You are hereAnand's Collection / A Space for All
A Space for All
The South African Constitution is one of the most progressive in the world. Nelson Mandela took great care to ensure the concept of equality was wide and comprehensive. Discrimination on the basis of one’s sexual orientation is for example illegal. Elton John could therefore sing and dance as pleases.
In March, the South African constitutional court ruled that it was discriminatory for a school to ban an Indian girl from wearing a stud in her nose on the basis that this was an integral part of her cultural and religious identity. To allow the school to force her to remove her stud on the pretext that it offended school rules would affect the dignity of the human being. Indians are a visible racial minority in South Africa and the court gave maximum protection under the equality provision.
The right to be comfortable about one’s identity and enjoy living in a free society that affords maximum liberties curtailed only by the John Stewart Mills principle that restrictions be imposed to avoid harm to society or another individual is the cornerstone of civilization. The destruction of a people’s identity is by far one of the worst social crimes possible.
Thus, locally, Israel Khan’s legal battle to be allowed the right to wear Nehru suit in the Magistrate’s Court and his symbolic shredding of his tie is an important social statement about his own quest for equal space for his cultural identity. The successful fight by Sumayaah Hosein against a denominational school for the right to wear her hijab and the more recent controversy over the right of African students to wear their dread locks in school, are local manifestations of our own problems with diversity.
In last weeks column I confronted a demon that has stalked the Indo-Trinidadian community since I was a child. It has always been a topic of heated discussion that many fear publicizing because of the risk of being misunderstood or worst yet branded a racist. The issue is the exclusion of Indian men in advertisements in the print and electronic media and in particular in the portrayal of man-woman relationships. Women are invariably portrayed as partners to non-Indian men who are portrayed as modern, sexy and desired. Indian men are seldom used and when they are, their role is subsidiary and peripheral.
The avalanche of e-mails, calls and congratulatory messages confirmed the burning nature of this long-standing grouse. It generated an intense discussion on the website created by a handful of overseas Trinis who religiously follow this column (http//:www.anandramlogan.com) and showed that people wanted equal respect.
The subtle forms of discrimination are the more difficult ones to spot and accept as prejudice is often unconscious. To this day, many in our society fail to understand how the Trinity Cross as our highest award could have been discriminatory. There is always some justification or explanation and people get very defensive over discrimination. An advertising executive called me to say he never noticed the exclusion of Indian men in ads that portray relationships but admitted to having conducted his own informal survey in last week only to realise that there was much merit in this perception. He defended it as a mere coincidence but accepted that if the tables were reversed he would have felt slighted.
One African leader highlighted the ‘colour coded form of discrimination’. There was a clear preference for the fairer complexion among us regardless of race. This is what accounted for the disproportionate representation of white and light-skinned (mixed people). “When was d last time yuh see a kinky-hair black African woman with her luscious thick lips and generous sexy proportions in an ad?” she asked.
Nelson Mandela is perhaps the greatest advocate for gay rights but this fact is conveniently hidden because it is difficult to see discrimination against gays through the same telescope as apartheid. Many cannot bear to associate their hero with homosexuals. The quest for comfortable expression of one’s identity is part of the legitimate struggle for genuine equality. It is for this reason perhaps Panday disagreed with the word ‘tolerance’ as one of our national watchwords. ‘People no longer want to be ‘tolerated’ but respected and appreciated’, he said. Those who enjoy the status quo must do some soul searching and pose the question “what if it were me?”
By Anand Ramlogan
Site Administrator's note:
This site commends Dominic Kalipersad, Editor-in-Chief of the Trinidad Guardian, for his courage and leadership in promoting Freedom of Expression through his newspapers.
It is recommended that comments submitted to this site also be sent by email, fax, or post to the editor of the Trinidad Guardian Editor-in-chief, 22-24 St Vincent Street, Port-of-Spain. Fax: 625-7211. E-mail: letters@ttol.co.tt. This will give opportunity for the Guardian to publish select responses for those without internet access.
