Amnesty Northern Ireland has provided a bleakly comic insight into how the PSNI cannot win.
On Monday evening, its director Patrick Corrigan criticised the PSNI for standing back two days previously as racist rioters burned down Muslim-owned businesses in south Belfast.
“Where are the PSNI when we need you?” he posted on X/Twitter, echoing a call by one of the victims.
Yet in June, Amnesty criticised the PSNI for non-lethal public order tactics, denouncing an increase in the use of tasers, attenuated energy projectiles (AEPs) and spit hoods as “deeply disturbing” and vowing to complain to the Policing Board.
The increase was trivial in most cases - the 125 per cent annual rise in AEP discharges, for example, was from four to nine. AEPs are not “plastic bullets”, as Amnesty insists on describing them, while the PSNI’s low-powered tasers are extremely safe. Neither have caused any fatalities in Northern Ireland.
Later on Monday evening, rioting recurred in south Belfast and the PSNI did intervene, firing two AEPs. There was no reaction from Amnesty. Like everyone else, its response to the policing of riots may vary.
Why did the PSNI initially stand back last weekend? It has cited lack of resources, as have Alliance justice minister Naomi Long and others.
That may be a general problem but it was not an issue in south Belfast. Dozens of Land Rovers were yards away from the small group of mainly youths setting fire to premises around Sandy Row. There was little chance of an immediate backlash if officers had waded in. Loyalism is a greatly diminished force in the area due to feuds and population shifts.
Fear of criticism from groups such as Amnesty partly explains the PSNI’s abundance of caution. The human rights architecture that underpins policing in Northern Ireland is a serious business and professionals within it can and do defend reasonable use of force. Nevertheless, the system can browbeat PSNI management into a defensive posture.
This was evident during a flag protests a decade ago, when small groups of people were allowed to block the roads while police stopped traffic. As Northern Ireland descended into chaos, senior officers argued they had to uphold the right to protest and robust intervention might breach the right to life. It took a Supreme Court ruling to remind the PSNI its first duty is preventing crime.
History is all too capable of repeating itself. Away from south Belfast, most of last weekend’s disruption was strongly reminiscent of the flag protests.
PSNI policy on public disturbances is to contain them rather than wading in to stop them. Evidence is collected from a distance and used for follow-up arrests. While this is usually a wise approach, there must be a limit on how much violence officers can sit back and record.
In Sandy Row, it appears that significant property damage and destruction of livelihoods was acceptable to avoid any risk of injuring rioters. One of the torched businesses was in the ground floor of a large apartment building, which had to be hurriedly evacuated. Somehow, ‘Keeping People Safe’ meant tiptoeing around an imminent threat to numerous lives.
A wider danger on the PSNI’s mind is the perception of bias. If it cracks down in a loyalist area it will be accused of being softer on republicans, or vice versa. This can fuel further disturbances.
The PSNI was stung into changing tactics in Sandy Row by negative media coverage. However, it also received political cover on Monday from the first and deputy first ministers, who issued a joint statement of support for the chief constable and called for “a zero tolerance approach to racism and the wanton destruction of property”.
Had this been clearly stated from the outset, initial tactics might have been different. Alas, such declarations from Stormont tend to be reactive rather than proactive.
The assembly is being recalled today to debate an Alliance motion on Saturday’s violence. It calls on the executive to publish a refugee integration strategy and update the law on racial discrimination, both of which have been in the works for years.
The strategy is waffle and more law hardly matters when lawlessness is tolerated.
Fear of criticism from groups such as Amnesty partly explains the PSNI’s abundance of caution
A better use of today’s debate would be pinning down exactly how much political cover the PSNI can count on when tackling racist violence.
Will unionists pledge not to equivocate, even when loyalist communities complain about two-tier policing?
Will nationalists defend the use of tougher tactics in general, even when rights groups complain about ‘plastic bullets’?