Moral panics are often thought to be a product of a reactionary right-wing imagination but for some time it has been those who think of themselves as radical and progressive who have been the greatest threat to reason and a balanced approach to the policing and regulation of society.
The hallmark of a moral panic is the exaggerated reaction to an event, the politicisation of it and the knee jerk reaction by institutions, like the police, all culminating in a demand that “Something Must Be Done”, to what is often an unusual and extreme incident.
These panics can result in new laws and new practices, but this outcome is often dependent upon a pre-existing and dominant ideology within our institutions. Ironically, despite the projected idea that the police are “institutionally misogynistic”, the reality, in terms of police policy and practices, is that they are increasingly following the lead of extreme feminists in demonising and indeed criminalising masculinity.
Many attempts have been made to link the extraordinarily grotesque murder of Sarah Everard with sexual harassment and indeed with everyday acts of sexism. Consequently, this approach takes our focus away from the person who is actually responsible for this evil act and focuses our attention onto all sorts of other issues and agendas being pushed by ideologues.
Rather than reacting to moral outrage, taking a step back and assessing the correct approach to policing based on a full understanding of problems and practices, we have already had a number of pronouncements by politicians.
Justice Secretary Dominic Raab, for example, has vowed to make the protection of women and girls his number one issue, arguing that “Protecting women and girls is my number one priority as Justice Secretary – everyone should be able to walk home at night without fear”.
There are already discussions and announcements, that appear to change by the day, about the threat and fear of the police themselves and how we can protect people not only from murderers and abusers but also police officers on the street. That this approach could elevate rather than resolve the problem of fear has not been considered.
But of course, the policing of fear should be addressed with care rather than gusto, as fear is not the same as fact, indeed it is often the very opposite of it, and should not be the basis of what should be a rational approach to actual issues and problems in society.
Here in Scotland the potential for the over policing of men based on ideology rather than objectivity looks set to continue.
I received an email from Police Scotland last week asking if I would like to contribute to their new national campaign, “that seeks to tackle sexual violence by highlight and discussing male sexual entitlement and its behaviours”.
The idea of male entitlement stems from feminists like Kate Manne, who recently spoke at the Working Group on Misogyny and Criminal Justice in Scotland. In essence, it is an outlook that sees men or maleness, in and of itself, as oppressive and potentially dangerous, something that needs to be challenged and indeed policed away.
Interviewed by the New Yorker, Manne explains that there is a “persistent moral view that men are entitled to things like sex and unwanted touching”. She elaborated by noting that, “I think that there are extraordinary challenges facing parents of cis boys”.
For Manne, and it appears, for Police Scotland, this extreme ideology that treats even young boys as part of a problem of misogyny and one that is inevitably associated with sexual violence and at times even rape and murder is the new abnormal and represents the form moral panics take today. This approach is reactionary and a genuine threat to a balanced approach to policing and justice in society.
Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here