Ven. Elle Gunawansa Thero criticizes the government

 Sunday, 06 January 2013 

Elle Gunawansa Thero has said at a meeting of the Police Commission that had met under his patronage on the 2nd that the “government has messed things up with the impeachment motion.”

The Thero had said that the President had asked him to hold a press conference in support of the impeachment motion and that he had ignored it.

“You can be foolish, but to be this foolish? The brothers are trying to drag us down to hell along with them. We must know how to avoid such situations,” Ven. Gunawansa Thero had told the members of the Police Commission.

That ‘Halal Controversy’

By Malinda Seneviratne -January 5, 2013 

Malinda Seneviratne

Certain sections of the Sinhala Buddhist population are up in arms against what they call ‘Islaamikaranaya’ (Islamization) or ‘Halalkaranaya’ (Halal-ism).  The more virulent elements of this group have indulged in the most distasteful of anti-Islam hatemongering especially in social media sites such as Facebook.

The initial objection has been to non-Muslims being forced to play participant to a Muslim religious dictate pertaining to meat, i.e. the slaughtering of animals as per Islamic doctrine.  One can argue that if it’s meat that is desired then the ‘how’ of slaughter should not really matter.    It is not that non-Buddhists consuming Halal meat are automatically converted to Islam, after all.  On the other hand, perceived intrusions (there have been instances, we note, of Muslims legitimately and systematically purchasing properties to turn formerly ‘Sinhala’ villages into Muslim-dominated entities) can act as cultural trigger where those who talk the religion but may not practice it preying on natural social fears.

The Buddhist response would be to treat things with compassion, which would require Buddhists to draw on the principles of tolerance and empathy.  If wisdom is also employed, as is required according to Buddhism, then the wise thing would be stop eating meat altogether.  Consumption of meat is not necessarily forbidden, but since animal turns to mean only consequent to slaughter, and since slaughter does not sit with the Buddha Vacana (May All Beings Be Happy), then abstinence is a choice that takes a culturally unpalatable situation and turns it into a reason for walking closer to prescribed path.

The attacks on Muslims and Islam, and especially the vilification on sites such as Facebook are quite antithetical to Buddhist teachings of tolerance and equanimity.  They have been quite rightly condemned.  Some of the condemnation of course comes from those who have an axe to grind with Buddhism and Buddhists, ever ready to vilify but extremely reluctant to point error in other religions, their churches or followers.  Such people use the erroneous and misleading blanket descriptive ‘Sinhala Buddhists’  which is as bad as conflating Tamils and the LTTE.  The criticism, however, remains valid.

If these so-called ‘Buddhist’ groups are in error in their vilifying thrusts, so too, sadly, are some of their detractors, many of whom believe that only the majority community needs to be rebuked fearing perhaps that if other communities are found fault with (as collectives or partial entities or individuals) it amounts to being racist, chauvinistic, religiously intolerant etc.

A classic case is that of the furor over allegation of Tamil versions of the Law College Examination being leaked.  Now this is a competitive examination and the facts certainly raise questions that compromise the integrity of the examination in ways that are far more serious than a leaking of an Ordinary Level examination.  And yet, this has been a touch-me-not issue for almost all commentators who have intervened in the ‘Halal Controversy’.

If Sri Lanka is to be a nation of less paranoid communities it is imperative that each individual and each community looks within.  Sinhalese and Buddhists have shown exemplary tolerance in years gone by.  In Europe the only ‘religious’ holidays are Christian and in countries dominated by Muslims there is even less recognition of other faiths.  The intolerance of the Swiss is a well concealed fact that came out when a referendum was held about mosques.  There’s nothing in Sri Lanka akin to the issuance of Fatwas as are common in Muslim countries.  These are good things to think about.

In the end though, deeper reflection on faith and an abiding by the relevant doctrine would make for better engagement with religious others.  In the end all human beings, regardless of faith, share the same will to live and the same apprehension about death.  If a symbol of co-existence is required, take any mosque in any part of the island and the chances are there is a Bo sapling coming out of some crevice.  It doesn’t say anything about either faith, but the togetherness is a lesson that can be learnt.

*Malinda Seneviratne is the Chief Editor of ‘The Nation and his articles can be found at www.malindawords.blogspot.com .

**************************************************************************

Sunday Leader, Unpublished Right Of Reply And Lazy Journalism

By Arjuna Ranawana  -

Arjuna Ranawana

I decided to go public with the following story because all our efforts to get a right of reply or a comment published on a story that appeared in the Sunday Leader of December 23, 2012 has failed.

