On Friday 16 March 2012 17:41:20 Raj Mathur (राज माथुर) wrote: > On Friday 16 Mar 2012, Andrew Lynn wrote: > > [snip] > > (b) Work with local community of employee and employer, so as to > > ensure fundamental security for the employees. This is where labour > > rights come in. No need for policing. > > Fully agreed with all the points you have made. However, you are > missing one important difference between the original issue and your > proposed solution: communities choosing to enhance their own security > are doing precisely that: choosing. There had not been any fiat from on > top forcing them them enhance their security. > > As a member of a community I can opt to mobilise my neighbours to set up > neighbourhood watch schemes. As a resident, I can choose to live in an > area that has such schemes active. Or not, as the case may be. The > success or otherwise of the government in protecting me is for me to > decide, and the amount of time, effort and money I'm willing to put into > extra protection is also purely up to me. > > Similarly, whether organisations choose to provide extra security and/or > transport for their employees (whether male or female) ought to be a > matter for the organisation to decide. Workers would then have a choice > as to whether or not they wish to join such organisations. If the need > for extra security is great enough, organisations that do not provide > such facilities will automatically find themselves short of > appropriately skilled workers, and either change their policies or > change their line of business. > > However, what we are talking about here is a government directive > forcing extra security for a certain segment of society. This sends out > three messages that a government must not be guilty of under any > circumstances: > > - A condescending and paternalistic (I know what's good for you) > attitude. > > - An admission of failure in fulfilling its primary objective (security > for citizens). > > - Reservations translating into restrictions for s specific segment of > society (You must provide transport, ergo if you can't provide transport > you must not hire women to do certain jobs). > > The key out here is a voluntary social consciousness as opposed to a > diktat mandating a sham of social consciousness.
It goes deeper than that. The government will penalise business for govt's failure to maintain a decent standard of security on the streets. Also the option of providing ones self security is not an option. It is a forced decision. What next? people carrying guns and swords? Or setting up militant groups. There was a case of such a group lynching a schizophrenic in Panvel, because this group thought that this man was a robber. Panvel was plagued by a series of armed robberies over the past year and the stupid cops actually recommended that the public create such patrols. Maha state home min had to put a Thane cop in place for repeating the same recommendation. Yet another example from Navi Mumbai. A series of robberies of banks and jeweller shops in Navi mumbai, prompted the cops to force all to install CCTV. Sure the robberies in these establishments went down. But the incidents of chain snatching by bike born robbers shot up 20 times. There is no substitute for sufficient police doing their rounds on the ground, and no substitute for well trained investigative and detective work. All that these rules will achieve is shift the attacks to different segment and make the perpetrators bolder than ever. After all the government is inviting such attacks on citizens by showing that it cant protect it's citizen. -- Rgds JTD _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
