Trinity Cross Judgment

(This characterisation is not intended to do otherwise than to reasonably caricature for the purpose of this case the political realities in Trinidad and Tobago.) The relevant historical, sociological, cultural and religious contexts in which the arguments in this case must be considered, include the prespectives of Hindus and Muslims who have lived and are living in this society. Their persective is part of the “local condition,” known to anyone who has lived in the society and has been open to listening to their voices. What the above references seek to do is to present some insight into what is well and commonly known of their experiences, through the eyes, ears, and voices of renowned and highly respected sources.

An insight into this perspective may also be gained from the attitude of the governing class and of the State to marriage. In fact, Hindu marriages were not recognised as legal until May 13, 1946 (with the passage of the Hindu Marriage Act); and Muslim marriages were similarly not recognised until December 1, 1964 (with the passage of the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act). Indeed, the attitude of the governing class and of the State to all non- Christians (which included non-mainstream Christian beliefs and observances) is illustrated by the following.

First, it was only on August 16, 1999 that Orisa marriages were recognised.

Second, from 1917 to 1951 the observances of the Shouter Baptist faith were prohibited in Trinidad (commencing with the Shouters Prohibition Ordinance of the November 28, 1917 to its repeal on March 30, 1951).

The impact of the non-recognition of Hindu and Muslim marriages was significant.

It revealed the attitude to non- Christian religions. Non-recognition also meant that children of Hindu and Muslim marriages were “illegitimate” and so “outside” of the law for the purposes of, for example, accession rights. Such an attitude was clearly preferential towards Christian marriages and children born out of same and discriminatory towards Hindu and Muslim marriages and children born out of these — not only from the point of view of individual and collective status and esteem, but also from an economic point of view. An illegitimate child could not inherit his/her parents’ property.

That this attitude prevailed until 1964 demonstrates that the experience of this social inequality and discrimination is within the living memory and experience of existing generations of citizens of Trinidad and Tobago.

Another useful social indication of the underlying christocentric attitude and value systems of the governing class and of the State, is the choice of public holidays: “Christmas Day,” “Good Friday,” “Easter Monday,” “Whit Monday” and “Corpus Christi” are all Christian public holidays which have been statutorily recognised since at least 1872. (In the schedule of the relevant 1872 Ordinance and to the 1980 Revised Laws of Trinidad and Tobago (Chap.19:05) the following description of Corpus Christi appears: “Corpus Christi first Thursday after Trinity Sunday.” Trinidy Sunday is the first Sunday after Pentecost and is observed in celebration of the Holy Trinity (emphasis mine). Whit Monday, which is the public holiday celebrating Pentecost (the descent of the Holy Spirit on Jesus’ apostles, fifty days after Easter), was discontinued on February 16, 1996 when it was replaced by Indian Arrival Day.

Against this background, the following non-Christian religious public holidays are prescribed: (i) Eid-ul-Fitr and Divali (Muslim and Hindu religious celebrations) — Order made on December 1979.

And, the following public holidays in recognition of Emancipation, Indian Arrival and Shouter Baptist Liberation are prescribed.

(ii) Emancipation Day - Order made on October 15, 1984.

(iii) Indian Arrival Day - Order made on May 12, 1995.

(iv) Spiritual Baptist Liberation Shouter Day — Order made on February 16, 1996.

Once again the partiality towards Christian beliefs and observances as against non- Christian one is obvious.

Most of the significant events in the Christian yearly cycle: the birth of Jesus, the crucifixion of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles of Jesus and the institution of the Holy Eucharist, are recognised and celebrated by the State as Public Holidays. Yet, the same is not equally true for the significant events and observances in the Hindu and Muslim yearly cycles.

Given that Independence was achieved in 1962, the time lines suggest that a legitimate perception of non-Christians could have been that the governing Trinidadian values were preferential to Christian religious beliefs (values) and observances. It cannot be over empahsised in this analysis, that the proportions of Christians to Hindus and Muslims in Trinidad and Tobago is closer to equality than not.

The above narrative and analysis is relevant because of the contention by the Applicants, in effect, that at the very least the Trinity Cross is or can rationally and reasonably be perceived by Hindus and Muslims living in Trinidad and Tobago as an exclusively Christian symbol; and therefore, that the choice by the State to use it as the symbol of its highest National Award is preferential to Christian beliefs and observances and thus discriminatory, in the multi-religious and multi-cultural context of Trinidad and Tobago, given its above stated history, culture, sociology and demography.

That is, it is in effect argued by the Applicants that given the time lines under consideration, including the attaining of Independence in 1962 and the creation of the Order of the Trinity (and of the introduction of the Trinity Cross) in 1969, the historical, religious, cultural, sociological and demographic context suggests that the Trinity Cross is rationally and reasonably perceived as a Christian symbol, which in the historical context of christocentric discrimination against Hindus and Muslims in Trinidad, is discriminatory because of the rational and reasonable aversion of Hindus and Muslims to be associated with such an award, irrespective of their own theological perspectives about the idea of “Trinity” and/or “Cross” as understood in Christian orthodoxy.

