High Court Justice Frank Seepersad has weighed in on the public conversation on abortion, saying the dilemma is between the church and the State and the fear of political fallout if the perceived wrong decision is taken.
Addressing a conference titled, Making of the Indian Constitution: Role of Dr Bhimrao R Ambedkar, held at the School of Education, UWI, on Thursday, Seepersad said Christian theology has always had a strong influence on the laws of this country and in this modern day and age it should not be the pivot on which the national agenda is determined.
The conference was hosted by the High Commission of India in collaboration with the University of the West Indies, St Augustine.
Seepersad did a comparative analysis of the Constitutions of T&T and of India, focusing on the differences with respect to the nature and composition of the respective Parliaments and the election and powers of the president of each nation.
He said the constitution of India has served the people of India well because it was born out of the desire of the citizenry to embrace independence and to take full control of its destiny.
“While it cannot be said that our Constitution has failed us, it has not permitted us to achieve our full potential. We are stilled shackled to our colonial past, we do not trust each other and are unwilling or afraid to take charge of our own future. The self-realisation revolution that catalysed the Indian constitution still has to take place in this Republic.”
Noting the current public discussion on abortion, revived due to the link between the Zika virus and microcephaly in children, Justice Seepersad said this debate seems to be primarily premised on theological perspectives. “Unofficially T&T has been referred to as a secular state but the reality is that Christian theology has had a significant impact on all our laws. Since from the colonial times, Christianity was the dominant religion.
“The question as to whether the State should be allowed, in this modern age of equality, to legislate over a woman’s right to be in charge of her own womb and to criminalise decisions that she makes in relation to pregnancy has to be addressed,” he submitted.
He said it may also be argued that the decision as to whether or not a woman elects to carry a child is a personal decision since pregnancy has a direct impact on her life and health.
“While theologically based views of morality may guide each individual’s decisions and lifestyle choices it should not be the focal point when the determination of national policy is undertaken nor should it be the pivot upon which national agenda turns.”
He said, “The fluidity that accompanies the interpretation of the Indian constitution recognised this, but we in this jurisdiction are still faced with the dilemma as between church and State and the fear of political fallout if the perceived wrong decision is undertaken.”
The judge said the Indian constitution was drafted so as to inform the way of life in independent India and took into account the social, political and religious differences.
Such an approach, he said, did not guide the formulation of either T&T’s Independence or Republican Constitutions.
“Continuously we have had calls in the society for effective constitutional change but there has really been the absence of the political will to effect same.”
He questioned, “Why would any government elected under our existing system ever undermine its unilateral power and authority? It may very well be that we have the Constitution that we deserve, for the lack of struggle that accompanied our independence, our unwillingness to engage in national issues, the absence of a sense of national identity and the general sense of complacency that defines all aspects of our lives may all be indicative of the fact that we are not ready for constitutional change.”