Dear Editor,
There is this lady who, when I want feedback, I permit to read my letter to you before sending it out. She must have read Tuesday’s paper because she called me and told me that the Minister of Justice is tougher than me because I want to talk while the Minister declares zero tolerance and acute action against the reckless bikers.
I did not read the paper yet so she had to explain what she meant. I told her that I would get back to her after reading the paper. When I called her back I explained to her that I was not in competition with the Minister and that I applaud the Minister’s reaction because I believe that what the Minister did is in line with her responsibilities.
There are series of questions beginning with the words who, what, where, when, why, with what and how, which every law enforcement officer should utilize and the “why” is very vital in determining in which direction to proceed. To be able to get the answer to that “why”, dialogue is necessary.
Any psychologist would tell you there is always a reason for action. Let me make it clear I am not implying that the reason justifies the action, but it brings clarification. This clarification could be very useful for further dialogue and to be able to convince the perpetrator that even though his/her views of a situation may seem justified, this is not always the case. My way of saying it is “Not because something is not wrong, it is the right thing to do”. That is the reason why I suggested dialogue between members of government and a delegation of those reckless bikers.
The results of that meeting should be that the bikers leave that meeting convinced that their behavior on the public roads is not acceptable. They should understand that everybody is expected to abide by the law. So, whether there is zero tolerance or their behavior is unacceptable, this kind of reckless behavior has to stop.
Like I mentioned in my other letter, no one should be able to claim that no one spoke to them. In my line of work I have met a lot of stubborn people who regretted it after a while. Being ignorant and being stubborn does not pay. I do not believe that anyone wants to see any retaliation against the reckless behavior.
A question was asked to me by a cousin who I warned about the tint on the glass of his car. He wanted to know if he got a summons for “too dark tint” if he could say that the Ministers’ cars have dark tint too, as his defense. My question to him was, what would you prefer, to get a ticket and take your chance with that defense or avoid the ticket and put on an acceptable tint? I further told him that he could write a letter to the editor and ask his opinion, which could be the beginning of a weekly dialogue in the paper voicing one’s opinion in a positive way.
It could become healthy dialogue. There a lot of people who do not use the social media, but who need a push to write a letter to the editor of the newspaper. Sometimes all they need is a push.
I told him I have referred to people who write letters to editor asking not to publish their names as “cowards” but those are people who write not-so-nice things about others and want their name withheld.
He wanted to start with talking on the cell phone, but I told him that is a good topic to write about, as long as he does not single out anybody.
Russell A. Simmons
