Martineau: Names don’t determine race

THE Maha Sabha and the Islamic Relief Centre (IRC) were yesterday accused of having only a perception of racial and religious bias by the use of the Trinity Cross as the nation’s highest award. In the San Fernando High Court, Senior Counsel Russel Martineau told Justice Peter Jamadar that the Maha Sabha’s secretary general Sat Maharaj was, therefore, not qualified to make a distinction based on perception, of who was or was not of Indian descent in Trinidad and Tobago. Martineau called on Jamadar to strike out those parts of Maharaj’s and the IRC’s Inshan Ishamael’s affidavits, which contained unsubstantiated racial and religious bias.

Their lawsuit, Martineau argued, alleged that the Trinity Cross had been awarded to more persons of non-East Indian descent. However, Martineau submitted that the allegation was not backed by evidence. Martineau’s application forced the judge to ask him why people’s perception of bias could not be a ground for the lawsuit. Jamadar asked Martineau if Maharaj’s perception was not grounded, as it was public knowledge who receives the Trinity Cross as the nation’s highest award. Martineau quoted Maharaj’s affidavit, in which the Maha Sabha secretary general stated that of the 66 Trinity Crosses awarded since 1969, only eight were conferred on persons of East Indian descent.

Martineau said that recepient’s race could not be determined by their names or how they looked. Martineau submitted that Maharaj was not competent to say what race the other 58 recipients were. Citing himself as an example, Martineau said he may look African, but his name (Martineau) was French, and he also had Spanish and Chinese blood in him. “What race am I?” Martineau asked. In the lawsuit the Maha Sabha and the IRC are contending that the use of the Trinity Cross discriminates against Hindus and Muslims, Martineau submitted that Maharaj was not competent to speak on behalf of all the Hindus in Trinidad and Tobago.

He warned against the lawsuit being used as a popularity case, in which the court could be called on to make political decisions. Martineau dismissed Maharaj and Ishmael’s affidavits as hearsay evidence. However, Jamadar asked Marti-neau why Maharaj could not, as Maha Sabha secretary general, speak for the organisation’s members. The judge also asked how the public viewing on television of persons receiving the Trinity Cross could be deemed hearsay or evidence of only Maharaj’s perception. Martineau replied that the law makes a clear statement on discrimination — whether people, similarly circumstanced, are treated unequally. Queen’s Counsel Dr Fenton Ramsahoye, attorneys Anand Ramlogan and English barrister John Horan are representing the Maha Sabha and the IRC. Jamadar will rule if he would strike out parts of the affidavits on Monday.