Ordinance (In) Civic
Thursday 12/02/2010 - 18:24 - Julio Romero Martinez
biokaiku@yahoo.es Logroño: Ordinance "Civic."
It is at least curious that virtually rules modeled on those originating in the heat of large speculative events (Barcelona Forum of Cultures 2004), enacted in Logroño and other cities from a pattern of FEMP, and approved with great social protest by some of the more conservative municipalities of Spain comes to our city from the hand of socialist municipal equipment, specifically the head of the Department of Environment and Equality, Concha Arribas, and is held by two other political parties with representation in the consistory, Riojano Party and Popular Party. Immersed in the global climate cuts of rights and freedoms under the pretext of security and order, covered in a purported class citizens, calling themselves "ordinance to promote coexistence" dangerously equates the punishment of hooliganism with restrictions on speech in public space Various social groups and movements, minority power uncomfortable or unhappy with the official morality. Beyond
a statement of intent, which cause such ordinances is the submission of individual social responsibility and its delegation in a Big Brother police discretion which we are forced to rely on. Rather than creating cohabitation, imposing sanctioned to, what they get is loaded. How?
Opening door to the criminalization of unruly groups for the official single thought, restriction of innovative or creative uses (urban cyclists, skaters, street art, street games, free speech), criminalizing poverty and marginalization, each more present and cumbersome in view of society that causes biempensante (begging, street work ...) and jeopardizing the spontaneity and communication to society of social movements themselves, especially those less amenable to power, it all depends on the required authorization (Or alternatively, penalty) Municipal its presence in the street.
By equating education with sanction threat, rehabilitation works for the benefit of it is unclear what private or public bodies which are sure to replace jobs, legal uncertainty and arbitrariness in its application to police the ordinance which brought about this cause more problems than he claims to want to solve.
Beyond the strictly legal, which would be the subject of another debate (not without controversy, as is being demonstrated from within the University of La Rioja) test this ordinance to existing regulations sobrenormativizar orientation populist, it is conceivable that the search of the vote of fear in a close election outcome uncertain. As is well explained by the very text of the ordinance:
"(...) This ordinance is not intended to be the solution to such behavior, but response to public concern at this phenomenon."
Citing the protection of public goods, there is however way for the degradation of public space through the truly antisocial mechanisms neoliberal privatization and speculation, while the contrary is increasingly difficult ownership of real public space (all to all) by citizenship.
A valuable public space that goes far beyond the beautification of urban furniture, modesty, decorum, normal, common sense or decency, as they appear monopolized, innuendo and vague in this Ordinance does not seek securitization but impose a conservative moral of official power, with a clear vocation for social control. Create
living it, generates good public space security. On the contrary, security enforced does not necessarily good public space. This is the familiar image of a strong hand to appease the fear in times of crisis. Scourge of "vagrancy", to which this ordinance reminds suspiciously taking us back to times we thought we overcome long ago. History repeats itself and shows us again and again how in times of systemic crisis appear populist authoritarian practices of this Ordinance is only a sample.
http://servicios.larioja.com/tu-noticia/tu_noticia_ver/Ordenanza-% 28in% 29Civica/41364/1.htm
0 comments:
Post a Comment