Most successful states have always operated on the basis that there are some things that the plebs simply shouldn’t know. The first Roman Emperor (though he declined to call himself that) Augustus, for example, was known to be generous to his enemies except when those enemies alluded to or exposed in any way the dysfunction of his own family. When his own daughter, Julia, was exposed as a repeated fornicator and adulteress, he condemned her to a lonely exile on the sparsely inhabited island of Tremirus, where she eventually died young.
The authority of the state relies heavily on confidence in the state. Thus, the state, if it wants to maintain its authority, is always incentivised to keep from the public information that might undermine confidence in it. In the case of Augustus Caesar, a life-long public campaign for chastity and marriage that he had led was clearly compromised by the private depravity of his own family, so keeping the latter a secret was the highest of priorities. When it was exposed, in order to restore his authority, he was forced to act with uncommon brutality to his only child.
Things have not changed, very much, in the 2,017 years since Julia the Younger was cast into the outer darkness by her own father. The wrong information in the wrong hands still has the power to undermine the authority of the state.
Yesterday, Ben reported on calls by Independent Ireland TD Ken O’Flynn for the Irish state to release data on crimes and criminal convictions listed by the nationality and ethnic origin of the offender. Perhaps, one day, Ken O’Flynn will be a relevant Minister and in a position to release this data himself. Until then, he can “call” for it all he wishes, for it assuredly will not happen otherwise.
The problem with data and information in general is that it demands a reaction. Let us imagine for argument’s sake that there existed in Ireland a small population of expatriate immigrants from the Federated States of Micronesia, comprising less than one per cent of the population. Let us further imagine that the state’s crime data were to reveal that this tiny fragment of the population were responsible for 20% of all serious crime. It would thus be a logical deduction that, by rounding up and deporting all Micronesians back to their South Pacific home, the state could single-handedly reduce violent crime in Ireland by 20%. That a relatively limited action, targeting only a small population, could have an out-sized impact on the quality of life in Ireland.
But of course, the Irish state would not wish to do this. To be completely honest, if those were the figures, I am not even sure that Independent Ireland’s Ken O’Flynn would wish to do that. Such an action would fundamentally conflict with the state’s view of itself and our identity as a welcoming nation, just as Julia the Younger’s night-time exploits conflicted with Augustus’ notion of himself as the leader of a new, moral, Rome.
It is easier, in that circumstance, just to conceal the information. Or to release it in the most obfuscated, unintelligible way, so that as few persons as possible can successfully interpret the figures.
One of the things about this job that is notable is when Press Releases arrive with a “note for editors” attached. A note for editors is generally an off-the-record briefing that is supposed to inform coverage of a story. It cannot be directly attributed. So, for example, if you ever read on these pages that “Gript Media understands the suspect is an Irish national” then you can be 95% certain that this information has been delivered in a note to editors attached to a Garda Press Release. I have been doing this job now for six years – and in that time I have yet to receive a note for editors from the Gardai or anyone else confirming that somebody is a foreigner.
This is because – I surmise – the state and the public simply have different priorities. The public, not unreasonably, wish for there to be fewer crimes and safer streets. The state would not be unhappy with fewer crimes and safer streets, but it maintains for itself the higher goal of achieving racial harmony and a diverse society. If you have a liberal friend, you can try asking them this sometimes: Would you prefer a diverse multicultural society or a plain monocultural one, even if you knew that the plain monocultural one would be safer and have fewer crimes?
Right wingers, I think, sometimes misunderstand this. When they argue – as they often do and not always in the wisest way – that a multicultural society is less safe and less harmonious, they are presuming that undermining safety and harmony is a price that the state is not willing to pay for multiculturalism. That liberals just don’t get it, in other words.
But of course, they do.
The problem is this: The highest priority in the modern world for almost everybody is the maintenance of their identity. Identity politics is at the core of the modern right, and of white nationalism, and of the reaction to “wokeness”, which of course is an identity politics of its own.
The state’s identity is that of a liberal, multicultural, open state. It does not wish to take actions which undermine or cut against that identity. It may, like Augustus, from time to time be forced to take drastic actions which hurt its own sense of identity, but it will never do so voluntarily. To deport a migrant criminal is, for many Irish liberals, to do what Augustus did to his own daughter. To sacrifice one, to save the greater project.
If they can avoid doing that, they will. Which is why, I predict, we will be waiting a very long time before we see any data of any kind on migrant crimes in Ireland. If you want that data, then understand your enemy.