- Printer-friendly version
- Login or register to post comments
- 808 reads
It is hard to notice discrimination when you aren't the victim, or worse, when you (directly or indirectly) benefit from it. Cudjoe flouted the law, but Inshan, Ramsamooj, and MPs were manhandled and arrested. Where is the outcry from the Indian community, the protests, the "non-violent civil disobedience" that Gandhi, King Jr, & Mandela taught us?
More importantly, where are the non-Indian faces and voices? Why hasn't Gilbert, Kambon, Leroy Clarke, Cuffie, Baptiste-Primus, Townsend, Sabga, Lok Jack, Ken Gordon, Ellis Clarke, and Max Richards stepped up to the plate and commented on the feelings of the Indo-trini community? Is it that impossible to believe that we are discriminated against? Or have they failed to take Bob Marley's advice in the first line of the "Redemption Song"?
Ironic, isn't it, that it would take a Trinidadian called Stokley Carmichael (Kwame Ture) to go to the USA and become a founding member of the Black Panthers and coin the term "institutional racism." He fought valiantly against civil rights abuses in the US against the status quo. I admire him more than most of you will ever understand, but I will ask the valid question -- if he would have done the same in Trinidad for the Indo-trini community had he never left. Human nature is such that we notice when we are being victimised but we turn blind eyes when it doesn't happen to, or hurt us.
I was very pleased by the various responses on this site to the last article and the depth of many of the comments, showing that people seem less afraid to stand up to the status quo and speak aloud. Maybe non-violent change will come.
And i will be there on the Sunday night to see SIR ELTON perform!!! After giving over TT$250 million dollars of his money to charities benefiting AIDS, children, medicine, and music, I would gladly defend him and his personal beliefs -- for I think he is a better man than all other Trinidadians combined. The majority of the world hates him (did you read Pastor Cuffie's advertisement this week in the newspaper?) yet he gives back in ways that shows the size of his heart. It is a sin for worthless bums to condemn a man who tries to make the world better. Maybe they are hoping that the controversy will get the bigots out and into their congregation, and hence, fill their collection plates and pockets.
Where are the same preachers when we hear rumours about Trinidadian entertainers and playwrights and their sexuality? Should we ban Peter Minshall from Trinidad; I heard he is the only "openly gay" Trinidadian celebrity, yet we are all very proud of him! Double standards? Why?
Shameful! We are now exporting our hate. Maybe if we treated each other better, we wouldn't have to worry how we treat foreigners. Do enough of us even care?
How does the calypso go again? DIS PLACE NICE ...
I wonder how Peter and the Trinidad public would have felt if the Barcelona Olympic committee did not want gays to do the design for the Barca Olympics. By the way G are you suggesting that the east indians in this country do not speak out for their brothers who are victimised because they are a bunch of pseudo racists (hope I don't get sued, I have no money to pay)
I didnt mean that they were pseudo racists, but we are trained to think in a particular way. Think of it like a modified "Stockholm Syndrome" where we try to compensate for our apparent political inadequacies by agreeing with the establishment when indians are targeted.
Indians (like the Sieukarans, Sinannans, and Kangallos) who support the status quo get benefits from doing so. (Positive feedback mechanisms)
Indians who stand up and speak out are arrested, stripped naked, and made to squat in police stations, or are manhandled, arrested in front of peaceful marches against crime, and charged with frivolous things. (Negative feedback mechanisms)
We [indotrinis] are easily divided by both religion (Williams used the muslims; Pastor Patos uses the christians), and race (check the hansard on what Rahael said last year in Parliament about indians having most of the money in the country).
No other ethnic group (Chinese, Black, Syrian/Lebanese) is as easily divided as us. We are the ethnic booboolees that will continue to take licks until we stop picking on each other and defend the whole group regardless of race or religion. Remember when Jennifer Baptiste-Primus made allegations against the syrian/lebanese community and she was under intense political pressure to apologise?!
