Commentary
Voice journalist, Rattan Mall, published an interesting article, albeit one that was in need of some well-positioned paraphrases and deeper criticism.
The resounding tune of the article’s primary interviewee, Dr. Robert M. Gordon, “SFU’s leading criminlogist,” as written by Mall, is one that denounces council as a bumbling bunch when it comes to the question of handling crime in Surrey.
Dr. Gordon, as reported by Mall, extends valid points. But, taken collectively, it’s difficult not to lump Dr. Gordon in with those who have occupied city council for the past half-dozen years.
Why? The contradictory conclusions rendered by the SFU professor, in combination with his own general characterization of our city’s crime conundrum, demonstrates the inherent difficulty in facing the issue of crime.
This isn’t a cop-out for our municipal leaders or police, it’s a display of media and academia inflaming the context without an eye on practicality.
Assessment over Talking Points
Mall summarizes Dr. Gordon’s assessment on Surrey’s crime outlook, as poor. The article’s headline: “Will crime situation in Surrey improve in 2015? NO! Here’s why …”
Dr. Gordon is quoted as saying:
I didn’t think hiring more policemen in Surrey is going to do anything because almost invariably those police officers are fresh out of [the RCMP] Depot. They have no street sense, no street experience … They are not going to be very good field police officers for at least two years.
On the other foot, however, Gordon rests on community safety officers as a “tremendously useful tool for dealing with a range of community issues and challenges.”
I don’t doubt the above, in that CSOs are and can be a useful tool, but realistically, an officer out of the depot will be, pound-for-pound, a more effective policing tool, if not, what are they teaching in Regina?
The SFU criminologist is further quoted as stating:
Gathering information is the first step – and analyzing that information. One of the problems with Surrey is that it is just such a huge diverse community that … it makes it very difficult to identify particular strategies for action.
Earlier in the same piece, Dr. Gordon is also quoted as stating:
It is a regional issue and to think that they can address the problems inside Surrey without reference to anything that’s going on outside is just blatantly foolish.
So which is it, then? A local issue that is wholly Surrey’s problem, or a regional issue requiring regional cooperation? Or, evidently, it’s both.
But in that sense, to challenge complacency in face of the complexities strikes me as peculiar. He is even quoted as stating Surrey’s diversity “… makes it very difficult to identify particular strategies for action.”
So even he, as a Professor of Criminologist, recognizes the difficulties present to curbing and controlling criminal activity within the City of Surrey.
So to contend there is a “broken policing structure” (para. 6) and espouse those in leadership are “blatantly foolish” is harshly critical.
Crime exists in shadows
Dr. Gordon was quoted as stating:
Surrey has low-income clusters probably in wilder profusion than is the case in other municipalities and it is a tendency for minor crimes both property and crimes of violence to find themselves around the periphery of those communities. None of that is going to change.
In essence, crime is a necessary byproduct of society.
But, I think it must be considered that criminal behaviour is the exhibit of a counterculture. Criminal activity exists in the shadows, difficult to witness, and so difficult to police.
As complex as the causes of criminal activity are, so is the fight against it. Crime doesn’t occur, always, in the light of the public eye.
We can’t short-change the battle between unscrupulous souls and those on the straight and narrow.
Complacency or the ebb and flow of criminal activity, which, like policing, is adaptive? This, I question.
Blue-Ribbon Rescue?
The overt solution, according to Dr. Gordon, is a blue-ribbon panel. This, to gather and analyze the information at hand.
But such suggestion raises hesitancy for practicable concerns.
It’s difficult to even pinpoint the cause(s) of crime, the root of it, because criminal activity exists and subsists for a myriad of reasons.
The tasteless truth, whether considered from a hyper-local or regional perspective, is that the awnings of anti-criminal tendency is psychological. Upbringing and desire, personality and moral character, all help define a delinquent and criminal from all else.
Combating crime certainly requires effective policing, but preventing it, that is of a grassroots nature. It starts and ends with proper rearing, which takes a community that extends beyond policing. It takes opportunity and role models to set the standard.
I am wary some “blue-ribbon panel” could arrive at a sure and effective solution. If it’s in regard to policing tactics OK. If in regard to preventative measures, I think we need to look to community initiatives.
Crime is a regional issue with Surrey contending with its own, serious issues. But it’s a cultural thing. A North American cultural thing.
The mentality or propensity for gangsterism is, at least from my personal experience, tied to a need or desire for money, a glorified view of life and on rare occasion: it’s just the most natural setting and way of life.
Can you wholly remove these elements from society is a question to consider. I would think, it requires a village to remedy. We are all products of our environment, which consists of more than policing, or at least, ought to.
How our children are raised and function as adults in society must be in the conversation somewhere, as well.
Are the reaches or influence of government directly correlated to our growth? There’s duality to that answer and subject of another post.
Surrey BC'er 