The number of teenage murders in London will reach a record level this year as police struggle to cope with the surge in youth and gang violence.
The toll reached 26 with the death of Oliver Kingonzila, 19, at the weekend ”“ the same as the total for the whole of 2007, with three months of 2008 remaining.
Scotland Yard said yesterday that youth violence was its “biggest challenge”, while senior detectives privately conceded that further deaths were almost inevitable.
Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, described the youth murders last year as “completely unacceptable”. But tough enforcement measures, a high detection rate and millions of pounds being spent on antiknife crime initiatives have not stopped the rate of killing rising sharply from 17 in 2006, 16 each in 2005 and 2004, and 15 in 2003.
Having banned guns, now the authorities must run “anti-knife crime initiatives.” And yet, there remain clotheslines with which to strangle people and hammers with which to smash their heads. The problems are the essential evil which come from human nature untouched by God’s grace and the culture of dependency and despair created by the modern welfare society. Add to this the failure of British society to effectively encourage immigrants into being British.
and of course, the de-Christianization of British (and other European) culture.
[blockquote]Add to this the failure of British society to effectively encourage immigrants into being British.[/blockquote]
Right, because being British and Christian keeps people from being violent. India was apparently colonized by cuddlie toys and soft cushions…
#3 While Colonialism was wrong, it was safer for the average Indian under British rule than under the Mughals and Marathas.
Isaac, what I meant, of course, is that immigrants to Britain do not merge into the larger society, but remain separated and often ignorant and angry. Upper-caste Hindus in Britain would be another story. Plus, if you think India and Pakistan are naturally non-violent societies, you haven’t been there.
Katherine, I’m just not sure what someone’s ethnicity (victim or otherwise) has to do with knifecrime. The fellow that was killed by a knife less than 100 yards from my house was white British, and his murderer was white British.
Isaac, I am horrified to hear that this occurred so near to you. According to my reading, a lot of the violence is, as in this case, native British on native British, and that’s where my comment about the negative effect of the social welfare system comes in. But it is also true that a lot of violence is happening in lower-class immigrant neighborhoods, and here the welfare system and the integration problems both come into play.
Third, the Church is, for whatever reasons, failing to reach many people, both British and immigrant. I think it’s true that intact families with a strong Christian faith will be less likely to produce hooligan murderers than unchurched, ill-educated, indolent kids from broken homes or angry extremist Muslim communities.
Something has changed in Britain in a generation to bring this street violence, Isaac. If I’m wrong about causes, what do you suggest?
I think several things have changed. It’s probably worthwhile to point out I’m an immigrant, too, from the US working in a church as a Youth worker and 2ndary School chaplain, so I have the benefit of being both an outside/inside view of things.
On one level, I’m not sure things have changed nearly as much as people want to think. I would be surprised if the levels of crime in the south London estates today is significantly different than, say, what it was in 1950 (i’d be very curious to see what those numbers are). It’s simply that the media publicizes these murders in a way that’s much more widespread and instant. In 1945, it was radio, word of mouth, or newspaper. Now, it’s internet, radio, worth of mouth, newspaper, TV, etc. There’s a sense of moral panic about knife crime that I’m not sure is warranted. Despite the death on my front door, I still don’t fear going out on weekends.
That being said, I think much of the knifecrime issue has a lot to do with the marketing of the Asbo lifestyle as another choice among many. You can choose to be the emo, you can choose to be the middle-class cricket player, you can choose this that and the other thing, or you can choose to be a thug. It’s a commodification of a lifestyle that, IMHO, stems less from the welfare state and more from the rather radical free-marketing of [i]everything[/i] from Mrs. Thatcher and Mr. Blair. Imagine if [i]everything[/i], including life, is understood in a ‘right to buy’ environment. This is what happens when our political leaders declare ‘there is no such thing as society.’ Compounding the issue is a media that revels in showing this kind of lifestyle as cool and without consequence. It’s capitalism framing moral decision making and ambition.
The kids I run across that are involved in gangs and gang-like activity aren’t amoral; they have a very clear set of morals, a very clear set of right and wrong, but it’s all about protecting themselves, their family and their friends from authority figures. If it’s not bothering them, it’s not an issue. When I get involved with disciplinary issues at school, the most frightening thing isn’t an admission of what they did, but that they refuse to ‘dob in their mates.’
So, they carry knives because its’ a perceived way to A. be a part of a subculture they think is cool; B) the media says its dangerous out there and C). because of the received morals from their peergroup about protecting each other. Ethnicity and the welfare state are simply not a part of the equation from where I sit.
At the end of last term, one of the students I work(ed) with planned what was essentially a ‘hit’ on his ex-girlfriend. He waited 6 months for the right opportunity. After school at the bus stop one afternoon, two girls from another school punched and slapped her until they almost pushed in the street in front of a lorry. It was only the intervention of the teacher on duty that kept her from being hit by a truck. We also discovered he was selling drugs outside of school hours.
