Anand Beharrylal
03-12-2008, 02:05 PM
The recent apparent banning of the wearing of the Raksha by Hindus at the Cunupia High School (Express 11/03/08) is a cause for grave concern for those who value religious freedom. The fact that MTS security guards were carrying out this prohibition would suggest that the orders have come from higher up the chain of authority, which having regard to the Constitution seems on its face to be a grave violation.
Section 4(h) of the Constitution guarantees to all citizens as follows: “It is hereby recognised and declared that in Trinidad and Tobago there have existed and shall continue to exist, without discrimination by reason of race, origin, colour, religion or sex, the following fundamental human rights and freedoms, namely- freedom of conscience and religious belief and observance”.
Bearing in mind that the Constitution is the supreme law of Trinidad and Tobago it is not a minor matter that any person who is in the process of practising their religion is prevented from doing so, even if this be simply wearing the Raksha. The religious significance of the Raksha is not the issue, but rather it is the interference with the observance of this aspect of the Hindu religion that gives rise to the concern. When one permits a violation like this to occur it does not demonstrate that every creed and race has an equal place. On the contrary, this is evidence that religious discrimination is alive and well in Trinidad and Tobago.
The reported attitude of the principal that “he will not allow any student on the compound wearing the sacred raksha unless he is given directive from the Ministry of Education”, demonstrates such a high level of ignorance of his obligations that one cannot help wondering how he got the job in the first place. For his edification Section 4(d) of the Constitution states “It is hereby recognised and declared that in Trinidad and Tobago there have existed and shall continue to exist, without discrimination by reason of race, origin, colour, religion or sex, the following fundamental human rights and freedoms, namely– the right of the individual to equality of treatment from any
public authority in the exercise of any functions.”
Bearing this in mind and having regard to the status of the school as a public body carrying out public functions under the authority of the Ministry of Education, which is a public authority, the principal would be well advised to exercise his own commonsense and judgment. If he does so he might very quickly come to the conclusion that he needs no directive from the Ministry or anyone else. Independence of mind is an important characteristic of a teacher and it does not bode well for the teacher who holds the highest position in Cunupia High School i.e. the principal, that he seems singularly incapable of dealing with this issue for himself.
In any event, there is no doubt that the principal has no authority to ask MTS security guards to force students to remove their raksha in violation of their fundamental human rights and freedoms. The wearing of the Raksha does not pose any security risk hat ought to concern MTS. No-one, save in the most exceptional circumstances, has the right to put their hands on anyone else. Anyone who does so, whether or not acting on behalf of another, could find themselves facing civil and potentially criminal proceedings.
Anand Beharrylal
London, UK
Section 4(h) of the Constitution guarantees to all citizens as follows: “It is hereby recognised and declared that in Trinidad and Tobago there have existed and shall continue to exist, without discrimination by reason of race, origin, colour, religion or sex, the following fundamental human rights and freedoms, namely- freedom of conscience and religious belief and observance”.
Bearing in mind that the Constitution is the supreme law of Trinidad and Tobago it is not a minor matter that any person who is in the process of practising their religion is prevented from doing so, even if this be simply wearing the Raksha. The religious significance of the Raksha is not the issue, but rather it is the interference with the observance of this aspect of the Hindu religion that gives rise to the concern. When one permits a violation like this to occur it does not demonstrate that every creed and race has an equal place. On the contrary, this is evidence that religious discrimination is alive and well in Trinidad and Tobago.
The reported attitude of the principal that “he will not allow any student on the compound wearing the sacred raksha unless he is given directive from the Ministry of Education”, demonstrates such a high level of ignorance of his obligations that one cannot help wondering how he got the job in the first place. For his edification Section 4(d) of the Constitution states “It is hereby recognised and declared that in Trinidad and Tobago there have existed and shall continue to exist, without discrimination by reason of race, origin, colour, religion or sex, the following fundamental human rights and freedoms, namely– the right of the individual to equality of treatment from any
public authority in the exercise of any functions.”
Bearing this in mind and having regard to the status of the school as a public body carrying out public functions under the authority of the Ministry of Education, which is a public authority, the principal would be well advised to exercise his own commonsense and judgment. If he does so he might very quickly come to the conclusion that he needs no directive from the Ministry or anyone else. Independence of mind is an important characteristic of a teacher and it does not bode well for the teacher who holds the highest position in Cunupia High School i.e. the principal, that he seems singularly incapable of dealing with this issue for himself.
In any event, there is no doubt that the principal has no authority to ask MTS security guards to force students to remove their raksha in violation of their fundamental human rights and freedoms. The wearing of the Raksha does not pose any security risk hat ought to concern MTS. No-one, save in the most exceptional circumstances, has the right to put their hands on anyone else. Anyone who does so, whether or not acting on behalf of another, could find themselves facing civil and potentially criminal proceedings.
Anand Beharrylal
London, UK