Impeachment: UNP calls for fresh inquiry based on Latimer House Declaration of the Commonwealth

Impeachment: UNP calls for fresh inquiry based on Latimer House Declaration of the Commonwealth

Non inclusion of the dissenting view of the opposition members makes the PSC report invalid

12 December 2012
''In the circumstances the Working Committee of the UNP decided to request President Rajapaksa to make arrangements to enact the Private Members Bill titled “Removal of Superior Court Judges (Special Provisions)” presented to Parliament by Wijedasa Rajapaksa, MP, as an urgent Bill, and thereafter to appoint an independent committee consisting of three Commonwealth Judges as provided in Section 3 of the proposed Bill. The provisions contained in the Bill ensure a fair hearing to the Judges when resolutions are moved to remove them from the office they hold. The Working Committee considers that the enactment of this Bill will be the most appropriate step to be taken to resolve the conflict amongst the executive, legislature and judiciary.'' 

General secretary of UNP,  Tissa Attanayake issued a statement in response to the public statement made by the president yesterday that he was prepared to appoint an independent body to study the PSC report:

Speaking at the Institute of Chartered Accountants on December 11th, 2012, President Rajapaksa announced that an independent committee will study the Select Committee Report regarding the impeachment against Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake.

When the Select Committee met on 6 December 2012, the four members representing the Opposition requested the Select Committee to adhere to certain cardinal principles of the inquiry into the impeachment proceedings. The Chairman and the other six members representing the Government parties refused to consider the request, compelling the four members who represented the Opposition in the Select Committee to walkout having stated their reasons inter alia

i.It is the duty of the Select Committee to maintain the highest standard of conduct and accordingly afford the Chief Justice the courtesies and privileges to her necessary to uphold the dignity of the office of the Chief Justice while attending the proceedings before the Committee;

ii.Lay down the procedure that the Committee intends to follow at the inquiry;

iii.Give adequate time both to the members of the Committee and the Chief Justice and her lawyers to study and review the documents that are tabled before the Committee;

iv.Invite the Chief Justice to continue her participation in these proceedings.

As the majority of the Committee

a.Refused to follow the principles of natural justice by not granting a fair trial to the Chief Justice

b.Refused to adopt a fair procedure in the conduct of inquiry

c.Treated the Chief Justice in an insulting and in a degrading manner

d.Refused to give a further opportunity for the Chief Justice to defend herself with an assurance that she will be given a fair hearing  the four members of the Opposition walked out from the said proceedings.

On 8 December 2012, the resignation of the members of the Opposition from the Select Committee was announced by John Amaratunga, MP after 10 am during the proceedings of the House. Thereafter the letters of resignation were handed over to the Speaker in accordance with the procedure. The Report of the Select Committee was handed over to the Speaker prior to 9 am. At that time, these members were legally members of the Select Committee. They withdrew from the Committee when their demands were not met but had not handed over any letter of resignation to the Speaker. The Chairman of the Select Committee had the duty to inform these members that the report had been prepared and call for their observations. According to the Parliamentary practice the members have the opportunity to include their dissenting views in the proceedings attached to the report as well as to have their dissent noted in the report. The failure to permit these 4 members in finalizing the report is a fatal flaw, which nullifies this Select Committee proceedings and report.

The Leader of the Opposition addressing the International Human Rights Day meeting on Monday 10 December 2012, called upon the Government to adhere to the Commonwealth principles as adopted in the Latimer House Declaration which requires a panel of Judges to be appointed to conduct an independent and impartial inquiry.

In the circumstances the Working Committee of the UNP decided to request President Rajapaksa to make arrangements to enact the Private Members Bill titled “Removal of Superior Court Judges (Special Provisions)” presented to Parliament by Wijedasa Rajapaksa, MP, as an urgent Bill, and thereafter to appoint an independent committee consisting of three Commonwealth Judges as provided in Section 3 of the proposed Bill. The provisions contained in the Bill ensure a fair hearing to the Judges when resolutions are moved to remove them from the office they hold. The Working Committee considers that the enactment of this Bill will be the most appropriate step to be taken to resolve the conflict amongst the executive, legislature and judiciary.

