Monday, November 12, 2012

Conservative parliamentarians celebrate Diwali festival with Canadian Tamils

[ Monday, 12 November 2012, 01:14.12 PM GMT +05:30 ]

Diwali, the festival of lights has become very popular among several communities in Canada for whom lights and firecrackers have become the means for inter-community bonding.

For many individuals, the festival is a chance to reconnect with family and friends and find new ways to push for a better year in prosperity and health.
To further enlighten the multicultural Canadian spirit, last night the Ontario PCs held a Diwali celebration and a symbolic diya lighting with members of the province’s gurdwaras (Sikh temples), mandirs (Hindu temples), Tamil and South Asian communities, PC Leader Tim Hudak informed.
“Diwali is an opportunity to gather with family and friends in faith and prayer,” said Hudak. “This is a time to exchange gifts and sweets and to light diyas in celebration of the triumph of good over evil, knowledge over ignorance and light over darkness.”
Hudak introduced several PC Caucus members and candidates at the celebration, and lauded the South Asian community for their extraordinary contributions to the province.
“Through our mutual values, the South Asian community and conservatives across our great province share common bonds,” Hudak stated. “We believe in strong families, not strong government. We know Ontario has been built by the hard work of its entrepreneurs, not by government red tape and regulation”.
“I want to say to all your families, happy Diwali,” Hudak concluded.
Ontario PC leaders including Christine Elliott, Burlington MPP Jane McKenna, Cambridge MPP Rob Leone, Huron Bruce MPP Lisa Thompson, Dufferin-Caledon MPP Sylvia Jones, Halton MPP Ted Chudleigh, York MPP Julia Munro, Prince Edward-Hastings MPP Todd Smith and Barrie MPP Rod Jackson also attended the celebrations.
PC candidates including Pam Hundal for Brampton-Springdale, Harjit Jaswal for Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Shan Thayaparan for Markham Unionville, Nina Tangri for Mississauga Streetsville, Vic Gupta for Richmond Hill, Zoran Churchin for Mississauga East-Cooksville, Amarjeet Gill for Brampton Mississauga South and Randeep Sandhu for Brampton West were also present.

Sunday, November 11, 2012

I’m Debarred From Asian Tribune

By Laksiri Fernando -November 11, 2012

Dr Laksiri Fernando

I have received a surprising letter from Mr KT Rajasingham, the Editor of theAsian Tribune and wish to publish his email letter and my reply to him as they are testimonies to the ongoing censorship and perhaps indicating what more to come in the future in respect of freedom of expression, academic freedom and the rights of academics. As they are self-evident, no further comments are added.

Letter from KT Rajasingham

Dear Dr. Laksri Fernando,

Vanakkam.

Thank you very much for contributing your articles and report to Asian Tribune.

I now find that your reports are no more exclusive to Asian Tribune.

Furthermore, I observed the gradual change in your position which is gradually developing contrary to the stance of Asian Tribune.

Therefore, I have decided to inform with much reluctance that I am no more interested in publishing your pieces In Asian Tribune.

I am sorry, I am informing this with a heavy heart.

Thanks and regards.

K.T.Rajasingham

Reply to KT Rajasingham

Mr KT Rajasingham

Editor

Asian Tribune

11 November 2012

Dear Mr Rajasingham,

Vanakkam.

I was surprised to receive your email this morning informing me that you “have decided to inform with much reluctance” that you are “no more interested in publishing” my pieces in the Asian Tribune. You have also added that you are “informing this with a heavy heart.”

First, I like to thank you for giving me the opportunity so far to express my views in the Asian Tribune. So far I have contributed over hundred articles to the Asian Tribune and as you would remember, the first one was titled “UN Intervention is Necessary in Sri Lanka” dated 31 December 2005. In that very article I criticized the President’s comments on the ‘Tamil homeland concept’ as insensitive. The second article was a response to you on 27 January 2006 titled “Emerging Political Scenario in Sri Lanka: A Response to Rajasingham” persuading you to work for a united Sri Lanka and for a common cause unhesitatingly when you in fact were extremely disillusioned with the Sinhala majoritarian policies including the government policy.

