Presidential Election: Discrimination By Religious Extremists & Racism

By Ayathuray Rajasingam -December 15, 2014 |

Ayathuray Rajasingam

When a person calls the other a ‘racist’ there should be some discrimination on grounds of caste, colour, creed, sex, disability, family status, etc., challenging the principle of equality as enunciated in the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Racism is the foundation for racial discrimination. Therefore different rules and standards cannot apply to individuals on their presumed identity.

The UN Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights address its concern in connection with the principles of equality. One of the undertakings of the International Convention of the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination is to prohibit and put an end to racial discrimination by persons, groups and organizations and also to prohibit organizations and propaganda that promote racial superiority, racial hatred, racial violence or racial discrimination.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ensures the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion opinion and expression and of peaceful assembly and association.

Moreover, the Declaration of Human Rights by Article 18 states that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.Read More

The Logic Of The Vote: Choosing Between The Buddha And Mara

By R  S Perinbanayagam -December 15, 2014 |

Prof. R.S.Perinbanayagam

The presidential election of 2000 in the United States, as in Sri Lanka today, there were many candidates on the ballot but George W. Bush and Albert Gore were real contenders. And there was also the third candidate who made a lot of noise in the media too: Ralph Nader. In the final tally of votes for Bush and Gore, Bush edged out Gore by a small margin while Ralph Nader came third with a small number votes.

In this contest Bush was the conservative while Gore was the liberal one–broadly speaking– and Ralph Nader could be described as an ultra-liberal. Ralph Nader and Albert Gore had more in common than Bush and Nader and if push comes to shove those who voted for Nader would have preferred a Gore win rather than a Bush win. What did those who voted for Nader achieve in the end? By voting for Nader and wasting their vote they succeeded in electing Bush and should bear some responsibility for all the horrors that followed. They were so committed to the ultra-liberal ideology that Ralph Nader represented that they succeeded in electing a hawkish ultraconservative to office. The judgment of the Nader voters was deeply flawed They were no doubt moved by their deep disillusionment with the policies of the two major parties. Nevertheless, they did not fully appreciate the logic of the presidential electoral system and certainly lacked the powers of discernment to understand that small differences make a big differences in politics. In such a system not only does one votefor a candidate but also against  another. In the real world of politics a voter has to choose, not between good and evil or between God and the Devil or between the Buddha and Mara, or for that matter, between Rama and Ravana, but between two flawed candidates, between the lesser of the two evils. The electoral system for presidential elections is predicated on a binary logic. Those who voted for Ralph Nader also voted for Bush–perhaps unwittingly – and in a couple of states it made a difference and in Florida it made a decisive one. In effect then by choosing an ultraliberal they contributed to the defeat of the candidate with whom they shared at least some values and principles.Read More