The Jamaican-born preacher who converted to Islam had apparently called for Hindus to be killed and India to be attacked with nuclear bombs. He had claimed that exterminating Hindus with chemical weapons was like killing cockroaches with an insecticide spray.
The Judge’s ruling that Hindus and Jews should not sit on the Jury was based on the fact that persons from these two faiths may be biased against the cleric. Judge Beaumont’s decision in recognising the principle of bias is an excellent initiative. But it is unfortunate that the principle has not been applied consistently or uniformly.
It is easy to extend the Judge’s argument and see a one-sided bias in his ruling on bias! A juror from the Muslim faith may be biased in favour of Abdullah el-Faisal – exactly the opposite type of bias to the one that the Judge ruled upon. However, the Judge, bless his sense of justice, thought it wise not to expressly ban the Muslim community from sitting on the same jury, even though Hindus and Jews had become untouchables.
“The issue of bias has not been properly understood in the Criminal Justice System, although it has permeated the whole system,” claimed a senior British member of the Law Society, who wishes to remain unnamed. “If a black solicitor goes to court, it is automatically assumed that he is the defendant’s lawyer. There are many instances where black people are awarded longer sentences for the same crime others perform. While the principle of bias is welcome, can our Judges sit with their hand on their heart, and say that judgement is always unbiased in terms of the race or religion of the defendant?”
This brings us to the issue of who is competent to determine instances of bias. Are Judges competent enough to understand the cultural conundrums of different races and faith communities to determine instances of bias uniformly and consistently? If they are not, do they need help from equality bodies or inter-faith organisations? Why did Judge Beaumont single out and ban only Hindus and Jews for negative bias? Why was positive bias from members of other faith communities not even considered?
Yet another case of positive discrimination, perhaps?
The Sikh contribution
I was rather embarrassed to note from my story last week about the Holocaust Memorial Service at Brent Town Hall that I had omitted to mention the name of an important faith community that took part in the services.
Albeit unintentionally, I forgot to include the excellent contribution by Bhupinder Singh, who spoke on behalf of the Sikh community. Bhupinder is a dynamic young person whose important services as the Information Officer at the Inter-faith Network have been appreciated by faith community leaders in the UK.
In his speech at the service last week, he delved on the injustice of the holocaust, the beliefs of the Sikh community and some of the injustices the community had suffered.
After the service, I met Councillor Harbhajan Singh, who had initially requested Bhupinder to be the Sikh speaker at the event.
“Bhupinder may be younger, but he knows much more than I do about these matters,” beamed the Councillor. “That’s why I recommended his name for the Sikh speaker.”
Bhupinder may have smiled back in polite embarrassment, but I certainly smiled forth in total agreement.
O
M
E