People like Anand, Inshan, Sharma, and yes, even Panday need to be treated the same way -- no, much better -- that Eric Williams and Franklyn Khan, and especially our good friend Cudjoe, gets treated. And i mean from both the non-indian as well as the indian communities.
Do you agree WS? What do you think?
I agree with you 100% G. The real reason we can be ill-treated is indeed because we are divided and we do suffer from this syndrome. Also we suffer from the "crab" syndrome. One thing puzzles me though why did you say "even Panday" instead of "especially Panday."
This comment has been moved here.
I feel we ought to tread carefully with all this. In life we all discriminate on perfectly lawful and moral grounds.
Why do some buy Toyota's and other Bentley's? Why do some buy 'No name' brand and others Marks & Spencer? It depends on so much. That I might choose to buy and drive a Bentley may be perfectly reasonable and allowable if referenced against certain criteria that are broadly acceptable to the society in which I live.
Would I discriminate in favour of buying Bentley's? Sure I would. But so what? If I have the means and I choose an 'object' that suits my needs and wants - so what? Would you label me for that?
In the airline industry I don't think they accept any 150kg women to work as airline hostesses. I think that there are reasons for this that are widely accepted. I've never heard of 100kg jockeys in the Grand National. I won't even ask why. I don't see obese women on catwalks. I don't ask why. I don't get all hot under the collar that they are discriminating to exclude against fat women being on catwalks. I don't know any properly qualified lawyers or doctors who failed all there GCSE's or equivalent high school grades. I don't say that we are discriminating against those people of low intelligence or educational opportunity, who perform so poorly who never make it to professional status.
Discrimination sits on 'choice'. In a free society we are given freedoms to choose. We are given freedoms to choose on rational or irrational grounds. The acceptability of our choices (how we discriminate) depends on what is permissible within the social fabric of the relevant society. Not all apparent differences and unusual choices means that there are sinister processes at work.
The issue that needs to be teased out is whether our discriminations are unlawful or offends fundamental moral principles operating in our society. This must be important else we run the risk of being seen to be part of some kind of 'lynch mob'.
Oh I agree with you; you make great points, however, I also disagree with you on one thing.
We make many choices and we need to discriminate in ways that would make our individual lives better. We chose certain foods, certain lawyers & doctors, we even tell our children to choose their friends "wisely" but while we make individual choices we must be careful what governments, employers, and other insitutions can discriminate on.
<<The acceptability of our choices (how we discriminate) depends on what is permissible within the social fabric of the relevant society.>>
This is the part of your comment i disagree with. I think we need to go beyond "the social fabric of the relavent society" and look to other societies as well. We need to compare ourselves with the best of the best and see where we can improve. Guess what? The society we live in might be flawed in thinking in the very first place.
If the majority of Trinbagonians are okay with discriminating against HIV positive people then does it make it ok? Certainly not. We say we are against the bigotry of apartheid yet we are happily one of the most homophobic regions in the world to the point that our goodly "pastor" Manning refuses to ammend the Draft Gender Policy fearing (?) public gay sex if he does. The UNC also avoided protecting a vulnerable group when they excluded homosexuals from the Equal Opportunity Bill. Why? If we get to pick on them, when will someone start picking on me for something that i do or say that doesnt follow the status quo?
Do we have the right to fire employees if they are HIV positive? Do we have the right to fire employees if they are gay? What next? Where do we draw the line?
<<The issue that needs to be teased out is whether our discriminations are unlawful or offends fundamental moral principles operating in our society.>>
This is the key to the whole issue and you hit it right on the head. But there are more complexities. Do sufficient laws exist to protect the vulnerable? If not, then how do we draft those laws? Whose morals do you use to draft them? Do "morals" vary between ethnicites and religions? Whose morals do we use?
