Dear Editor,
Navindo Tinsarran, in his response to my letter on noise nuisance, is understandably defensive of the church, and I respect his/her stance.
I have no problem with Navindo proclaiming his fundamentalist Christian ideology- which by the way deliberately ignores other traditionally established faiths- but I become concerned when the rule of law is contravened.
Evidently, in Navindo’s radical Christian fervor, the unequivocal declaration of the Section 174A either gets discarded or misinterpreted. I don’t know if we are both reading the same legislation, but I don’t believe the statute offers immunity for the church as Navindo would persuade us to accept. Further, I believe “noise nuisance” as offered by the Ministry of Health in support of the noise nuisance law, is defined by the exceeding of certain decibels, not on the basis of cadence, tenor, melody or harmony.
Come on, Navindo, with a little open- mindedness, you will discover that Alaine’s or Jah Cure’s music can be absolutely melodious, as would Richie Spice’s be morally elevating. Yet, theirs like Kirk Franklin’s can amount to noise nuisance, because whatever their musical composition, they can all surpass the stipulated decibels.
I thought all the while that I was seeking “to make Guyana a better place” by pinpointing areas of infringement of the noise nuisance law, but thanks to Navindo, I now see that I am unchristian in my intent.
Navindo edifies me that the word of God, no matter how loudly bellowed, cannot constitute noise nuisance under our laws- that perhaps the church holds divine prerogative. Navindo reminds us of our fallen state and recommends a deluge of bombastic Christian proselytizing to atone for our condition.
Yours faithfully,
Romain Khan
