|
On November 9, the Supreme Court gave its decision in a case where,
in simplified terms, the right of one party to use loudspeakers was
weighed against the annoyance, disturbance and harm caused to those
other parties who are compelled against their will to listen to the
amplified sounds which emanate from these loudspeakers.
This judgement has been greatly acclaimed. However, some readers may
not have had the opportunity of reading the entirety of the order, which
contains much valuable information regarding the position of the law in
respect of noise pollution, especially that caused by the inconsiderate
use of loudspeakers.
In the belief that more citizens should be made acquainted with the
essence of the judgement, the Citizen’s Movement for Good Governance (CIMOGG)
examines some of the highlights.
One issue considered by the Court was whether it was permissible to
force members of the general public to become captive listeners - in
violation of their right to silence and the quiet enjoyment of property
- on the grounds that a noise, which is an annoyance to the
neighbourhood is protected, if it is made in the course of a religious
ceremony, particularly if the police have issued a licence for the use
of loudspeakers under Section 90 of the Police Ordinance of 1865.
The Court held that nobody can claim the fundamental right to create
noise by amplifying the sound of his speech with the help of
loudspeakers because, just as much as one has the right of speech,
others have the right to listen or decline to listen. Nobody has the
right to make his voice trespass into the ears or minds of others.
As for the religious aspect, the Court has stated clearly that no
religious body is entitled, by reason of claimed religious practice, to
commit a public nuisance. A police permit is not a protection against
being charged for creating a public nuisance under Section 261 of the
Penal Code.
The Court has indicated that there is no requirement in the teachings
of any religion that loudspeakers should be used in its rituals. Indeed,
all of us know that, for a large proportion of the life of the major
religions, loudspeakers did not even exist.
Happily, judging by the letters appearing in our national newspapers,
many of the complaints against Muslim loudspeaker noise come from
Muslims themselves and many of the complaints against Buddhist
loudspeaker noise come from Buddhists.
There has not been much comment from the followers of the other
religions, which may, perhaps, be taken as their acceptance of the
reasonableness and fairness of the order of the Court.
Historically, there is reason to believe that the increasing use of
loudspeakers in Sri Lanka for religious purposes owes its origin to a
‘tit-for-tat’ factor, which has built up over the years since the early
20th century, and that it is this factor that is at the heart of the
competitive amplification of religious sounds.
It is very much to be hoped for that this rivalry will cease as a
result of the Supreme Court’s judgement.
The Court also make it quite clear that Sri Lanka is a secular State
and, Constitutionally, protecting the environment and safeguarding
public health requires that there can be no exceptions to accommodate
the perceived religious propensities of one group or another.
The idea must not be entertained that an annoying noise is protected,
if it is made in the course of a religious ceremony. No religion
advocates a practice that would cause harm to another or damage the
environment or create a health hazard.
The Court also held that a great deal of harm is done to
schoolchildren, whose studies are disturbed and to sick people, whose
recovery from illness is retarded. It noted that noise can produce
serious physical and psychological stress.
Even if a permit is given under Section 90 of the Police Ordinance,
the noise emitted from the sound amplification equipment should not be
allowed to extend beyond the precincts of the particular premises. This
would apply to outdoor musical performances, too.
A sufficient number of police officers should be designated and
posted to the particular place of use to ensure that the conditions
imposed are strictly complied with.
This stipulation, if properly implemented, should take care of the
absurd demands of those who donate amplifying equipment to temples,
kovils, mosques and churches and then insist that the whole
neighbourhood should be made aware of their philanthropy by broadcasting
not only religious material but much other rubbish at ear-splitting
levels of volume.
CIMOGG strongly deplores the opportunistic efforts of certain persons
who have tried to make cheap political capital out of this issue in
order to gain the votes of religious noise-makers and the outdoor
musical fraternity.
We believe that any remnants of ill-informed opposition to the other
of the Supreme Court should be eradicated by all senior religious
leaders stating categorically that the use of loudspeakers is not
required for the practice of their respective religions other than to
reach their congregations within the boundaries of their premises.
Musical artistes should hold their outdoor performances in open
ground, away from residential areas, as is done in countries which do
not tolerate any forms of public nuisance.
DR. A. C. VISVALINGAM - President, Citizens’
Movement for Good Governance
Fundamental rights, human rights, women’s rights, children’s rights,
decorate the printed media as well as the electronic media like jewels
in a crown. Some clap and welcome them with all their hearts. But they
never bring to the limelight the natural duties and responsibilities of
the men, women and children.
If the duties are performed and responsibilities and adhered, the
rights would be protected automatically and amicably. Come on, talk
about duties, bring them to the limelight. Then come to rights.
The women are bestowed with some natural duties by mother nature. But
the problem is do women perform their natural duties to the fullest
satisfaction of nature. Sad to say not all but a few. If they do, most
of the social problems we experience today do not crop up. And the world
will be a better place than this.
Women are called a weak sex, or fair sex, that should be remembered
whenever responsibilities are heaped on them. But men never think about
them. When they are crazy to capture power, women are used as scapegoats
specially in politics not for their capabilities.
The women folk of our country should take Muslim women as examples
and do their natural duties and responsibilities properly.
Society will then be more pleasant and congenial to live. Think of
your duties not of the so called rights. Same with the children and men.
Don’t poison society with all these so called sophisticated rights
mania.
D. M. P. B. DISSANAYAKE - Kegalle
Murali the greatest. No doubt about that. Friends and foes
(cricketing) have hailed him alike. The coverage he received locally as
well as internationally was phenomenal.
What prompted me to write this note was the full-page advertisement
by the Old Boys Association that appeared in the local papers. Was it to
glorify Murali or the advertisers?
Antonian Cricket has hit rock bottom.
The reason is not far to see. The boys have to pay for their
travelling when they go representing College and even bring their own
meals a far cry from the days when Murali was playing. The ground is in
such a pathetic state that all home matches are played away. Even the
Big match venue has been shifted.
Surely the greatest honour the Antonian Old Boys can bestow on their
greatest hero is to provide at least the minimum facilities to the
present college cricketers. Why spend a fortune glorifying themselves
when with a little of that money so much good could have been done in
the name of Murali.
CONCERNED PARENT - Kandy
|
