The demands of the vandals

I noticed a small piece of news today stating that activists supporting Palestinians vandalized a historical painting in England, at the University of Cambridge. The painting, dating back to 1914, depicted former British Prime Minister Lord Arthur Balfour, best remembered for the 1917 Balfour Declaration, in which Britain announced support for the establishment of a "national home" for Jews in Palestine.

Of course, Lord Balfour is no longer alive, and therefore, he holds no significance in today's politics. Thus, the vandalism by activists has no bearing on the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

However, the destruction of the painting resulted in the loss of an irreplaceable piece of artwork and was therefore a culturally hostile act. Additionally, it demonstrated that the perpetrators were fanatical individuals whose behavior is guided by primitive instincts, similar to that of a toddler throwing a tantrum if they don't get their way.

The analogy is apt in the sense that a rational person does not heed the demands of their child throwing a tantrum on the ground. Similarly, a rational person does not cater to the potential political desires of these fanatical activists but rather dismisses them as childish whims.

The same thought in Finnish: 
Vandaalien vaatimukset

Previous thoughts on the same topic: 
A white family does not represent real Londoners
Finnish journalist called for British Prime Minister´s head to be placed on London bridge to dry
The activists sought excitement and a boost to their self-esteem in the Stockholm Diamond League

Racism or self-preservation instinct?

A young Algerian man who disobeyed a police order was killed by a bullet fired by a French police officer. As a result, violent riots broke out.

Regarding this matter, I have nothing else to say except that it would never occur to me to disobey a police order, even though I personally have no fear of being shot by the Finnish police if I were to disobey their commands. I cannot comment on the French police.

But let's return to the news article from the Finnish Broadcasting Company Yle that reported on this incident. It quotes the news agency Reuters, stating that "the incident has brought to the surface a long-standing debate about police violence and structural racism in France." The latter may be due to the fact that, according to Reuters, "since 2017, the majority of victims in such shooting cases have been black or of Arab descent."

Certainly, based on this information, the case can and should be investigated as a manifestation of racism. However, at the same time, it should be asked whether black or Arab individuals being shot is a result of their own behavior. Do they challenge police orders or engage in violence against the police more frequently than other population groups?

I do not know about France, but I wrote the following a couple of years ago: "African Americans account for 55.9 percent of all homicides in the USA. Whites account for 41.1 percent. As for the victims, 54.7 percent are black and 42.3 percent are white. These numbers can be compared, for example, to the proportion of African Americans in the entire U.S. population, which is about 13 percent."

If black or Arab individuals in France engage in violent crime to the same extent as African Americans, then the police's racially biased trigger-happiness may not be the underlying reason for them being caught in police gunfire; rather, it may be purely a matter of the police's self-preservation instinct.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Ayatollahs in Iran demonstrated their ridiculousness
Sweden already in trouble - Finland following
Riots in Sweden: what next?