Don't be so Cross

The Trinity Cross is about to be replaced with an award that would eliminate the friction and grumbling protests from non-Christians in our plural society. Today, I wish to remind readers of a piece I had written during the controversy.

It wasn’t about the Trinity Cross. It was about much more than just that. The reason I decided to file a constitutional motion to challenge the Trinity Cross had less to do with the cross and more to do with how it was perceived by the Hindu and rural Muslim communities.

The PNM had/has a predominantly Afro-Christian base. It attracted some Indian support from the Presbyterian and urban Muslim communities, but remained a fundamentally “Christian” party. This explains why, for 30 years (1956-1986), there was no Hindu government minister under the PNM, and why a Bhagavad-Gita could not even be found at President’s House when Panday was being sworn in as Prime Minister.

The Trinity Cross was perceived as a manifestation or symptom of what was, in substance if not form, a Christian state that tolerated non-Christians. The objection was not purely religious; it had a political and psychological dimension.

The resentment stemmed from the fact that no one seemed to care about the obvious arrogant injustice that such an award could lead to in a multi-religious society. You are an equal citizen and have the right as a free citizen to decline the award.

Of course, it’s a bit like saying that the race is open to everyone, vegetarians and meat-eaters alike, and no one should make trouble simply because the top prizes are a good steak or ham. The battle, therefore, wasn’t really against the Trinity Cross per se. It was against a status quo that preached equality on paper, but had unofficially and informally declared the supremacy of Christianity as the religion of the leaders and party in power, and, by logical extension, the State.

It was heartening to hear PM Manning remind himself that ours is a secular democracy and accept that having the Trinity Cross as the nation’s highest award was inconsistent with this concept. It conflicted with the constitutional guarantee of the right to equality of treatment and undermined the idea of every creed and race finding an equal place in our society.

The judgment of Justice Jamadar shall forever remain one of the finest examples of an independent judiciary protecting the supreme rights of all citizens to be treated equally by the State. 

Ms Wilhelmina McDowell Benjamin, one of the designers of the Trinity Cross, said Christianity or religion never entered her mind when she did the design, and that she simply felt anyone would feel proud to wear such a medal. She never intended to discriminate. This is where the people need to understand the fundamental development in the law of discrimination.

It is not necessary to prove that there was an intention to discriminate in order for there to be a violation of the right to equal treatment. The correct approach is whether the matter complained of has, in fact, resulted in discrimination. It is a results-oriented approach to the whole question of discrimination. Had Ms Benjamin designed an OM for the nation’s highest award without any intention to discriminate against anyone, that would not mean that distressed Christians were not being discriminated against?

This historic and landmark case will remain one of my most cherished. I remember the disbelief of many when I told them I intended to challenge this award. I found willing clients in Sat Maharaj and Inshan Ishmael. Let history record it was a challenge to the political and religious status quo that succeeded.

Might it forever remind us of the importance of equality. In the words of Justice Jamadar:

"This general prohibition against non-discrimination thus prohibits laws that differentiate between people on the basis of their inherent personal characteristics and attributes.

A court is entitled to consider granting constitutional relief, where the claim is that a person has been discriminated against by reason of a condition which is inherent and integral to his/her identity and personhood.

Such discrimination undermines the dignity of persons, severely fractures peace and erodes freedom. Courts will not readily allow laws to stand, which have the effect of discriminating on the basis of the stated personal characteristics."