I did of course supported President Mahinda Rajapaksa and the government during his first term to end the war and when he contested for the second time, but by always marinating my independence, distance and commitment to democratic principles and policies, including fairness to the minority communities. This was one reason why I was reluctant to write his Biography when you proposed it with his consent. It could have compromised my independence. I cannot recollect any instance that you didn’t publish any of my articles sent to you, except my opposition to the 18^th Amendment. In fact you opened a special column for me with easy access for anyone to go through my previous articles. This column was given much prominence.

It is of course correct to note that I have become a strong critic of the government policies for obvious reasons after the 18^th Amendment, and irrespective of this situation you have been so far publishing my articles without reluctance. I have never been writing to the Asian Tribune exclusively except on few instances where you particularly requested me to do so. My articles to the Asian Tribune also were published in The Island and Daily News or other web based newspapers almost throughout.

I feel sorry if you have come under pressure from certain quarters not to publish my articles as they are critical of the government and government policies. I am led to presume this is the case since you clearly state that you are writing to me ‘with reluctance’ and ‘with a heavy heart.’ I need not to tell you that (if that is the case) it would constitute a major issue of freedom of expression and it’s opposite, Censorship. It would be worse if it is self-censorship.

I however thank you for writing to me without merely using the guillotine. Please note that I have to go public on this issue.

With kind regards,

Dr. Laksiri Fernando

UN alarm at detainee push

Concerned ... UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay. Photo: Reuters

THE chief rights advocate for the United Nations has expressed alarm at a new push by Australian immigration authorities to immediately reject a number of Sri Lankan asylum seekers.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay is in Bali for a democracy summit, also attended by Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

Ms Pillay said she had heard numerous concerns that asylum seekers could languish indefinitely on Nauru and Manus Island under Labor's revived Pacific Solution and was especially worried over the plight of children.

''I am highly concerned that detention in regional offshore processing centres such as in Nauru could result in indefinite detention and other human rights violations,'' she said.

''All people, including migrants, have the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, and this form of detention has been shown at times to violate this right.

''It could well end up as indefinite detention, and people in indefinite detention suffer significant mental health issues - and Australia should be well aware of this.''

The number of people arriving in recent months has already far exceeded the planned capacity for the two centres in the Pacific.

In a bid to toughen the deterrent, Labor plans to remove the Australian mainland from the migration zone.

The Immigration Department has sent home dozens of Sri Lankans - from Christmas and Cocos islands - deemed not to have a refugee claim.

But Ms Pillay said Sri Lanka was still volatile, despite the end of the civil war in 2009.

''Now that was a conflict area, matters have not stabilised as yet.

''All the reports reaching me are that people are concerned over controls being imposed over them,'' she said.

''So I can understand if they'd be leaving out of fear or for their personal security, and it really cries out for all the refugee protections, asylum seeker protections to be made particularly applicable to them.''

Ms Pillay visited Australia last year, meeting with Ms Gillard, and visiting detention centres in the country.

''They were all [in] very good condition, but not the detainees.

''These are, after all, not people who are criminals and so they were handling the detention badly; many attempts at self-harm, and I'm still receiving reports of self-harm, suicide attempts and protests at the off-shore processing facilities. And these are all highly worrying - and unfortunately it was a predictable outcome.''

Ms Pillay said that combating people smugglers was important to protect people's rights and praised regional talks.

''But I must stress that these should be underpinned by strong legal protections in line with the government's human rights obligations.''

Sri Lanka to be tried for genocide against Tamils: How will Cuba and its allies respond?

http://www.havanatimes.org/wp-content/themes/branfordmagazine/images/backgrounds/logowp1.jpeg

By Ron Ridenour-November 10, 2012

HAVANA TIMES — An unprecedented move by internationalists and activists for human rights and justice, one that could inspire controversy among left oriented governments and peoples’ solidarity committees, will take place next spring.

“In April 2013, a panel of international experts will be convened as Judges of the ‘Permanent People’s Tribunal’ to examine reports submitted by many specialized working groups on the accusation of the crime of Genocide against the Government of Sri Lanka and on the accusations against various international actors who had supported and prepared the conditions for the Sri Lankan Government to implement this alleged crime,” stated the Rome-based ‘Permanent People’s Tribunal’ (PPT) on November 3. (1)

This decision is supported organizationally by the ‘Irish Forum for Peace in Sri Lanka’ (IFPSL) based in Dublin and the International Human Rights Association (IMRV) based in Bremen.

