UK bans cross-shaped medal as offensive to Muslims and Hindus

(DAILY MAIL.co.uk) via JIHAD WATCH.org ^ | May 8, 2009 | n/a

[ResponseAbility]

Yep, even if you believe in nothing, in the UK you can be bullied to cower in fear of islam.

[Kieri]

The Privy Council, made up of 12 law lords, ruled the merit decoration was unlawful because it discriminates against non-Christians.

Those 12 so-called law lords could use a good right cross.

[combat_boots]

TN N,

It’s the Medal of Honor, not the ‘Congressional’.....

[Post Toasties]

Next they’ll probably be banishing croissants in the UK because they resemble a Muslim religious symbol.

[naturalman1975]

As a recipient of an Honour (the Order of Australia) within the traditions of the British orders of Chivalry and their commonwealth successors, I have made myself something of an amateur expert in them. This case shocked me when I heard about it - to the extent that I considered returning my own Honour - so I decided to check out what had happened. Reading this thread, I thought I might shed a little light on the issue.

First of all, this ruling has virtually nothing to do with the Queen, nor with the British Government and has absolutely no implications whatsoever for any British honour or decoration such as the Victoria Cross. None at all.

The Privy Council is, by long standing tradition and law, the Highest Court of Appeal in the Commonwealth of Nations for any Commonwealth Nation that has not explicitly decided it should no longer serve that role (Australia, for example, disallowed appeals to the Privy Council in the 1980s). When sitting as such, it does not sit as a British Court making rulings based on British law. Rather it sits as a court of appeal and bases its decisions on the laws of the Commonwealth Realm that the appeal comes from. This has meant, in recent years, for example, that the Court has approved the application of the death penalty in certain countries, even though that penalty is no longer available under British law.

In this particular case the 1976 Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago has provisions that the Courts of Trinidad and Tobago have decided outlaw the Trinity Cross - not British law, but Trinidad and Tobago law, and this ruling was initially made by the High Court of Trinidad and Tobago - and incidentally, the Judge who made that ruling is an ordained Minister of the Presbyterian Church. His ruling was based on the law as written, not on any religious basis.

The Privy Council, likewise, as to rule based on what the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago says - and that is what it has done.

There are no implications for this in British law, and if a similar case concerning a British honour somehow reached the Privy Council, they would rule differently. Because in the United Kingdom, Her Majesty the Queen is both Head of the Church of England, Defender of the Faith, and Fount of Honour. There is no incompatibility between Honours and Christianity under British Constitutional law, even if there is under Trinidad and Tobago's law.

The Order of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago which will replace the Trinity Cross will not be an honour from the Queen. It's a creation of the Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago.

[ApplegateRanch]

Thank you for the clarifications and distinctions.

It appears the article left out a lot, purposely leaving the false impression that it was an UK, and by implication, Commonwealth wide, ruling.

Oh, and don't think you're pulling the wool over anyone’s eyes: I checked the list, and there's no Naturalman1975 listed as a recipient! *<];-')

[Cindy]

Thank you very much for your feedback naturalman 1975.

I appreciate it.

[PGalt]

Thanks for the ping, naturalman1975 and your service to your country. I gathered that while reading the posts at jihadwatch, but yours is a much more in depth clarification. It is much appreciated.

Education BUMP!

[sinsofsolarempirefan]

I find it rather ironic that Trinidad and Tobago is a Republic that still defers to a British institution as it’s highest court of appeal, wheras Australia, which still recognises the Queen, is otherwise completely sovereign and defers nothing to Britain....

[naturalman1975]

I think it's a matter of having confidence in your own institutions. A lot of smaller Commonwealth nations like to have the Privy Council there in case their own courts or their own Parliament or their own militaries ever start acting unconstitutionally. It's not much protection but at least it means that if that happens there is a mechanism where somebody is able to say: "No, Prime Minister, you can't do that. Your law does not allow it."

Fiji, at the moment, is a prime example where this might have been useful. It's current military government is relying on the traditional powers of the Royal Prerogative for legitimacy. Fiji no longer acknowledges the Privy Council - if it did, the Privy Council could rule that it isn't legitimate.

Those nations such as Canada and Australia which have developed their own robust legal traditions, eventually decided they no longer needed that particular protection. That doesn't mean they wanted to break with the Crown, however.

[K-oneTexas]

Thanks for this, it is a good explanation. Something that the article itself missed, for obvious reasons I’m guessing.

I would hope the Queen or someone in England would make a statement on this, but I may be holding my breath for nothing.

[Hatter6]

Could they just not turn it down when they are awarded it? That would be ungrateful enough, but demanding the Queen change her gifts to suit the recipient - these Muslims and Hindus could go in the dictionary as a defintion of ‘ingrate’. It is akin to a child not only expressing dissatisfaction with a present, but demanding it be changed for something else! I dare say the majority of Trinidadis who have won the award are Christian anyway.

[manc]

tis sad but not surprising[rising I remember when a group of muslims said the English flag was offensive too.

Here’s the [problem.
Most people in the UK do not know what is going on with muslims as their is a blackout by the media much like the media here with bozo in the white house.

Muslims are not really offended they are just seeing how much they can get away with and make this a start of taking the country over.
Muslims are doing this and laughing on their websites and on the street that they are getting away with this while the left are complete idiots who do not see that they are being taken over.

A woman recently asked me why I came here and that was one of the most easiest questions I have ever had.
Easy because the UK is going to be a muslims country, there are too many who reply on the Govt and my kids will do much better growing up here

[naturalman1975]

I would hope the Queen or someone in England would make a statement on this, but I may be holding my breath for nothing.

Unfortunately it would be inappropriate for Her Majesty to comment in this case, both by convention and constitutionally. She is no longer Queen of Trinidad and Tobago - they became a Republic in 1976 - and it would extremely inappropriate for her to interfere in what is an internal matter under their Constitutional law. It would be roughly akin to her coming out criticising the United States for not allowing prayer in schools. It's not her place to do that. It's an independent sovereign nation, not one of her dominions.

But there are more subtle ways in which her views can be made known. When Canada decided to stop using Imperial Honours, Her Majesty was happy to create a new Order of Canada in her capacity as Fount of Honour. When Australia made the same decision, the Order of Australia was created under the Crown. Ditto for New Zealand.

She has made no such offer to create a new Honour for Trinidad and Tobago. If they don't want the one she created in 1969, that is their affair - but they can create their own replacement which has no connection at all to the long history of British Chivalry.