However, it is important to also state that the above description is not a complete picture of local society. In fact, though there are underlying tensions among the different groupings in society, it is also true that our people live together in relative peace and harmony.

Furthermore, in relation to the Canadian Christian mission it is also important to state that together with evangelisation, the general intention of the mission was for the well-being of the people THE TRINITY CROSS I have already explained how the Order of the Trinity came into existence (by Letters Patent dated August 26, 1969 issued by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second). These Letters Patent were subsequently modified, pursuant to the 1976 Republican Constitution, to bring them into conformity with the provisions and changes effected by that Constitution, essentially conferring onto the President of the Republic the roles and functions of Her Majesty and the Governor General.

These Letters Patent state the intention and purpose of the Order of the Trinity and of the Trinity Cross. The Trinity Cross is to be awarded “to any person who has rendered distinguished and outstanding service to Trinidad and Tobago.” It is quite clear that neither its stated intention nor purpose is religious per se.

The Trinity Cross was intended to be and is an honour conferred by the State for distinguished and outstanding service to Trinidad and Tobago.

The Trinity Cross is also the Nation’s highest award. This is made clear in clause 17 of the Letters Patent, which prescribes that (but for the Victoria Cross and the George Cross) it shall take “precedence over all other decorations.” Every citizen of Trinidad and Tobago is eligible for the award of the Trinity Cross (as well as persons who are not citizens of Trinidad and Tobago). And, any person or organisation may nominate a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago for the award of the Trinity Cross (clause 9).

In fact and in practice, the nomination forms and instructions issued by the State confirm the above an explain that awards are made by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister “and with the consent of the nominee.” Indeed, the advertisement published in a newspaper by the Office of the Prime Minister with respect to National Awards for 2004 states in bold graphics: “Over 1.2 Million People and Every One Has The Chance To Be Honoured.” Despite the stated intention and purpose of the award of the Trinity Cross, the Applicants contend nevertheless that the Trinity Cross is in breach of their 4(b),(d) and (h) rights under the 1976 Constitution because of the effect of the award. That is, the Applicants contend that irrespective of purpose and/or intention, the Trinity Cross is an overtly Christian Symbol in name, substance and sig- Overtly Christian in name, substance nification. And, given prevailing demographics and the historical, cultural and sociological experiences and religious beliefs of Hindus and Muslims in Trinidad, it is rational, reasonable and legitimate for Hindus and Muslims to consider the Trinity Cross an anathema and to consider its existence as the Nation’s highest award disrespectful, unfair and discriminatory, as they are unequally inhibited in participating in the process of nominating, being nominated for or consenting to the award of the Trinity Cross.

On October 17, 1963 shortly after Independence, Cabinet appointed a Committee “to make recommendations to Cabinet on the question of Local Awards” (Cabinet Minute no 1081).

The “first” report of that Committee (which turned out to be a four man committee — two members recorded as having not served) was completed on September 17, 1964. The Committee stated its task as being: A review of the country’s existing system of awards and a study of what changes may be necessary or advisable to bring it in appropriate harmony with the country’s independent status and its constitutional character as a Monarchy and a Member of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

It would appear that though the “solicitation of views of the Public” was “considered to be very essential,” because of the “nature of the subject” the approach taken was that the deliberations of the Committee “should be sheltered, as far as possible, from the arena of public controversy.” As a consequence the report describes the strategy adopted by the Committee as follows: It was therefore decided that the matter should be pursued on a confidential basis and that informal discussions would be held with key personnel of widely representative organisations or appropriate ones in a position to assist. It was hoped by this means to collate a fairly wide cross-section of informed thinking on the subject.

A Confidential Circular Letter was issued in the following terms: “I should like to inform you that Government has set up a Committee to consider, and make recommendations with respect to, the conferring of National Awards. The nature of this assignment is, for various reasons, one that ought to be handled with a certain degree of confidentiality, and this inhibits the normal approach of inviting memoranda from members of the public who may be interested.

The Committee however wishes to invite your co-operation, and would be grateful for any assistance or advice you may feel able to offer on the matter both generally and/or with particular reference to your organisation.

The Committee has therefore, authorised its Secretary, and some of its members to hold confidential discussions on the matter with key personnel in various organisations.” And, the report notes that copies of this letter were sent to various organisations including religious organisations. (At pages 2 and 3.) Having outlined the trends of views expressed to the Committee, the report summarised the position as follows: The situation then clearly indicated the direction in which a solution to the problem may lie; compromise or combination that is to say the partial retention of certain Commonwealth Awards and the introduction of purely local ones.

And, in pursuance of this approach the Committee recommended: (i) The creation of a Standing National Awards Committee.

(ii) “That Trinidad and Tobago should continue to participate in the system of Commonwealth Awards” and listed nine such awards to be continued.

