How does Hutnyck characterize the political debates around racism in the mid-1990s?
-
In 1990s Britain, political debates around racism were nothing more than a performative farce. In fact, Hutnyck reveals that the Palace of Westminster’s “plan was to get the CJA and its new powers through under cover of an anti-racist smoke screen which would gain multilateral support.” (Hutnyck, 62). Both the Labour Party and the Tories used the momentum of anti-racist discourse to garner support for the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, which was essentially the “criminalization of youth, attack on political rights, expansion of the police force, etc.” (54) All in power seemed keen to ‘do something’ about the surge in racism to prove the seriousness of their concern over the plight of ethnic minorities. Yet, the solutions proposed always conveniently required more police powers. Under the pretense of maintaining order and protecting civilians against bigots, the CJA implemented authoritarian measures that would disproportionately target marginalized communities, including racial minorities, youth, squatters, travelers and ravers (64). Squatters and travelers were considered as groups that “seem set to drift outside the containment of capitalist market economics” (64), and attacking ravers meant attacking an anti-capitalist activity. In a word, both parties positioned themselves as anti-racists while aligning with an oppressive agenda.
Political debates on racism in the 90s prioritized control over reform and failed to address the systemic nature of racism in the UK. Increased police resources enabled control over marginalized and racialized peoples instead of being tools to ensure public safety. In her book “Freedom is a Constant Struggle,” Angela Davis explains how undue police power and the trend of “imprisonment is increasingly used as a strategy of deflection of the underlying social problems–racism, poverty, unemployment, lack of education and so on.” (Davis, 6) Expanding and reinforcing the police state is a political failure that British MPs share with their American counterparts.