Mr. Dehring and Mr. Bryan have deemed it necessary to remind us that the International Cricket Council (ICC), which gave the franchise to the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) to host the World Cup, could impose penalties if this sunset legislation is not passed by the November 1 deadline. On whom, we are not sure.

Of course, cricket-loving Jamaicans want our country to be among those West Indian territories hosting matches and for the opening ceremony to go ahead here. After all, taxpayers are forking out over US$100 million for the privilege, and a big portion of that has been spent already.

However, despite the urgency with which Messrs. Dehring and Bryan insist the legislation must be passed, it is necessary, we feel, that in their haste, Jamaican legislators do not lose sight of the country's interests, including the undermining of legitimate entrepreneurial activity and people's constitutional right to enjoyment of property.

In that regard, when the bill is debated in the House of Representatives tomorrow, there are a number of issues which we hope both the Government and Opposition sides, in a spirit of mature dialogue, will reflect on so as to do right by the Jamaican people.

Take for instance Section 8 of the bill, which states that during match periods, roads may be closed or otherwise traffic restricted, which may disrupt the operation of enterprises in the areas where restrictions are imposed. Businesses, in other words, may lose money, even as they have to meet operational expenses. It may be possible under the proposed law for businesses or others who feel their rights may have been impinged on because of its provisions, to seek redress in the courts. However, the law does not declare who is liable, which could be an important point in the case of a company seeking compensation for a loss of business.

The media, too, especially the printed media, should be careful of the lack of provisions in the bill and the lack of protection they provide, as the press undertakes its job, including informing people. In the absence of a specific mechanism for early screening, the law will place an undue burden on the media to ensure, for example, that protection of copyright and intellectual property, provided under Section 34, are not infringed by advertisers.

Moreover, while Section 42 of the bill implies protection of the media in use of logos, marks and images in their provision of information "or for the purposes of criticism and review," that protection does not go far enough for the press to conduct its business without potentially still facing legal challenges for alleged copyright infringements.

This protection needs to be placed beyond doubt.