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.

The Seerman got it right!

(Published in the T&T Guardian on January 5, 2022)

The Seerman of 2022

I have noticed that, so far in the mainstream media, we have been mercifully spared the views of clairvoyants and mystics on the prospects for T&T in 2022. I might have (thankfully) missed them.

It could be that the usual suspects have chosen other private and public platforms to predict everything from the painfully inevitable to the outlandish designs of omens and dreams.

I have even noticed studious avoidance of satirical projections. This is perhaps out of fear that, at this time, nothing remains out of the realm of the eminently possible.

In the absence of the usual local contributions, and with due respect to our weatherman, Kalain Hosein (who is mostly accurate), I therefore wish to make one simple prediction of my own, having stared long and hard into a Grenadian conch shell:

On December 31, 2022, there will be firecrackers, “squibs”, bamboo bursting, and unauthorised use of fireworks almost everywhere in T&T. Animals will cower and some will die. A house or two will burn. A teenager will suffer injury to his/her hearing/vision. The police will not respond to complaints. A government official will promise yet another inquiry or legislative review. 

This will end 12 months of pyrotechnics at sundry occasions when people decide that the plight of the ill, the aged, the disabled, animals (both wild and domesticated) and other vulnerable groups is not worthy of consideration.

I am almost certain I can take this to the bank because I have been keeping tabs on this issue for decades now. Not one prime minister, minister of national security, attorney general, police commissioner, business chamber or religious community has ever been serious about this.

This is the only available conclusion, following years and years of so-called “zero tolerance” and other forms of public mamaguy.

The parliament even went as far, in 2017/2018 as convening an “Inquiry into the adverse health effects of fireworks” by a Joint Select Committee.

This exercise focused almost entirely on human health, but at various stages in the proceedings captured expressions of concern about private and public property and the plight of animals.

Last week, one social media wag addressed the point about pets as something of an idle bourgeois concern – à la Chinese Cultural Revolution (when keeping pets was banned).

What could possibly be wrong with making noise in your neighbourhood? We did it back in the day. We turned out fine. Hard luck lady who is now unable to walk, boy who lost full vision, homeowner whose property was destroyed, pet owner in search of her lost dog, asthmatic who endured poor air quality for days and days.

This is the “tradition” argument against serious action and the need for an official blind eye turned to collective pathological pyromania in order to preserve “de culture.”

I have heard equally passionate defences of “tradition” from proponents of annual “baby throwing” in India, female genital mutilation in Egypt, and child marriage everywhere. Over here, we more routinely have the burning of houses, the wounding of children, and the harming of defenceless animals as part of our glorious traditions.

The 2017/2018 inquiry made 16 “short-term” recommendations including the identification of “public spaces (recreation grounds and parks) where residents may gather to discharge fireworks under proper supervision.”

There were also 20 “medium-term” proposals that spoke of promotion of “the proper care of animals especially those that are domesticated.” And two “long-term” recommendations addressing the subject of an Injury Surveillance System and an expanded mandate for the EMA’s Policing Unit.

There had been “public hearings” of the JSC on March 15, April 19, and December 15, 2017, before the 201-page Report was laid in both houses of parliament in March the following year.

Five years to the day, and prior to all of this, I used this identical space to script, as fiction, the deliberations of Cabinet on this very subject as key ministers emotionally called for decisive action.

When, earlier this week, I saw the AG promising “public consultation” on some draft Bill or the other as the houses burned and as the injuries were recorded, my seerman pores raised. Here we go again, I thought.

So, on this day, without the candles or the crystal ball, I sadly declare yet another year of mamaguy. I see property damage. I see injuries. I see the haze of smoke and the invasion of peace and quiet. I see animals, of all classes, lost or wounded. I see “tradition” prevailing over good sense, law, and humanity. Forget about this as some kind of prospective victory in 2022.