In mid January 2010 the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal on Sri Lankan held its sessions in Dublin, Ireland. There were four findings:

1: That the Sri Lankan Government and its military are guilty of War Crimes;
2: That the Sri Lankan Government and its military are guilty of crimes against humanity;
3: That the charge of genocide requires further investigation;
4: That the international community, particularly the UK and USA, share responsibility for the breakdown of the peace process.(2)

It also found that member states of the United Nations had not “complied with their moral obligation to seek justice for the violations of human rights committed during the last period of the war” [Sri Lanka government war against the Tamils].

The PPT was referring to Human Rights Council Resolution S-11/1 of May 27, 2009. Cuba led the majority of members to vote for the Sri Lanka government drafted resolution. The resolution only praised Sri Lanka government for ending the hostilities and for the “liberation” of tens of thousands of Tamils (who were, in fact, up to three hundred thousand Internally Displaced Persons incarcerated for many months and even years in concentration camps).

It only condemned the Tamil Tiger guerrillas (Liberation Tigers for Tamil Eelam) for terrorism and made no mention of the long-endured suffering, pogroms, indiscrimination and inequality suffered by the Tamil people at the hands of the Sinhalese majority governments and military, and Buddhist monks.

Since the time of the resolution, Cuba has stepped up closer ties with the Mahinda Rajapaksa family government, even inviting him to Cuba as a guest of honor for four days. (3)

The case for genocide

Here are excerpts of the PPT statement concerning the need to investigate the possibility that Sri Lankan governments have been committing genocide against the Tamil people for decades.

“This possibility has become a necessity now, due to the mass of new evidence (substantial, quantitative and qualitative) that has come to light since [2010 session]. At the time we held the ‘Dublin Tribunal’, the real casualty figures remained largely hidden. The official UN figure did not exceed 8000 civilian casualties, while some of the British and French press carried reports estimating the total number of casualties at ‘up to 20,000′. In fact, the Sri Lanka Government maintained a position of ‘zero civilian casualties’ for the full period of the final military offensive!

“However, soon after the Dublin Tribunal, like a dam bursting, details of terrible atrocities and a more realistic estimation of the magnitude of the massacre started surfacing in media.

“The effective embargo in the international media that existed during the eight months of the military offensive – which had helped to prevent a humanitarian opposition to the war to emerge – was starting to break down, eight months after the end of the military project.

“One month after the Tribunal – in February 2010 – appearing on Australia’s ABC Television, the former UN spokesman in Sri Lanka Gordon Weiss contradicted the UN estimate of ‘no more than 8,000 casualties’ stating that ‘anything between 10,000 to 40,000’ civilians may have died during the final siege. Sometime later the Experts’ Panel appointed by the UN Secretary General used the 40,000 figure as its own estimate.

“On January 2011, the Catholic Bishop of Mannar made a submission to the Sri Lankan Government’s own ‘Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission’ (LLRC) that according to his calculation, 146,679 people are unaccounted for (he used the Government’s own statistics to show this)…

“The casualty figure issue is just one factor – which we have highlighted to emphasise our point. Various other factors – such as an examination of the historical background which had laid the basis to the events that led to the military operations in 2009, as well as, whether or not the continuing issues that the Tamil people in the area concerned are facing at the moment are related to this history, needs to be carried out properly to deal with the overall reality.

“Due to the fact that substantial, quantitative and qualitative new evidence has become available, we believe that there are compelling reasons to organize a follow up to the ‘People’s Tribunal on Sri Lanka’ to examine the case of Genocide against the Tamil people.”

This follow up session will be held in Germany.

Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal was initiated in 1979 by the left socialist and anti-fascist resistance fighter Senator Lelie Basso. He had been a judge on the International War Crimes Tribunal, also know as the Bertrand Russell-Sartre Tribunal, in 1966-7, concerning war crimes committed by the United States against Vietnam, and the 1973-6 investigations regarding war crimes committed by Latin American dictatorships, assisted by the USA. One of Cuba’s few women guerrilla fighters, Melba Hernandez, was one of the judges when she was chairwoman of the Cuba Committee for Solidarity with Viet Nam.

