The cancellation of this year’s Independence Day military parade has understandably generated substantial scepticism, outrage, and a wide spectrum of other postures and emotions. Even as I have myself never developed an appreciation for the event, I fully understand why people might feel aggrieved at its absence.
All of us can identify family, friends, neighbours, and
colleagues who never miss the spectacle either as enthusiastic witnesses, social
networking and entrepreneurial opportunities, or as a forum for exhilaration
derived from a sense of national belonging and even pride.
These are valid concerns that should not be dismissed or
trivialised. This should not be an occasion for affected partisan alarum or an
occasion to score political points. There are strong, genuine feelings on the
subject.
In all this I do not, as some have, deploy use of the word
“patriotism” which is so often interchangeably, and openly, represented in
degrees of what can only be described as coercive fascist sentiment.
It is unlikely that any ruling administration in T&T
will openly acknowledge what thinkers like VS Naipaul, Lloyd Best, and others
described as the absurd, self-delusional role of militaristic displays in
post-colonial societies like ours. Popular opinion tends to intervene in ways
that can be politically damaging, you see.
Even so, it does not help that cohesive official messaging
on a rationale for elimination of this year’s parade and associated activities,
has been so casually, even recklessly, ignored. This newspaper addressed some relevant
questions in its Monday editorial, so nothing more from me on that here, except
that this business of military protection of national sovereignty has been
described as something of a nonsense in our context.
That said, today’s missive is meant to draw attention to one
other aspect of the move - the elimination of noisy pyrotechnics – with which I
absolutely agree and hope it becomes a permanent feature of both public and
private celebrations at all times of the year.
Successive governments have been hypocritical in
condemnation of such practices citing violation of anti-noise pollution
principles and law, while openly facilitating or ignoring activities associated
with it. Not very long ago, there were no such anti-noise reservations when it
came to election canvassing, and the subject did not find recurring space on
the campaign trails of any of the contestants.
But, as has been argued repeatedly here and by several
interest groups, there are numerous pre-existing conditions designed to
eliminate or reduce the effects of harmful noise from a wide variety of
sources. In none of these is a state of public emergency cited as remedial.
If fact, a promise of new laws or new umbrella legislation also
does not appear to highly commend or recognise a variety of other legislative
and regulatory measures – some of them longstanding and have occupied prominent
public relations space in the past across the political spectrum.
The question has always been about effective enforcement and
application of determined action in the face of official duplicity on the
subject. How many times before have we heard the “zero-tolerance” talk? Some of
us have learned not to hold our breath when it comes to this, even as
parameters for tolerance are subject to cultural relativism under the law/s and
some traditions – good and bad.
Have a read of Rule 7 of the Noise Pollution Control Rules
of the Environmental Management Act. There are exceptions (under specified
conditions including the use of sound amplification) related to religious
practices, sporting events, and even the use of “motor-operated garden
equipment.” Yes, the wacker guys have a bligh of sorts between the hours of
7.00 a.m. and 7.00 p.m.
So, a promise of fresh legislation is unimpressive on its
own. We already have the Noise Pollution Rules, the Explosives Act Chap 16:02,
the Summary Offences Act Chap 11:02, and the Public Holiday and Festival Act
Chap 19:05. Some activists on the subject can also routinely rattle off other
provisions at law, even when not referencing more intangible features of
respect and care.
So, it’s almost all there already with clear explicit and
implicit roles for the police, the Environmental Management Authority, local
government bodies, the courts, civil society organisations, individual
civic-minded citizens, and, importantly, politicians with fixed moral anchors.
Let’s see how this one goes.