You are hardly likely to meet someone with more liberal views than me. I belive that people should be free to do and say as they please once it doesnt trample on the rights of others. However, the most vulnerable in society must always be protected and we must always assume that the majority might take advantage of the minorities. So based on trying to protect the minorities, who needs protection in Trinidad?
The poor, the sick, the old, the uneducated, and the ones without political power. These are the individuals who need legislation to protect them, and these are the cases where discrimination shouldnt be allowed.
I'm not a member of the T&T Humanist Association, but they have many thought provoking articles. Here is a brilliant one i suggest everyone reads (read the last sentence twice): http://www.humanist.org.tt/forum/comment/2007/elton_john.html
G, You put me to think again.
<<This is the part of your comment i disagree with. I think we need to go beyond "the social fabric of the relavant society" and look to other societies as well. We need to compare ourselves with the best of the best and see where we can improve. Guess what? The society we live in might be flawed in thinking in the very first place.>>
I agree with that to a certain extent because no society can or should claim perfection. Individuals and societies gain a sense of objectivity by measuring themselves against others. All that is a process that makes for growth. However, where a society finds itself at a certain point in time - the present - is the result of a particular history. All the values - moral, legal, spiritual etc - are the product of its history and development; rather similar to the personality formation of an individual person. And likened to a person, that society can look around and make comparisons with others to define itself - to pick and choose what's best etc.
Nevertheless the state of individual and social moral compasses - however imperfect - at a moment in time are the products of history and development. What is acceptable can be expected to match value-systems up to that a particular point in time.
I don't want to drift too far from the central issue i.e. that not all discrimination is wrong carried out with some kind of sinister intent.
<<But there are more complexities. Do sufficient laws exist to protect the vulnerable? If not, then how do we draft those laws? Whose morals do you use to draft them? Do "morals" vary between ethnicities and religions? Whose morals do we use?>>
Take use of tobacco products - sold and consumed by adults legally almost all over the world. No one raises a huge moral fuss about selling or consuming tobacco. However, tobacco products probably are the largest cause of preventable deaths and reduced life expectancy across the globe. Vulnerable? All human beings are vulnerable to tobacco - because it was known to medical science donkey's years ago that tobacco had the addictive power of cocaine. Yet it was only about 10 years ago that cigarettes were ruled addictive in a court of law!! So how stupid is the human race. Very!
Morals? Well morals gets beaten up lots of times in courts of law - and to tell you the truth I can't remember ever hearing about God striking down a judge who allowed legality to trump morality. We have a situation in Europe at the moment where common sense and morality tells us that there is positive discrimination for Europeans and negative discrimination against South East Asians - but hey, who cares - so long as it is legally approved - it isn't defined as discrimination in law. Sod my sense of morality; out of the window and into the mud my morals are tossed!!
But I think I know where you're coming from on morals. All I can say is that there may be some variations on moral principles from society to society.
Research that led to the Appleton Consensus Statement is today still under-appreciated. Although this work was focused on how physicians would care for patients - the extensive research by thousands uncovered 4 prima facie moral principles common to almost all peoples in the world. I suggest that non-discrimination, the flip side of which is equality, either on legal or moral grounds would be covered by the fourth principle - Justice. According to Appleton, justice means that "All persons have a prima facie moral obligation to act justly or fairly to others in the context of respecting each other's rights, in the context of obeying morally acceptable laws, and in the context of the distribution of scarce resources." Notice that they said 'All persons'. Justice is therefore about rights and fairness. And fairness is about equality referenced against rights!
So an Afro-Trinidadian must be served perceptibly the same quantity of food as our Indo-Trinidadian - and he must not be served tea from a special cup reserved for 'niggers' (as we once called them)!! Yes, my friend the opposite of this is what many of our Indo-trinidadians did 50-odd years ago. Let us come clean. Many never speak openly about it - simply because dey too shame to admit it. But today Indo-trinidadians cry race?! It sickens me to see what's happening - a kind of turning of the tables.