In the last weeks of December a story appeared in the Leader headlined Bodhu Bala Sena To Rebel Against “Muslim Extremists” by-lined Raisa Wickrematunga and Niranjala Ariyawansha.

The report described a meeting that is purported to have been held on November 30 at the Navinna Raja Maha Viharaya, where Sinhala Buddhists opposed to Muslims had gathered to launch a “rebellion” against a Muslim “conspiracy.”

Much of the report relied on a document and an interview with the Coordinator of the Bodhu Bala Sena the Ven Aluthweva Ananda thero.

The article described inflammatory speeches made at the meeting by several leading lights in the movement against Muslims .

While I cannot speak to the authenticity of the meeting or the speeches that are purported to have been made, where the report goes terribly wrong is that it says this this document was “circulated by one Anupama Ranawana”….and mentions that the aforementioned “Ranawana [who] was present at the meeting.”

The document itself was circulated by an unnamed source. My daughter – Anupama Ranawana – also received it. She is a doctoral student resident in the United Kingdom and as the material in the document carries some relevance to her research, she passed it on to an activist and researcher colleague in Colombo in order to verify the events described within and also to gather information on the group Rebellion ‘12 . As it was unsigned and did not have the name of an organization on the forwarding list, verification of the facts was important.

Anupama was not the original source for the document, its circulation nor did she “attend the meeting” as reported by the Leader.

On reading the article my daughter sent the Editor of the Leader newspaper  a Right of Reply, which was not published in the next issue of the newspaper.  She then posted her Right of Reply as a comment to the article, which too went unpublished. All her efforts to get a correction published in the Leader have failed.

It is doubly galling because both Anupama and I have been contributors to the Leader. In fact there is one article co-authored by the two of us published by the Leader that remains in its archives. It would have been so simple for the reporters on this story to send an email to Anupama and check with her directly as to whether she was the source of the document and also request her permission to use her name if she was, in fact, the author of the document.

Also, knowing the nature of the people involved in these extremist organizations, lazy journalism that incorrectly infers that Anupama is some sort of “mole” reporting on the activities of these bodies and “circulating” that information places her directly in harm’s way.

More significantly, this incident highlights a very serious case of falling standards at the Leader, a paper which has always had a reputation for forthright and serious journalism.

In the past several months, we have seen the paper issue apologies to government ministers, and publish edited versions of articles that would throw members of the government in a bad light.  As many in the media now yield to the severity of the Rajapaksa oligarchy, I am sad to see the Leader also drop its head in meek acquiescence.

For the year ahead, Sri Lanka faces many battles.  True processes of reconciliation and reform must be put in place that acknowledge the immense suffering of marginalized, and the slow eradication of minority rights and representation in post-war Sri Lanka.  As the attack on University students in Jaffna shows, even peaceful protest is inadmissible in the face of an army and a government acting with absolute impunity.

In such a situation, the media is often looked to as a check against the force of the state. It is not the time for lazy, opportunistic or sycophantic journalism.  People at the Leader should know the consequences of such reporting. When my friend and former colleague, Lasantha Wickrematunge was the Editor of  the Leader, certain sections of the State Media painted him a “traitor.” Lasantha was many things, but traitor he wasn’t. He found immense courage to expose the wrongdoings of the highest of the land because he truly loved Sri Lanka. But by painting him a traitor, those who wanted him out of the scene were able to justify his killing.

Also during Lasantha’s time responses to his stories, both positive and negative were published.

In failing to verify its facts, and denying my daughter a Right of Reply the Leader has shown how woefully low it has fallen.

Here’s hoping that the current staff at the Leader will have the courage to revive the spirit of that newspaper to its original independent self; until then, its motto, “unbowed and unafraid” remains meaningless.

Copied below is the Right of Reply which my daughter emailed to the Editor of the Leader, and later posted as a comment to the article; it was never published.

With regards to the above article I wish to make the following comment.

Assuming that the Anupama Ranawana that you are referring to in your publication is me,  I wish to state that while I was in receipt of this document describing the Rebellion ’12 event, I am not the original source of its circulation. I did notify a fellow activist/researcher about its existence whilst attempting to find some information for my Doctoral Thesis. When I received this document it had no author and it was unsourced. It was sent on by myself out of academic interest. As I do not reside in Sri Lanka, I neither attended the meeting at Navinna, nor am I the author of the document in question. It may have been best practice for your reporters to have contacted me to verify its source.   I am posting this response here as my original email to the Editor seems to have gone unheeded. It is sad to see that the Leader, a newspaper that used to boast very high standards, is losing them. 