Masters of Money: Marx (3/3 BBC) .avi

12 December 2012 

Published on Oct 2, 2012

http://www.marxist.com/marx-keynes-hayek-and-the-crisis-of-capitalism-part-1.htm
http://www.marxist.com/marx-keynes-hayek-and-the-crisis-of-capitalism-part-2.htm
http://www.marxist.com/marx-keynes-hayek-and-the-crisis-of-capitalism-part-th...
BBC Economics Editor Stephanie Flanders examines one of the most revolutionary and controversial thinkers of all. Karl Marx's ideas left an indelible stamp on the lives of billions of people and the world we live in today. As the global financial crisis continues on its destructive path, some are starting to wonder if he was right.
Marx argued that capitalism is inherently unfair and therefore doomed to collapse, so it should be got rid of altogether. Today as the gap between rich and poor continues to cause tension, his ideas are once again being taken seriously at the heart of global business.
Stephanie travels from Marx's birthplace to a former communist regime detention centre in Berlin and separates his economic analysis from what was carried out in his name. She asks what answers does Marx provide to the mess we are all in today.

‘Tell Her To Resign, I Will Give Her Some Other Position’ President Rajapaksa Called CJ’s Instructing Attorney

I Was Not In favour Of Impeachment, I’m Saddened By Recent Developments, I will Appoint A Committee – MR

By Colombo Telegraph -December 11, 2012

An impeachment motion was signed and given to me, I was not in favour of it that time. Now that has been tabled in parliament, the next step is to appoint a committee and obtain a report, President Mahinda Rajapaksa said today.

Mahinda Rajapaksa

“There is a parliament. However I’m saddened by recent developments, I’m a lawyer by profession. When you look at this issue from that perspective I’m not in favour of undermining the judiciary. If someone has made a mistake then I do not think that should be discussed in public. It need not be made public. I will appoint an independent committee to look in to the PSC report that will be submitted before its implementation. Because I only have to be held accountable to my conscience. At the end of the day I have to be content with the decision I make. Under my instruction I will implement system although it has not been stated in books or law. However I have to be content with the decisions I take.” he further said.

Watch the video below;

Related posts;

‘Tell Her To Resign, I Will Give Her Some Other Position’ President Rajapaksa Called CJ’s Instructing Attorney

‘Tell Her To Resign, I Will Give Her Some Other Position’ President Rajapaksa Called CJ’s Instructing Attorney

By Colombo Telegraph -December 7, 2012

Mahinda Rajapaksa

President Mahinda Rajapaksa last night called Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake’s Instructing Attorney Kandiah Neelakandan to express his “disgust” at the behaviour of his MPs at the PSC which resulted in the Chief Justice’s walkout.

Making the call around 8 p.m. yesterday, President Rajapaksatold Neelakandan the senior partner of the firm Neelakandan and Neelakandan that is representing the Chief Justice to ask Bandaranayake to ‘go quietly’ by resigning. “I will give her some other position somewhere. Tell her to resign. I think there has been some injustice done to herhusband as well, all that can be dropped,” Rajapaksa assured the senior lawyer.

“I had no idea these jokers had behaved like this,” the President told Neelakandan (mama danneth na me yakala karala thiyana wada)

The President also made a call to UNP MP on the Parliamentary Select Committee, urging him to refrain from withdrawing from the PSC process.

“You people oppose it. But stay inside and oppose it. Don’t leave the committee,” the President said. However Lakshman Kiriella is reported to have told the President that the opposition would make a collective decision on the matter.

The four Opposition members on the PSC today quit the committee citing a lack of clarity in the process and the biased behaviour of the Government MPs on the committee. Colombo Telegraph learns that the Rajapaksa Government is concerned that the boycott by opposition members on the committee would further de-legitimize the impeachment probe undertaken by the PSC, since the Chief Justice’s walkout yesterday will effectively make the proceedings and the judgment ex-parte.