The kid lives in a fairly wealthy section of town. He came within 2 places of passing his 11+ exam. He lives with his mother and stepfather. His natural father is active in his life. He would have gone on to gain GCSEs at A or A* level across the board. He had everything he needed to succeed, but he decided that it was much cooler to be thug, and he’s now wasting away his last year of formal schooling. What’s his problem? He decided, very early on, that it was much cooler to be a drug dealer and a thug than a bank manager. I told him at one point, after a fairly minor infraction, that he had a choice to either manage a bank, or be the guy who robs it. He chose the latter. And, as he put it, ‘It’s my choice… I’ll do what I want.”
He’s not the exception to the rule, either. In fact, the bulk of our problems with drugs and violence come from our otherwise nice, middle class families. As a chaplain, I can deal with a kid from a broken home that’s seen his mother beaten and is in his 5th school in 2 years because of his behaviour. That’s a kid that we can help. That’s a kid that, to oversimplify it, needs to be hugged and told that someone loves him and cares for him. But if it’s a kid that’s been given everything he/she’s ever wanted… It’s much more difficult.
It’s a complex answer to a simple question, but all I can really do is tell my story and reflect what’s going on in my community. You have a media that is selling a lifestyle of ‘get what you can, can what you get, then sit on a can.’ You have a moral system that prioritizes ‘protection’ above all else. You have a perception that all things are dangerous, all the time. It’s no wonder kids are dying if they, excuse my language, buy into this sh!t.
So the Church’s job, I think, is to be completely counter-cultural in an environment like that. Which, in some ways, is something that the CofE does quite well, particularly if the individual priest takes the ‘civic church’ part of the CofE’s ministry seriously. And, of course, it takes people who are willing to, both literally and figuratively, stand between attackers and victims and put a stop to it (something I’ve had to do). We have to say, in both word and deed, that those who live by the sword die by the sword (which, w/re knife crime, is statistically true). We need to overhaul our whole idea of community, I think, so that the effective moral code isn’t ‘right to buy’ but ‘love one another as Jesus loved us.’
I’ll end with this, but today I was in a Religious Ed class with some year 11s (15/16 year olds). One of their assignments was to rank various things involving sanctity of life stuff from most acceptable to least acceptable. It had things like, “a farmer slaughters a cow” to “a starving person murders a man with a BigMac when he refuses to share it.” I said that I found the one that said “You are attacked by someone with a knife and kill them in self defense” the least acceptable as a Christian, because I could contenance no situation where my life was worth more than someone else. It’s an extreme position, but I think that statement (plus the discussion that followed) is an example of just how radical the Church needs to get on the fundamental issue of challenging the capitalization of life.
It had things like, “a farmer slaughters a cow†to “a starving person murders a man with a BigMac when he refuses to share it.†I said that I found the one that said “You are attacked by someone with a knife and kill them in self defense†the least acceptable as a Christian, because I could contenance no situation where my life was worth more than someone else.
I’m a little lost here. Do you not mean that you found killing in self defense simply not acceptable? Because when you say that it is the “least” acceptable it seems to imply that a starving man murdering a man who would not share his BigMac you would find more acceptable. I find that hard to believe.
A couple of my impressions after several months of visiting London in 1972 ( I’m a white American – age 30 at the time ): 1. I had never before been fearful of young people of my own race until I encountered illiterate white teenagers from the East End in London subways. 2. Upon viewing the contemporary film “Clockwork Orange” in a London theatre, I sensed those very characters were alive and well in London at that very time. 3. Many of the old neighborhood churches in and around London at the time had tombstones piled against the stone perimeter walls and seemed anything but places of worship. 4. Many young people seemed very illiterate and lacked basic knowledge of history. It was shocking.
“On one level, I’m not sure things have changed nearly as much as people want to think. I would be surprised if the levels of crime in the south London estates today is significantly different than, say, what it was in 1950 (i’d be very curious to see what those numbers are).”
Isaac, be prepared to be surprised. Violent crime levels are much higher. In 1950 there were no immigrants in those estates (or visible ethnic minorities in Britain) and most youngsters had fathers who were in work.
There has been an enormous social change. Read about it.
Thanks very much, Isaac, for a report from on the ground. I suppose we have only to read Dickens to see the seamy side of London life going back generations. What seems to be happening, both in the UK and the US, is that previously urban underclass disorder is spreading to the larger society. We didn’t see it so much before TV/internet and before it spread to “our” neighborhoods. I do read about turmoil in ethnic neighborhoods in the UK and about violence between groups as well. There’s some of that in the US, too, as reports of tensions and violence between Hispanics and blacks indicate.
I am not at all sure that total pacifism, even refusing self-defense, is an answer, or even that it’s an argument that would speak effectively to gangs. Genuine honor and decency vs. the gang versions would.
May God keep you safe and bless your efforts.