It Is Well and Good to Speak of the Courts as If They Were Guardians of Morals. in a Plural Society the First Question Must However Be: “Whose Morals Should the Courts Enforce?” Discuss.
A plural society can be defined as a society composed of different ethnic groups thus reflecting a variety of cultural differences. As a result, each group would consist of their own morals, values, practices and traditions which may sometimes contradict each other consequently leading to ethnocentrism in the society. Thus, the question arises, whose morals are the most acceptable? The word “moral” deals with the fundamental principle of what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ in society and the expected conduct of individuals, hence, is it correct for the Courts to enforce only the beliefs of one particular group?
In such a society, where there are multiple groups, every citizen should be allowed a certain extent of human rights, privileges and freedom; hence the morals of all cultures and not solely one should be protected by the courts so long as the Law itself is protected. Every Commonwealth Caribbean state has these freedoms stated in their constitutions. For example, the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago has recognized the importance of protecting the human rights of its citizens. Their constitution clearly states in Chapter 1 that, “there existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, origin, color, religion or sex the fundamental rights and freedom.” Such freedom stated in the constitution were: the right to equality before the law and the protection of the law, the right of the individual to respect for his private and family life, the right to join political parties and express political views, freedom of movement, freedom of conscience, religious beliefs and observance, freedom of thought and expression, freedom of association and assembly and freedom of the press.
The case of Knuller v D.PP clearly reflected whether homosexuality was depraved and resulted in a conspiracy to corrupt public morals or, whether they were being discriminated against by being convicted. In this case, the appellants were directors of a fortnightly
In such a society, where there are multiple groups, every citizen should be allowed a certain extent of human rights, privileges and freedom; hence the morals of all cultures and not solely one should be protected by the courts so long as the Law itself is protected. Every Commonwealth Caribbean state has these freedoms stated in their constitutions. For example, the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago has recognized the importance of protecting the human rights of its citizens. Their constitution clearly states in Chapter 1 that, “there existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, origin, color, religion or sex the fundamental rights and freedom.” Such freedom stated in the constitution were: the right to equality before the law and the protection of the law, the right of the individual to respect for his private and family life, the right to join political parties and express political views, freedom of movement, freedom of conscience, religious beliefs and observance, freedom of thought and expression, freedom of association and assembly and freedom of the press.
The case of Knuller v D.PP clearly reflected whether homosexuality was depraved and resulted in a conspiracy to corrupt public morals or, whether they were being discriminated against by being convicted. In this case, the appellants were directors of a fortnightly