The judiciary refuses to be ‘tamed and vanquished’

Sunday, January 06, 2013

Predictably, Government propaganda hitmen wasted little time in rushing to condemn the Supreme Court’s most extraordinary and exceptional Determination this week that the parliamentary impeachment of a superior court judge has to be determined by law and not by Standing Orders. The level to which this Government has deteriorated was amply seen by the fact that while party seniors preferred to remain quiet, with one or two even cautioning that the time has come to take a step back, the stage was taken over by the distasteful antics of newly come propagandists dancing like hysterical puppets on a master’s string, in clear contempt of court.

Would Sri Lanka become a ‘non-law’ country?
Let us examine what this Determination, forwarded to the Court of Appeal on a reference made to the Supreme Court, was all about. Fundamentally, the Bench comprising Justices Amaratunga, Dep and Sripavan affirmed the Rule of Law as the basic structure of the Constitution and relying on established precedent, warned that the power of impeachment of a superior court judge cannot be used by a Government ‘to tame and vanquish’ the judiciary.

Their ruling was underlined by the serious consequences which arise from a judge being thrown arbitrarily out of office by politicians. In obedience to the constitutional scheme and linking the concept of legal power to the process of impeachment by applying definitive rules of constitutional interpretation, Standing Orders were declared to be limited to regulating the orderly conduct and affairs of Parliament. Standing Order 78A which currently regulates the impeachment process was disallowed as not being ‘law.’ The Court stated that legislative power to impeach should conform to indispensable checks and balances mandated by the Constitution itself.

Whether one may agree or disagree with the content of this Determination, it is a decision of the highest court of the land. It stands as such until reversed by a Divisional Bench or a Full Bench of the Supreme Court itself. Thus, to go ahead with the impugned impeachment would mean a direct flouting of the Constitution. The very basis of the law in this country would be shaken to its foundations. Sri Lanka would henceforth be a country where ‘non-law’ prevails. The consequential impact on every sphere of government, including the investment climate, would be ruinous.

Several vital components of the ruling
The crux of this Determination could be broken down into several vital components of judicial reasoning, all flowing logically from each other. Thus, the investigation contemplated by Article 107(3) of the Constitution into the alleged misbehavour or incapacity of a judge as charged and the finding that the charges are proved, were pointed out to be essential steps to the ultimate removal of such judge by the President through an address of Parliament. The impeachment of a judge of the superior courts before Parliament affects the constitutional right to hold judicial office. Therefore such a finding amounts to the exercise of legal power and as such, can only be utilized by a court, tribunal or other body which has such a power conferred upon it by law.

Relying on the explicit inclusion of the word ‘law’ in Article 107(3), Parliament was enjoined to establish by law, a body competent to conduct an investigation and hand down ‘a legally valid finding.’ The law should reflect all aspects of the right to natural justice including the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call witness and adduce evidence, both oral and documentary as well as matters relating to proof being matters of law including the burden of proof, the mode of proof and the degree of proof. This was imperative in order to avoid any doubt about the ultimate determination of guilt.

Distinguishing between legal power and judicial power
Wisely meanwhile, the judges declined to rule on submissions made before it that a Select Committee of Parliament, in investigating the allegations contained in a resolution of impeachment, ‘exercises judicial power and as such it is contrary to Article 4 (c) of the Constitution and that Standing Order 78A is contrary to the Constitution, especially to Articles 12(1), 13(5) and 14(l)(g).’

The Bench determined that careful consideration of the question referred to the Supreme Court by the Court of Appeal made it clear that ‘it was not necessary’ to examine those submissions in answering the question in issue. The distinction drawn between legal power (declared by the Supreme Court to be exercised when an impeachment process gets underway in the House) and judicial power (declared by the Supreme Court as not being necessary to decide in this instant reference) would undoubtedly be of particular jurisprudential interest both locally and internationally.

The Government’s direct responsibility in provoking this ruling
Thus the law was declared and laid down by the highest court in the land. Now, let us come to politics and this Government’s direct and monumentally foolish actions in provoking a stern judicial response leading to a constitutional crisis of such high magnitude.

