South Sudanese Gangs

The reports in the Australian media the last few years on South Sudanese "Gangs", or more accurately pack-like mob behaviour of young male South Sudanese committing violent crimes, especially car-jackings, street fights, home invasions, burglary, rioting and if the police are brave enough to intervene, violent resistance to arrest, identifies a nascent local phenomenon of complex social issues and thus becomes a target for analysis.

This phenomenon conflating race, immigration, crime and terror is widely debated in the public, media, politics and academia and therefore needs the attention that all such debates need: open rational and courageous intellectual analysis and discussion.

The first argument from the Left, from politicians, from the courts and paradoxically the media is that "there is no problem"; there are no Gangs.

What they mean is, the Rightist media and the racist bigots sector has blown this phenomenon out of proportion, misunderstood it. The attacks and crimes committed by these groups is a tiny fraction of overall similar crimes and attacks committed by Joe Public.

As if that makes it all better.

A second argument is that the term "gang" is incorrect. A gang is an established organisation of people sharing a common goal and often using violence and crime against the public and authorities to achieve that goal. A gang has a leadership, a structure, a strategy and is in it for the long-term.

The Left argues that these groups do not meet these criteria. Instead, they are disorganised transient random groups joining together for opportunities to thieve and have fun. Typical youth having a bit of fun.

A third argument is that the negative commentary from the general public about South Sudanese Gangs reveals an abhorent un-Australian racism against "black people" and immigrants that needs to be stopped and corrected, so we can all live in a harmonious and tolerant multi-cultural society.

Identifying these actors as a new phenomenon of third world disgruntled migrants ganging up against their Western hosts is seen as racist, bigotted and in need of re-education.

Thus, with these three arguments being true, there is no problem to debate, the actions of the groups are harmless or too minor to worry about or even discuss, and if you disagree you are racist.

These arguments end up protecting the actions of these groups, and give them support to continue their activities. The groups themselves have tested the public, the courts and the police and have found little resistence, little punishment or vilification and even some support. Anyone who sees what they're really doing and speaks out will be targeted as racist.

That must be very encouraging for them.

As with all important debates, one side tries to shut the other down through ad hominem, the fallacy of arguing by authority, and charges of breaches against the sanctity of political correctness.

This is unfortunately a sign of the times. We live in the age of "if you hurt my feelings, I will shut you down, and the law and Leftists will have my back."

So, what are the rebuttals to the arguments above?

What is the problem and what is the solution?

Only a rational, honest, courageous debate will answer these questions and check the validity of the  debate-halting arguments.

The first argument uses criminal statistics to show these groups are in a tiny minority of offenders on particular crimes identified in the media.

The argument then concludes that because the groups and their crimes are a tiny minority, there is no cause for public concern or fear, or for political, judicial or policing changes than already exists.

Police have been reported to have said to victims and concerned citizens simply to stay indoors.

This argument that quantity is more important than quality assumes the public only care about quantity and not quality. That argument contradicts public feeling.

It has been found globally since 911 that citizens care more about the quality of the crimes than the quantity. More people die in car accidents per year in any given Western city, than by being kidnapped and beheaded or blown to bits. However, ask anyone what scares them most.

The second argument is the term "gang" being misused. Well, as Bertrand Russell once said, wherever possible in serious debate, replace Names with their Descriptions. So the second argument is moot, once the terms are dropped and we starting describing what's happening.

The third argument is a modern day defence of any arguer against an opponent: you're racist, you're being politically incorrect, therefore your argument has no validity.

This argument is neutralised by the counter-argument, "So you are against freedom of speech."

So, the solutions to the problem of South Sudanese Gangs must begin with open discussion. This is normally where such arguments fail to proceed, as one side is shut down.

Once a motive for the activities is determined, we can move to mitigating them and preventing them.

Better integration programmes can be employed, tailored to address immigrant disgruntlement and a range of deterents, such deportation, jail, targeted police raids etc can be designed.

Ignoring the problem does not make it go away. While we're all fighting amongst each other about the nature of the problem, the problem is growing and will transform into something much worse.