A duty of social care

Listen here:

It took quite some time researching today’s subject (from my deep archive of enthusiastic appeals spanning decades) to arrive at the conclusion that adaptation to the noise phenomenon is a much more viable option than periodic mitigation efforts – whatever the law, accompanying regulations, or civilised behaviour dictate.

Sadly, I have concluded that the latter strategy to contain and reduce is a lost cause. I am also deliberately using climate change jargon to signal potentially catastrophic impacts – some of which are already quite evident.

A neighbour of mine (a respected professional not typically given to reckless hyperbole) was forced to conclude last Saturday: “I used to think that there was a minority of people in the country holding us back. I have since come to the unfortunate conclusion that it’s the majority.”

As some of us stood, watched, and listened under what appeared to be the shadows of distant Kyiv on Saturday/early Sunday, this particular neighbour messaged his understanding of our homespun tyranny of the majority – a profound take on western democracy’s double-edged sword of representative democracy.

I thank him for it because it explains many things. We need not wonder any more why, despite the Cabinet discussions, parliamentary references, press releases, consultations, and media conferences, no government of the past or present has ever been serious about breaches of laws addressing this issue that they themselves have passed or endorsed - even their application, in spirit, as a form of civic responsibility.

There are few grey areas between what the Summary Offences Act describes as “public nuisance”, the intent of the Explosives (Prohibition of Scratch Bombs) Order of 2018, or the processes associated with the Noise Pollution Control Rules administered by the Environmental Management Authority, among other wastepaper references in our libraries and hard drives.

There has never been any serious effort to address this breach of acceptable human behaviour. None. Standby for more later this year.

I have also not heard anyone argue seriously in favour of the complete abolition of celebratory pyrotechnics. They probably have some value as organised events under set guidelines to assure public safety and wellbeing. I really do not care for them. Close proximity to murderous gunfire permanently impaired my tolerance for it many years ago.

But some believe fireworks and noise-making devices have a role to play in making people happy. Fair enough. And what I have witnessed are simply attempts to encourage public authorities to administer the law, and leaders at all levels to apply codes of public conduct expressive of a duty of social care.

It should really not be that for purposes of adapting to breaches of both principles, we are called to sedate, “lock up”, tie, or otherwise secure our pets to reduce the undoubted harm caused. This, of course, is also not an option for the wildlife whose cruel fate is a routinely under-valued slur on our conduct. One important guide to the level of civilisation reached throughout history, has always been the level of regard paid to the humane treatment of animals and care for other features of the natural environment.

Babies, the aged, disabled, and ill … human beings … are also all expected by some, as is the case with our pets, to be safely quarantined from the noise, if not from fire hazards.

One column I excavated referenced the loss of “moral reliability” when leaders, in all their social manifestations – politics, religion, communal, public authority – consciously turn blind eyes to manifest wrong-doing. In the face of “zero tolerance” pronouncements, what we have witnessed, on this point alone, is the undermining of authority, by the authorities.

I also recall invoking “broken windows theory” – sometimes referenced by criminologists who argue that when a society decides to leave “minor” infractions alone, the foundations for serious crime are reinforced and even tacitly supported by officialdom.

But, as my neighbour suggested, this also extends to an apparently tyrannical majority whose value systems do not extend to a duty of care, and who live with an expectation of impunity.

But it is possible, I once argued, that something can be entirely lawful … yet absolutely wrong.

So, in 2023, as we adapt and prepare to be sedated and self-quarantined against noise and fire attacks, let’s be real. Not that we should allow hope to slip from our imagination, but that we learn more about defending ourselves, especially against ourselves.