“It is their duty to see that persons have the right to enter and leave at will, if they so desire. It is also their duty to see that strikers have the right to picket in a legal manner. The only purpose that officers are detailed to a strike scene is to maintain the peace. The issues of the strike are of no concern to the officers” (Mombossie 1968)
This view sets the construct for the ideal police force, fair, impartial and immune to political advances. Unfortunately, the police have yet to evolve to such a state. The moral issues’ surrounding certain protests raises the question: should the police uphold the law and execute their duties as ordered or should they stand up for what they believe in? An example of this would be the 1995 protests involving the export of calves to be reared in veal crates. In the view of the government, farmers’ representative and exporters, what they were doing was legal. Nonetheless, the export was judged by the community as immoral (Waddington 2000). The protesters then opted to stop the trucks transporting the calves by lying on the roads effectively prohibiting the trucks from reaching their destination (Waddington 2000). Members of the police tasked to remove the protesters face a moral conundrum, by removing the protesters they were effectively sanctioning immoral acts that although legal, did not appeal to the moral consciousness of society. On the other hand, had some members of the police chose not to remove the protesters; it would have severely undermined the police’s authority and reflected badly on the organization in general.
The two principals of maintaining the peace and upholding the law usually go hand in hand, however this may not necessarily be so in the case of a protest. Pickets and protests can usually amount to grievous criminal offences such as, assault; and willful damage to property. It is difficult to imagine a protest worthy of the name that does not breach some kind of law or other (Waddington 1998). Although it might be useful to keep in mind that the law encompasses such a wide area, that the common man may be penalized for a variety of reasons ranging form jaywalking to murder. Yet, for the majority of protest that occurs, most are deemed ‘peaceful’ and the number of arrest are low or virtually non existent. The policy of non arrest is a formal policy adopted by senior officers and communicated to their subordinates through briefings (Waddington 1998). This would then ensure that a protest would operate smoothly without protesters viewing the police as overbearing or oppressive. The anti war protests that took place in Melbourne’s Central Business District (CBD) in the earlier part of the year illustrates this point, of the estimated 10,000 strong protesters, there was not a single arrest made or incident of violence reported. The police also assisted the protesters by warning the general public of the protest march and diverted traffic away from the CBD during the protest. This is an example of where the police have compromised the upholding of the law to maintain the peace. The deliberate ‘bending of the rules’ in regards to policing public order situations serves not only to preserve the peace but it also limits the possibility for disorder and violence that might result in damage to property and injury to participants, including the police (Waddington 1998). In addition, the police also tend to shy away from confrontation as it may provoke serious repercussions.
“...official inquiries the inevitably follow any outbreak of disorder...will review the decisions they made in the “heat of battle” from a position of clam detachment and with the benefit of hindsight. Confrontation is, therefore, a “recipe for trouble”: an arrest for a minor offence could spark a riot in which damage and injury could result and an inquiry that threatens careers” (Waddington 1998)
Although, the notion of cooperation is better than confrontation, the police still have the problem on deciding when to assert its authority. If the police were forced to cooperate and make concessions with protesters all the time, then this would render the police force redundant when dealing with public order situations.