(i) The Order of the Society of Honour of Trinidad and Tobago (a silver shield with golden Coat of Arms), for “exceptionally distinguished service.” (ii) The Trinity Star (gold with rosette — for persons of “considerable status” who have (a) “discharged extraordinary responsibilities or rendered exceptional or distinguished service,” or (b) made “very valuable contributions or achieved wide eminence or renown”) (iii) The Trinity Cross (gold — for “exceptional courage and bravery” or “a prolonged gallantry or heroism”) In this first report, the Committee gave no explanations for its choices of the world ‘Trinity’ in either ‘The Trinity Star’ or ‘The Trinity Cross,’ awards recommended to Cabinet.

By a “second” report, the Committee submitted its recommendations pursuant to another Cabinet directive (Cabinet Minute No 1062) dated June 6, 1968. This directive requested recommendations from the Committee on the question “whether the number of proposed separate awards and classes may not be reduced.” This request was against the background of certain “National Awards which were approved by Cabinet on December 21, 1967,” and which had been divided into two categories — Civil Awards and Gallantry Awards, as follows: (a) CIVILAWARDS: (i) The “Trinity Cross” (One classgold) Based on the Trinity Hills.

For distinguished and outstanding service to the country by nationals in the public or private sector, and the non-citizens who have rendered outstanding and distinguished service to the country.

(ii) The “Chaconia Medal”: (Three classes — gold, sliver and bronze) Based on the national flower.

To social workers; community workers in all organisations which promote community spirit and national welfare; for long and meritorious service to the country or the community in their respective groups.

(iii) The “Humming Bird Medal”: (Three classes — gold, silver and bronze) To all persons who have rendered loyal and devoted service to the country in their respective fields of endeavour, which redound to the ben- ‘For distinguished service’ efits or prestige of the community or country, such as members of the Labour Movement; writers and painters and other artists; artistes and sportsmen; agriculturists; manufacturers and businessmen; organisers of activities of worthy import; workers in the cultural fields, etc and for outstanding humane action.

(iv) The “Trinidad and Tobago Medal of Merit”: (Three classes — gold, silver and bronze) To members of the Public Service, Statutory Boards and other quasi government organisations, who have rendered outstanding and meritorious service beyond the call of duty.

(b) GALLANTRY AWARDS: (i) The “Trinidad and Tobago Distinguished Service Medal”: (One class — gold) The members of the Armed Forces (Army, Navy and Air Force) members of the Police and Fire Services; and members of the Merchant Marines for gallantry in the face of the enemy or for gallant conduct and devotion to duty in peace or war.

(ii) The “Trinidad and Tobago Meritorious Service Medal”: (Two classes — gold and silver) To members of the Services cited in Item 7(b) (i) above, as also members of the Prison Services, the St John Ambulance Brigade, the Red Cross, the Scout Movement, and other similar and associated services, for long and meritorious service.

(iii) National Service Citation: (With silver Medal) Parchment presentation to members of the Services cited in Item 7(b) (i) and (ii) in recognition of good service and commendable conduct.

The recommendations of the Committee in its second report were for four awards, in order of precedence as follows: (i) “The Trinity Cross” (based on the Trinity Hills). One class — Gold. For distinguished and outstanding service to the country.

(ii) “The Chaconia Medal (Based on the National Flower) Three classes — Gold, Silver and Bronze.” (iii) “The Humming Bird Medal. Three classes: Gold, Silver and Bronze.” (iv) The “Public Service Medal of Merit. With three classes of medals — Gold, Silver and Bronze.

The recommendations in the second report of the Committee were generally accepted, as the schedule to the Letters Patent issued in August 1969 refers to four categories of awards which make persons members of the Order of the Trinity, namely: the “Trinity Cross” (gold only), “Chaconia Medal” (gold, silver, bronze), ‘Humming Bird Medal’ (gold, silver, bronze).

Annexed to this judgement is a full colour photocopy of a photograph of the front of the Trinity Cross. The agreed elements of the emblem are: A gold medal with dimensions 52 millimetres long by 38 millimetres wide suspended from a ribbon with the national colours red, a white edged black central stripe and yellow edges.

The front: 1. A ship’s wheel at the top 2. A helm or helmet facing front, beneath it.

3. A large circle (18 millimetres in diameter) with four splayed arms of equal length (11 millimetres long) emanating from the circle; one arm facing north, one facing south, one facing west and one facing east at a 90 angle from each other, the arms wider at the ends (12 millimetres) than at the centre (5 millimetres); three of the four edges on each arm are straight.

4. Inside the large circle the words “FOR DISTINGUISHED SERVICE” are embossed in a ring around the circle.

5. Inside the large circle is a smaller circle with three mountain peaks in the middle with the sea beneath.

6. In between each of the four arms and resting on a flat base lies a bird with wings spread — a scarlet ibis on the top left and a Cocorico on the top right; a Cocorico on the bottom left and a Scarlet Ibis on the bottom right.

The back: 1. An irregular shape with a circle resembling a coin in the middle with the words “TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO” embossed around the inside of the circle.

2. The words “YDL 10K T’DAD” embossed at the bottom.

In interpreting the motifs incorporated in the Trinity Cross great assistance can be had from the Coat of Arms of Trinidad and Tobago, which was designed and formally agreed to be used in 1962. A full colour photocopy of the Coat of Arms of Trinidad and Tobago is also annexed to this judgement.

