Administrative absurdities reach a new “Kafkaesque” peak, with a man penalized for the non-compliance of a nonexistent horse.
Paperwork enthusiasts would have found a certain charm in the management of our city’s administrative pole this month. A Kafkaesque situation occurred when Mr. Dupont, a law-abiding citizen, received a fine for having his “invisible” horse outside the legal grazing area. Of course, Mr. Dupont owns neither a horse, nor a meadow, nor even the slightest square meter of greenery capable of accommodating any pet.
Mr. Dupont, who lives in an apartment on the fifth floor of a city building and whose closest proximity to a horse is limited to his stamp collection, was stunned upon receiving the said fine. The offense mentioned was “Possession of a horse without an appropriate license and outside approved grazing areas, with an equine not identified by the municipality’s database.”
“I thought it was a joke, a hoax, something absurd. Then, I realized that the administration was serious. A horse, me? Have they got the wrong person?” Mr. Dupont protested when he shared his misadventure. “I live in a 50 square meter apartment, where do you want me to hide a horse? In my bathtub?”
When he attempted to contest the fine, the public service asked him to provide a certificate of non-possession of a horse, a document that does not exist, of course. “Just because we can’t see the horse doesn’t mean it’s not there. After all, it might be an invisible horse,” a representative of the administration stated with disconcerting seriousness.
“It’s pure surrealism,” summarized Mr. Dupont, “We’re in a Kafka novel: I’m trapped by an administration that doesn’t understand it’s making a mistake. I feel like I’m in a dystopia where invisible horses are a recognized and regulated reality.”
Today, the city dweller is awaiting a response to his challenge. Meanwhile, the fine continues to run and bureaucratic absurdities reveal themselves a little more each day.
Be First to Comment