions with whom I am in regular contact.  These individuals have discussed a number of incidents, some historical, some more recent, that mirror my own experiences.  Our common experience of the white privileged, arrogant conduct of some members of the Policy Industry and criminology, has made me realise that in all our critical analysis of the many and varied Colonial Projects that are deployed in Settler-Colonial contexts to subjugate Indigenous peoples, one that requires our urgent empirical attention on our part, is the criminal justice/criminology nexus.  The rationale for this claim, this empirical call to arms, so to speak, is quite straightforward: it is essential that we expose the nefarious effects of the parasitic relationship between members of Western, Authoritarian Criminology and members of the Policy Industry, given the hegemony this nexus has on the development of empirical knowledge about Indigenous crime.

The Provocations

• The parasitic relationship between Eurocentric Criminology and the Policy Industry is one of the most affective, ‘subtle’ colonial projects deployed in settler-colonial contexts to subjugate Indigenous peoples.

And

• We must become more aggressive in our critique of, and challenge to, this relationship if we are to decrease the damage it does to our communities.

What follows represents the tentative explorations of two questions that are of increasing concern to Indigenous scholars (and our critical, non-Indigenous colleagues), namely:

• What role, if any, does the Criminal Justice-Criminology nexus (or relationship) play in the Settler Colonial subjugation of Indigenous peoples?

And

• What should we do about it?

Part of the rationale for privileging empirical analysis of the nexus between white criminology and the policy industry, is historical – the historical relationship between a) coloniality, b) criminal justice and c) the academy.  Biko Agozino has effectively exposed that the discipline of criminology developed significantly under colonialism, and was an essential player in the colonial states subjugation of Indigenes.  You cannot explain the contemporary moment; the ways in which peoples are subjugated, without reference to the past.  In the words of Hayden (2004):

"Rather than distance ourselves from the past, as the centrist amnesiacs would counsel, perhaps we should finally peel back the scabs and take a closer look at why all the wounds haven’t healed". 

Colonial Projects in the Neo-Colonial Context
As the Nigerian criminologist Biko Agozino has demonstrated, criminal justice is one of the most potent Colonial Projects the Settler Colonial state utilises in its ongoing subjugation of Indigenous peoples.  One of its key functions is in assisting the state to ‘control’ what it defines as significant wicked problems, i.e., Indigenous over-representation, which is invariable portrayed in governmental discourse as a ‘fact of criminal justice life’.  It is a ‘social fact’ so significant that that it poses a threat to social order that requires meaningful, authoritative, indeed at times violent, intervention in relation to the practice of crime control.

And if you think my use of the term ‘violent’ is perhaps overstating things a little, all I need say in response is ‘the Tuhoe raids’. 

In New Zealand the ‘Maori problem’ is described in governmental and media discourse as being so significant that our crime problem would disappear if we could significantly reduce it, because, according to an ACT party member quoted in the Otago Daily Times in 2012, we are “full of crime”. 

If I may I would like to interrupt the flow of my analysis to divert to an interesting argument I heard posited by a young Maori scholar at an International Indigenous law conference held in Brisbane in June last year: Kiritapu Allen made what I think is a highly provocative, but accurate statement that given the violence and disfuntionality that permeates criminal justice in New Zealand, perhaps including the term ‘system’ in its title is somewhat misleading.  Instead, we should view it as a series of inter-linked incidents of violence, coated in the stink of colonialism. 

Much of the criminal justice system response to the ‘wicked problem’ of Maori over-representation comes in the form of structural violence, including, but not exclusively

• militaristic-style policing strategies;

• biased application of public disorder offences and discretionary powers;

• the criminal justice-led large-scale removal of Indigenous children and youth to detention centres; and

• and of Indigenous adults to the prison system – a form of displacement and confinement that O’Connor calls the ‘New Removals’ and Chris Cunneen ‘the new stolen generation’, with reference to the Australian context. 

I consider these ‘strategies’ as examples of overt violence perpetrated by the criminal justice sector against Indigenous peoples. 