The following meanings/interpretations are agreed with to the relevant motifs in the Coat of Arms (and are in any event matters well known and indisputable).

(i) Supporting the Shield, on the dexter side is a Scarlet Ibis and on the sinister side of a Cocrico (both birds are indigenous to Trinidad and Tobago — the Cocrico being particularly native to Tobago), and representing respectively the islands of Trinidad and Tobago.

(ii) The Three Peaks on the side of the Scarlet Ibis (which were principal motifs of Trinidad’s early British Colonial Seals and Flag — Badges, commemorate both Columbus’ decision to name Trinidad after the Blessed Trinity and the Three Peaks of the southern mountain range (called the “Three Sisters”) in Trinidad which a sailor on Columbus’ ship saw when the island was first sighted during Columbus’ third voyage.

(iii) The Gold helmet facing front in the Helm represents Her Majesty the Queen of England.

(iv) A golden ship’s wheel in the Crest.

One can see that the motifs in the Trinity Cross mirror to a certain extent the basic arrangement of the motifs in the Coat of Arms. That is, starting from the top of the Trinity Cross: a golden ship’s wheel, a gold helmet facing front, a cross pattee overlaid by and bearing a centrally placed circle embossed with the Three Peaks at its centre and with the inscription “For Distinguished Service” and flanked by identical pairs of the Scarlet Ibis and the Cocrico (which mirrors the Shield in the Coat of Arms).

Historically, the Cross Pattee became popular in the medieval heraldry and was an adaption of the Greek Cross (with equal length arms), which was one of the original forms of the cross used by Christians (believed to have been in use from about the fifth century — see, BM Metzger, MD Coogan, The Oxford Companion to the Bible (1993) at page 57). It is believed that the Latin or Passion Cross (which has a longer vertical shaft with equal length horizontal arms) Entered into Christian usage in about the eight or ninth Centuries.

Thus, one can conclude that from a religious perspective, the motifs of the cross pattee and of the Three Peaks used in the Trinity Cross have both longstanding general and specific Christian associations and usage — the Cross pattee being one of the original forms of cross used as the central symbol of Christianity and the Three Peaks being one of the local symbols used in the context of Trinidad’s unique history to designate the Blessed Trinity (God) in Christianity. Significantly, the arrangement and positioning, of these two central motifs (literally and symbolically) are such that their Christian associations pragmatically impart interpretation and meaning to the intention to base the Trinity Cross on the Trinity Hills.

That is, in Trinidad and Tobago the Trinity Hills are understood and interpreted in the context of Columbus’ signification of them.

Apart from the religious perspective, it is I think fair to comment, using the meanings of similar motifs in the Coat of Arms, and to conclude, that the golden wheel and front facing golden helmet, link the Trinity Cross to Trinidad’s ‘discovery’ by seafaring Europeans and its colonial history under the British; that the Scarlet Ibis and Cocrico symbolise indigenous Trinidad and Tobago; and further, that the inscription on the face of the Trinity Cross declares the intention and purpose of the award.

Apart from the above, and in relation specifically to the use of a cross as one of the central motifs in the Trinity Cross, it is important to note that the cross has, particularly in the history of western civilisations, been used as a symbol for outstanding bravery, heroism, valour and gallantry.

Trinidad, as a former colony of Britain and member of the Commonwealth, has been greatly influenced by European and British christocentric values and traditions. And, as a result of this historical link with Britain, Trinidad and Tobago shares identifiable traditions and customs with it.

Indeed, the First Report of the National Awards Committee desired to retain and recommend the continuation of pre-independence Commonwealth Awards conferred by Her Majesty, including the Victoria Cross and the George Cross. In fact, in the Schedule to Her Majesty’s Letters Patent, reference is made to these two awards, at clause 17(1), which when dealing with orders of precedence provides: When worn in Trinidad and Tobago by a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago the Trinity Cross shall be worn suspended from the neck and takes precedence of all other decorations except the Victoria Cross and the George Cross.

Thus, though it is clear from the Constitution of the Order of the Trinity that the Trinity Cross was to be the highest and most prestigious award in Trinidad and Tobago, the Victoria Cross and George Cross were to take precedence over it.

The Victoria Cross is the highest award for exceptional valour displayed “in the face of the enemy” that can be awarded to members of the British and Commonwealth forces.

It was first issued on January 29, 1856 for acts of valour during the Crimean War of 1854- 1855. It was instituted by and named after Queen Victoria, who reigned as Queen of the United Kingdom from June 20, 1837 to January 22, 1901. It takes the form of a cross pattee, bearing on the front a crown, surmounted by a lion and the inscription ‘FOR VALOUR.’ The George Cross is the corresponding honour for civilians for acts of valour that do not qualify as “in the face of the enemy”. It is second only to the Victoria Cross. The George Cross was instituted by King George VI in 1940, which the German Luftwaffe subjected the civilian population of Britain to mass bombing. It is awarded for acts of the greatest heroism, of the most conspicuous courage, in circumstances of extreme danger. Though instituted by King George VI, the George Cross was named after St George (born in 270 AD) the patron saint of England.