On the other hand, if the police were to assert its authority when dealing with public order situations, it is often met with fierce resistance. This can be seen at the “Battle of Orgreave” during the Miner’s strike 1984-5 in England. The strike centered on the closure of 31 unproductive coal mines around England. The police in this case used very heavy handed tactics in order to break the picket lines, contrary to the more compromising model for peaceful protest
“...the police demonstrated a consistently uncompromising attitude...one crowd of pickets was prevented from getting within half a mile of the gates...while a second group...was charged by police horses and dog handlers...whenever serious pushing was exerted against police lines, snatch squads were instantly deployed. Sensing the futility of their actions, some miners threw stones. This was answered by the production of full length riot shields and, as the throwing intensified, mounted horses with baton wielding riders were sent in.” (Waddington D. 1992)
The Battle of Orgreave shows the full capability of the police in dealing with protests. In this case, the police have totally undermined the rights of the pickets. However, the police were also left with little alternative than use force to break the pickets since the picketing have gone on for months on end and there was no immediate resolution in sight. The setting up of police Special Operations Groups (SOG) and other Police Tactical Groups (PTG) has also outraged some members of the community. The SOG was based in the British and Australian Army’s Special Air Service (SAS) (McCulloch 2001). The formation of the SOG which has intrinsic ties to the military has often been deemed as a ‘militarization’ of the police. The SOG are trained in various military weapons including Heckler and Koch 9mm submachine guns; M16 assault rifle; Austrian Styr .223 rifle (AUG); 9mm semi-automatic pistols; Remington 870 pump action shot guns; chemical weapons; electric batons; stun grenades; electric shields and armored and tactical vehicles (McCulloch 2001). The type of weapons employed by the SOG would seem more appropriate in a battlefield rather than against unarmed civilian protesters or other criminals. The Commonwealth’s National Anti-Terrorist Plan defines terrorism as: Acts or threats of violence of national concern, calculated to provoke extreme fear for the purpose of achieving a political objective in Australia or in a foreign country (McCulloch 2001). McCulloch (2001) also states that in police and security circles terrorism is seen as encompassing all types of political activism including protest, demonstrations and industrial actions, some of the police’s Civil Disorder/Dissent Manual is [sic] directly copied from the army’s manual. This view on protest and pickets seem to criminalize protesting and picketing, this makes the civilian population the ‘enemy’. However, the seemingly drastic measures adopted by the police in trying to control public order situations did not just arrive out of the blue. In the eyes of the police this ‘militarization’ of the police force is just a reactionary situation whereby the police are responding to cope with society.
“...we saw the terrifying spectacle of policemen having to pick up dustbin lids to defend themselves against really quite a furious barrage of bottles and stones...the police thought, well we better have shields...then we go to 1980 and again we have this in Bristol, the unedifying spectacle of constables leaving the centre of the place undefended...the introduction of reinforced ordinary police helmets, and a little more beefing up in training...1981 was the trauma of petrol bombs. As a defensive reaction to that, the introduction of flame-proof overalls and the rest of it...the impression has been given to you that the police had a conscious policy of tooling up. Whereas in fact it has always been a reluctant, incremental reaction to a developing situation” (Interview in Reiner 1991 in Reiner 1998)
The police in this sense now have sacrificed public order in favor of upholding the law; however, the cost of this appears to outweigh the gain. The police by adopting this zero tolerance policy has given up public sympathy, a more powerful tool than water cannon [sic], tear gas, or plastic bullets (Reiner 1998) to perform as what they see as effectively carrying out their duties.
The police face a myriad of problems when it comes to policing public order. The ambiguous status of the protesters can confuse the police, raising the question of are the police apprehending criminals or assisting innocent civilians in expressing their political view? The morals if individual the policemen are pitted against his sense of duty when asked to perform tasks that although technically legal but on a higher consciousness immoral. Should the officer forcefully remove a protester even though he sympathizes with the protester’s cause? The manner in which protests are handled are also of a concern as it is now evident that maintaining the peace and upholding the law usually cannot co-exist together. Where should the concession lie? These many questions still remained unanswered; however, the police in the face of such contentious debates still uphold the notions of courage, bravery and honor and patrol our streets keeping it us safe behind the thin blue line. (2010 words)
References
McCulloch, J., (2001), Blue Army: Paramilitary Policing in Australia, Victoria, Australia, Melbourne University Press
Momboisse, R., M., (1968), Industrial Security for Strikes, Riots and Disasters, Illinois, U.S.A, Charles C. Thomas.
Waddington, D., (1992) Contemporary Issues in Public Disorder: A Comparative and Historical Approach, Routhledge, Ch.5
Waddington, P., A., J., (1998) Controlling Protest in Contemporary Historical and Comparative Perspective in Della Porta, D., & Reiter, H., (1998) Policing Protest: The Control of Mass Demonstrations in Western Democracies, University of Minnesota Press, Ch. 5
Waddington, P., A., J., (2000) Public Order Policing: Citizenship and Moral Ambiguity in Leishman, F., Loveday, B., & Savage, S., (eds.) (2000) Core Issues in Policing (eds.) London, Longman, Ch.10
Reiner, R., (1998) Policing, Protest and Disorder in Britain in Della Porta, D., & Reiter, H., (1998) Policing Protest: The Control of Mass Demonstrations in Western Democracies, University of Minnesota Press, Ch. 1