Related posts;

University Of London Symposium: What Role Will The Commonwealth And Its 2013 Summit In Colombo Play?

December 11, 2012

Towards truth, justice and a political solution in Sri Lanka: what role will the Commonwealth and its 2013 Summit in Colombo play?
Friday 16th November 2012
Deller Hall, Senate House, University of London. WC1E 7HU.

Welcome Remarks
Daisy Cooper, Director, Commonwealth Advisory Bureau

Session 1: The importance of Truth, Justice and Accountability for peace in
Sri Lanka
Ms. Yasmin Sooka, member of the UN Secretary-General’s Panel of Experts on
Accountability in Sri Lanka, former member of the South African and Sierra
Leonean Truth and Reconciliation Commissions
Chair: Ms Daisy Cooper, Director, Commonwealth Advisory Bureau

Session 2: What could a political solution in Sri Lanka look like?
Speakers:
Ms. Yasmin Sooka, member of the UN Secretary-General’s Panel of Experts on
Accountability in Sri Lanka, former member of the South African and Sierra
Leonean Truth and Reconciliation Commissions
Prof Mark McGovern, Edge Hill University (Northern Ireland’s experience)
Chair: Ms. Frances Harrison, former BBC Correspondent, author of “Still
Counting the Dead”

Session 3: India’s influence and the Commonwealth’s engagement with Sri
Lanka and milestones on the road to the 2013 Colombo CHOGM
Speakers:
Dr Rajesh Venugopal, Lecturer in International Development and
Humanitarian Emergencies, LSE
Yolanda Foster, South Asia Desk, Amnesty International
Chair: Fred Carver, Director, Sri Lanka Campaign for Peace and Justice

Session 4: Colombo 2013: scoping the opportunity
Closing keynote speech: Senator Hugh Segal, Canada’s Special Envoy on
Commonwealth Renewal
Chair: Professor Philip Murphy, Director, Institute of Commonwealth Studies

Closing Remarks
Daisy Cooper, Director, Commonwealth Advisory Bureau

Read the agenda here

The rule of law and the separation of powers

By M. A. Sumanthiran-TUESDAY, 11 DECEMBER 2012 
The issue relating to military rule is  one of great concern to us. We don’t want military rule in any part of the country, be it LTTE rule or even Sri Lankan Army rule. We want civilian rule….we don’t want the Army rule, but there is a military rule that is being imposed upon our people and that is to be avoided. It is true that during the time that the war was on there were certain necessities, but now it is 3 ½ years later…enough time to have changed the situation. It is not necessary to continue in that high-handed fashion. We are not going to achieve any reconciliation if it goes on like this.
Coming to the Rule of Law, I want to read A.V. Dicey, ‘The Law of the Constitution’. These books are available in the library…those of you who can read, can read these things! And for your benefit I’ll read certain portions, enough for you to be able to digest for the day. And this is what it says – the principle of the rule of law:
‘The supremacy of the law of the land was not a novel doctrine in the 19th century. It may be traced back to the medieval notion that law, whether it be law ordained by God or by man, ought to rule the world.’

That is the Rule of Law and that is why our own Constitution also has very specifically, even in the preamble, talked about the Rule of Law. It says, that is a fundamental principle – the Rule of Law. It’s on that bedrock that our democracy exists.
Several mentions have been made in this House in the last couple of weeks with regard to the sovereignty of the people. In our Constitution the people are sovereign. It is not the Parliament that is sovereign. It is the people who are sovereign. This is different to the British concept…it is a British concept that the Parliament is sovereign. In fact, A.V. Dicey says that in Britain, Parliament means three things; the King, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. All these three things,  together, is called the Parliament and the essence of the supremacy or the sovereignty of Parliament is that Parliament can make any law whatever and Parliament can unmake law and that is what we call the legislative supremacy of Parliament.
In this country also we have the legislative supremacy of Parliament… there is no supremacy of Parliament. That’s a wrong notion. Not even in England, now. A hundred years ago that concept went out. In the 8th edition of A.V. Dicey, that was in 1855, he talked about the sovereignty of Parliament but in 1911, after the Parliamentary  Act in the UK, in the 1914 edition, before he died at the age of 92, he retraced it and said that the concept of Parliamentary sovereignty was outdated, and that was in 1911…hundred years ago in England. The situation has changed. But in Sri Lanka, in the 1972 Constitution, we did have the notion of Parliamentary supremacy or the legislative supremacy of Parliament. In the 1978 Constitution, for the first time, the issue of referendum was introduced.