It is believed that St George, while on one of his missions as a soldier serving under the Roman Emperor Dioletian, was in England and heard of the torturing and putting to death of Christians because of their faith and returned to Rome and begged the Emperor to desist from such action. It is believed that the Emperor tried to get George to give up his Christian beliefs, but he refused, and was beheaded in Lydala, Palestine on April 23, 303 AD. Around 900 Ad George was universally recognised as a Saint among Christians.

The banner of St George (the martyr) a red cross on a white background, was integrated into the uniforms of British soldiers around the reign of Richard I and later became the flag of England. By the end of the 14th century Saint George had been officially acknowledged as Patron Saint of England.

The George Cross is in the form of a Greek Cross. On the front is depicted St George slaying the dragon, with the inscription ‘For Gallantry.’ (The legend of George and the Dragon is considered an allegory of the persecution of Christmas by Dioletian, who was sometimes referred to as ‘the dragon’ in ancient texts). Clearly the George Cross has profoundly overt Christian associations and symbolisms.

This extended discussion about the Victoria Cross and the George Cross is relevant to the issues raised in this case, because the Respondent has contended that neither the words “Trinity” or “Cross” nor the actual Trinity Cross in terms of its design and motifs can reasonably be considered Christian or associated with Christianity. I disagree with all aspects of this contention. In the context of Trinidad and Tobago, given its history, it is quite clear that the words ‘Trinity’ and ‘Cross’ can be associated with the Blessed Trinity and the cross of the Christian religion. To link the words reinforces that association.

In my opinion, to argue that in Trinidad and Tobago a reference to “The Trinity Cross” would not reasonably or likely evoke Christian associations is erroneous. The historical context and reasons that demonstrate this error have already been outlined.

But contemporary reasons for this association in Trinidad and Tobago also exist.

At present, the American Christian evangelical cable television station “TBN” is received and transmitted to and viewed by thousands in Trinidad and Tobago. “TBN” stands for Trinity Broadcasting Network. Also, the local Roman Catholic (Christian) television agency, is known as the “Trinity Television, Channel 10.’ And, the Anglican Cathedral in the capital city is the “Cathedral Church of the Holy Trinity.” Further, the cross remains a highly publicised Christian symbol. If not the dominant Christian motif across all Christian traditions in Trinidad and Tobago. For example, on every church (and there are hundreds throughout Trinidad and Tobago, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Evangelical non-denominational) and every church school and every church building - variations of the cross appear. Crosses are worn and publicly shown by thousands of Christians throughout Trinidad and Tobago — not just to church, but to work and at play.

In my opinion, the local conditions in Trinidad and Tobago, both historical and contemporary, attest to the long standing and widespread use and association of “Trinity” and “Cross” by and with Christian beliefs and observances.

In my opinion, it is entirely unrealistic to suggest that the existence or linking of “Trinity” and “Cross” in the “Trinity Cross” is not likely to evoke Christian associations in a plural society like Trinidad and Tobago, because the concepts of “Trinity” and “Cross” are known to Hindus; or that since the “Trinity Cross” is based on the ‘Trinity Hills’ it cannot be offensive to anyone.

With respect to the first contention, it is in my opinion quite disrespectful and also inaccurate to suggest that there are concepts equivalent to the Christian concepts of “trinity” and “cross” in Hinduism; or even that there is a concept of “trinity” or “cross” per se in Hinduism.

In Hinduism, there is a concept of “Triniurti,” representing the triad of Brahma (the creative aspect of God), Vishnu (the preservative aspect of God) and Shiva (the destructive or reabsorbative aspect of God).

The triad are all of equal strength and potency, emanating as manifested aspects of the same one unmanifested Brahman (‘Ekam Vipra Satya Bahuda Vadanti’ — Truth (God) is one but it is called by different names).

To suggest that the Holy Trinity is mainstream Christianity represents the triad of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, or that Columbus could have been open to that association in 1492 when he named Trinidad (and the Trinity Hills) after the Holy Trinity in Christianity, demonstrates without more why the converse is equally absurd.

No Hindu in Trinidad and Tobago, hearing the word “Trinity” in association with “Cross,” as in “Trinity Cross,” would naturally or spontaneously associate its usage with the Hindu concept and understanding of “Trimurti.” Indeed, no Hindu scholar would likely do the same. Equally with respect to the cross.

In Hinduism there is a motif known as the ‘swastika’ which is an auspicious symbol. Its name is likely derived from a combination of ‘su’ (well), ‘asti’ (is) and ‘ka’ (a noun ending) — that is, “It is well.” Its design is believed by many to be derived from either the wheel (symbolically reduced to four spokes set at right angles) - which is in itself an auspicious symbol in Hinduism and/or from the two fire sticks of the Vedic sacrificial fire, which were usually set down at right angles to one another. Clearly, to suggest that the cross in Christianity and the swastika in Hinduism are in some way similar or even related is fallacious. How would mainstream Christians respond if told that the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross could be associated with the Vedic sacrificial fire? To pose this question and observe the truthful response, is all that is necessary to test and refute this aspect of the Respondent’s contention.