PPT has held more than 40 sessions on war crimes and crimes against humanity, as well as genocide, in many parts of the world: US war crimes against Nicaragua, national dictatorship war crimes (usually with the assistance of US military forces and the CIA) against Argentines, Guatemalans, El Salvadorans, Filipinos, the Western Sahara, Eritrea…

It has also investigated and condemned Turkey for committing genocide against the Armenian people. In 2006, it ethically sanctioned the economic neo-liberal model and multinational corporations for violations of international principles respecting human rights.

Among the many prestigious PPT panelists have been Nobel Prize winners: Adolfo Perez, Sean MacBride and George Wald. Many judges and associates have either come from Latin America and/or been close to the Cuban revolutionary process, as well as its allies in the ALBA alliance, among them are: Francois Houtart and Miguel D’Escoto.

Tamil delegates interact with London Tamils, affirm support for genocide investigation

[TamilNet, Saturday, 10 November 2012, 23:37 GMT]
Concluding the three day global conference organized by the BTF and APPGT, politicians and civil society activists from the island and Tamil Nadu participated in an interactive session with an Eezham Tamil diaspora audience in London, on Friday. This event follows a meeting among the Tamil delegates in the British parliament on Thursday, where they had arrived at a consensus on the resolutions proposed on the day before calling for an independent international investigation into the genocidal war crimes of the Sri Lankan state.

The organizers of the conference expressed their condolences to Nadarajah Mathinthiran alias Parithi, a political organizer with the Tamil Coordinating Committee in France, who was assassinated in Paris on Thursday.

Pragasen Padayachi an activist working with solidarity groups in South Africa, said that the SA government and the ANC were giving mixed signals on the question of the Tamils. Calling the LLRC a joke, he opined that Tamils need to figure out the path forward.

Claiming that the talk of resettlement, rehabilitation and reconciliation is a farce in unitary Sri Lanka, Thirumurugan Gandhi from the May 17 Movement asked why the world powers that used one standard for South Sudan why not for Tamil Eelam. He also said that an international peace force not involving India, China, Pakistan and the USA should be deployed in Sri Lanka.

Saravanan from Save Tamils said that his organization would involve other youth organizations in India on the resolutions.

D. Raja and D Pandian from the CPI restated the commitment of their party to the democratic demands of the Eezham Tamils, Mr. Krishnaswamy from the Puthiya Tamizhagam party told the audience that he would take the resolution to the Tamil Nadu assembly.

Viduthalai Rajendran opined it was very important at the moment to understand the nuances of world politics and to make political moves accordingly.

TNA MPs Sritharan and Suresh Premachandran talked about the repression that the Tamils faced in the island. Mr. Premachandran was of the opinion that as much as Washington and London were important, Delhi was more important to the Eezham Tamils. Mavai Senathirajah of the TNA was also present in the meeting and responded to the questions raised by the participants.

Impeachment: Good Behaviour, Misbehaviour And The Trial By Parliament

By Nihal Jayawickrama -November 11, 2012

Dr.Nihal Jayawickrama

On 14 March 1984, Mr Neville Samarakoon, the first Chief Justice to be appointed directly from the unofficial bar within living memory, made an ill-advised speech at an inappropriate venue. President Jayewardene, who had appointed him some six years earlier, decided that he should be removed from office. Article 107 of the 1978 Constitution provided that a Judge of the Supreme Court shall hold office during good behaviour and shall not be removed except by an order of the President made after an address of Parliament had been presented to the President for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. That Article also required Parliament to provide, by law or by standing orders, for all matters relating to the presentation of such an address, including the procedure for the investigation and proof of the alleged misbehaviour or incapacity.

What the Constitution contemplates, therefore, is a three-stage procedure. The determination whether the alleged offence of misbehaviour has been proved; which is a judicial act. The presentation of an address by Parliament; which is a legislative act. The removal of the Judge from office; which is an executive act by the President. The first stage involves the recording of evidence, due deliberation, and an independent and impartial determination by the application of pre-existing rules and objective standards. In other words, it involves the exercise of judicial power.

