Many expect the authorities to provide a safe society where there is no need to fear dangers, new enemies and refugees. But are we able to see the consequences of the authorities' political "sneaking" of more control – similar to the one we see in several countries where police are militarized and where big cities introduce "zero tolerance" for small misdemeanors? And do we understand what happens when our government argues for arming the police? Despite the Storting's earlier rejection of permanently armed police, there was nevertheless a breakthrough in June this year for so-called bullet arming in "vulnerable areas", where the police should be able to have weapons hanging in the belt. Our government is apparently also aware that crime statistics improve when introducing zero tolerance.
My point is the kind of mood that prevails. Or which one voted (a concept from Heidegger, to be unanimous or opposed to something) that represents the mentality of our time where dogmas and norms adhere – so that they are ideologically and morally rooted in values.
With ever-increasing demands on security, one is turning to available technology and police practices that exist elsewhere in the world. Thus, this governmentality is accepted by the majority of the population – and the consequence is that this becomes acceptable.
For example, the US police and authorities are taking action. . .
To continue reading, create a new free reader account with your email,
or logg inn if you have done it before. (click on forgotten password if you have not received it by email already).
Select if necessary Subscription (69kr)