Religion is not an entirely intellectual affair.

Religion is also about beliefs, traditions, observances and feelings. Religion is about a person’s and a community’s experience, identity and existence and to this extent it is subjective. I accept without reservation, given the historical, sociological and religious experience of Hindus in Trinidad and Tobago (including the colonial indentured experience) and given the Hindus’ religious beliefs and observances (including the belief in the extraordinariness of its avatars, such as Shri Rama and Shri Krishna, incarnations of God, and the absolute disparagement of these by mainstream Christian proselyzers), for a Hindu who perceived the Trinity Cross as having Christian symbolism, to nominate someone or be nominated for it, or to consent to accept or to wear it, could reasonably and naturally be a cause for discomfort.

How would a Jew feel if asked to wear the “Hakenkurz” as the highest medal of honour? The point here is not to equate the colonial Indian indentured experience with the Jewish holocaust experience; but equally it is vital not to minimise the Indian indentured experience in a christocentric colonial and post-colonial Trinidad and Tobago.

It may be that better comparative indicators, would be the consideration of a Christian nominating or being nominated for, or consenting to accept or to wear as the highest National Award of Trinidad and Tobago, the ‘Allah Crescent’ or the ‘Brahman AUM,’ the central motifs of which would be respectively and the ‘crescent moon’ of Islam and the ‘AUM’ of Hinduism, and to be told that they are based on natural phenomena and a universal cosmic sound and that ‘Allah’ and ‘Brahman’ mean ‘God’ which is a concept known and worshipped in Christianity.

The best example of the Hindu Indian response to the Trinity Cross, is that of His Holiness the Dharmacharya Pundit Krishna Maharaj who, in a highly publicised affair in August - September 1995, in writing to His Excellency the President of Trinidad and Tobago, declined receipt of the Trinity Cross accepting “the tribute” but not “the award itself.” The headlines in some of the daily newspapers at the time included: “Pundit blanks Trinity Cross” (Guardian Newspaper); “Hindu Leader Rejects Trinity Cross - Top award ‘a symbol of Christianity’” (Newsday Newspaper, September 1); and “Hindu high priest: No cross around my neck” (Newsday Newspaper, August 31).

And, Professor Selwyn Ryan, respected sociologist at the University of the West Indies, writing at that time on “the controversy over naming the nation’s highest award, the Trinity Cross” (Express Newspaper, September 10th 1995) stated: The inclusion of the term “Cross” in the label given to the country’s highest honour is also said to contribute to the sense of “alienation” and lack of patriotism felt by many.

“How can such a large part of our population feel a sense of belonging and patriotism when the highest award to which they can aspire evades their very presence by acknowledging the Christian cross and failing to recognise the Muslim crescent or the Hindu Om?” (Quoting the Secretary of the Caribbean Hindu Centre).

Older generations of Indians were, with a few exceptions, prepared to defer and genuflect to the dominant Eurocentric and Christian value system of the society, preferring to concentrate instead on economic, cultural and educational self-help and improvement. They saw themselves as being marginals in the society who had to petition the Establishment for opportunity and political protection. Now that a certain platform of achievement has been reached in several critical areas of the society, group confidence is high.

My own view on this particular issue is that as galling as it might be to fundamentalist Christians, the use of the term cross, a religious symbol with significance for only one section of the population, should be discontinued, and a more culturally neutral term found to denote the country’s highest national honour. It should be done quickly and with grace.

Those who chose the label did so without giving much thought to the implications of their decision, simply because it was epistemologically difficult for them to do so.

The world today, however, is quite a different place from what obtained in the forties, fifties and sixties. Then, societies were unthinkingly rushing along the path of westernisation without asking questions about the validity and universality of western cultural assumptions.

Multi-culturalism is now, however, a widely cherished goal in many societies.

These excerpts from Professor Ryan are not cited here as evidence, but as opinion, which this court acknowledges reflects generally the views of many non-Christian Indians in Trinidad and Tobago and which also reflects accurately a mainstream post-modern interpretation of this society’s sociological evolution viewed through the eyes of locals.

With respect to Islam, the opinion of this court is generally no different from that stated with respect to Hinduism in the context of the local conditions in Trinidad and Tobago.

However, in Islam, there are clear and unequivocal beliefs that make any association with the Christian beliefs in a trinitarian God and/or the crucifixion of Jesus on the cross an anathema.

In Christianity, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity formally entered the religion with the formulation of the Nicene Creed at the First (Ecumenical) Council of Nicaea, convened by the Roman Emperor Constantine in 325AD. The Council was convened specifically to settle a dispute raised between the Bishop of Alexandria and one of his priests — Arius. This dispute concerned the nature of the Trinity. Arius (Arianism) contended for subordinationism — that is, that “the Father,” is indivisible, transcendent and the singularly divine being.

Therefore, Arius contended, Trinity Cross Judgment Discontinue use of ‘cross’ “the Son” was not of the Father’s essence and there was no equal ontological relationship between the two.

The son was “begotten” in the sense that he was “made,” and so is a ‘ktisma’ or “poie ma,” a creature.

