Inshan Ishmael
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (January 2007) |
Inshan Ishmael is the CEO of the Islamic Relief Center in the Caribbean country of Trinidad & Tobago. Although he was unknown by most of the 92% of Non-Muslims in the country a few years ago, he has quickly taken the public eye with his launching of an Islamic television station, the Islamic Broadcast Network, where he hosted a popular talk show, “Breaking Barriers”, and later for his historic court action against the state for using the Trinity Cross as the nation’s highest award. In January 2007 he again received national attention when he was arrested under the Anti-Terrorism Act (2005) but charged the next day for printing flyers without his name and address on them.
Contents |
[edit] The Trinity Cross Issue
In June 2005, High Court Action 2065 of 2004 was heard before Justice Peter Jamadar in the San Fernando High Court. This was a constitutional motion filed by Satnarayan Maharaj, secretary general of the Sanatan Dharma Maha Sabha, and Inshan Ishmael, president of the Islamic Relief Centre. The applicants in the case had challenged the constitutionality of the Trinity Cross on the grounds that its continued existence and award were in breach of the applicants’ fundamental rights as guaranteed by certain Sections of the Constitution. The lawyer for the applicants argued that the State kept the Trinity Cross, knowing that “non-Christians are unable and unwilling to accept (it) because it is perceived to be and/or in fact is a Christian symbol.” The result is an experience of disparate treatment, or unfair discrimination, for “many deserving non-Christian citizens who...will never be rewarded by the State and country.”
In May 2006, Justice Peter Jamadar, a Christian, ruled that "the Trinity Cross - the nation’s highest award - is strictly a Christian symbol, and as a result, it discriminates in a multi-religious society." “In my opinion, leaving aside the savings clause argument for the moment, the respondent has shown no accommodation whatsoever to ameliorate the indirect adverse discriminating effects of the award of the Trinity Cross on the applicants as Hindus and Muslims and as corporate citizens representing Hindus and Muslims in T&T.” Although he found it to be discriminatory, he said that it does not mean that the court can strike it down. As it was protected by the 1976 constitution, it is a matter for the Parliament to change.
[edit] Arrest and Allegation of Civil Rights Violations
At the beginning of January 2007, Ishmael called for private owned businesses to close for two days across the nation, to bring media attention to the spiraling crime situation. He called for the 25th and 26th of January to be the days of the shutdown, and for an anti-crime rally to be held on Saturday the 27th. Thousand of flyers/pamphlets advertising the shutdown and rally were distributed throughout the country.
Permission was given on January 16th, by the San Juan/Laventille Regional Corporation, for the planned anti-crime rally at the Aranguez Savannah. On January 23rd the Regional Corporation, controlled by the ruling People's National Movement party, revoked permission for the use of the savannah.
On the 22nd, Police Commissioner Trevor Paul claimed that members of the business community contacted him expressing anxiety about Ishmael’s call. Based on four complaints, the contents of which are yet to be made public, the Police Commissioner recommended that the Telecommunications Authority of Trinidad & Tobago (TATT) investigate the alleged conduct of the talk show host. Columbus Communications, the cable company on which IBN TV8 airs, said they have “no choice” but to pull the popular talk show “Breaking Barriers” off the air over complaints by TATT over “questionable content.”
At approximately 9:20 pm on the eve of the planned shutdown, he was arrested under the Anti-Terrorism Act (2005) by approximately twelve police officers at his home during a barbecue dinner with his friends. The Anti-Terrorism Act (2005), however, does not give the power to the police to arrest except by a detention order of a judge. Also “any act which disrupts any service and is committed in pursuance of a demonstration, protest, or stoppage of work is specially exempted from the definition of a terrorist act.”
He was asked to strip naked and squat in the middle of the Central Police Station in Port-of-Spain. The next day he was charged, not under the Anti-Terrorism Act (2005), but under the Summary Offences Act, Section 105, which “requires a person who prints or publishes any book, circular, pamphlet, etc to include in it in some conspicuous place the name and address of the printer and publisher.” The penalty for such an offence carries a fine of TTD$1,000 or six months simple imprisonment.
When he appeared before Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls in the Port-of-Spain Eighth Magistrates’ Court, he pleaded not guilty, and was subsequently released on his own bail in the sum of $10,000.
Condemnation for his arrest, the cancellation of the venue for his rally, and the removal of his television show were roundly criticised by various groups including political parties such as the United National Congress, Congress of the People (Trinidad and Tobago), and the Movement for National Development; The All Trinidad Sugar and General Workers’ Trade Union; the community group YesTT; and rights groups such as Disabled People’s International and Rights Action Group. Allegations of intimidation by the Government were denied by Cabinet Minister Kenneth Valley who denied even knowing his name.
Although many business places in South and Central Trinidad closed their doors on the 25th and 26th, many business places along the PNM controlled East-West corridor stayed open.
Even though his lawyers succeeded in getting a High Court Judge, Justice Peter Jamadar, to order the San Juan/Laventille Regional Corporation to allow the anti-crime rally on the 27th, Commissioner of Police Trevor Paul did not respond to Ishmael’s application for permission to use a public address system. The rally was moved to a site that did not require permission to use a loud speaker and, according to local newspapers, attracted a crowd of several hundreds.
This was not his first arrest; Ishmael was arrested, and his camera confiscated, in April 2005 for insulting a police officer and disrupting traffic during a protest in Bamboo settlement No. 2. He was protesting the conditions of the roads and infrastructure at that time.
[edit] The Charge
"That on Monday January 25, 2007, at the corner of Abercromby Street and Eastern Main Road, St Joseph, (Inshan Ishmael) did circulate a handbill giving notice of a national shutdown on Thursday, January 25, 2007, and Friday, January 26, 2007, and a public gathering at the Aranguez Savannah on Saturday, January 27, 2007, and such bill did not have printed or written thereon the name and address of the publisher or publicist contrary to Section 105 of the Summary Offences Act Chapter 11.02."
Sections 104 and 105 of the Summary Courts Act says that he could only have been arrested without a warrant if he had been found committing the offence, but on the day of the charge, January 25th, he was already in custody and thus could not be committing the said offence on that day.
Independent Senator and Senior Counsel Dana Seetahal, in an editorial to the Guardian Newspaper (of Trinidad & Tobago) on January 28th 2007, said the following:
“Not only is the whole thing very confusing, but also it leaves the police with egg on their face, to say the least.
The bottom line is that if Ishmael was arrested on the pamphlet charge, he could not legally have been arrested without a warrant, as it is a summary offence (committed out of sight of the police). If a warrant was obtained for this minor offence, it ought not to have been granted in the absence of just cause: he was likely to flee or was avoiding the police.
On the other hand, if he was arrested on suspicion, based on reasonable cause, of an offence under the Anti-Terrorism Act, if the suspicions did not prove justified, the police ought not to have then proceeded to the trivial pamphlet charge.”