Article 4 of the Constitution states quite explicitly that the judicial power of the People shall be exercised by courts, tribunals and institutions created and established or recognized by the Constitution, or created and established by law. The single exception is in regard to matters relating to the privileges, immunities and powers of Parliament and of its Members, when the judicial power of the People may be exercised directly by Parliament according to law. The question whether a Judge is guilty of misbehaviour is not a matter that relates to parliamentary privileges, immunities or powers.

Sri Lankan State Terrorism Spreads To Paris, France

By Tamil Centre For Human Rights-November 11, 2012

With deep sadness and grief we, TCHR, publish this press release on the assassination carried out by the Sri Lankan military intelligence on a Tamil activist, a French citizen in Paris, France – Nadarajah Mathinthiran alias Parithi, nom de guerre Regan.

There is no doubt that this assassination was carried out by the Sri Lankan military intelligence which is directly under the Sri Lanka President Mahinda Rajapaksa and his brother Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the Defence Secretary.

Last Thursday, 8 November 2012, Parithi left his office located at 341 rue de Pyrenees in the 20th arrondissement of Paris, at 9.00 pm (21.00 hrs). The assassin, who must have known Parithi’s daily movements precisely, was waiting outside his office. He cold-bloodedly opened fire on Parithi, killing him on the spot. Parithi’s colleagues who were with him were stunned at what they witnessed.

Parithi joined the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam – LTTE in 1983. He was injured in battle in 1988 and left the LTTE. Being an LTTE combatant he had participated in many battles against the Sri Lankan security forces.

He sought political asylum in France in 1990 and worked as an accounts clerk, living with his wife and daughter. In 2004, he became a full time activist and was in charge of the Tamil Coordinating Committee – TCC in Paris. He consistently supported the struggle for the right to self-determination of the Tamil people.

In 2004, during the so-called “peace time”, Parithi went to Sri Lanka. He was threatened and followed by the Sri Lanka intelligence service on his arrival at Colombo Airport until he went to the French embassy in Colombo and made a complaint. The French embassy in Colombo is well aware of this incident.

However, in April 2007, due to strong anti-LTTE lobbying, Parithi and thirteen other members of the TCC, were brought to justice by the French authorities. As a result, Parithi served a prison sentence until 2010. His re-appeal is still pending in the courts.

On leaving prison, he saw the devastated Tamil diaspora, shocked and grieved by the Mullivaighzhal massacres of May 2009. Parithi continued to serve the Tamil cause.

Last year, in October, there was an assassination attempt on him by a few mercenaries working with the Sri Lanka military intelligence. This attack took place a few yards away from where Parithi was assassinated last Thursday. During that incident, the attackers used batons and swords, but Parithi being an expert in martial arts, escaped this attempted assassination with a few injuries. During this incident two other colleagues of his were also injured.

The way last Thursday’s assassination took place proves that killings carried out by the military intelligence in Sri Lanka, have now moved to European capitals as well.

In the recent past, the Sri Lankan government transferred a few Sri Lankan military intelligence officials to European countries. Located outside Sri Lankan embassies, they maintain surveillance on Tamil activists who are working round the clock in foreign countries. It is believed that Pakistani military intelligence officials assist them.

We have personally seen in Paris, especially in the La Chapelle/Gare du Nord area, many Urdu-speaking men in gangs following Tamil activists and observing the movements of Tamils who go shopping there.

One of the electronic media has said of Parithi that, “Two weeks ago, the French legal proceedings sanctioned him a 10 months probation period that would have put him under close monitoring with restricted movement, including electronic monitoring. This term was to commence on Friday, and had it commenced, it would have been difficult for anyone to assassinate him, the legal sources further said.” (Excerpt)

If this is the case, this could be one of the clues to who the assassin is and how he knew about impending electronic monitoring of Parithi, due to start on the following day?

At the same time, geopolitics also plays a major role in this assassination. We cannot ignore the fact that, in the UN UPR review on 1 November 2012, 100 recommendations were rejected by Sri Lanka. One of the strongest of these (129.63), was made by France, and recommended that Sri Lanka:

“Create a reliable investigation commission consisting of professional and independent investigators to identify, arrest and prosecute the perpetrators of the Muttur murders – France.” (Excerpt from the draft report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review – A/HRC/WG.6/14/L.14 –)

Also one cannot ignore the speech of Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe in the same UPR process in which he said: “…At the same time, we were not complacent but tried our utmost to prevent and forestall acts of destabilization from within and outside the country. There are still some elements that support the LTTE’s cause of dismemberment and separation of our island nation. We are aware of these initiatives and will defeat them by our ongoing strategy of re democratization, reconciliation, reconstruction and development.” (Excerpt from Sri Lanka Minister, Mahinda Samarasinghe speech in the UN UPR session on 1 November 2012)

During the UPR process on Sri Lanka, delegates were surprised to hear the Minister, Mahinda Samarasinghe pass the Sri Lankan military off as saints.

