I have grad school homework up the wazoo — this week coming is the last week of school, but I felt compelled to post. This article brings up three interesting points of discussion:
1. The article repeatedly uses the word "draped" without the preposition, "up", which usually accompanies it in Jamaican speech. The usage of the term may indicate one of two things:
- that the editor believes that using draped in this manner conforms with the word's meanings in traditional, standard British English. (It does not — none of drape's senses correspond with "to be hauled up" or "to be manhandled". All of drape's senses speak to the looseness of hung curtains, not to the violence of the action that the article wishes to depict.)
- that the Observer's (or at least this editor's) current policy is to use Jamaican terms throughout articles, expanding on the newspaper's current policy of depicting Jamaican speech as faithfully as possible. But considering this, the omission of the preposition up is suspect. (Yet, note also that the quoted speech also left out the preposition — this could just be a case of a change in Jamaican usage; I will have to check that out.)
2. In terms of content, the actions taking place proceed from the police's desire to protect the public under the terms of the Noise Abatement Act. In the past year, the number of parties broken up by the police under these terms [see below] has increased dramatically. Considering the Jamaican tradition of open-air parties, this has had a severe effect on the entertainment industry, an important source of revenue for many Jamaicans. Parties that used to go on until daybreak have now had to shut down at 2 AM.
I have heard a number of theories concerning the sudden police desire to carry out their duties in relation to the Act, which first came into force in 1997, twelve years ago. For years, police officers have been bribed into turning a blind eye to the parties of promoters who paid them off, yet recently more and more of those bribes have been ineffective in preventing a party being shut off earlier than expected. So, one reason may be the force's resolve to combat corruption. Another possibility might be the desire to create an effective curfew; if there's nowhere to go after 2AM, you have fewer people about during the night. There may also be (other) political pressure at play, or the behaviour may stem from a desire to raise the bribes necessary for effective blindness and deafness to any noise complaints. This all makes me curious about the true motivations. Thoughts?
According to the Act, "no person shall, on any private premises or in any public place at any time of day or night—(a) sing, or sound or play upon any musical or noisy instrument; or (b) operate, or permit or cause to be operated, any loudspeaker, microphone or any other device for the amplification of sound, in such a manner that the sound is audible beyond a distance of one hundred metres from the source of such sound..." (section 3, subsection 1). The time frames during which this clause is most pertinent for parties are after 11 pm (no loudspeakers at public meetings, section 3, subsection 2) and between 2 AM & 6 AM on Saturdays and Sundays and between midnight & 6 AM on a Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday (section 3, subsection 4). [Disclaimer: I have no idea how these clauses interact, or as to what really should happen on a Sunday, seeing as it falls under all three clauses.]
3. As the Observer noted, this case of a photographer being arrested for snapping pictures during a confrontation between the public and the police, is not unique. In Spain and some other countries, it is actually illegal to take pictures of the police (in Spain's case, the directive comes from the targeting of members of the police force by terrorist groups). In the United States and Jamaica, it is certainly not illegal, yet policemen in both countries have taken to threatening photographers and videographers, professional and amateur, for fear that visual documentation of their actions will end up in the news media or on Youtube. (Yes, Jimmy Justice is annoying. I make no apologies.) I understand the pressure of maintaining positive public relations while enforcing the law, but if the police handle themselves well and with dignity at crime scenes, there should be no reason to fear the shutterbugs. On the other hand, if what Jamaican police fear is terrorist (gangster) retribution, then they should petition to make photographing them (though not their actions) a crime. The newsmedia will then block out their faces in the photographs and the amateurs will stop bothering them, but we will still have the ability to check up on their actions through the fourth estate.
I do not think that this is what the police fear, though. Furthermore, I believe fervently in societal transparency (with appropriate educative measures attached). So, may the practice of taking pictures live on, so fewer people are manhandled by the police.
Love,
Katherine
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment