A few days ago, a Commission including police trade-unions and officials decided to vote against a Code of Ethics which has been developed over the last year by the former anti-corruption prosecutor, Carlos Jimenez Villarejo, now in charge of the so-called Ethics Commission of the Catalan Police, together with several instances of the Police force.
After a year of negotiations and a considerable reduction of the initial proposal (both in terms of conducts covered and scope of the Code), the text will have to try to pass without the support of those it is supposed to serve -but, of course, it is hard to see control as a service.
What is ironic is that in the last few years, this same police has been demanding more powers and resources to control a growing number of people and spaces through surveillance, anti-social behaviour orders and law and order measures. And any resistance to such measures has been met with the “nothing to hide, nothing to fear” mantra which presupposes that only the deviant should be worried about the emerging surveillance society.
However, there is something deeply worrying about the current trend to attribute more powers to increasingly unaccountable instances. And more worrying still is that when there is the political will to try to begin to rebalance this process, those who have been promoting more control of *everybody else* should be against something like a Code of Ethics.
The fact that the “nothing to hide, nothing to fear” slogan is only used when ordinary people try to raise their concerns about current developments in security policy is in itself something to fear -specially by those of us who have nothing to hide.
#1 by Me Lawyer on May 6, 2010 - 12:47 am
I suggest them to answer these question:
1. Have you demonstrated a history of honesty, integrity and personal ethics in your business and personal life?
2. Do you admit to and understand past mistakes?
3. Have you refrained from using employment or a position of authority for personal gain?
4. Have you accepted responsibility for your actions?
5. Are you willing to honestly and fully disclose all requested information regarding your employment history, employment related discipline, prior applications with other Public Safety entities, driving and criminal records, financial/credit history, illegal drug use/sales, and alcohol abuse?
6. Are you willing to undergo a confidential background investigation? The background investigation will include a confidential inquiry with both listed and unlisted references as to your character and suitability to become a Police Officer. Prior employers, military personnel, friends, relatives and other individuals will be contacted to verify information that you have provided and to verify your suitability.
#2 by eslaporte on May 6, 2010 - 4:37 pm
If you really want to see “police ethics” in security at their worst – look no further than America’s “aviation watchlists” and the manner of “airport security” in the US.
People have been put on “no fly” and aviation watchlists not just for their racial/ethnic make up – but because of being involved in the anti-war movement, writing books and newspaper article critical of US policy, and the like – have shown up at an airport – and then told that they are a “threat to aviation.” Recently – a college student was placed in a jail cell for 8 hours for the “crime” of trying to board an airplane with Arabic language cards! There is every indication that political, as well as racial, religious, ethnic profiling of air travelers is still going on.
The nonsense at American airports goes on because we cannot know the methodology by which people are added to aviation “watchlists.” Nor can a person subjected to these watchlist challenge being placed on the list in the first place.
The methodology of so-called “aviation security” in the US that focuses of people and is without due process of the requirements of basic evidence in a judicial setting does misconduct from those in “aviation security.”
The American “aviation watchlists” need to be held up as an example of what happens when police and security agents are allowed to operate without oversight, without the public knowing the methodology – and without those innocent people that have been hurt being given the ability to challenge such police actions. It is WE who have something to fear from police and security agents!
#3 by Betterworld Now on May 7, 2010 - 2:16 am
This is not just a Spanish problem. There is a central authority for policing at EU level that acts like it is really just the overseas office of the US Department of Homeland Security. They are orchestrating these additional powers for police all across Europe.
It was very clear that the tactics used by the police in Copenhagen at the COP15 Climate Change Conference were just a mirror image of those used to prevent anti-war protests in Washington DC. The Danish police were every bit as likely to trample on the universal human rights of European citizens as are their US comrades – the difference is that the US cops are above the reach of international law, thanks to the Bush doctrine of Pre-emptive Defense, the Danes are not.
#4 by Indocumentat on May 26, 2010 - 5:11 pm
I disagree with your article. Hides the fact that the Catalan Police has integrated their legal bases the European code of ethics. Therefore, do not reject the ethics rules by police, refuses a particular ethical rules. The ethical code of Villarejo (and others) are invasive, politically interested and biased.
That is why he refused and not another.
#5 by Iceland on October 13, 2010 - 2:25 pm
Hi Gemma – and others interested!
Can anybody inform me if all/some policeforces whithin the EU have code of ethics – and if so, where can I find them on the net? Also what is “European code of ethics” (re comment by Indocumentat) – and where can I find it on the net?