He said during the aforementioned speech, “From May 2009 to October 2012, the Army has constructed 4,652 permanent new houses; 6,171 semi-permanent houses and has renovated 7,454 houses, through their initiative and efforts. It has constructed 73 schools, renovated nearly 500 old school buildings and has constructed 23 school playgrounds…”

Now we understand why Sri Lanka is portraying the military as saviour and saints! It is so obvious that they are trying to disguise their real intentions, on the one hand, their colonisation programme on the island and on the other hand their international programme of repression.

All these indicators are enough to prove that Sri Lankan State terrorism has spread to a European capital, Paris and there are fears of impending similar incidents in other European countries. The assassination of Nadarajah Mathinthiran alias Parithi/Regan was organised and carried out by the Sri Lankan military intelligence probably with the help of Pakistan’s intelligence. We understand that Pakistan’s official who worked in Colombo has been posted to Paris, France in the recent past.

The international community has grappled with finding solutions to state terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan, Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. These countries also had elections, but democracy and rule of law never prevailed.

Today it is the same with Sri Lanka. What is the response of the International Community, when it clearly sees Sri Lankan state terrorism is on its door step?

We take this opportunity to convey our heartfelt condolences to Parithi’s wife, daughter, parents and others.

Shameful stifling of freedom of expression

It is heartening to witness an element of angry vigor emanating from Sri Lanka’s legal profession against the pending impeachment of the country’s Chief Justice. The resolutions issued by the general membership of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka yesterday expressing concern over the impeachment and the indignation displayed by provincial Bar Associations show that decency and sanity is not yet lost in the country.

Stifling the Chief Justice’s response

In depressing contrast however, we have a most shameful attempt to stifle freedom of expression by a group of unnamed ‘President’s Counsel’ this week who have pontificated that replying and commenting outside Parliament on the charges contained in the impeachment motion constitutes breach of parliamentary privilege (see Island, Saturday 10th November 2012).

Further, these worthies have stated that replying to these charges could constitute an additional charge in the impeachment motion. This is obviously aimed at stifling the publication and discussion of the letter sent by the Chief Justice’s lawyers eminently in the public interest this week, clarifying the specific allegations of alleged financial impropriety in an effort to meet the vicious avalanche of state media led attacks on her personal and financial integrity.

These ‘Counsel’ have taken umbrage at the public discussion of an impeachment motion which contains mistakes even in regard to essentials such as the correct reference to the official law reports, the correct reference to the reported case challenging her assumption of office and the correct constitutional provision in terms of which the Secretary to the Judicial Service Commission is appointed. If this was a legal document, it would have been thrown out of court at the very first instance.

Is it any wonder therefore that, instead of a candid discussion of what these charges are all about, these ‘President’s Counsel’ urge a ruthless lynching by the state run media while the Chief Justice is supposed to remain silent and is therefore condemned in the public forum by that very silence. Where the Parliamentary Select Committee’s proceedings are held in camera and (reportedly) with even stricter restrictions imposed than normal, from where exactly is the public supposed to glean the truth?
Or is the truth no longer relevant in this country where a sitting Chief Justice is now facing the exact fate meted out to Sri Lanka’s former Army Commander, both of whom have fallen foul of this administration? These are valid questions in the public interest.

Inapplicability of Parliamentary privilege�

These government backed lawyers, conferred with ‘silk’ by President Mahinda Rajapaksa appropriately enough for favours done, appear to be blissfully unaware of the precise legal nature of parliamentary privilege. One may well ask, are they aware of the law at all? It would be vastly amusing if it was not so tragic.

