When the judicial decision on the Trinity Cross was made public, representatives from the media called my office for an immediate comment on the decision. I also received questions about the same issue from the Catholic Community.

I responded by promising a statement at a later date after I had the opportunity to read the decision and reflect on its implications.

I advised the media and those who called my office that I was scheduled to leave the country so there would be a delay of about a month before I made a statement.

Prenotes:
1) Since the issue of the Trinity Cross is not a matter of faith or morals, every Catholic is totally free to follow her/his own conscience in this matter. My opinion is offered respectfully as one viewpoint for consideration.
2) My statement deals primarily with the issue of implementation. There are many very well credentialed historians and legal scholars who are qualified to analyse the use of history in the decision and the legal logic contained in the precedents quoted should they wish to do so.

Text of statement

I found what I consider to be the key philosophical concept in the decision very early in the text, specifically on pages 17-19 of the text.

Referring to the creation of the Trinity Cross, Mr Justice Peter Jamadar stated that “neither its stated intention nor purpose is religious per se.” However, he noted that the perception of many Hindu and Muslim citizens was that the Trinity Cross discriminated against them because, as the applicants alleged, it was an exclusively Christian symbol.

As many will recall, in 2004, the Catholic Commission for Social Justice (CCSJ) addressed the issue of the Trinity Cross. The Commission supported the concerns of the Hindu and Muslim citizens and recommended that there should be a change.

I supported the Commission’s opinion and I still do.  In this statement I shall specify how I believe the change should take place. 

A lesson for the future

In 1997, a Cabinet appointed Committee chaired by Mr Justice Michael de la Bastide looked at the issue of the Trinity Cross. A key recommendation of the Committee was the need for public consultation.

Had the Trinity Cross issue been addressed after the 1997 Report or after the CCSJ’s recommendation in 2004, there would have been no need for judicial process. Dialogue is important. It can lead to consensus. It can avoid litigation.

The implication of perception

I want to apply the philosophical notion of perception contained in the judicial decision to the issue of how the judicial decision could be implemented.

People in the Nation who do not agree that the Trinity Cross is a religious symbol or that it was ever intended to discriminate against anyone, perceive that a part of the Nation’s history, that they still cherish, has been taken from them. They perceive discrimination in reverse.

Since the multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious construct of the Republic’s population is a strength of the Nation, I think the manner of how the court’s decision is to be implemented should be given very careful attention.

How to move forward

For me, the question related to implementation that should be discussed calmly, unhurriedly and thoroughly is this: “Is it possible to substitute wisdom for power and reach a compromise that would respect the perceptions of all the Nation’s citizens?” 

I think that it is possible to respect the perceptions of all. I have a recommendation for consideration:
1) That the Trinity Cross be retained as one option for those to be honoured by the Nation;
2) That an alternate award of equal value be developed as another option for those to be honoured by the Nation. In addition, I recommend that representatives from the Hindu and Muslim communities be asked to be part of the group that will design the alternate   award.

The possible results of an alternative award

If my recommendation is accepted, then the choice for the highest national award is placed in the hands of the people who are to be honoured. The choice would be taken out of the hands of a commission, the government and the courts. Let the people speak and decide freely! Let the people exercise the option they find acceptable!

If this suggestion or something similar is not part of the implementation process, I suspect the good faith perceptions on both sides of the issue will harden.

There will be little chance that the conferral of awards on Independence Day will be a joyful celebration of gratitude for those who are to be honoured. An opportunity for national community building will have been missed.

A question

There is an obvious question that should be addressed when considering the wisdom of an alternative award. Will two equal awards divide the Nation over something that should unite the Nation?

Quite honestly, I do not think an alternate award will divide the Nation any more than it is already divided. Rather, I think the acceptance of the concept of an alternate award will benefit the Nation by manifesting a spirit of mutual respect and flexibility that is essential in a multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious society. 

Conclusion

In my opinion, this is a delicate moment in the history of the Nation.  My prayer is that the judicial decision will be implemented in an unhurried manner after serious dialogue and with respect for the perceptions of all citizens of the Republic. 

I respectfully request that this statement be considered along with all the other proposals that have been or will be submitted to the Commission on Awards.