EDITORIAL: Quirks of the pandemic regulations

IT must not be an easy task; regulating human behavior during the subsistence of a pandemic whose prevailing motif seems to be one of uncertainty. Uncertainty as to the precise mode of infection, as to the magnitude of its damaging economic impact, as to when an effective vaccine will become available, and as to if and when we shall ever revert to some degree of normalcy in our existence.

We should offer our sincere congratulations, therefore, to the current governing administration that, despite some bleeps and blunders, has so far done an effective job at mediating between the human instinct to socialize outdoors and the exigence of avoiding contagion by having people remain at home, absent good cause. The state administration is therefore compelled to steer between compliance with its several individual constitutional guarantees that would permit chaos if these were treated as absolute, and its positive governance obligation to safeguard the lives of all Barbadian residents.

All this is apart from formulating the regulations themselves in language that is at least comprehensible to the ordinary man or woman of basic literacy. It is here, however, that the want of certainty has been most apparent, having so far caused an unseemly public spat that arguably challenges the separation of powers doctrine which pervades our notion of the rule of law, and having led also to bizarre interpretations of magisterial authority, to what exactly constitutes an offense under the directive, and to paradoxical penalties.

First, there was the unnecessarily public dispute between the Attorney General and one magisterial officer over the quality of draftsmanship of Directive 3. We have already offered our opinion in this space as to how the Directive might sensibly be interpreted, but in attempting to label the magistrate’s comments thereon as misplaced, the learned AG might have unwittingly crossed that boundary that separates the executive and legislative functions from that of the judiciary. The authoritative interpretation of legislation is not the function of the AG; neither as executive policymaker or as a member of the legislature. Rather, it lies squarely within the exclusive remit of the judiciary.

We have read also of one magistrate who, without express authority, decides that his office is competent to infringe the fundamental right to freedom of expression of individuals by banning them from social media as punishment for breaking the curfew. Notably, we have heard nothing from anyone in authority of this maverick imposition that appears unenforceable in any event.

And what are we even to make of the prescribed penalty of incarceration for breaking the curfew? A state-imposed endangerment of infection for having endangered oneself?

There was further confusion last week caused by the quixotic admixture of the retention of the alphabetized shopping and banking system for those purposes only, the limited re-opening of the beaches and some places of business, together with the continued existence of the 24-hour curfew. This eldritch brew has led to the alarming conviction of persons for being out of doors between the hours of 5 a.m. and 8 p.m. despite its incongruity with the ethos of a lockdown relaxation. When exactly then do I visit my insurance company? And how do I reach my place of work? Or purchase my weave or false eyelashes?

Nor have we even mentioned the perceptible dissonance of the officially sanctioned voluntary wearing of masks with its mandatory insistence as a condition
of entry by some commercial entities. We cannot just continue refusing to confront difficult questions.

Stay safe, dear reader.