The Indo-trinidadian community needs to acknowledge its own historical racist attitudes and any remnants that are around today. We must stop this tit-for-tat business once and for all. We are one people, one Nation and a common set of problems to overcome. We must resolve to treat each other from here on with respect and as equals. We must bring the mud-slinging to a stop.
Oh Cap. Walker,
Oh what a tangled web you weave when at first you try to deceive?
How blind/myopic is he who chooses not to see the obvious but resort to baseless diatribe.
As ‘G’ tried to educate you, discrimination with respect to making the most appropriate choices is an important aspect of decisive intelligence, but the sickening arguments excreted from you and Jumbie defies civilized rational.
Point taken. I apologise.
I'd very much like to learn what you are trying to teach all of us out here.
That sound's like a more productive use of our time instead of us now becoming distracted with the person of me and Jumbie.
I will not be so brazen as to assume that I am in a position to teach you anything.
I am just peeved at your clandestine dismissive approach to the pains of the victims of political terrorism, victimization and scornful bigotry.
A space for ALL. Notice I capitalised ALL.
Seems to me that when decisions are made on 'rights' there are three separate yet related impacts.
1. The impact upon the complainant, i.e., the person seeking recognition of his/her 'rights'. A person should be allowed his/her rights as long as it does not oppress others or society.
2. The impact upon those around that person, i.e. that the rights of the first do not overlap or cross the rights of the second. In other words, what you see as YOUR rights should not should not deprive me of mine.
3. Those 'rights' you seek should be for the betterment of society, not only of the individual. In seeking to establish rights of individuals, there should be a balance between the benefits to the individual and those of the larger society.
It does irk me that sometimes common sense goes out the window when some 'rights' are given without the thought that it affects the other people in society. The English has so many 'rights' given to its citizens that common sense flies out the window. Imagine, a citizen from a foreign country comes here, not able to speak a word of English, then refuses to integrate into society, and after 20 years of living in the country, collecting benefits even (and sending money to his home country) stll cannot speak the language, or refuses to. It is tantamount to a guest in my home refusing to mingle or abide with the rules of MY home.
I never agree with any of the school uniform cases, simply because it flies in the face of the meaning of the word uniform. If a child begins to attend a school, then s/he would have accepted that there is a dress code upon starting, and by agreeing to attend that school, has accepted that s/he would abide by the rules of said institution. If there is some disagreement, then s/he is free to go to any other institution offering such service. But to force a change where 99.9% of the students have chosen to follow rules is just plain wrong. Not to mention that it creates more divisions than integration. Anand may be interested to know that, according to the BBC website, the House of Lords ruled that it is now the decision of the schools whether to allow uniform changes, and not the courts. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4832072.stm
By taking matters to the next level, it only serves to alienate the rest of students. I personally do not see a nose ring as part of Indian culture. It was and has always been a thing of beauty for Indian woman, and nothing in Indian culture says that one MUST wear it. And it can be removed for the 6 to 8 hours of school, and replaced after.
The case of Israel Khan is not as clear cut. There is no right for him to wear Indian garb in front of the court, and indeed it can be argued that he had already appeared before the court on countless occasions not wearing ethnic wear. So to insist on ethnic wear as a right cannot be correct, but to argue that it does not disrespect the court because it is an elegant apparel is another matter. It does not offend any moral (or legal) rules. Perhaps it just offended the sensibilties of our now good friend, Shermie. But should Mr Khan be allowed to wear ethnic wear, how long before everyone is clamouring for the same, and how long before common sense flies out the window?
I am not supporting either party. I am just saying that we should look at the bigger picture, and see whether there are benefits to all three groups I initially outlined, you, me and the society. And if we use this reasoning we will see that there is nothing to prevent Elton John from performing, as there is no trampling on anyone's rights at all. Just a little moral outrage from a few.