In our Constitution we have two concepts: one is the rule of law and the other is separation of powers and as Parliament is supreme in the legislative sphere, the Judiciary is supreme in another sphere. Even in England, the concept of legislative supremacy came about through interpretation of Courts. In our Constitution, in Article 125 it has been very clearly laid out that it is only the Judiciary, and that too only the apex court, the Supreme Court, that has the sole and exclusive jurisdiction to interpret the Constitution.

When the concept of referendum was brought in the 1978 Constitution - it wasn’t there in 1972 Constitution - why was that brought in? It was brought in because the powers of Parliament were limited. Even by 2/3 majority you can’t change certain things in the Constitution. You can change it only by additionally going directly to the people and getting their consent at a referendum. That is why we have these entrenched clauses in the Constitution. The point that I’m making is that in the 1st Republican Constitution you could make any law. You didn’t have to get the consent of the people at a referendum. But now, under the 2nd Republican Constitution that we live under, the power of the Parliament has been restricted because you can’t change or you can’t make laws contrary to certain entrenched provisions. You have to go directly to the people because the people are sovereign, not Parliament. People have delegated their sovereignty to be exercised by three modes of governance and one has been given to Parliament, the other has been given to the President…the President has also been elected directly by the people but that does not mean that the Executive is supreme. Parliament is elected by the people, President is directly elected by the people…you can’t say Parliament is supreme over the other two institutions, merely because the Parliament is elected by the people. These are three parallel institutions that operate under a concept of separation of powers and unless we function in that way, the whole system will collapse.
(The above is a speech made by M.A Sumanthiram,in Parliament)

Four Jaffna students taken to Welikanda military detention camp

BY RAMANAN VEERASINGHAM-11 DECEMBER 2012

Four Jaffna University students, including its Union leader V. Bavanandan and secretary P. Darshananth, have been taken to the notorious Welikanda military detention camp, where hundreds of former Tamil Tiger rebels are still being detained and interrogated, their parents have been told on Monday (10).



24 year-old Medical Faculty student Darshananth of Kantharmadam, Arts Faculty Union President Kanakasundaraswami Jenamejeyan (24) of Puthukkudiyiruppu, Science Faculty Union member Shamugam Solomon (24) of Jaffna were arrested along with Students’ Union leader V. Bavanandan on December 29 and 30 by the Sri Lankan police in Jaffna and later taken away to Vavuniya by its Terrorism Investigation Division (TID).

“When we went to the Vavuniya TID office to visit our sons, they were not to be seen and we were rudely told that they have been send to the Welikanda detention camp,” one of the parents has told the media sources in Jaffna, expressing fears about their safety.

The parents or next of kin have not been told the reason for transferring their loved ones to the Welikanda detention camp. The Welikanda detention camp became notorious as a ‘torture chamber’ following the end of the government’s declared victory over the LTTE in May 2009. Several hundreds of top LTTE cadres are kept at this detention camp and some of them have reportedly gone 'missing' while being deained.  

Raising panic waves

This actions by the Sri Lanka’s defence authority to have arrested these students under the provisions of the draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and now transferring them to the Welikanda military detention camp, have added fuel to the existing fire of fear among the parents and Jaffna students society as a whole.   

Under the PTA, enacted in 1979, the defence secretary can order to detain a person in police custody for 90 days without being produced before the courts.

