Dear Editor,
I continue to see the Public Security Minister’s decision to suspend enforcement of the laws governing the opening and closing hours of night clubs licensed to sell alcoholic beverages during certain hours, as the lifting of a curfew. The question I have is, if there were laws on the books that required those establishments to open and close at certain hours, how does the enforcement of those laws become synonymous with the imposition or relaxation of a curfew? Why is the enforcement and suspension of this law that has been on the books from time immemorial, becoming conflated with a temporary regulation that requires certain behaviour from people, like, for example, remaining indoors for certain periods.
The laws governing the opening and closing hours of the clubs in question control the commercial behaviour of those establishments and the owners. A curfew generally prohibits the behaviour of a population in certain areas, or at a national level. There is no law that prohibits people from being on the road at any hour. I seek in vain to find any logical or legal connection between the imposition or relaxation of that law, and a curfew. Why is it that we are not more careful about what terms and descriptions we apply to situations like these.
Yours faithfully,
Keith R Williams
