Noise and culture questions

Right from the start, let’s get things clear. We have a problem with harmful noise in T&T. Bad habits and reckless behaviour are not admirable features of cultural practice. And it’s not only celebratory events. The question is how we propose to address such a challenge in all its manifestations.

Saying this in no way diminishes the value of our festivals and different forms of expression and does not suggest that to address misbehaviour you need to endanger the viability of valuable creative assets.

Most people who organise Carnival and other public events understand this challenge, seem prepared to openly acknowledge some measure of culpability, and very well know how to address the problem through technology and self-regulation.

Let’s also not forget; nationally, no other single event generates as much economic activity, creative output, and socio-cultural value as does Carnival. We can argue over Xmas another time.

Over the years, the occasion has also moved away from a past characterised by what can only be described as recreational apartheid. Choice of venue is today a carefully assessed factor in determining competitive edge and not a matter of mere privileged access.

There is a prevailing view that current arbitrary, selective interventions, ostensibly to address noise pollution, may seriously damage this industry and turn the cultural clock back.

If it is indeed noise pollution being prosecuted, we need to understand that we already have a legal framework, awaiting serious application, which captures scientific knowledge of the harmful nature of excessive noise. This prescribes actions to minimise the risk of injury to people, animals, and the natural environment.

There are misunderstandings, in part, because the Environmental Management Authority (EMA) has not done a very good job explaining what is involved, including the multiplicity of existing remedies at law.

Politicians and other thought leaders have also, over the years, done more harm than good when proposing to address what is an undeniable problem by being selective about what is acceptable and what is not, and by acting out of pique or hypocritical vaps.

In the process, official actions have tended to be slap-dash, whimsical, discriminatory, and thus subject to the worst possible interpretations. Against such a backdrop, multi-disciplinary creative Wendell Manwarren has been moved to correctly declare that creative expression should not be degraded to the level of mere “noise.”

The concept of “noise pollution” is broadly described as any sound that has the potential to cause harm to human health and well-being and disrupt the natural environment.

It is also identified, at law, through permissible and impermissible sound levels. We instinctively know and feel it at election time, religious services, celebratory events, neighbourhood bar activities, private parties, and public events.

In our case, and though there are other forms of legal redress, Noise Pollution Control Rules under the Environmental Management Act, set out specific decibel levels in three specific “noise zones” – industrial areas, environmentally sensitive areas, and “the general area.”

These environmentally sensitive areas are not the stuff of knee-jerk concoction. There is room for debate and action, but there was some science behind these guidelines, however haphazardly enforced.

The last time I wrote about noise pollution, there was some (thankfully limited) social media attention to the misplaced view that my reference to “de culture”, in this context, constituted part of an orchestrated assault on our collective creative attributes.

What in part accounts for this confusion has been very loose public usage of the term “noise pollution.”

To the protectionists, there is little doubt that other longstanding traditional cultural practices in other areas of concern have proven to be harmful and have had to be addressed. For example, I have railed against the absence of protective gear for our stick-fighters and will not attend any such activity until that is dealt with.

Other issues include child marriage, and things such as the environmentally sensitive disposal of religious artefacts. Tradition is not intrinsically sacrosanct.

That said, I do not include Carnival among the chronically harmful practices – even as we need to admit that excessive noise (which was not always been the case, by the way) has become a problem associated with it.

Nowhere in these Rules, nor in other associated regulations (read my past columns on this), is decision-making by decree prescribed. Even as there is room for regulatory improvement, there is anticipated a level of orderly compliance and enforcement. Proper, sensible discussion and judgment required here. Not hubris and vaps.