Who's regulating who?

One hears a lot these days about alleged atrocities being perpetrated by members of our national police force. There's much ado and discussion surrounding the use of tazers; indeed, whether they should be used at all or whether good, old-fashioned physical methods ought to be used instead. There are routine and regular complaints by the public and even by lawyers directed against other lawyers; by public and especially by members of the opposition against politicians for abusing their elected posts; against all manner of professionals -- all supposedly well-intentioned individuals just trying to do their jobs; or so they would have us believe. Don't kid yourself. People just can't get along; believe me. Some of the people who write about warm, squishy topics related to their professions don't get it either. Most people, in my experience, have a personal agenda which motivates their off-handed responses to questions and their comments -- especially comments concerning subjects that they really know very little about.

To make this issue all that much more difficult to take (by the poor powerless public forced to watch), many of the professions on this continent are, in essence, self-regulated. The military, the police forces, lawyers, the government, teachers, physicians...the list goes on...all have powerful 'associations' (aka 'unions') with powerful lobbies in high places. All are involved to a varying degree in actually creating their so-called 'practice' and then regulating it; policing themselves; snitching on themselves; investigating themselves and meeting out 'just' verdicts against themselves. Everything is nicely documented and everybody goes through the motions in order to appease the scrutiny of the media. What is really missing here? What is wrong with this picture? Where in all of this does the non-member get a real say in the proceedings? How can the organizations have anything but a heavily biased perspective? This situation is, and has been for many years, inherently unjust.

Then we get well-meaning governments, lobbied by well-meaning members of the populace, attempting to make 'real' change in the structure of these so-called professional organizations. In their attempts, they withhold funds and take the 'hard line,' again, to appease the public; to be seen to be doing something in the public's interest. The debate goes on and on and nothing ever changes except the position of the organizations becomes increasingly entrenched in the fabric of the civilization as they survive yet another onslaught from the poor down-trodden (that's us).

Those who belong to these organizations become more and more sure of their place; more and more confident of their opinions. They scrutinize their points of view less and less before they open their mouths. Why should they? Everyone around them supports them, defends them, pats them on the back and reveres them as some sort of authority; while those 'outside' who may not share that opinion, can't touch them. That which matters most is support and acceptance within the ranks of the organization.

It's one thing to put your young family in the back of a Jeep YJ; get drunk; speed through a neighbourhood; drive over and kill an innocent pedestrian and then abandon the kids AND leave the scene of the crime -- one would think that this crime should be investigated just like any other and should result in a just punishment (let's watch as this unfolds. Are you as skeptical as I?). It's another thing to have a member of an organization utter slanderous remarks about members of another organization. This crime may seem to be somewhat more defensible than the first crime. Although not as clear-cut as DUI vehicular homicide, a crime it remains. To add to the crime, consider the fact that the slanderous remarks were based on dated here say; the source? Fellow members of the organization. Are you getting it now?

It's marginally satisfying that the remarks were made in such an ill-informed, arrogant manner that they induced considerable heated discussion amongst some fellow members of the organization. What really bugs me is that they were not only aimed at members of my organization; they were aimed at particular members of my organization, all of whom I know; most of whom I hold in high regard.

That which unfolds within the next month or so should be interesting to witness. Stay tuned.