Excerpt: “The enforcement is usually described by the media and the public as a curfew. I beg to differ. A curfew commands all citizens or classes of citizens (such as minors) to leave all public areas or stay at home during a specified period. A curfew is a sweeping curtailment of several freedoms: of movement, assembly, and association. It accordingly carries large political and constitutional implications”.

From the inception of this controversy I have been writing letters and comments pointing out that the ubiquitous use of the term “curfew” to describe enforcement of a law was indicative of the collective backwardness of our people, and most troubling, by the press. Because when the press is unable to make a distinction between something as simple as a curfew and a law, then how competent are they in their role as a conduit of information to the public.

It is really sad that in the era of the internet where information is only a click away, an entire nation exhibits such ignorance. And yes, it is ignorance. There are situations where ignorance is not an indictment of one’s acuity. But this situation does not fall into that category. People became obsessed with using a term they clearly could not define, and refused to seek clarification on whether it was being used appropriately. That is an indication of how obdurate Guyanese can be in their exhibition of ignorance.