My Tram Experience: Racism vs the people

The appalling and shocking views of the woman on the Croydon tramlink have led to controversy over the past week.

The viral video received thousands of hits after being uploaded and rose to prevalence through the trending and sharing of social network users. In a whirlwind domino effect, widespread news outlet took a hold of the piece, broadcast the video, slammed the mother and police were informed.

Now, 34 year old Emma West, whose views about immigrants were extremely racist to say the least, is in police custody and awaiting a trial for her foul and abusive language used to attack other innocent passengers on the rush hour London tram service.

West has been remanded in custody until Tuesday December 6^th, but her comments are much more the subject of debate than the sentencing.

The difficulty of the hearing hangs on the crux of freedom of speech. Whilst I by no means condone the harsh opinions of Ms West (following my own viewing of the video, I sat in a stunned silence for some time), her words are surely safeguarded under human rights acts. Freedom of speech and of opinion are constitutional requirements in this country and it in order to maintain such standards, it would appear the case should be laughed out of court.

And here, the phrase is quite hurtful. Because why should such a case be laughed out of court? In moves to avoid dictatorship, it would be in the interest of all peoples to be able to speak freely without consequence.

However, no law goes untested and restrictions need ensure that freedom is managed and controlled: otherwise, we would all be at liberty to abuse other members of society: and such fragmenting is all too reminiscent of the August riots across the country.

Indeed, Ms West’s misunderstanding and lack of prowess regarding those of foreign origins is probably much more widespread than we would care to admit and the views of racial superiority that were once commonplace are certainly subsurface factors in tensions between different groups.

Of course, there comes a point where such tensions boil over and not only were Ms West’s allegations proof of this, but the fellow passenger who was quickly aggravated by her onslaught adds to our comprehension of the problem. Thankfully, another commuter calmed the retaliator with some speed: for otherwise, the focus of the video may have been overshadowed by a supposedly unprovoked violent attack.

Balancing public protection and freedom of speech comes with a fine line. However, due to the incompatibility of the two, it is common that free speech come first, lest further action and civil unrest take place.

Yet this only leaves malcontent to breed. Won’t somebody please think of the children? One of the more distressing aspects of the video for myself was watching the toddler sat on Ms West’s knees, apparently oblivious to the shouting mother. Either oblivious, or numb to its consistency as a feature in his life. Hopefully, the child is being placed with other family members in order to ensure a much more rounded and happier youth – the difficulties in impoverished London boroughs are known all too well by any city residents.

However, what next for Ms West? Rehabilitation of sorts? Counselling? Social service intervention? Whatever a judge determines is satisfactory course of action to educate the woman of a proper sense of community… even if that is just to keep xenophobic comments to oneself on the public tram.

Nonetheless, this uncomfortable experience is the most daily and frequent occurrence of casual racism. For ‘unlucky’ Emma West, one fast-thinking commuter recorder her, thousands of other people brand and scorn without a comeuppance.

More, do we judge without knowing the facts? Had Ms West had an unfortunate incident with some person of foreign origins herself? Was she drunk or drugged? Is she recently bereaved? Or was it simply a bad day?

Our understanding of such people is key for social unity. Otherwise, we risk widespread riots on repeat. Of all the reasons suggested for the summer riots, this is but one of a never ending list of possibilities. 

To Punish or Not to Punish.

Certain incredulity is surely abound amongst the British population tonight as MPs argue back and forth over the level of punishment suitable for the rioters that ruled several important cities across the country last week.

Coming to terms with the extent of last week’s devastating loots, the Prime Minister, David Cameron, last week publically pledged that all those found to have been involved in the illicit actions would be met with the full force of the law: a sentiment that was supported by the vast majority of the nation. Mr Cameron added “If these people are old enough to commit the crime, they are old enough to face the punishment.”

However, as it emerged that some of the participants were as young as eight years old, there begs the question of the age of criminal responsibility. Moreover, this issue is one clearly within the public spotlight and mind frame. Unlike the daily sessions in court, specific interest has caused a commotion and tense atmosphere under which jurors are expected to pass harsher sentences than normal.

Of course, these are no normal conditions. Law should be considered as a measurable tool for each individual and not haphazardly applied in blanket fashion across all those who are not law abiding citizens.

Yet it is somewhat disparaging and deeply concerning when people are faced with this comparison: 18 year old, David Atto, pleaded guilty to the theft of two Burberry T-shirts. With no previous convictions against his name and an honest plea, he was sentenced to a day in custody. Meanwhile, Nicolas Robinson, 23, of Borough, south-east London, was jailed for six months for burglary. Of course, whilst the nature of the offense is similar to that above, Robinson took a £3.50 bottle of water from a Lidl Supermarket. The difference is astounding to say the least.

Some judges cite the difference of the level of crime as meriting the change in sentence strength. The natural response is an onslaught of appeals to what many feel constitute a miscarriage of justice. 

However, if the perpetrators were so moved to action in a frenzy trusting that they would only receive trivial punishment, then the system need not cave on the level of severity introduced thus far.

Now that more than 1,000 people have been sentenced in association with the disturbances, the murmurs of discontent on both sides are spreading. As changeable and extreme as the punishments first appear, ex-Lib Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell has urged MPs not to pass comment. Any attempt by MPs to influence judges' decisions was "not consistent with the rule of law", he told the BBC. In a radio interview, he elaborated by explaining, “What I don't think is right is that politicians should have a league table in which they approve of some sentences and disapprove of others. It's none of our business.”

Unprecedented opinions however are sure to spill over and whilst Sir Campbell’s comments make sense so as not undermine any law system, these, the most powerful men and women in the country, are looked toward first and foremost from a populous so dumbfounded.

Technological twists only further tangle the trials and thought on relevant sentence. With many now being brought to court for Facebook and Twitter comments as inciting violence, there is a difficulty with how to justify any extended action if the person was not directly involved or foolishly made a passing jibe. In almost a sci-fi fashion, we could be advocating courts to follow through on pre-crime solutions. 

Level of justice and level of crime. Scales that constantly need be measured to ensure a smoothly running country have here seemed to see-saw back and forth. But as a public we must remember, we are no more qualified to say what is suitable punishment than the MPs. Politicians make law; police and courts enforce and implement law.