While transferring these four students to the Welikanda detention camp, the police have also released seven other students, who were arrested along with them, on Monday.K. Sanjeevan, S. Prasanna, S. Sasikanth, S. Janahan and T. Aparajithan of Jaffna Medical Faculty, P. Sabeskumar of Management Faculty and S. Renuraj of Science Faculty were leased by the TID at a meeting with their parents and respective faculty deans. 

Colombo media blackout dismayed

Several activists in Jaffna who spoke to JDS,  expressed dismay that many news media in Colombo, including some of the western media, have chosen to ignore these dangerous developments in Jaffna for the past two weeks. 

“It is rather pathetic to note that some Colombo-based media outlets, who purposefully refrained from carrying news stories relating to the arrests and problem faced by the students in Jaffna, have carried the release of the seven students as their headline story,” as activist said, urging the media to report unbiased.  

Northern Regional Co-ordinator of Sri Lanka Human Rights Commission (HRC), T. Kanakarajah said that the HRC office in Jaffna has received 20 complaints from parents and next of kin by the end of Monday (10).   

Many arrests remain unreported to the HRC due to fear of police and military reprisals.

Jaffna teachers to continue protest

MONDAY, 10 DECEMBER 2012 

While seven of the 11 Jaffna University students in TID custody were released today, Jaffna university teachers said they would return to work only if the others in custody were also released.

Police arrested 11 students following a tense situation that prevailed at the Jaffna University last week where students were involved in a violent clash with police and army personnel.

Jaffna University Teachers Union said university activities came to a standstill after the incident and this situation might continue if all the students were not released.

Union President R. Vigneswaran said university teachers were informed that the university general body would meet today to decide if teachers should return to work or continue to stay away until the other four students were released.

“We will stay away from work even if students come for lessons,” he said.

The university Vice Chancellor and faculty deans had left to Vavuniya yesterday to bring back the seven students from TID custody to Jaffna. The university Vice Chancellor and other senior university officials are looking forward receive information on the release of the other four students,” he said.

The Inter-University Students Federation (IUSF) charged that the students were arrested on false charges and urged for their immediate release.

“Armed personnel in civilian clothing and uniform are still present in the university premises. This situation must change immediately,” IUSF leader Sanjeew Bandara said.

The clash between security forces and university students took place when the students held an event called Maaveerar (Martyr' Day) to commemorate former LTTE leader V. Prabhakaran’s birthday on November 26. The students were arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

Students were also interrogated over a petrol bomb explosion at the TELO political party office in Jaffna and posters put up to commemorate the slain LTTE leaders birthday.

Several students were injured during the clash and students accused the police of attacking them while the police allege the students of throwing stones at the officers which compelled them to act. (Olindhi Jayasundere)

Militarisation: a state of terror
Editorial Tamil Guardian 11 December 2012
Editorial: Militarisation of the Tamil homeland is not the physical deployment of Sri Lankan military soldiers in the North-East, but a state of terror imposed on the Tamil nation.

The Sri Lankan state has relentlessly continued to consolidate its militarisation of the North-East since the armed conflict drew to a close in 2009. Regardless of international efforts at closed door diplomacy and the occasional public wrist slapping, the Sri Lankan state has shown no signs of relenting. The bludgeoning military budget, the grabbing of civilian lands for military housing and establishments, and the military’s saturating presence within everyday civilian life has continued; not only contrary to well-trodden paths of post-conflict reconciliation, but in brazen defiance of international criticism.

The significance of militarisation of the North-East however, goes beyond these measurable markers and tangible concerns. The end of the armed conflict has not proved to be a window of opportunity, to ensure equal rights for all citizens or create a ‘terrorism’-free liberal democracy. Instead it has been exploited by the Sri Lankan state as an opportunity to orchestrate the unhindered expansion of Sinhala Buddhist hegemony. Delirious with victory, the state, armed with its military, has embarked on an uncompromising goal of asserting a Sinhala Buddhist identity throughout the island and ruthlessly erasing any expression of an Eelam Tamil one.

Militarisation of the Tamil homeland needs to be understood within this context. It is not the physical deployment of Sri Lankan military soldiers in the North-East, but a state of terror imposed on the Tamil nation.

