A backbencher argued in the House of Assembly on Tuesday that new restrictions on heavy window tints on vehicles would do little to curb the wave of violent crime sweeping the country. In fact, St Philip North MP Dr Sonia Browne called for evidence that such a move helps to reduce criminal activity.
As lawmakers introduced an amendment to the Road Traffic Act to give law enforcement a clearer view of vehicle interiors, Dr Browne rejected any notion that the new legislation would stop crimes such as stabbings, assaults on elderly people, or carjackings in broad daylight.
“I really cannot agree in all good conscience that the amendment on tint would actually prevent any of those crimes; and that is one of the issues I have here,” Dr Browne argued.
“I agree wholeheartedly with the view of protecting law enforcement… so that [they] can see what is happening in the cars. I don’t agree with the suggestion that this would allow you to see concealed weapons because of tint; and fundamentally, I really do not believe—and I would like to see the statistics on it—where we have proven that tint actually reduces crime,” the government MP said.
She also expressed doubt that there is any relationship between the surge in violent crime and a reduction in the density of tint on motor vehicles.
Dr Browne also expressed concern about the lack of clarity in the amendment.
“The public needs to be clear. We need to have checks and balances—myself included. I have no idea what tint I have. I have no idea if I am to remove the tint. My sister, for instance, bought a car with a fairly dark tint that she bought from the manufacturer. Who is to stand by the bill? Do we put things in place so that manufacturers are to bring in vehicles with tint that is beyond the 70 or 75 per cent?”
Dr Browne also asked if manufacturers were liable for replacing the tint.
“Would there be provision by the Licensing Authority for you to take your vehicle and have it assessed—for free, of course? These are some of the issues. I read something in the legislation that is as clear as mud for the average Barbadian. And I remember the honourable member of the Opposition said that some of us stand at the gate of interpretation; and I am one of the members at the gates,” she said.
Dr Browne then turned her attention to the level of fees to be imposed, which she described as harsh.
She said: “I think $500, with a $10 fine for every day you fail to pay the penalty is a little bit harsh. One, you have to pay for removing the tint; two, if you choose to replace the tint you have to pay to replace the tint; and I checked the legislation with a little help on the Bill to amend the drug abuse law, and we are given a penalty of $200 for those who are caught with 14 grammes or less of marijuana. I cannot see the balance.
“Five hundred dollars for tint that is not allowed, or $200 for smoking a spliff or whatever the quantity is—14 grammes. There has to be balance when we think about legislation and penalties.”
Dr Browne said consideration should instead be given to imposing fines incrementally, where, for example, a first offence would attract a penalty of less than $500. (EJ)