Then we have a range of subtle, insidious strategies of containment and control, including:

• the aforementioned strategy of blocking Maori participation in forums that impact the design of policy;

• reliance on in-house Maori ‘experts’ to direct the development of policies for Maori, in place of meaningful engagement with Maori communities and Maori ‘experts’

• meaningless consultation exercises undertaken after policies and interventions have been designed and signed off by a CE, Minister or Cabinet;

• reliance on Maori/Aboriginal strategies that have no impact on an agencies bottom-line, and that make little or no reference to the socio-economic marginalisation of Indigenous peoples and used by agencies to market themselves as ‘culturally aware’;

• restricting or blocking access to sites of justice and undertaking independent, empirical research, and blocking research on criminal justice issues of importance to Maori, including bias, experiences of policing and imprisonment;

• arrogant dismissal of Maori knowledge and programmatic response to social harm in preference for importing theories, policies, legislation and interventions from western, high crime contexts;

• privileging academic literature and research on Indigenous issues and peoples carried out by white, western, administrative/authoritarian criminologists, whilst ignoring the Indigenous research lexicon; and

• indigenisation, or the inappropriate utilisation of Indigenous symbols, language and cultural artifacts to ‘sex up’ imported, ineffective crime control policies, like boot camps or Multi-Systemic Therapy, that are then forced upon our communities, and which do little to alleviate our over-representation in the criminal justice system. 

The white privileged criminological academy isn’t much better.  The range of disempowering behaviours perpetrated by its members is just as extensive, including:

• confine their critical criminological gaze to issues relating to state-defined problem populations, more often than not people of colour and working class youth, without significant engagement with individuals or communities from these populations – in other words they privilege the use of non-engaging methodologies; a reliance on statistical analysis and restrictive surveys at the expense of actually talking with brown people;

• confine their uncritical criminological gaze to state-run justice processes, policies, legislation and issues that the state deems important, for which they receive generous remuneration via the establishment of parasitic contractual relations;

• limit their ‘critical analysis’ of state systems and policies on programme effectiveness and evaluation largely devoid of historical context and the wider political economy of the state’s dominance of ‘justice’ in the neo-liberal moment – in other words their research and analysis is devoid of critical consideration of minor issues like genocide, coloniality, land grabs, destruction of key social and political institutions, biological and cultural warfare, etc; and

• empower themselves through the veil of scientism, an ideological construct that privileges the Eurocentric, supposedly ‘enlightened’ approach to measuring the Indigenous life-world, whilst denigrating Indigenous (and other) forms of knowledge that seek to explain the social world from the perspective of the Other.

Doing Imperialism Quietly?  The Criminal Justice-Criminology Nexus as Structural Violence

No longer able to attain political legitimacy by deploying overtly racist, assimilationist strategies such as the forced removal of our children in militaristic fashion, least it results in international condemnation, or banning our language and cultural practices through legislation, or replicating the physical genocide of the Indian Wars carried out in Canada and the U.S, or the killing times in Australia, the neo-liberal settler state and its supporting institutions of the body politic, in particular the white privileged academy, nevertheless continues to deploy structural violence against Indigenous peoples.  This comes in the form of  the development and application of racist criminological knowledge and interventions, made possible via collusion between white privileged academics and the policy sector.

This brings me full circle, to the stories I told at the beginning of the presentation.  How is it that policy workers and white privileged criminologists continue to produce bullshit about Maori and other Indigenous peoples?  More importantly, how is it that this bullshit still holds sway with the policy sector?  Answering these questions in full would require a whole presentation of its own.  So I’ll restrict myself to just 2 key reasons: a) because of their arrogance, related to a) because we are too nice. 

Doing Things for Ourselves

There are a number of practical, administrative responses either underway or that should be considered, including:

Research Project – Racism in the Academy;

International Journal of Indigenous Justice (IJIJ);

International Congress of Indigenous Justice (ICIJ);

All of these activities were discussed in the Indigenous Criminologist blog released on 31/7/2014.  

We urgently require a major change in our approach to the trash the Policy Industry and its parasitic partner, Authoritarian Criminology, produce about Indigenous peoples.  We need to become more aggressive in our approach to exposing the racism and white, colonial privilege that underpins their approach to the ‘Indigenous problem’.  Only by challenging the criminal justice-criminology nexus in an aggressive manner, and through the development and application of a Critical Indigenous Criminology, will we challenge the hegemony the members of this 'axis of bullshit' hold over the development of supposedly ‘legitimate’ knowledge about 'the Indigenous experience'.  Perhaps then we might finally have a say in the development of policies, legislation and interventions that reflect our approaches to dealing with social harm and our lived experiences, rather than the exotic fantasies of white privileged policy workers and academics.