Opposition Senator: The Bungling of COVID-19 Response continues
The Opposition did not obstruct you, but you still mismanaged it…
The UNC wishes to condemn the half-baked, wishy-washy and ineffective face mask laws that have been imposed by the Corona Virus Regulations No 26. It is ill-thought-out and has instilled panic, fear and hysteria in a population that is still reeling from the impact of its mismanagement of the pandemic.
After promising to bring “mandatory face mask legislation” to Parliament, Attorney General Faris Al-Rawi brought a bill on Friday to the House and on Saturday to the Senate which simply gave regulation making power to the Minister of Health. The AG did not heed the calls by Opposition members in both Houses to have the details of the law subject to the scrutiny of Parliament; a call that was echoed by legal minds on the Independent bench.
The result, as predicted by the Opposition, is a law that leaves the public confused and uninformed. It also leaves extensive room for interpretation by those who have the unfortunate task of enforcing it. This places the police in an embarrassing position where they must enforce a law that is uncertain and unclear, leaves innocent members of the public to the mercy and arbitrariness of law enforcement and exposes the state to the risk of avoidable litigation.
The muddling of messages began while the Public Health (Amendment) Bill 2020 was still being debated in the Senate. At the Prime Minister’s press conference, National Security Minister Stuart Young told the public that face masks would have to be worn by persons travelling in the same vehicle, even if they were members of the same family.
Shortly after that statement was made, AG AL-Rawi stated in the Parliament “persons in a private car who are members of the same household are not required to wear masks in that car. It would be artificial for one to suggest that they ought to be in an environment in the private home where they can freely interact and then in their own car which is again a private space not be able to interact.”
However, it is precisely this “artificial” construct that has in fact found its way into the revised Public Health Regulations (No. 26). The law does not sufficiently address the plight of those who are unable to wear face masks due to medical problems. It seems as if the government’s policy is to “charge and make them pay the fine first, ask questions later!”.
How else can one explain the absence of any procedure in the law advising the public as to how they can establish that they fall within the exception of “physical or mental illness” or those that are unable to wear a mask “without severe distress”? The law is vague, weak and incomplete. The police will have a field day at the expense of innocent law-abiding citizens and many who cannot afford to pay the fines because they have not been working will end up in jail where there is little or no protection against the virus in crowded cells among mask-less prisoners.
This regulation leaves it entirely up to the police to determine whether a person has a legitimate reason for not wearing a mask.
What is the standard for “severe distress”? What proof would be acceptable to law enforcement in order to satisfy them that a person has a physical or mental disability and cannot be expected to wear a mask? Does every autistic and asthmatic person for example who cannot tolerate the restrictiveness of a mask need a doctor’s letter which they have to produce each time they are stopped on the road?
Any situation whereby the acceptability of one’s explanation depends on the whim and fancy of the particular officer encountered leaves room for inconsistency, abuse and the violation of a person’s rights. Even worse, it places police officers who are expected to enforce this law at the disadvantage of having to interpret the application of the law and when called upon in court, to defend their interpretation. This is manifestly unfair to them.
What is perhaps more worrying is the fact that 8-months after COVID-19 was declared a matter of grave concern by the President of the Republic, the actions of the government continue to appear haphazard, lacking both proper planning and any attempt at effectivly legislating.
One would also expect that such a serious matter would warrant regulations that would prescribe the acceptable material, minimum porosity and filter thickness of masks to be worn particularly in public transport vehicles, government offices and other public places where the risk of transmission is high. Instead here too the government has failed.
As stated by the Honourable Leader of the Opposition Mrs. Kamla Persad-Bissessar and my colleagues, the Opposition remains prepared to contribute to the development of a robust legal framework to help curb the spread of Coronavirus, but our assistance was flatly rejected by this artificial and incompetent AG, who continues to create bad law that intensifies the distress and inconvenience being experienced on a daily basis by a weary and vulnerable population .
Senator Jayanti Lutchmedial