|
The laws of any country should reflect the customs, social mores and way of life of its people at a given moment in time. Lifestyles change, but laws often lag behind. As a consequence, the law is either not enforced at all, resulting in wide-ranging legal discrepancies and anomalies; alternatively, the enforcement of out-dated regulations serves only to make the authorities look foolish, adding substance and colour to Dickens’ classic observation that “the law is an ass”.
Cases in point include recent controversies involving prostitution, lap dancing, public decency and the like. Policy matters related to these activities are clearly the prerogative of the government of the day. It is the government, through individual ministers, which formulates and amends policy; the civil service, and especially the police, can do no more than execute the policy of the day. Thus, if any changes need be made, we must address our attention to ministers as policy makers, and not to the police.
Unsurprisingly, however, this situation often poses a quandary for our politicians. In many cases they would be only too aware that certain aspects of the law may have out-lived their original purpose, or are simply not au courant with the customs of the day. Nonetheless, they tend to be unwilling to iron out these anomalies, lest their perceived “progressiveness” meets resistance from certain quarters (not least, their own party’s grassroots).
But the truth is that Malta’s laws governing prostitution and lap dancing are long overdue for revision. It is absurd that prostitution, the oldest profession in the world, continues to flourish around residential premises, in full view of all and sundry, and yet government seems incapable of coming to terms with this reality. The law is clearly being breached, but once arraigned in court, the prostitutes concerned are usually let off with a simple reprimand. The police are therefore made to look stupid for their pains, and the only tangible result of any crackdown is more time wasted for our already beleaguered law-courts. All this is futile. In the eyes of the law it is soliciting which is illegal, not the act itself or payment for services rendered. Perhaps the time has come to discuss whether prostitution should be legalised or not.
The consequential upgrade in health and sanitary conditions, not to mention tax revenue, certainly warrants kick-starting a debate on such matters. Legalisation should also help to clean up residential areas, hitherto dominated by a sense of squalor and malaise which is detrimental to the free evening movement of residents, especially children, in the area.
The recent lap dancing controversy is also a case in point. Certain licensed place of entertainment only have a licence to operate as snack bars, but are freely doubling up as lap dancing clubs. This, too, is a reality, and as in the case of prostitution, the recent attempt to bring these establishments to book also resulted in much embarrassment for our police force.
So rather than waging a futile war against the inevitable, wouldn’t it make more sense to simply license these places to legally carry out lap dancing, rather than operate in breach of their licence conditions? The law needs to move with the times. This does not necessarily mean going to the opposite extreme and encouraging permissiveness across the board: licensed lap-dancing venues should be (and judging by this week’s court ruling, already are) subject to strict conditions regulating age and behaviour of patrons, among other restrictions.
This would be preferable to the situation as it stands today, in which these and other realities are either conveniently ignored by authorities, or else clamped down upon with a zeal that borders on the farcical.
Closing hours for places of entertainment is another example. Lifestyles have changed in this respect also. People are going out later and staying out longer. The law as it stands does not reflect these changing trends. As a result, efforts to enforce the law are inevitably counterproductive. When places of entertainment shut, people do not go back home; instead, they simply carry on with their evening’s entertainment in private premises, or in unlicensed establishments which operate beyond of reach of the long arm of the law. This makes a mockery of the existing closing hour regime.
The examples cited are but a few of several cases where the law can clearly be seen as outdated. The time has come to acknowledge these new lifestyles and to regulate or deregulate accordingly. If the law is not to be an ass, it should be enforced or amended. The authorities would be well advised to turn their attention to the changing times we live in. We all recognised that joining the European Union involved the demolition of the nanny state and the establishment of a society in which we all take full responsibility for our actions. Citizens should be free to adopt a lifestyle of their choice, in full cognisance of their individual responsibilities. Times have changed. Are our politicians willing to face up to this new reality?
|
