?There is such a PR boast by the police/licensing authorities about how much people they have held for "illegally" tinting their vehicles that one expects that, in corroboration of that exercise, there would be a drastic reduction in crime. But in September there were more than 30 recorded cases of murder. Not only has the tint exercise proven to be a misdirected pursuit vis-a-vis reducing crime but, on the contrary, could it be the cause for crime's spiralling increase in the past few weeks? Could it be that the criminal element, seeing so much of the Police Service occupied with traffic duties (for what else is it?), is treating it as a golden opportunity to pursue its own agenda–kill, rob, carjack etc–knowing that the police, who should be chasing them, are busy hounding and charging law-abiding citizens for seeking their health and comfort from the deadly UV rays that everybody (out in the open, under the sun, and without a parasol or car tint) is exposed to?
Those vested with the authority to solve crime are misdiagnosing the cause of it. Once upon a time, criminals committed their acts in the silence of the night, and even then wore masks to protect their identities, just in case their intended victim was awakened by their intrusion. In short, the criminals of the past were fearful that they might get caught, that they might be identified. Today, criminals are walking around the place armed to the teeth, in broad daylight, without masks on or tinted vehicles, and are committing murder, mass murder, and "who see see." In fact, who see better run for cover and hide forever or else they too become marked for death. How many crimes committed could be traced to a tinted vehicle is what those in authority have to ask themselves and tell the population if this particular exercise is to be a kosher public relations one–considering that one's only quantum of solace from the heat of the daily traffic grind is having an AC unit that is augmented by tinted windows.
Tinted windows are not a luxury as it is a necessity for those who try to minimise the torture of commuting. And, essentially, it does not provide a hideout for criminals who, in any case, behave as if they have nothing to hide, no one to fear. Let's look at the absurdity of this course of action: in an act of sensationalism, the authorities are ticketing hundreds of law-abiding citizens and making them strip off the tints–as a means of showing zero tolerance to the criminals. On the other hand, scores of criminals are casually walking all over the place with high-powered weapons on their person. Would the next zero-tolerance move by the authorities be to randomly stop people going about their lawful business and strip-search them in the glare of public scrutiny? It is likely such an undertaking would be more successful in terms of finding illegal arms and ammunition than in looking for them in tinted vehicles.
But the question is: would you in authority implement such a course of action, would you create a striptease, nudist society all in the name of crime detection? A bothering question as one sees the gradual erosion of one's privacy–as of one's phone being "legally" tapped, for instance. And what about all those homes that are known by the public (and the police?) to have armamentariums comparable with what the army has? Would the authority eventually reach the stage of absurdity to say no to curtains and draperies, for in their pursuit of the criminals this society must be in a state of undress and window transparency? While the authorities are fishing in the fresh water ponds, the real sharks and barracudas are out in the open sea, eating up not only small fish but themselves. They must celebrate every time they see the police line up hundreds of law-abiding citizens to charge them for trying to avoid getting skin cancer via a little tint, while they, the real cancer of society, walk free, walk tall, sure in the knowledge that crime pays, and that it would always be in their best interest to pursue such a life–for look what happens to the law-abiding.