Time for change on Sundays
Tuesday 10th May 2011, 2:30PM BST.
A SURVEY by leading research firm Island Analysis indicating that just 15% of islanders believe strongly that the restrictive Sunday trading laws should remain in place will surprise few apart, perhaps, from States members.
The legislation, which this newspaper nearly a decade ago dubbed a dog’s breakfast, is pointless, unnecessary and desperately out of step with the requirements of a modern community.
Yet fear of upsetting some supposed moral majority – in reality a handful of zealots and self-interested but complacent retailers – has seen the Assembly dither over something that should be self-evident to all. Government has no place in dictating to business when it can or cannot open, especially on quasi-religious grounds.
Yes, the consequences of commercial activity, such as noise, pollution or acceptability have to be regulated, as does the effect on staff of the hours they may be asked to work.
But all that is in place, and has been for years.
What the survey by Island Analysis disclosed is that 78% of islanders either actively wanted Sunday trading restrictions scrapped or else weren’t bothered if they were.
Even factoring in a high margin of error of, say, 5%, the outcome is still overwhelming.
The constraints that the States arbitrarily impose on islanders are far removed from what people actually want and are a gross diminution of their freedom to spend their time as they see fit.
Whether businesses actually open when – this can no longer be a case of if – the dog’s breakfast legislation is finally swept away is not the issue.
As we have seen with petrol sales on a Sunday, some garages find it worthwhile to open while many others do not. The point is, that decision rests, rightly, with the proprietors and not 47 members of the States of Deliberation and some vague notion that this is a religious matter.
Commerce and Employment has to go through the motions of a consultation process before asking the States to end this nonsense but despite the inevitable froth from interest groups, the outcome is inevitable.
The people of Guernsey have made their views very clear and the time for change is now.
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
This one pls:
There is a strong anti-Christian bias in this comment which is not entirely justified.
I accept the original reason for the restriction was on religious grounds and I’m sure a significant proportion of those opposed to Sunday trading liberalisation do so on religious grounds. That’s not the end of the story though – many who want to “keep Sunday special” have no religious views whatsoever and take their stand on other grounds, such as family or a desire for peace and quiet.
Furthermore, not every Christian is opposed to a relaxing of the law. Many are ambivalent and for some Christians (like myself) it would be down right hypocrisy to strongly oppose liberalisation given my frequent visits to local restaurants and corner shops.
I have made my feelings clear that the current law is a dog’s breakfast. A decision needs to be made one way or another and although I make use of Sunday traders I would be equally happy for a return to the old ways. I also wouldn’t mind liberalisation if that’s what people really want – providing the current legal right to choose not to work on Sunday remains.
Besides, with shops open on Sunday, perhaps more people will see the folly of rampant commercialism and wander into their local church? The Lord works in mysterious ways, you know….
Report abuse
I don’t see a strong anti-Christian bias in this editorial Paul. I think the mention of these ridiculous laws being kept in place for quasi-religious reasons is because, historically, that is why they were put in place to begin with. More precisely it was a puritanical form of methodism that used to dictate our social lives and some States members are still, unfortunately, living in that long past era, so this point did need to be addressed.
I think the editorial is an excellent one and I agree with 90 per cent of your post too. This dog’s breakfast has to be sorted out ‘one way or another’ and because an absolutely clampdown on Sunday trading is unthinkable there is only one way it can go. Repeal these daft, restrictive, unpopular laws without any further delay and let people get on with their lives as they see fit – not as how the Church or the States see fit.
Report abuse
Hi Martino – OK perhaps not “strong” anti-Christian bias, but definitely an undercurrent of (unjustified) anti-Christian sentiment.
It was this phrase that cooked the goose for me:
“The point is, that decision rests, rightly, with the proprietors and not 47 members of the States of Deliberation and some vague notion that this is a religious matter.”
In my view this comment asserts that the SOLE reason Sunday trading legislation REMAINS in place is on religious grounds. That is far too simplistic though as it is clear – not least from opinions stated on this forum – this is simply not the case.
In my opinion Christianity is being used as an easy scapegoat by journalists who haven’t investigated the matter fully. Mention should have been made of those who have no religious axe to grind but oppose liberalisation on other grounds.
So although I absolutely accept the law was first enacted on puritanical religious grounds, I strongly refute any suggestion that religious grounds are solely responsible for its continued presence on the statute book. Partly responsible, yes.
Report abuse
I can agree that Paul. Many within the small minority who want the current restrictions to stay in place are motivated by non religious views (mostly the erroneous idea that they will ‘lose’ their family day as a result). There can be no denying, though, that the current laws do have their roots in the religious puritanism of a previous era. They are, after all, not Monday trading laws or Tuesday trading laws but Sunday trading laws.
Report abuse