Contrast this deliberately written order of the Supreme Court with the crass stupidity of government members of parliament in declaring even within the last week that there was no burden on a PSC investigating the misbehavior or incapacity of a judge, to ‘prove’ the allegations against such an individual as this was not a court of law. Amusingly, we were treated to the sorry spectacle of politicians, parliamentarians and parliamentary officials taking it upon themselves to interpret the Constitution in blissful ignorance of the fact that this is the ‘sole and exclusive jurisdiction’ (Article 125 (1) of the Constitution) of the Supreme Court let alone brushing aside the fact that Article 107 specifically refers to ‘proved’ misbehavior or incapacity.

From some government members vulgarly insulting the Chief Justice as borne out by her statements to the indecent haste in which the impeachment was rushed through, it seemed that this Government was determined to say and do the things most calculated to show its boorishness and contempt for the law. It has now got the return in good measure. A judicial reprimand was therefore well in order.

Abandoning ourselves to the wolves outside our gates
This week’s opinion entered into through a spirit of ‘detached objective inquiry’ as the Court reminded, effectively reverses an earlier judicial timorousness in responding to abuse of executive power. Clearly this is a Court now made critically aware of the exact danger in which it finds itself from an executive excessively drunk with political power.
Importantly, the ruling must not be seen as directed exclusively to meet the injustice meted out to the incumbent Chief Justice. Certainly her trial by fire before a Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) consisting only of government representatives was the proximate cause for the ruling. However, the Determination goes far beyond individual interests and embodies salutary safeguards in relation to the security of tenure of judges and the independent functioning of courts.

If we are to brush aside this injunction, we are abandoning ourselves to the wolves that howl outside our gates. The responsibility in that regard would be ours and not that of the politicians (government and opposition) who have ruined this county for far too long. Let us be very clear on that.

Letter To Ban Ki-moon On The Plan To Impeach The CJ

By Bijo Francis -

Bijo Francis

January 6, 2013 

Honourable Mr. Ban Ki-moon

Secretary General

United Nations SA-1B15

New York, NY 10027

Fax: + 212-963-7055

Honourable Secretary General

Re: The plan to impeach the Chief Justice of Sri Lanka and imminent danger to the rule of law and democracy in Sri Lanka

Greetings from the Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC)

I am certain that your office is already aware regarding the critical situation undermining the rule of law and democracy in Sri Lanka that has developed by way of an open conflict between the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka and the Government of Sri Lanka. This conflict relates to the impeachment, by the government of the Chief Justice of Sri Lanka, Mrs. Shirani Bandaranatake.

The Supreme Court in its judgment dated 1 January 2013, has stated that the process adopted by the government for impeachment is unconstitutional and hence illegal. The UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers has stated that the manner in which the Government of Sri Lanka is proceeding against the Chief Justice violate the principles of separation of powers; independence of the judiciary and the process is the culmination of a series of attacks against the independence of judiciary.

The ALRC is contacting your office fearing that within the coming five days that is by 11 January there will be such a drastic change within the political system of Sri Lanka, which would transform Sri Lanka’s judiciary to a mere administrative organ without judicial powers, and hence will be unable to protect the liberty of individual citizens. The judiciary in Sri Lanka will be transformed into an instrument at the service of the executive.

Perhaps during your tenure in office you may not have been confronted with a situation where democracy and the rule of law is abandoned and dictatorship established through a parliamentary process. This is exactly what the Government of Sri Lanka is attempting to achieve in Sri Lanka.

According to the announcements made by the government, on 8 January the President will address the parliament on the report made by a Parliamentary Select Committee constituted by the government to impeach the Chief Justice. It is this process that the Supreme Court has declared invalid and as illegal and is against the fabric of the constitution. However, the government has announced that subsequent to the President’s address to the parliament, there will be two days’ of debate after which the issue of impeachment will be voted in the parliament. The government has more than the required majority to have the motion passed.

Since the Chief Justice is challenging the legality of her removal from office and the entire process held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, the ALRC fears that the Chief Justice will be removed from office by force and a new Chief Justice who is willing to oppose the judgment of the Supreme Court appointed. The resulting chaotic situation will be disastrous to the rule of law and democracy in Sri Lanka.

Besides, since the Judicial Services Association and the Bar Association of Sri Lanka have categorically opposed the removal of the Chief Justice since the process is devoid of universally accepted safeguards, the government clashing with the judges and the lawyers of Sri Lanka is inevitable. It is most likely that many judges, lawyers and the members of the civil society will be arrested or otherwise their rights tampered with by the government.