For their enlightenment, (assuming that this is indeed possible), parliamentary privileges do not exist to prevent public scrutiny of parliamentary proceedings but are merely the “sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by the House collectively and by members individually in order to enable the proper carrying out of constitutional functions” (Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice, 22nd Ed, London Butterworths, 1997).
Sri Lanka’s Parliamentary (Powers and Privileges) Act No 21 of 1953 (as amended), modeled on the English law, lists grave breaches of privilege in Part A of the Schedule. These are serious acts amounting to criminal offences which were mandated by the original Act to be punishable only by the Supreme Court. Lesser offences (such as disrespectful conduct in the precincts of the House) listed in Part B of the Schedule are in the hands of Parliament to punish.

In consonance with the draconian tone of the Jayawardene administration at that time, an amendment of 1978 gave Parliament concurrent power with the Supreme Court to punish in respect of these offences. But this amendment was repealed during the Kumaratunga administration and exclusive power restored to the Supreme Court in that regard. In all fairness, the repeal was in response to repeated appeals by legal activists that this was an undesirable power given to parliamentarians.

Threat made with malice

Importantly however, even in respect of breaches contained in Part A., the prohibitions are strictly defined. These include willfully publishing any false or perverted report of any debate or proceedings of the House or a committee or words ordered to be expunged by the Speaker or any defamatory statement reflecting on the proceedings and character of the House or any member thereof.

Relevantly these prohibitions cannot, even in the wildest imagination of these “Counsel’ who would like to spew any lie for the benefit of the government, encompass the publication of a deliberately reasoned and carefully worded response by the Chief Justice, sent through her lawyers, to reverse the considerable harm sought to be done to her reputation. Neither can it restrain balanced commentary on the substantive contents of the motion.

This threat is made with the malicious intention of ‘chilling’ discussion of a matter that goes to the heart of the integrity of Sri Lanka’s legal system. As such, it needs to be roundly condemned.

Rendered a laughing stock in the eyes of the world

Quite apart from all this, let us however assume (hypothetically) that an extremely defamatory report is published by a newspaper, putting into issue the very integrity of the Parliamentary Select Committee in question and offending the grave privileges stipulated in Part A.

If an objection is brought in this context, it will be the very Supreme Court who will assess the gravity of reports critical of the parliamentary process in regard to the impeachment of its own Chief Justice. The absurdity of this does not need to be spelt out for the dim witted or the deliberately obtuse among us.
These ill conceived, ill judged and ill timed actions against the head of the country’s judiciary only hides the fury and chagrin of the government against a Chief Justice who is not seen to be abasing herself sufficiently enough before it.

The Bar has now indicated that enough is enough in no uncertain terms. In doing so even at this late hour, a clear message has been passed to the government. This is only the beginning of a long and difficult struggle as the pieces of a once proud legal system are sought to be painfully retrieved. Assuredly the very survival and public legitimacy of the Bench and the Bar remains contingent on this struggle.

President Can Appoint An Acting Chief Justice, No One Can Challenge It – Advice From Sarath Silva

By Colombo Telegraph -November 11, 2012

The President can appoint an acting Chief Justice says former Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva. Under the article 109 (1) the President has this option, therefore Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayakeshould think about it and take leave during the impeachment.

Silva and the President

Silva made above remarks with Sinhala weekly Irida Divaina today.

Article 109. (1) says; If the Chief Justice or the President of the Court of Appeal is temporarily unable to exercise, perform and discharge the powers, duties and functions of his office, by reason of illness, absence from Sri Lanka or any other cause, the President shall appoint another Judge of the Supreme Court, or of the Court of Appeal, as the case may be, to act in the office of Chief Justice, or President of the Court of Appeal, respectively, during such period.

No one can challenge the clause “any other cause” Silva says.

Colombo appropriates lands, constructs Buddhist Stupas in Kuchchave'li

Location of the Kuchchave'li site of Mahayana inscriptions [Image courtesy: Google Earth]

[TamilNet, Saturday, 10 November 2012, 20:37 GMT]
The Sri Lankan Department of Archaeology is engaged in constructing Buddhist Stupas in lands appropriated from Tamil and Muslim villagers at Kuchchave'li division of Trincomalee district. The appropriation of lands and the construction of the Buddhist temples are taking place with the backing of the occupying Sri Lanka Army. Foundation stone was laid on Friday for the construction of a Buddhist Stupa on the top of a rocky hillock called Karadimalai, along the seacoast, adjacent to the SL police station as well as the old Rest House complex in Kuchchave’li. The prime tourist location will get an exclusive Sinhala-Buddhist cultural image soon. The SL military is also appropriating lands in Kuchchave'li village, for its own purposes.

