This week, two people were convicted and sentenced for
the murder of Stephen Lawrence. Lawrence
was a black teenager, murdered in a racially motivated attack in London in
1993. At the time, suspects were
arrested, but later released without charge.
There were charges that the Metropolitan Police had not handled this
well, and in 1999, the Macpherson
Report found the police force was “Institutionally Racist”, and also
recommend that the law on double jeopardy, which prevents someone from being
tried twice for the same crime, be changed to allow re-trial in certain
circumstances – and this was done in 2005.
This report had profoundly affected the attitude of
police forces to racism and racist crime.
Although perhaps the conclusion of MacPherson came as a surprise to very
few people, the open admission of inequality, and the subsequent efforts to
change the culture of the police has led to a more equal and open culture in
forces throughout the country. Allegations
of racial prejudice are investigated rather than dismissed, and racial comments
or jibes are viewed with public outrage in today’s society (even if, for many,
racism still exists at an instinctive level).
It would be fair to say that justice has at last been
done. The crime, the poorly handled
investigation, the private law-suits brought by Lawrence’s family, various
inquiries, investigations, allegations of corruption, and quashing of appeals
made most of us feel uneasy – that somehow a murder had gone unpunished, and
this because of the colour of the victim.
I myself felt most alarmed at the repealing of double jeopardy, which I
saw, and still see, as a vital human right in the exercise of justice. However, re-tried in the light of new and
pressing evidence, especially including DNA evidence not available at the time
of the original investigation, two of the killers (and there may be more) have
at last been called upon to pay for their crimes. That this has happened 19 years too late is a
tragedy for justice. It has all but destroyed
the Lawrence family, who have fought, at enormous financial and personal cost,
for 19 long years. Many of us have been
alarmed at the racism, corruption, and unfairness apparent at so many stages of
the process. Had the killers been
convicted originally, they would have served their sentences now, and could,
perhaps, be living as rehabilitated members of society.
But for me, there is one shocking element in all
this. In 1997, following an inquest
which found the five suspects guilty of Lawrence’s murder, the Daily Mail released
with their names and pictures, under the headline “The
Mail accuses these five men of killing.
If we are wrong, let them sue us.”
This was an illegal act, and the Daily Mail certainly opened itself to
accusation and law suit. However, they
were not sued. Public opinion was
stirred up by this, and it is fair to say that this was one of the decisive developments
that led to the final conviction. I can
quote the editor, Paul Dacre, speaking
after the conviction this week: “I
don't think it's an exaggeration to say that if it hadn't been for the Mail's headline in 1997 – 'Murderers: The Mail accuses
these men of killing' – and our years of campaigning, none of this would have
happened. Britain's police might not have undergone the huge internal reform
that was so necessary. Race relations might not have taken the significant step
forward that they have. And an 18-year-old A-Level student who dreamed of being
an architect would have been denied justice. The Daily Mail took a
monumental risk with that headline. In many ways, it was an outrageous, unprecedented
step.”
Make no mistake about it – I think
the Daily Mail (or Daily Hate Mail as I usually call it) has been responsible
for a lot of scaremongering, xenophobia, homophobia, Islamophobia, and general
spreading of fear and right-wing small-mindedness. But here, it has done good, and in the name
of racial equality and justice. Almost
nothing is completely bad, or completely good, and it is only just to recognise
good, wherever it originates. As my
friend Tony said, on the hallowed pages of Farcebook: “the Mail
does represent a lot of values I don't agree with, but it raises a number of
issues about freedom of the press and freedom of speech. The Mail consistently
opposed the Iraq war from the word go, it speaks up for Middle England (who
have a right to representation), it speaks up for older members of society (who
are ignored appallingly by our youth-worshiping world)...”
Quite!
0 comments:
Post a Comment