Sometimes the authorities seem to get their categorizations confused. Nowhere was this more evident than in the case of Mr Sheldon Baharally, a declared Christian, who complained about the noise nuisance from a nearby church in Mabaruma. His letter to this newspaper published on the 25th of last month detailed how the peace and tranquillity of his life was being disrupted five times a week by the music and ‘shouting’ blaring from a speaker system.
He went on to describe his various contacts with the police as well as the Environmental Protection Agency on the matter. On one occasion he was called to the Mabaruma Police Station for a meeting with a sergeant, the Commander and the pastor of the church, during which the Commander made some suggestions to the pastor as to how the problem could be mitigated. He put forward the idea that a smaller sound system could be used or the speaker boxes relocated to face in a different direction. According to Mr Baharally, the Commander also suggested that he should make a donation to the church to help with its construction, to which he agreed. He was then away for two weeks, but on his return discovered that there had been no improvement in the noise nuisance problem.
Mr Baharally recounted his subsequent dealings with the police and EPA and claimed that the music technician at the church had confronted him and told him that bigger music systems were coming in, while men who said they were members of the church came to his gate and insulted him. He reported this to the police. He wrote that there were subsequently other allegations made against him in relation to bribery and political associations, while in the church he was described as ‘evil’. For his part the Pastor was said to have boasted of his associations with various highly placed individuals.
However, the present confusion arises because the police eventually did take action and appeared during a church service. They spoke to the music technician who went to the station with them in the company of the Pastor. This newspaper has seen a video of the incident showing a rank in the church asking for someone to go down to the station. There was too, we reported, another individual asking if the church members would have to stop their service to go to the station because there had been a report from Baharally saying that the church service was affecting him, to which the sergeant responded ‘yes’.
Whether the sergeant said ‘yes’ to whether the service would have to stop, or to the fact that Baharally had made a report is not clear, but the police have said that in any case the rank did not seize any equipment or stop the church service. The technician, it was said, admitted to playing the music but claimed he did not know how loud it was. The police statement went on to say that the Pastor was not invited to the police station but chose to accompany the technician who was given a warning about noise nuisance and sent away.
Since this is Guyana, of course, there were all kinds of stories in circulation supposedly based on the video (which had been posted on Facebook by the Pastor) that the Guyana Police Force had disrupted a church service and had arrested several members of the congregation.
There is nothing more likely to cause a furore in this country than a contretemps involving religion. So it was not long before the Office of the Regional Chairman issued a statement saying the video on Facebook posted by the Pastor had been noted. In that video the Pastor alleged that the police had disrupted a church service and arrested several members of the congregation including the musician. The RDC then stated that freedom of worship is a fundamental right guaranteed in Guyana, and that since returning to office the PPP/C safeguards the rights of all citizens including the right to worship. “We strongly condemn any disruption or detention of church members solely on allegations of noise nuisance,” it said.
The regional authorities then went on to say that various denominations used public address systems in Region One and that this was respected, so they encouraged what they called “coexistence” among residents. The police were then urged to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation into the matter and ensure that no actions were based on the complaints of one individual without considering all perspectives. The caveat was that churches should follow proper procedures when establishing places of worship.
This was all supremely unhelpful since the video does not show the police arresting several members of the congregation; their version seems to be the correct one. How party politics gets dragged into the matter is equally mysterious, since freedom of worship has always been guaranteed in our Constitution, not just since 1992. And then there was the exhortation for co-existence, when the Regional Commander had gone to the trouble of negotiating a compromise which it is claimed the church never adhered to.
As for the police undertaking a thorough investigation into the matter, they have been dealing with it from March 3rd this year and could probably give the RDC a lecture on it without further inquiry. This is one of those rare occasions when one cannot help but feel sorry for the police, when they were after all doing their duty in relation to the law of the land. If anyone has to give an account of themselves it is the EPA, which obviously doesn’t believe in common-sense solutions to problems.
Since Mr Baharally was informed that Maba-ruma didn’t have sound testing equipment, why didn’t the agency bring a noise meter to the region, collect a rank, and in their company test noise levels. The first time the music technician could be given a warning, and if it was still a problem when they returned, he could have been charged.
Which brings us to the question of freedom of worship which is constitutionally guaranteed, although there is no guarantee for those forms of worship which conflict with our secular law – and this, it must be remembered, is a secular state.
If, to give an egregious example which is clearly far removed from the present situation, it were the practice during worship to beat the ‘devil’ out of some member of the congregation, and the person was injured in the process, the criminal law would take precedence over a vaguely formulated constitutional right. The noise nuisance regulations were signed into law in the year 2000 and were made under the Environmental Protection Act of 1996. There is nothing in those regulations to suggest that they can be applied to homes, bars, discos, parties, cars, minibuses, etc, but not to churches.
It might be noted that for many hundreds of years the Almighty didn’t need sound systems for his worship; that has only come in the wake of noisy entertainment styles which have spread throughout the society. The regional health authorities should advise the Pastor that exposing his congregation to loud noise – music or speech – five times a week over a period will eventually damage their hearing. High-decibel sound in other words is a health issue.
If the arguments in relation to this issue have been something of a muddle thus far, they reached a level close to the ridiculous when it was revealed that the Ethnic Relations Committee had seen fit to criticise the police officer in relation to the church service. “The ERC vehemently condemns any action that infringes upon the freedom of worship,” it said portentously.
It announced plans for a thorough investigation into the matter, although it really has nothing to do with it, although it has plenty to do with the EPA and its possible dereliction. Clearly without any background knowledge of the matter the ERC said that it could have been resolved in a way which was “less disruptive to the church service.” That was possible only if, as mentioned above, the EPA had been more sensible in its approach, and if after that the church was not compliant, then an interruption of the service would likely have been inevitable.
The bottom line of this story is that it is not about freedom of worship, which is in no danger here, but the need for churches to abide by the law like everyone else.
