UNC Senator: Covid mask law is haphazard

OPPOSITION Senator Jayanti Lutchmedial claimed the law passed last week by Parliament to mandate mask-wearing to curb the covid19 epidemic was haphazard and unfair to the public and the police who must enforce it.

In a statement she said the mask law under the Coronavirus Regulations No 26 was “half-baked, wishy-washy and ineffective.”

“It is ill-thought-out and has instilled panic, fear and hysteria in a population that is still reeling from the impact of its mismanagement of the pandemic.”

Lutchmedial alleged Attorney General Faris Al-Rawi had failed to bring “mandatory face mask legislation” to Parliament, but instead had empowered the Health Minister Terrence Deyalsingh to make regulations.

She alleged the AG had ignored opposition members in both Houses for the law to be subject to the scrutiny of Parliament, a call she said also made by some independent senators.

The law now leaves the public confused and uninformed, she hit.

“It also leaves extensive room for interpretation by those who have the unfortunate task of enforcing it. This places the police in an embarrassing position where they must enforce a law that is uncertain and unclear, leaves innocent members of the public to the mercy and arbitrariness of law enforcement and exposes the State to the risk of avoidable litigation.”

Lutchmedial claimed Cabinet had taken different positions on whether a family in a car needed to wear masks.

“At the Prime Minister’s press conference, National Security Minister Stuart Young told the public that face masks would have to be worn by persons travelling in the same vehicle, even if they were members of the same family.

She said soon after the AG told Parliament “persons in a private car who are members of the same household are not required to wear masks in that car.

“It would be artificial for one to suggest that they ought to be in an environment in the private home where they can freely interact and then in their own car which is again a private space not be able to interact.”

Lutchmedial said the law ignored the plight of those unable to wear face masks due to medical problems.

“It seems as if the government’s policy is to “charge and make them pay the fine first, ask questions later!"

She said the law did not explain how individuals could establish that they fell within the exception of physical or mental illness or cannot wear a mask without severe distress.

“The law is vague, weak and incomplete. The police will have a field day at the expense of innocent law-abiding citizens and many who cannot afford to pay the fines because they have not been working will end up in jail where there is little or no protection against the virus in crowded cells among mask-less prisoners.”

This regulation leaves it entirely up to the police to determine whether a person has a legitimate reason for not wearing a mask.

What is the standard for “severe distress?” She asked if every autistic and asthmatic person who cannot tolerate the restrictiveness of a mask need to show a doctor’s letter each time they are stopped on the road?

“Any situation whereby the acceptability of one’s explanation depends on the whim and fancy of the particular officer encountered leaves room for inconsistency, abuse and the violation of a person’s rights.”

She said that was very unfair to the police having to interpret the application of the law.

“One would also expect that such a serious matter would warrant regulations that would prescribe the acceptable material, minimum porosity and filter thickness of masks to be worn particularly in public transport vehicles, government offices and other public places where the risk of transmission is high. Instead, here too, the government has failed.

She said the Opposition remained ready to contribute to the development of a robust legal framework to help curb the spread of coronavirus, but their assistance was flatly rejected by the AG, whom she alleged is making bad law which distresses and inconveniences a weary and vulnerable population.