Justice Jamadar’s judgment

Today, Tuesday November 23, 2004 at 9 am, Justice Peter Jamadar will preside over a constitutional motion in the San Fernando High Court that is historic. The legitimate Hindu voice and Hindu leadership, the Sanatan Dharma Maha Sabha (SDMS) has joined a leading progressive Islamic organisation, the Islamic Relief Centre, in a constitutional motion to have the State finally address the bias of the Trinity Cross. The Maha Sabha is prepared in this action to prosecute the matter to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council if required. The unity between Hindus and Muslims in this matter is in itself unprecedented. Additionally, the Catholic Commission for Social Justice (CCST), a leading Catholic organisation in the spirit of true of ecumenism has also voiced its support to change the Trinity Cross. The nation’s largest religious communities are all in agreement with the call to change the name of the Trinity Cross.

The CCSJ in its release supporting the name change states “progress and development of TT require us to create a culture in which ‘every creed and race find an equal place.” CCSJ calls upon all citizens to play their part in creating such a culture by speaking out in favour of a change of name of the present title of our highest national award — the Trinity Cross. The Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue stated in 1991 that, inter alia, inter-religious “dialogue” involves “all positive and constructive inter-religious relations with individuals and communities of other faiths, which are directed at mutual understanding and enrichment.” For decades, appeals to change the Trinity Cross have been made to various political administrations. The failure of these various administrations to act has resulted in this legal action. It is now with bated breath that the Hindu and Muslim communities wait for Justice Jamadar’s judgment on this matter.

The Maha Sabha and the Islamic Relief Centre in their legal action are seeking several reliefs, including, but not limited too, the following: (a) A declaration that the Trinity Cross of the Order of the Trinity established by letters patent deemed to be issued under section 6 of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago Act has discriminated and continues to discriminate or is discriminatory against the applicants contrary to sections 4(b) and or (d) of the Constitution;
(b) A further declaration that the constructive denial of the award of the Trinity Cross as the nation’s highest honour to persons adhering to non-Christian religions and/or beliefs including the applicants contravenes section 4(h) of the Constitution;
(c) Alternatively, a declaration that the State has in contravention of section 4(h) of the Constitution maintained as the nation’s highest honour an award which the applicants and their members are debarred from accepting by reason of their stated religion or beliefs;
(d) A further declaration that the award of the Trinity Cross as the nation’s highest honour contravenes the freedoms of persons who are not Christians or who do not accept the Cross which is a Christian symbol and thereby contravenes sections 4(b), (d) and (h) of the Constitution;
(e) A further declaration that the State is not entitled to maintain the award of the Trinity Cross as the nation’s highest honour in a community of people with diverse religions and beliefs and with consciences which do not allow them to embrace the Cross as a symbol in contravention of sections 4(b), (d) and (h) of the Constitution;

The SDMS affidavit further states: An implication and or corollary of these rights in the preceding ground is that the State cannot act in a manner (be it direct or indirect) that might be construed as supporting any particular religion and/or religious belief or is denying equal standing and protection to all religious and beliefs. The State cannot directly or indirectly lawfully endorse and/or favour and/or promote and/or support any particular religion or religious beliefs unless similar and/or equal endorsement favour, promotion or support is being given to other religions or beliefs. The Trinity Cross is and/or is perceived by many non Christians and in particular Hindus and Muslims as a Christian symbol. This has marginalised, alienated and debarred the second and fourth named applicants and their organisations and other non-Christian groups in society which comprise at least one half of the national community from participating in the national award of the Trinity Cross and from wearing the insignia.”

“The State by retaining the Trinity Cross as the name and symbol of the Nation’s highest award in the knowledge that non-Christians are unable or unwilling to accept the Trinity Cross because it is perceived to be and/or is in fact a Christian symbol has been discriminating and continues to discriminate against the applicants organisation and its members contrary to the State by maintaining the Trinity Cross as the nation’s highest award has in the circumstances violated the applicants constitutional rights to freedom of conscience and religious belief. The applicants are being forced to ignore, deny or cast aside their religious teachings and beliefs if they wish to be nominated for and or accept their nation’s highest award in consequence of which many deserving non-Christian citizens who have rendered distinguished and outstanding service to the nation will never be honoured by the State and country they so faithfully served.”

This constitutional motion will seek to break new ground with respect to the law of discrimination. The Maha Sabha’s attorneys-at-law, Dr Fenton Ramsahoye, Anand Ramlogan, along with international attorneys seek to introduce a concept of indirect discrimination by the State because although non-Christians are not prohibited or excluded from receiving the Trinity Cross, the sad reality is that there are many who will not and cannot consent to nomination or accept this award because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. Why should Muslims and Hindus be forced to ignore, deny or suppress their religious beliefs so that they can accept their nation’s highest award? Why should they be expected to trade their religious belief in exchange for such an award?