Under these circumstances it is only an extraordinary intervention through your high office that could weigh upon the government, to persuade the government to withdraw from the disastrous collision course it has embarked upon against the judiciary in Sri Lanka.  If this fails, Sri Lanka will sink under a dictatorship and how long that will last is hard to predict. Condemning this event and the damage done after it has taken place will be of little practical use to the people of Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka has been undergoing many political catastrophes since the past several decades, and the United Nations is blamed for its inability to make timely interventions to prevent such situations. We firmly hope that the present catastrophe would not have the same fate and that your office would use its mandate and the capacities that is available to your high office to make a decisive intervention on this occasion.

Sincerely

Bijo Francis

(Interim) Executive Director

ALRC

Annexe:

1. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka

For a complete dossier concerning the impeachment kindly see: www.humanrights.asia/resources/books/the-impeachment-motion-against-shirani-bandaranayake

Reconciliation: Looking Forward viii – Rules To Prevent Judicial And Other Abuses

By Rajiva Wijesinha -January 6, 2013 

Prof Rajiva Wijesinha

Problems connected with the attempted impeachment of the Chief Justicerequire solutions. I believe that impeaching the Chief Justice is no solution to anything, and will in fact lead us to forget the actual problems.

In suggesting the following practical solutions to the problems, I realize I am probably wasting my time, since we have developed a culture of addressing problems with sledgehammers designed for other uses. We generally land it on our own toes as well as the toes of those connected peripherally with the problem, instead of the people or the procedures that are the root cause of those problems.

Thus the United Nations as a whole is attacked for the Darusman Report, when they should have been our most trusted allies in refuting the propaganda of those who pushed the Secretary General into such a selective analysis. Tamara Kunanayagam gets dismissed for the Geneva Disaster, and those who contributed to it are permitted with impunity to deceive the President about leading lights in India as well as in the Sri Lankan Freedom Party, which should be the President’s closest allies in fulfilling his developmental agenda.

MaRa regime flagrantly and shamelessly violates constitution : country in dire peril
(Lanka-e-News-05.Jan.2013, 11.00PM) In spite of the supreme court (SC) delivering a verdict that the impeachment motion inquiry shall be so formulated that it does not conflict with the constitution and natural justice ; and the impeachment inquiry that was conducted was in violation of the constitution , the MaRa regime had trampled the SC verdict most viciously and unlawfully . That is , the Govt. had decided to debate the wrongful decision of the illegal Select Committee when the Parliament resumes sittings on the 8th , based on information passed by the inside sources of the Govt.

This is a very clear and brazen violation of the constitution by the Rajapakse regime. According to the laws of the country if a Govt. is acting in violation of the sacrosanct constitution , such a Govt. has no right legally to be in power. It is to be noted that if the constitution is transgressed even the immunity enjoyed by the President ceases to be valid. He is entitled to the immunity only as long as he abides by the constitution. Yet , since the security division power in the implementation of the SC decision is in the hands of the regime , using this power via the Forces and the security , it is readying to conduct itself most unlawfully and despotically. After fetching large crowds to Colombo on the 8th it is planning to demonstrate unlawfully that the people are with the transgressors of the constitution.
This repugnant and abominable plan of the regime while it can potentially plunge the country into anarchy, is also without any trace of doubt paving the way for the regime to take decisions dictatorially without permission of the UN Organization ,other Organizations and their rulers . 

At the initial stage of this impeachment motion , the SC which acted with responsibility made a request to postpone the impeachment process until this petition is heard and finished by it to avert a conflict between the Judiciary and the legislature. But the regime stubbornly and brutally ignored this request , and by resorting to a ‘fast forward’ mode deliberately created circumstances conducive to this obnoxious and uncalled for conflict. That is by violating the constitution absolutely and purposefully. Under section 125 (1) and (2) of the constitution , the Parliament is obliged to wait until the SC delivers a judgment based on its findings in regard to the interpretation of the constitution. In the circumstances the ruling regime had even now violated the constitution 
The Govt . is now desperately seeking to make a ‘grand public show’ that it has the support of the people for it to violate the constitution . In this situation it is for the common opposition to demonstrate that truly the people are against this ‘ boru show’ of the Govt. 

The main opposition cannot run away from this responsibility when the country and the people are in dire peril in the face of this imminent dictatorship. By releasing communiqués and idly watching it cannot stop ‘ Hitler and his men’ who are marching forward devastatingly . May the opposition be warned that posterity will not only curse ‘Hitler and his men’ , but also the opposition for not discharging its duty towards the people as its elected representatives owing to its impotency , lethargy and incapacity to halt the demons and dictators before it is too late. 