For Arianism, the concept of the Son is summarised in the infamous phrase:- “there was when he was not.” The Nicene Creed, in rejecting this aspect of Arianism as heresy, confesses that the Son is begotten, but affirms the ontological unity of the Son, stating that he is “true God from true God” begotten “from the Father” and “not made.” To put the matter beyond any doubt, the Creed asserts of the Son that he is “from the being (ousia) of the Father” and “of one substance (homoousia) with the Father.” The Council met again, some fifty-six years later (in 381AD), confirmed the Nicene Creed and amended it to add with respect to the Holy Spirit, the assertion that the Holy Spirit had the same (ontological) nature (divinity) as the Son. Thus, this Niceno — Constantinopolitan creed (as it is known) established the orthodox teaching on the Holy Trinity as it is understood within mainstream Christianity today.

The final clarification to the understanding of the nature of Jesus was effected at the Third (Ecumenical) Council — The Council of Ephesus, in 431 AD.

Here the emphasis was to denounce the Nestarianism contention of the time (that Mary gave birth to a man, Jesus, and not to God; and that the Word (‘Logos’) only dwelled in him.

Jesus was therefore “Theophoros” — “Bearer of God”) as heretical.

The Council decreed that Jesus was one person, complete God and complete man; and that Mary was “Theotokos” — “Mother of God,” because she gave birth not to a man but to God as a man.

Thus, emerged the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, as believed and understood in orthodox Christianity, the ‘homoousia’ of Father, Son and Spirit — One triune God: Father, Son and Spirit; three distinct persons, but of one and the same essence (nature). Thus, in the classic formulation of the Nicene Creed, Jesus Christ is: “God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father.” This doctrine of the Holy Trinity is the one common doctrine that all mainstream Christian denominations subscribe to (even if with varying nuances). Put in local parlance: “The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is as Christian as you can get.’ It is into this historical and doctrinal context that Islam emerged as a world religion and joined issue with orthodox Christianity about the nature of God and of Jesus (often in circumstances of ongoing wars and disputes with Christians).

In Islam, the concept of God is unequivocally and uncompromisingly monolicistic. This is most concisely reflected in the Shahada, the Islamic declaration of faith, which states “La illaha illa llah” — “there is no God but God (Allah).” Islam stresses that Allah is self-subsisting and sufficient without the need for forebears, offspring or equals. In Islam the doctrine of “shirk” or “association” is considered an unforgivable sin. This doctrine concerns the association of other beings with God.

For example, in the Qu’ran (the Islamic scriptures — believed to have been directly revealed to the Prophet Muhammad by Allah through the Angel Gabriel) it is stated: “They surely disbelieve who say: ‘Allah is the third of three (a Trinity);” when there is no God except the one God. And if they desist not from so saying, verily, a painful torment will fall on those of them who disbelieve.” Al Maa’idah (the Table Spread) 5:73.

“They indeed have disbelieved who say: ‘Allah is the Messiah, son of Maryann (Mary)’” Al Maa’idah (the Table Spread) 5:17 “And the Jews say: “Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah,’ and the Christians say: ‘The Messiah is the son of Allah.’ That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How they are deluded away from the truth! They (Jews and Christians) have taken as Lords besides Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Maryann (Mary), when they (Jews and Christians) were commanded [in the Tawraat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)] to worship One God. There is no God save Him. Be he glorified from all partners that they associate (with Him.)” Al Tawbah (Repentance) 9:30-31.

Orthodox Muslims therefore believe that the concept of the Holy Trinity is the essence of “shirk” or disbelief in “tawheed” (the oneness of God).

Such a belief is thus considered the gravest and most unforgivable sin in Islam.

In fact in the Qu’ran it is specifically stated: “O people of the Scripture (Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, nor say concerning Allah anything but the truth. The Messiah ‘Eosa’ (Jesus) son of Maryann (Mary), was no more than a Messenger of Allah, and His Word which He bestowed on Maryann (mary), and a spirit (Rooh) created by Him. So believe in Allah and His Messengers, and say not: “Three (trinity)! Cease! (It is) better for you! — Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from His transcendent majesty that he should have a son.” Al Nisa’ (Women) 4:71.

“And they say: ‘The Beneficient has taken onto Himself a son.’ Assuredly you state a disastrious (false) thing.” Maryann (Mary) 9:88-89.

Here the Qu’ran refers to both the Christian doctrines of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation of Jesus and condemns both as erroneous. By these former verses of the Qu’ran Muslims are therefore prohibited from associating with the Holy Trinity. As if to emphasise the point, the Qu’ran in verse 175 states: “O Mankind! Now has a proof from your Lord come into you, and we have sent down to you a clear light (that is the revelation in the Qu’ran).” As to the cross, which in Christianity is associated with the crucifixion of Jesus, Islam does not accept or believe in the crucifixion of Jesus. The Qur’an states: “That (the Jews) said: ‘We killed the Messiah — Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.’ But they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them; and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow; for of a surety they killed him not, this is certain. But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was very Mighty, Wise,” Al Nisa (Women) 4:157-158.

