Dear Editor,
This comment supports the enforcement of the 2 am closing time for nightspots and other places of public entertainment. It takes issue, however, with the reluctance of the Minister of Public Security to grant exceptions to the law for special circumstances.
Support-wise, the decision to enforce the law rationally addresses a substantial public matter in that, according to a Ministry press release, it is aimed at reducing “the negative effects of alcohol consumption on crime and violence, including domestic violence; traffic accidents; the productive capacities of our population, especially the young; along with… the proliferation of noise nuisance”. Reasonably then, these sizeable concerns should outweigh the rights of those citizens who wish to enjoy public recreation after 2 am, notwithstanding the fact that a restricted closing time is not a magic bullet to solve these social problems.
The enforcement is usually described by the media and the public as a curfew. I beg to differ. A curfew commands all citizens or classes of citizens (such as minors) to leave all public areas or stay at home during a specified period. A curfew is a sweeping curtailment of several freedoms: of movement, assembly, and association.
It accordingly carries large political and constitutional implications. On the other hand, a law stipulating the opening hours for places of public entertainment does not pose the same threat to civil liberties. After 2 am, citizens are free to ‘hang’ elsewhere other than on the forbidden premises. As such, the law does not stop us, as a curfew surely could, from attending church services or gathering on the seawall in the wee hours.
It becomes an issue, however, from several perspectives, when a restricted closing time is enforced without flexibility. Exceptions or relaxations for holidays do feature in such laws worldwide. Minister Ramjattan’s ominous warning therefore (“I will not be this compromising again”), in response to the PSC’s request for a relaxation over this Christmas season, is perplexing. Some have called it Grinch-like.
Not only that. An unwillingness to waive the rule over festive holidays, such as Mashramani, Easter and Christmas, potentially exacerbates few of the very harms the law hopes to prevent. One harm is the likely increase in binge drinking as closing time approaches. While binge drinking can and does occur on any typical dawn, the difference on festive occasions is that more people are available to indulge in it. A relaxation of closing time could prevent a probable contagion.
The second potential problem is this: a restricted closing time forces people (in all states of agitation and intoxication) onto the roads more or less simultaneously.
Again, this occurs to varying degrees on regular nights, but could build to a serious problem on festive holidays when far greater numbers of merrymakers are on the move. An unrestricted closing time spaces out this traffic.
An uncompromising enforcement of the law at issue during Christmas and other such holidays may likely cause more harm than good. Absent statistics, the balance of the probabilities weighs in favour of granting exceptions. They should therefore be codified in the law.
Yours faithfully,
Sherwood Lowe