The Year Of Judgement

By Rajan Philips -January 5, 2013 

Rajan Philips

The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal could not have timed it better.  The former delivered its judgement on New Year’s Day and the latter made it public the following day.   Following a laudable work ethic and a working calendar, rather than the customary astrological considerations, the two superior courts have ushered 2013 as the Year of Judgement for Sri Lankan politics.  It is now for the Executive and the Legislature to either fall in line with the courts, as they must, or consult astrologers and constitutional devil’s advocates and cut their noses to spite the courts, as they might.

No matter how it ends, the political and constitutional unfolding through the rest of the year will be influenced by the New Year’s Day ruling.  Regardless of what course politics will take, the six superior court judges have quite unassumingly and unflappably written themselves into Sri Lanka’s constitutional history.  It is in the shadow of their ruling that Mahinda Rajapaksa, Ranil Wickremasinghe and even Shirani Bandaranayake are now left to play out what remains of their roles in public life.

A comprehensive ruling                  Read More

So You Want Anarchy, Do You?

 By Malinda Seneviratne -January 5, 2013 

Malinda Seneviratne

The 1978 Constitution is not made for dictators, contrary to an oft-articulated view.  It is rather made to make dictators in that it confers on the executive near dictatorial power.  The objections however have focused more on incumbent than position or constitutional provision.

The constitutional document is of course referred to but mostly to acquire the ‘objective’ tag or as make-up to disguise political preference.  In the main it has been about likes and dislikes.  Virtues of democracy and the need to have it affirmed in word and spirit are trotted out.  It’s part of the political game to appear neutral but political preferences are hard to hide in this day and age.

A good rule of thumb when assessing the democratic worth of constitutions and articles therein is to image a beneficiary whose ability and integrity one questions, someone whose ideological bent and politics one abhors. This is the device I suggested that MPs voting on the 18^th Amendment should use.

If we assume for argument’s sake that democracy is the best system of governance, the 1978 Constitution is a body blow to the idea.  If one wants Sri Lanka to be a better democracy, then a complete overhauling of the constitution is called for.  Easier said than done of course for it requires a two-thirds majority which is what is enjoyed by the current set of beneficiaries.  It would be myopic to expect them to vote against their interest. On the other hand those who aspire to obtain the same sweeping executive powers would hardly be interested in voting to prune these very same powers they hope to someday enjoy. This is perhaps why the focus is on person and not post and why the rhetoric seems hollow.

In this context it is natural to think that knocking off the slightest shard off the executive armor is a necessary step in a ‘democratizing’ process.  The error is that what incumbent loses does not materialize as a corresponding loss in constitutional provision.  J.R. Jayewardene was declared a tyrant.  Few were sorry to see him go at the end of his two terms.  When he was replaced, Premadasa inherited the powers as did Wijetunga, Kumaratunga and Rajapaksa after him.  The losses that accrued to the individual on account of error, ignorance and arrogance, they took to grave and retirement. Successors started afresh.

Attacking the President is easy.  Taking issue with position is also easy.  Arguing that the incumbent being ousted is ‘first step’ is hogwash.  Belief that a presidential back-off would amount to dent in constitutional provision is patently naïve.

Today there’s a stand-off of sorts, some would like us to think: Supreme Court vs. Parliament, Judiciary vs. Legislative.   Two process: Impeachment against the Chief Justice and Court Ruling against Parliamentary Select Committee.  Some have called for a change of laws pertaining to impeaching judges of the higher courts.  Some have called for prorogation of Parliament ‘to cool things a bit’.  The ‘callers’ claim it is all about the independence of the judiciary. Some add that it is a democratizing move.  The objection raised by some ministers to moves against the Chief Justice (at least in terms of the impeachment process) have been cheered by the above ‘callers’, notwithstanding the fact that some of these ministers are not exactly ‘people’s representatives’ in that they are in Parliament courtesy the President’s largesse.  Bold of them, yes, but the fact that they don’t have a constituency to speak of should not be forgotten.

More telling is the identity of the callers.  They are not political neutrals.  They are regime-haters and as such their democratizing credentials are suspect.   Whipping up notions of ‘confusion’ and ‘tension’ even as they call for an executive/legislative ‘back-off’ alone shows much humbuggery.

