Thinking about the curfew… when there is no fire

Why talk about the curfew now? Spring is radiant, the sixth wave is waning and the most painful episodes of the pandemic finally seem to be behind us.

But it is precisely for these reasons that it is a good time to approach this difficult subject with hindsight and serenity.

The Université de Montréal’s Profiling Observatory has just got the ball rolling with an essential report that documents the impact of curfews on the most vulnerable in our society.

There are disturbing things to be read there which must be used.

Recall that twice, during the pandemic, the Legault government dictated to its citizens the time at which they were to return home.

The first time, it lasted five months, between January and May 2021.

The second time, the government alert rattled our phones last December 31, in full preparation for New Year’s Eve. This curfew lasted 17 days.

Each time, the analyzes and the debates were carried out in a hurry. The fire was caught and our hospitals threatened to overflow.

The current context is much more conducive to a real autopsy of what remains undoubtedly the most draconian and controversial measure in the entire arsenal used against COVID-19. This analysis is all the more important since it is unknown when a next wave of COVID-19 or another virus will threaten our hospitals, bringing the same heartbreaking questions that have arisen over the past two winters.

The Profiling Observatory analyzed all the statements of offense distributed between March 22, 2020 and June 27, 2021 – a period which includes the first curfew, but not the second.

Even though the curfew was only in effect for 5 of these 15 months, it was failure to comply with it that generated the majority of tickets (57% of the approximately 32,000 tickets issued in total).

More disturbing: the report shows that the homeless have not been spared from the statements of offense, while we know very well that distributing tickets to people who are unable to pay them is counterproductive and amounts to punishing misery.

During the study period, 275 tickets were issued to people who gave a homeless shelter as their official address during the study period, including 151 for breaking the curfew.

Homeless people were to be excluded from this last measure. The shocking and unworthy death of Raphaël André, found frozen in a chemical toilet in January 2021, showed why.

Figures show that the tickets issued to homeless people exceed the occasional error. Especially since the researchers believe that this is only the “tip of the iceberg”, several homeless people having undoubtedly given the address of a friend or a member of the family.

The Profiling Observatory takes up another criticism often heard: that the imposition of the curfew was not based on science. This argument seems to us much less convincing.

It is true that there is little solid evidence of the effectiveness of the curfew. To obtain them, a population would have to be divided into two identical groups, one being subject to a curfew and the other not. Even today, studies that attempt to analyze the effectiveness of curfews do so indirectly and are inconclusive.

But in an emergency context, waiting to have all the evidence before acting condemns one to inaction. And there was still a logic behind the idea that banning travel in the evening would reduce contact and therefore the transmission of COVID-19.

That being said, the Profiling Observatory comes to document a dark side of curfews that we can no longer ignore. Do the benefits of such a tool outweigh their drawbacks? It is far from obvious and further analysis and discussions are needed.

Not being able to go out at night doesn’t mean the same thing when you own a big house as when you’re confined to a cramped apartment with an abusive partner. Or that we don’t have a home at all.

This is an essential dimension that will absolutely have to be taken into account if – and it is a big if – we decide to have recourse to the curfew again in the event of a particularly aggressive variant which would come to shake us again.