What do they all have in common? Neighborhoods who thru frustration and lack of information turned to riot.
In Toledo, part of the problem was the lack of information as to why the NSM was allowed to march, then a lack of information that the NSM had left without marching contributed to causing the riot.
In Birmingham, England, the false story by a pirate radio station DJ aired allegations that a black teenage girl had been gang raped by Asian men was the catalyst to the riot.
In Paris, the rumors that two boys had been killed while fleeing the police started the violence to begin.
While all three are similar in that aspect there is also another common factor that was shared. Underlying tension directed at a group. In two situations it was the police. In two race played a part. Paris and Toledo the underlying problems with the police added to it. In all three race was an underlying issue, with the NSM being the focus in Toledo and Asians being the focus in Birmingham and in Paris the riots took place in an area where former North Africans live.
It is much harder to build a good sense of community shared interest in neighborhoods that have had tension with authorities or other groups than it would be to make sure that correct, valid information was immediately disseminated in these situations to diffuse them. Waiting until the violence has already started then trying to communicate with angry mobs of residents does not work the majority of the time. That should be the goal for all three of these locations, to first improve information. Then work on the other goals as those will take time.
3 comments:
You know, this doesn't seem to happen in neighborhoods in which public safety officers also reside.
And Toledo is giving their public safety officers waivers, so that they don't even have to live in Toledo...
As Carty might ask, "What's wrong with this picture?"
Other cities even subsidize the housing costs for their officers, in certain neighborhoods, to encourage them to live there.
The cost to benefit ratio, though difficult to quantify, is clearly apparent, where it is practiced.
It kinda makes you think that Carty may have been onto something (except for the subsidy part)...
Disclaimer:
Although I'm positive that Carty will win reelection, I still won't be voting for him (or JFo, for that matter).
Hooda still stands by his prediction that the BAD Carty, the EVIL Carty is lurking nearby, waiting for "his time" to return in all of his former glory, to rule again, this time with impunity…
Knowing and acknowledging the beast, and choosing him anyway, doesn’t mean that you won’t be bitten by the beast, when your number is up…
Well you know I can't vote for either one. Originally I felt like you did that if I could vote I could not vote for either one of them. Now I'm not so sure anymore. I think there is a chance things might be better with Carty. If this debate tonight is anything like the last one and he doesn't lose it? The bad Carty might be gone.
:-)
"I think there is a chance things might be better with Carty."
Different for sure, better, that's a hole nother thing...
"If this debate tonight is anything like the last one and he doesn't lose it? The bad Carty might be gone."
When he described his passion about a week or so ago, I knew that Carty had merely raised his boiling point, delaying the inevitabble just enough... ;-)
Post a Comment