It is not a matter of picking between Mahinda Rajapaksa and Mr/Ms Perfect President.  The choice is not between Rajapaksa and A Better Order in the Foreseeable Future.  The choice is not between Executive Presidency and Westminster System (with or without some adjustment). For such choices, there have to be objective conditions such as severe economic, social, political discontent across the board.  There are people who are not exactly cheering this regime, but neither are they inclined to cheer anarchy.  The courts are not people-friendly, in fact that are places where the masses feel utterly displaced and disoriented.  Lawyers are seen as evil necessities by those who for whatever reason are forced to be in court.  Shirani Bandaranayake is not a Sarath Fonseka in this sense.    Those who try to market her as the figurehead of moves at changing regime and democratizing probably assume she’s naïve, which is of course a possibility that cannot be ruled out.  Worse, they assume that their political records are unknown.  It’s a straw-clutching exercise of the politically dispossessed and displaced privileged class that we have seen before, with Sarath Fonseka and before him Sarath N Silva.  No surprises therefore.

Only those whose lives and lifestyles are insured can wave hand at anarchy.  Such situations are made for blood-letting, but the blood that could flow will not be theirs, but that of ordinary people.  If it is a matter of a Constitutional Dictatorship versus Anarchy where a result in the favor of the latter (unlikely as things stand) spawns yet another Constitutional Dictator, the intelligent and responsible choice would be the former.

*Malinda Seneviratne is the Chief Editor of ‘The Nation and his articles can be found at www.malindawords.blogspot.com .

Missing woman found slain, dumped inside well near SL military post in Kaarainakar

[TamilNet, Friday, 04 January 2013, 21:06 GMT]
A 27-year-old mentally disabled woman, who was reported missing from the psychiatric unit of Thellippazhai Base Hospital in Valikaamam North, was found dead in an abandoned well near Sri Lanka Navy post at Kaarainakar on Friday. The inner clothes of the victim were found torn apart and her body was recovered in a decomposed state. Medical staff at Kaarainakar hospital and Moo’laay cooperative hospital told TamilNet that two SL policemen had come to their hospital with the mentally disabled female on 07 December seeking medical assistance. However, the SL policemen, when contacted by the relatives of the victim have ‘explained’ that they had dropped the female at Valanthalai junction situated at the entrance to Kaarainakar, around 1:30 a.m. on 08 December. 

The victim, Gajenthini Rasathurai, was reported missing on 06 December from Thellippazhai hospital. 

The abandoned well where the body of the victim was recovered on Friday is situated by the mangrove jungle close to Valanthalai Junction, an area manned by SL Navy around the clock. 

On 06 December 2012, when the victim was reported missing, medical staff at Thellippazhai hospital has reported the incident to the SL police at Vaddukkoaddai, as the victim was from Chiththangkea’ni under its area.

The family of the victim published the details of the missing woman in the local papers seeking assistance from the public to locate her. 

Following this, a Village Officer (GS) at Kaarainakar reported to the police at Vaddukkoaddai that residents in his area had spotted the missing woman. 

The SL policemen from Vaddukkoaddai rushed to Kaarainakar taking away the victim with them on 07 December. 

The people of the islands off Jaffna are in shock after witnessing a series of brutal rapes and killings of women and children in Neduntheevu, Ma’ndaitheevu and now in Kaarai-nakar. 

SL President Mahinda Rajapaksa had claimed that his government would be ‘developing’ Veala’nai, Neduntheevu and Oorkaavaththu’rai as these were the only civic bodies that were seized by the ruling UPFA alliance with the backing of EPDP, which virtually controls the civil and political affairs of the SL military occupied islands. 300 million rupees allocated for the civic bodies in the North were handed over only to these three councils. 

Now, the people of the islands have begun to question what ‘development’ has been brought forward in the islands under the control of the SL military and the EPDP. 

6 complaints made regarding rape and abuse.

Saturday , 05 January 2013

Jaffna Deputy Inspector General of Police Erick Perera said, 6 complaints are recorded last week concerning girls raped and sexually abused.

He said further 5 complaints are registered in Jaffna and one complaint is recorded in Kilinochchi. A four years old girl from Mandatheevu had been raped and was killed.

Regarding this incident none was arrested. A person who had stated that he is from the military intelligence unit was arrested as he was roaming at the incident locality and was interrogated.  Inquiry established that he is not from the military intelligence unit, and not involved with the crime act. Police are further investigating the incident.

