EDITORIAL - Beyond the noisy rhetoric

The Noise Abatement Act is back on the agenda, revived most recently by freshmen parliamentarians Keith Walford of St Ann and Richard Parchment of St Elizabeth. The fact that Mr Walford, who usually keeps the backbenches efficiently warm, is reported to be the founder/owner of a well-established sound system is an important bit of information in considering the merits of his argument.

It could, therefore, be argued that Mr Walford is best qualified to explain why the act should be amended so that responsibility for enforcing its provisions is taken from the police and placed in the hands of the various parish councils.

Both members of parliament (MPs) complained about the alleged bias of the police in their enforcement of the law. Various other entertainment interests have, from time to time, complained about the fact that the police can be very prompt in shutting down some venues at the 2 a.m. cut-off time on weekends, while allowing others to continue their partying into the wee hours. This preferential treatment cannot be supported by this newspaper.

Still others cite shows like Reggae Sumfest and the annual Jazz and Blues Festival for the special privilege they are usually granted, which allows them to continue operating until daylight.

CONCRETE DECISIONS

We agree that there should be even-handedness in applying the law. The police, entertainers and the responsible government entities need to get together and arrive at concrete decisions which will be applied across the board.

We also know that police accountability has been a perennial problem. The answer to that is to ensure that the Police High Command knows about those who have been derelict in their duty so that these deficiencies can be addressed.

Another point in the MPs' argument was the economic opportunity that would accrue to parish councils. However, they neglected to explain how these cash-strapped councils, notorious for incompetence and which are not even able to collect the revenues due to them, could now fulfil such a massive undertaking without hiring an army of persons to monitor entertainment venues.

And is Mr Walford suggesting that the councils would do a better job of patrolling these venues than the police? Cynics may posit that the recommendation might be rooted in the hope of a free-for-all with weak-willed councils.

We live in a high-crime environment, and extreme care has to be taken when considering amending laws. Sometimes these adjustments only serve to further undermine the weak law and governance system that citizens continue to complain about.

Noise pollution is a quality-of-life issue which has everything to do with how we treat the environment. But environmental issues often receive short shrift. People have been suffering silently from industrial and transportation noise, including aircraft din, by day and night. Many of these same persons are subjected to ear-splitting noises emanating from entertainment venues.

We recognise blatant opportunism on Mr Walford's part as he seeks to bat for vested interest. We believe the country should be introducing stricter noise restrictions, not fewer ones, at this time.

Let us not mistake the importance of what is at stake in these proposals being presented by members of the Government who have seemingly joined the chorus of persons who feel that they ought to pursue their endeavours without due regard for how others are affected. Nothing, they argue, should interfere with their fun and/or livelihood.

MPs are displaying great indifference to the plight of persons who are affected by noise pollution. It is left to see how the Government will proceed in this matter, which must seek to balance the interests of the silent majority with those of the loud minority.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.