Indeed, in the Hadith or Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammed (as attested to and recorded by Sahib Bulchari), it is recorded that: “Allah’s Apostle (Muhammad) said, ‘By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, son of Mary (Jesus) will shortly descend amongst you people as a just ruler and will break the Cross . . .” The ‘breaking of the cross’ in the text is interpreted as a repudiation of the Christian beliefs associated with the crucifixion of Jesus on the cross.

In my opinion, it is both reasonable and rational for Muslims of Trinidad and Tobago to legitimately not want to be associated with the Christians beliefs and symbols/ motifs of the Holy Trinity and/or the Crucifixion/Cross. In so far as the Trinity Cross includes and represents those beliefs and symbols, it is reasonable, rational and legitimate for Muslims in Trinidad and Tobago to not nominate persons or be nominated for the Trinity Cross or to consent to accept or wear the Trinity Cross.

The angst over this issue by a Muslim is captured notoriously by the experience of the Honourable Dr Wahid Ali, former President of the Senate and Acting President of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago (who received the Trinity Cross in 1977).

Writing in July 1992, Dr Ali explained (as stated in his book: “Building Bridges in Society: selected speeches of Dr Wahid Ali; at pages 27-31, in a chapter entitled: “The place.” Our country adopted a Republican Constitution in 1976 (Act No 4 of 1976) and among the Rights enshrined in Part 1 of that most fundamental document is the “right to freedom of conscience and religious belief and observance.” Not long after the attainment of independence the Government of the day announced that it had accepted the recommendations of a committee which had been studying the matter of appropriate national awards. Thus the adoption of the “Order of the Trinity” and of the “Trinity Cross” as the nation’s highest national award.

Muslims believe in the Oneness of God; the concept of the “Trinity” is un-Islamic.

Muslims do not believe that the Holy Prophet Jesus died on the cross and so the designation “Trinity Cross” as our nation’s highest national award is objectionable to Muslims.

Not long after our nations’ independence I returned home from medical studies; the next year I was elected Vice-President of the ASJA Inc, the most representative Muslim organisation in the country.

At the following General Meeting of that organisation held at the Jama Masjid Hall, Queen Street, Port-of-Spain, under the Presidency of the late Haji S M S Rahaman, I proposed that the Muslim community should protest against the designation ‘Trinity Cross’ as our nation’s highest national award. That proposal was unanimously adopted by the meeting and publicised in the media.

In 1972, I was serving as Professor of the infant Inter-Religious Organisation of Trinidad and Tobago, and also as President of our country’s Senate. I wrote as a private citizen to certain prominent religious leaders in an effort to ascertain their reaction on this issue. It was my intention that if the religious leaders consulted found the designation inappropriate, I would raise the matter in the IRO with a view to recommending a change.

In August 1977 His Excellency President Ellis Clarke TC, through his secretary Mrs Tam, as befits protocol in these matters, informed me that I had been selected for the award of the ‘Trinity Cross’ for public service to be announced at that year’s Independence Anniversary celebration. Without disclosing my reasons, I indicated my intention to decline.

At a later meeting, she informed me that President Clarke wished to advise me against declining, as my nomination had been made by the Prime Minister, Dr Eric Williams. I have always had a high regard for these two distinguished citizens of our country, and so was in a state of perplexity.

My next step was to discuss the matter with the Prime Minister who gave the verbal assurance that the entire matter of national awards was to be reviewed. I then consulted my local Ustad (teacher) Haji Muhammad Yusuff Francis whose counsel I have always treasured. He advised me to accept, emphasising that God knows what is in our hearts; and in his opinion, I was doing a useful job in the public life. I had indicated to him that the appropriate thing to do if I declined the award was to resign my public office. After deep prayer and reflection I indicated to Mrs Tam that I would accept the award. I had made my bed and had to lie on it.

As a private citizen I am willing to join in a positive, civilised approach to this problem. If, however, the promise made by Dr Eric Williams remains unknown (perhaps unrecorded before), and unheeded, the question of my retaining the “The Trinity Cross” indefinitely will certainly merit serious consideration. Only Almighty God knows the duration of our earthly lifespan.

(The emphasised portions of Dr Ali’s statement reveal his opinions and angst — which appear to be ongoing).

Thus, while it is clear that there may be Muslims and/or Hindus who may have absolutely no problem with the Trinity Cross or may have been nominated for it and accepted it, that does not negate the reasonable, rational and legitimate objection by Muslims and Hindus to the award.

Indeed, this is the complaint of the Applicants in this case.

In an affidavit sworn by the Second Named Applicant on his own behalf as a Hindu and as the Secretary General of the First Named Applicant (and on its behalf), he stated their experiences, perceptions and opinions as follows (at paragraphs 6, 11, 12 and 17): The SDMS has always objected to the retention and use of the Trinity Cross as the nation’s highest award. The objection is grounded in the fact that the cross is widely known and perceived as a Christian symbol.

The cross symbolises the Christian belief that the son of Mary was crucified on a wooden cross. The concept of the “Trinity” is also strongly connected to the Christian faith, as it symbolises the three aspects of Godhead — God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.