A teenage girl was sexually abused by her father in the division coming under the Jaffna police unit is also a complaint registered. Suspected person is currently residing in an outside district. Shortly he would be arrested.

Father of a teenage girl residing in the Jaffna police division was arrested on charges of sexually abusing the girl on last 29th.

A 15 years old girl had been abducted by her security personnel in Jaffna town last week. Regarding this incident a complaint has been made to the police. The person abducted was identified through investigation.
Police travelled from Jaffna to Vavuniya rescued the girl from a house where she was detained.

The person who abducted the girl and the house owner were arrested. Reports state both of them were having a love affair. However, because the girl is in her teens, and as it is against law, the suspected persons were arrested.

A teenage girl from Point Pedro police unit was raped. Regarding this a complaint had been made to the police on last 27th. The persons connected with the crime had been arrested.

Another teenage girl from Kilinochchi had been sexually abused on last April month. A complaint regarding this incident was lodged last week to Police. Concerning this inquiries were carried out and three persons were arrested was mentioned by Jaffna Deputy Inspector General of Police Erick Perera

Rajapaksa men stalk Australian protesters

Saturday, 05 January 2013 

Melbourne, Friday – Sri Lankan Government operatives have been intimidating peaceful protesters at Test cricket matches in Melbourne and Sydney, according to the BSLCC.

Boycott Sri Lanka Cricket Campaign (BSLCC) organiser, Trevor Grant, said today that Sri Lankan men armed with cameras and video equipment had been stalking and filming people while they protested at the MCG and SCG in the past two weeks.

“I was walking along Moore Park Road in Sydney by myself after handing out leaflets outside the SCG when I noticed a Sri Lankan man from about 50 metres away in the park taking photographs of me. I went towards him and he ran away to try to hide behind a big tree,” Grant said.

“I also saw him taking close up photographs of protest signs. I went to approach him again but he kept moving away and seeking shelter behind the tree in the park.

“He had another taller, well-built Sri Lankan man with him. They were also lurking in the distance taking video film of other protesters, including the group of Tamils there.

“ They were both well-dressed and obviously collecting evidence for their Government. There is no way they were press members because they wouldn’t identify themselves when I approached, preferring to skulk in the shadows of the big trees.

Grant said that when one of the Tamil-Australians in the crowd saw them away in the distance he yelled out to them: “Stop hiding and come and take my picture, I’m not afraid of you guys,” Grant said.

Tamil Youth Organisation spokesman Kartheeban Arul said it was a well-known tactic of the Rajapaksa regime to collect evidence of people who protest against his government and then use it in various ways to intimidate people.

“They are usually from the embassy and they do it all the time. They send the film back to Sri Lankan intelligence and then they will harass and even jail and torture relatives of the protesters,” he said. “But the Tamil people are determined not to be intimidated. We are protesting to tell the world about this ruthless, murderous regime and by doing this sort of thing they are doing our job for us.

“It seems a bit of a contradiction, though, that people acting on behalf of a brutal dictator are allowed to intimidate and stalk Australian citizens under the noses of Australian police who are there monitoring very closely the movements of our peaceful protests.”

Grant said that when they kept filming him he went towards them again to try to take pictures of them. “I yelled to the guy ‘How would you like this sent back to police and have your relatives put in jail? He replied to me: ‘No worry. My relatives are all here now,’,” Grant said.

The stalking tactics were also employed at the Boxing Day Test match in Melbourne. Two Sri Lankan men were filming the protests, one a stills photographer who admitted he was working for the Sri Lankan embassy and another with a video camera on a tripod who was dressed immaculately in a finely-cut suit and tie.

A Tamil-Australian protester approached the stills photographer and objected to what he was doing on behalf of the Sri Lankan Government. The photographer said: “I’m just doing a job. I really understand what you people have been through.”

Grant said these tactics were straight out of the Rajapaksa regime’s handbook but the group had been buoyed by the very positive reaction to the protests so far and would not be deterred.

“We live in a democracy and you are entitled to take photos and film people in a public place but this is clearly intimidation and there are laws against such things,” Grant said.

“The protests so far against the touring Sri Lankan cricket team have been very well-received. This team is being used to launder the image of a vicious regime. We will be continuing the rallies during the one-day and 20/20 series up until the end of January.

”Why would we stop when 66 per cent of readers in a Melbourne newspaper poll agreed that Sri Lanka should be banned from world cricket? ”

For further information contact Boycott Sri Lanka Cricket Campaign (BSLCC) – Trevor Grant (0400 597 351).