“Security” – a word often used, to justify whichever means. For example, the holocaust, in the name of protecting the Aryan race (that doesn’t include Slaws by the way – which I am mentioning as a number of persons seems to be completely unaware of Generalplan Ost, and instead still believe what Nazis fed to other countries, such as about a like “European brotherhood”, while the actual intentions were multiple genocides).
But leaving aside the propaganda ministries, what does “security” actually mean?
To me personally, it is foremostly about protecting civilians from bodily harm. That includes protection against crime, but also pertains to issues about regulations, so that a chemical tank, like the one in California, doesn’t blow up into anyone’s face, nor cases like the Grenfell Tower fire, after the UK government relaxed all them ever so obnoxious rules, for sake of someone’s profit.
At this point, many readers may agree, that it sure is nice to be able to take a walk (or at least to imagine it), without being attacked by a predator, or nationalist seeking to ethnically cleanse the world, or a communist for daring to have the time to not be working a factory line, or by one of the ISIS recruits, who take revenge for the big ISIS lords not getting to live ever happily after with sex slaves, or simply by some drunkard or robbers.
Beyond this point, paths seem to diverge somewhat though. In example, China. Over there, it is a lot of cameras, even with a points system, when someone is recorded dropping litter, and so on – something I generally describe as “nanny state”.
Over here in Berlin, such an approach is usually frowned upon. In particular due to direct experiences with totalitarian regimes, such as the one by Nazis, and also the one by Stalinists, running an entire country like a military camp, such is considered to be contradicting ideas about especially civilians actually having human rights, such as not being tortured as i.e. Dilawar of Yakubi was.
Myself, I certainly agree that it is quite ridiculous, for a state to act as if big protector, but not even get the basics right, where the “big protector” is supposed to save people from torture, and not be the one doing it. In that context, I am a huge fan of them like “checks and balances”. Where I don’t agree with parts of the political spectrum though, is about taking a laid-back approach, nor to use serious matters as pretext for some political agenda, such as in Germany about deporting people in the name of crime fighting (with EU parliament even supporting camps like in Uganda, for apparently entire nationalities to be transferred to), and no word about the other around 90% of perpetrators with German citizenship.
And what I like instead is simply: professional. And that is not just about repression, such as catching perpetrators of politically motivated arson without relying on torture to gain supposed intel, but also about politics.
As example, see the protests with Palestinian flags, such as the one in the photo from Hamburg. These protests sometimes come with a scuffle, such as when someone is getting arrested for shouting “From the river to the sea…”, that is considered like a call sign with Hamas, even if the shouter may have wanted to finish the sentence, e.g. with “…is where also Prussia has an Existenzrecht at”. In Germany, police is not allowed to drop a case, only state prosecutors can do that, like dismiss a criminal charge, without bringing it to court.
In my view, that’s a waste of workhours, because if politics were to make an effort, then there’d be more likely talk at a table, instead of people shouting on the street. And just like that, police can do some actual policing, that isn’t about covering for some political agenda of not talking to some Stadtbild over there.
Similarly, theft of food items. One wouldn’t think it, considering Germany being such a huge economy. But some millionaires moving their money around, that doesn’t mean that everyone in Germany has a financial income, to pay for food with. About a third of all crime in Germany, is theft, and shop theft is about a fifth of that – so it does make up quite a number in the crime statistics, and often it is EU citizens who are doing it.
As is, that means a lot of workhours for police and courts, for something that should be covered by proper social politics. That may not be popular with them billionaires, because all that money spent on social security and stuff, it is not money that they get to hoard. But what use is it to all them nations, when their leaders spend in case of U.S. even hundreds of billions of money on weapons and stuff, in the name of protecting the nation, while a large part of the population doesn’t even have a proper roof over the head, and apparently just left to wither away.
Once again, with a bit care about these matters even on an EU level, a lot of workhours that can be put to use elsewhere. And already cut the crime rate by up to 10%. Which may be a bold claim, but quite logical.
Not everything can be solved by politics though, and in such cases it comes to repression, in terms of catching an arsonist, to prevent further arsons, and so on. And in that regard, while it may not be popular with part of the political spectrum, I am a fan of a few cameras at some of the street intersections. To me it is like, just putting someone there to stand watch, but with technology made easier. And such watch, with certain regulations about it, such as that recorded footage can be accessed only by persons involved with the specific investigation, respectively the persons coordinating the catching of the suspect. By that, it would help to solve criminal cases quite some, and ideally even lead to another reduction of cases in the future.