It is not merely a question of numbers, or ratio of soldiers to civilians. The crux of the problem is with the very make-up of the military and the purpose of its deployment in the North-East. Comprised overwhelmingly of the Sinhala Buddhist majority, it is irrefutable that the military stands accused of committing the most grievous crimes against the Tamil population. Whilst those at the top of the chain of command must be answerable to genocide, the Sri Lankan state’s absolute refusal to independently investigate the allegations and bring those individually responsible to account, ensures that to the Tamil nation, each and every Sri Lankan soldier is tainted with guilt. The very same soldiers that they have seen commit horrific acts of violence during the armed conflict, are now responsible for ‘security’ in their towns and villages.

In this setting, to argue that a decreased, more ‘reasonable’ deployment of the military would be acceptable, is to make a mockery of the victims and illustrates an abject failure to grasp the gravity of the crimes. The fact that these crimes continue to take place, only adds to sheer absurdity and thoughtlessness of such an argument. To a Tamil woman in the Vanni now, the presence of just one soldier, who potentially raped and filmed the bodies of mutilated women on his mobile phone, is no more reassuring than five.

The deployment of the military in the rest of the island can never be a justification for ‘reasonable’, ‘pre-war’ deployment in the North-East, even if there was equity in numbers. The Sri Lankan state’s monopoly on violence is not to equally defend and ensure the rights of all citizens. It is to protect the order of Sinhala Buddhist supremacy. The military in the North-East are not stationed to protect the Tamils, quite the reverse, the military is stationed to scrutinise and intimidate them, in order to protect the Sinhalese. The very presence of the military, is designed to serve as a reminder of the chauvinism that now rules over the entire island, and military’s every action, a warning to those who dare defy this status quo.

One need not look any further than the military’s attacks on Tamil students at the University of Jaffna who attempted to mark Maaveerar Naal by laying candles of remembrance for their fallen brothers, sisters and friends. The storming of student dormitories, the violent attacks on peaceful protesters, the arrests of student leaders by the terrorism investigation unit, the listing of ‘wanted’ students and the likely torture of detainees was to paralyse the Tamil nation with fear. The objective of each attack and each arrest was not law enforcement, but to terrorise. The mystery surrounding numbers of arrests and locations of detention further fuels this climate. The presence of Sri Lankan soldiers in the North-East, be it 1000 or 100,000, is to terrorise the Tamil nation into submission and acceptance of Sinhala Buddhist supremacy. Any act of defiance against this, however mundane or however peaceful, is seen as an act that threatens this ideology and one that needs to be quashed. This is why a candle lit behind closed doors by a Tamil remembering fallen LTTE cadres is considered a threat, in a way that public remembrance of the JVP’s dead never will be.

The Sri Lankan state’s response to Maaveerar Naal remembrance, comes as no surprise. The state has long destroyed the homes, memorials, and even cemeteries of fallen LTTE cadres. Dismayingly, the response of the Tamil nation’s political representation comes as little surprise either. The state’s violence against the Tamil population, nce again highlightsthe inadequacy of this representation, and shone a spotlight on the glaring impotency and failings of its leading figures in the Tamil National Alliance. Unity of Tamil political representation cannot be the end in itself, particularly when it is failing so miserably in achieving its raison d'être. As we have previously argued, the dangers of having no representation are greatly surpassed by the consequences of having a passively submissive one. The Jaffna University attacks have created a pertinent example of this - a swell of unrepresented, enraged Tamil youth, simmering under military rule, and lacking effective political advocates. 

"Strengthening My Struggle - Strasbourg Declaration"

Tuesday, 11 December 2012 

Today [10-12-2012] is International Human Rights Day. I am currently in Strasbourg, France, where the European parliament, Council of Europe and other important European institutions are based. My foremost purpose in this mission is to attend a “UNITED Study Session Against Racist Propaganda and Hate Speech online”. It is organized by UNITED Against Racism and hosted by the Council of Europe.