The name board for the new Sinhala-Buddhist temple was unveiled in the presence of the officers of the SL military at the ceremony held on Friday with the participation of several Buddhist monks from the south.

During the war there was a camp of the Sri Lanka Navy close to the old rest house building in Kuchchave'li. There was no modern Buddhist temple or statue exited there, and there was no Buddhist population either.

At the bottom of the hillock, the local Tamil people of the Kuchcha-ve’li village had a Pillaiyaar temple.

The archaeological evidence found in the hillock, where Sri Lanka’s genocidal brand of new Sinhala-Buddhist structure is now built, is a Sanskrit inscription of c. 4–5 century CE. The inscription is of Mahayana Buddhist affinities.

Mahayana Buddhism was a religion of a different shade from the Theravada Buddhism that was in monopoly at Anuradhapura. Today’s Sinhala Buddhists claim their affinity to Theravada Buddhism.

At a particular period of time in history, the Mahayana shade of Buddhism enjoyed conspicuous popularity especially in the East. The patronage was largely from the Eezham Tamils. At another period of time the people of the region, for their own historical reasons, opted to shun Buddhism.

If Sinhala-Buddhist structures have to be constructed anew wherever archaeological remains are found in the island, and if that is not a structural genocide programme against Eezham Tamils, then the Sri Lankan state should also construct new Saiva temples of equal dimensions at Dondra Head (the southern-most point of the island), Adam’s Peak, Sri Jayawardanapura Kotte, Anuradhapura, Polonnaruwa, Padawiya and at so many other heritage sites in today’s Sinhala-Buddhist part of the island where the Hindu remains are also found, Eezham Tamil civil circles responded.

If the Sri Lankan Archeology Department is involved in constructing new Buddhist Stupas in the archaeological sites, where there are no Sinhala-Buddhists today, then it has become an explicit as well as spearheading genocidal institution of the State in Colombo that need to be internationally investigated and indicted, the civil circles said.

It was the genocidal approach to religion by sections of elite and States operating in the island that historically harmed the natural pursuit of religion by the peoples and jeopardized the harmony in their spiritual quests. Despite the tall claims of current 'postmodern' world and 'pluralistic' societies, the genocidal approach has found an unchecked revival in the island and is practised with a new vigour by the State in Colombo and by its abetters – the BJP of India being the latest one to openly jump on the bandwagon, the Eezham Tamil civil circles further commented.

Chief Justice To File A Contempt Of Court Action

By Colombo Telegraph -November 11, 2012

Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake is considering to take legal action over references to her husband in the impeachment.

Chief Justice

Allegation 5 says; whereas, Mr. Pradeep Gamini Suraj Kariyawasam, the lawful husband of the said Hon. (Dr.) (Mrs.) Upatissa Atapattu Bandaranayake Wasala Mudiyanse Ralahamilage Shirani Anshumala Bandaranayake is a suspect in relation to legal action initiated at the Magistrate’s Court of Colombo in connection with the offences regarding acts of bribery and/or corruption under the Commission to Investigate into Allegations of Bribery or Corruption Act, No 19 of 1994; Whereas, the post of Chairperson of the Judicial Service Commission which is vested with powers to transfer, disciplinary control and removal of the Magistrate of the said court which is due to hear the aforesaid bribery or corruption case is held by the said Hon. (Dr.) (Mrs.) Upatissa Atapattu Bandaranayake Wasala Mudiyanse Ralahamilage Shirani Anshumala Bandaranayake as per Article 111D (2) of the Constitution;

Legal sources close to Chief Justice Bandaranayake told the Sunday Timesthat this charge should not have been listed on grounds that the matter was sub judice. This is on the same basis that the Speaker had disallowed the issue relating to Pradeep Kariyawasam being raised in Parliament by UNP MP Harsha de Silva on the same grounds. These sources said the legal action contemplated was on a leading figure in an apex bank as well as others for allegedly violating banking secrecy. They had reportedly secured bank account details for the resolution in violation of laws governing banking secrecy.