Important vindication

The victory in the Privy Council for the Maha Sabha, Sat Maharaj, the Islamic Relief Centre and Inshan Ishmael, in the Trinity Cross case, was the culmination of a marathon journey for symbolic and substantial equality. [Site admin note: read the judgment at the end of Anand's commentary]

The Privy Council ruled that the Trinity Cross was, since its creation on August 26, 1969, discriminatory and unconstitutional. This is an important vindication of the rights and feelings on the disgruntled non-Christian community. It is also an important contribution to the development of constitutional law on the right to equality of treatment.

The judgments will be reported in all major law reports, and will form the basis of much academic and scholarly debate. Whilst the spotlight will, no doubt, focus on the judgment of the Privy Council, none of this would have been possible without the illuminating judgment of Justice Peter Jamadar (who is himself a lay preacher with the Presbyterian Church). His intelligent analysis of the problem in the unique social and political context of our country set the tone for this final result.

Lord Hope paid tribute to Justice Jamadar who, he said, had carefully charted the social history of the development of the colony since 1498 and “traced the slow progress that was made towards recognition that Trinidad and Tobago had become a multi-cultural and multi-religious society and not an exclusively Christian one.” The Privy Council said the local court fell into error when it held that the court had no power to declare the Trinity Cross unconstitutional because it had pre-dated the constitution itself and was expressly preserved.

Christian state

The Law Lords said the Trinity Cross was inconsistent with the constitutional right to equality from day one, and hence could not be saved by the independence constitution. It was an infringement of the rights and freedoms of members of the Hindu and Muslim communities and was, therefore, unconstitutional.

The court granted three declarations that the creation of the Trinity Cross on the August 26, 1969:
• breached the right of the individual to equality before the law
• breached the right of the individual to equality of treatment from a public authority in the exercise of any of its functions
• breached the right to freedom of conscience and religious belief

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 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:

Free citizen

You should learn to accept it and love it as your own, because we are willing to offer it to everyone; the state is not forcing you to accept the award or wear the cross! 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. In the words of Justice Jamadar: “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. “I sincerely hope that there is greater equity in the award of the Order of T&T.”

By Anand Ramlogan

-----------------------------------------

The Judgment of the Privy Council 2009-04-28