This is a special day in my life for more than one reason. I have an impression that my integration into the life of the European communities is being strengthened through engagement in concerns relating to the protection and promotion of human rights and in building solidarity across the globe.

Even though my genesis in fighting for justice through the protection and promotion of human rights began with the island nation of Sri Lanka, since Spring 2007 I have started to feel the urge to get actively involved in the protection and promotion of human rights throughout the world after an intense engagement with nationals of nearly eighteen countries in Birmingham, UK.

As long as threats prevail against justice and humanity, we cannot envision a peaceful world where we all live with mutual respect, dignity and freedom in harmony.

Protecting and promoting the rights of asylum seekers, migrants, refugees, particularly, political refugees has become the core of my engagement in Europe. Therefore, on this remarkable day, I take a crucial internal pledge to fight against racism and integrate this pledge into my ongoing struggle for justice.

To read the previous declarations please click on the below links.

"I Have Only One Objective and No Options" - 2011

" A Voice Of Resistance On Behalf of The Silenced Voices" - 2009

Courtesy - The Struggle for Justice

REMEMBERING THE DEAD RITES AND RIGHTS OF THE LIVING MONDAY, 10 DECEMBER 2012  By Bishop Duleep de Chickera The recent tensions in Jaffna between university students and security personnel, in which a student protest was baton charged, a journalist assaulted and some students arrested and detained, centres around the freedom to remember the dead; whether loved ones, friends or heroes. It is reported that the students lit lamps to remember the dead. In this act they participated in an universal rite, practised by billions over centuries in homes, cemeteries, places of worship and places where death has occurred. While traditions differ, the essence of the rite is remembrance and the symbolic recognition that the enlightening memory of the dead dispels the darkness faced by those left behind. To respect this rite is a sign of civilisation. In most societies, specially those which strive to rise from sectarian violence, those commemorated by one group are likely to be considered the enemy by another. Our society is no exception to this. But this does not mean that one has the right to prevent the other from remembering the dead. When the one which prevents is the State, and when it uses resources that are meant to protect its citizens, to suppress them instead, this type of behaviour becomes brazenly discriminatory. If, there were security concerns that the students had transgressed the law, these should have been investigated professionally with due regard to the same law and the very sensitive distinction between the real and that which is perceived. The seemingly impulsive and forceful reaction to the students’ desire to remember the dead implies a serious lack of ability to make this crucial distinction. This is not all it implies. The use of force appears to have been motivated by a determination to tame an already wounded minority and demonstrates impatience with the right of communities to their respective interpretation of history. But most seriously it revives the memory of the structural and visible violence experienced by the Tamil Community, which lies entrenched within the collective Tamil psyche and which can once again provoke fresh manifestations of violence that nobody wants. In fact these incidents draw attention to the common sense proposal of the LLRC, appointed by the President, calling for appropriate provision for thousands of Sri Lankans affected by violence to be able to come to terms with their grief with dignity; and to then begin the shift to a healing of memories leading to reconciliation. That such an event has still not happened and that the rights of the people to do so are prevented tells a much more tragic and disturbing story. This is why the recent Jaffna University incidents, the impeachment of the Chief Justice and some deaths among rioting prisoners in Welikada should not to be seen as sporadic, rash or clumsy mistakes. They are all pointers to an expanding type of governance and a shrinking democratic space. This is also why, regardless of how far north or south we or the other may be, we have to recognise that we are our sisters’ and brothers’ keeper.

Buddhist clergy attacks church at Hambantota [ Tuesday, 11 December 2012, 02:35.50 AM GMT +05:30 ] Group of Buddhist clergy attacks Christian church at Weeraketiya area in Hambantota last morning. More than thousand people lead by 80 Buddhist monks have forcibly enter the church has burned the vehicles and also cause damages towards church properties. People engage in the religious activities were injured and also property worth of Rs.6 million was damages. This church was build up in year 2001 at Weeraketiya area. In the recent past it faces various threats by Buddhist clergy. Police was unable to stop this attack. Speaking to BBC church member stated during the time of attack army and police personals were at the church premises but however they fail to take legal action against these suspects.