State sovereignty Vs External interference in relation to foreign funding for NGOs

UN Development Chief again named one of the world's 100 most powerful women

22 May 2013

New York – Forbes Magazine has named UN Development Chief Helen Clark one of the world’s 100 most powerful women for a ninth year, citing her focus on gender equality to promote sustainable growth and reduce poverty.

“Beginning her second four-year-term as administrator of the lead agency in the UN development system, Clark sits atop a US$5.8 billion annual budget and a staff of 8,000 in 177 countries. Her solution to sustainable economic growth and poverty reduction includes big investments in gender equality and reproductive health,” it said. “Before becoming UNDP's first female head in 2009, Clark was the first elected female Prime Minister of New Zealand.”

Helen Clark was ranked 21st on the list of 100, which includes German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, Gates Foundation co-chair Melinda Gates, US First lady Michelle Obama, former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg in the top spots.

In April, the United Nations General Assembly confirmed her appointment by the Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, as UNDP Administrator for a second four-year term. Helen Clark took up her post as Administrator of UNDP in April 2009 after serving three consecutive terms as Prime Minister of New Zealand.

She is the first woman to lead the UN's global development network and chairs the UN Development Group.

“During my second term, sustainable human development and poverty eradication will continue to be at the heart of what UNDP does,” she said at the time of her reappointment.

“I will remain firmly focused on MDG achievement and on accelerating efforts up to 2015 and beyond. I look forward to implementing this vision and to making UNDP an ever more transparent, accountable, and effective organization.”

Foreign Policy magazine, in its May-June 2013 issue, included Helen Clark in “The FP Power Map: The 500 most powerful people on the planet”, while American University this week ranked her among its top 20 Women Changing the World.

State sovereignty Vs External interference in relation to foreign funding for NGOs

Maina Kiai: Where domestic funding is scarce or unduly restricted, it is critical for associations to be free to rely on
foreign assistance in order to carry out their activities

Maina Kiai, UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association

Thursday, May 23, 2013

27. In recent years, the protection of State sovereignty or of the State’s traditional values against external interference has also been increasingly invoked to restrict foreign funding or to launch slander offensives against those receiving foreign funding.

Foreign funding to civil society has been deliberately depicted as a new form of imperialism or neocolonialism and recipients have been subject to defamation, stigmatization and acts of harassment. This tendency has a serious impact on the work of civil society actors, not to mention their ability to access funding as it deters them from seeking foreign funding. This situation is particularly alarming for associations promoting human rights and democratic reforms who have been accused of “treason” or of “promoting regime change”. 

28. For instance, in the Russian Federation, a new law adopted in July 2012 requiresforeign-funded non-commercial organizations engaging in “political activities” – which is broadly defined as attempts to influence official decision-making or to shape public opinion for this objective – to register as organizations “performing the functions of foreign agents”, which in Russian is synonymous with “foreign spy”. The adoption of this law has been followed up by a series of audits of organizations, including prominent human rights organizations. In Egypt, the State-owned press has campaigned against civil society organizations, branding them as foreign agents due to foreign funding that some of them allegedly received. In Ethiopia, legislation not only prohibits associations working in rightsbased areas from receiving more than 10 per cent of their funding from foreign sources, but also requires associations to allocate at least 70 per cent of their budget to programme activities and no more than 30 per cent to administrative costs, which are broadly defined. The enforcement of these provisions has a devastating impact on individuals’ ability to form and operate associations effectively, and has been the subject of serious alarm expressed by several United Nations treaty bodies.13 In the same vein, a law on associations, adopted in January 2012 in Algeria, prohibits associations from receiving funding from legations and foreign non-governmental organizations, unless a “cooperative relation duly established with the foreign entity” – subject to prior authorization from the relevant authorities – is in place. Serious concerns about this legislation were expressed by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression further to his mission to Algeria. (14)

29. It is paradoxical that some of the States stigmatizing foreign-funded associations in their own countries are receiving foreign funding themselves (in the form of loans, financing or development assistance), often in substantially greater amounts than that flowing to CSOs in their country. Others are the very same States providing funding to associations abroad, while rejecting foreign funding for associations in their own countries. But what is clear is that these new trends have a dramatic effect on civil society as they have not only resulted in restrictions to the enjoyment of freedom of association, but also led to further human rights violations.

30. In order to analyse whether the limitation motivated by the protection of State sovereignty complies with international human rights law, it must first be explored whether it falls within one of the limited legitimate grounds for restrictions. The protection of State sovereignty is not listed as a legitimate interest in the Covenant.

The Special Rapporteur emphasizes that States cannot refer to additional grounds, even those provided by domestic legislation, and cannot loosely interpret international obligations to restrict the right to freedom of association. In his view, such justification cannot reasonably be included under “the interests of national security or public safety” or even “public order”. Affirming that national security is threatened when an association receives funding from foreign source is not only spurious and distorted, but also in contradiction with international human rights law.

31. Human Rights Council resolution 22/6 calls upon States to ensure that “that no law should criminalize or delegitimize activities in defence of human rights on account of the origin of funding thereto.” Article 2 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights requires States to “take steps, individually or through international assistance and co-operation […] to the maximum of their available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant”. Coupled with article 11 of the same Covenant, which provides for States to “take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent” (emphasis added), this means that States have the obligation to mobilize resources that are available within the society as a whole, but also to gather those that are available from the international community.15 Hence, restrictions on foreign funding under the guise of preservation of State sovereignty arguably constitute a violation of States’ obligation to respect, protect and fulfil these rights, as it amounts to failure on the part of the State to maximize resources through international assistance and cooperation. This is also the sense of the Maastricht Guidelines on Violations of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which stipulate that violations of these rights notably include: “the adoption of legislation or policies which are manifestly incompatible with pre-existing legal obligations relating to these rights […]; the adoption of any deliberately retrogressive measure that reduces the extent to which any such right is guaranteed.” (16)

32. Protection of State sovereignty is not just an illegitimate excuse, but a fallacious pretext which does not meet the requirement of a “democratic society”. The expression “democratic society” places the burden on States imposing restrictions to demonstrate that the limitations do not harm the principles of “pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness”.(17) Associations, whether domestic- or foreign-funded, should therefore be free to promote their views – even minority and dissenting views, challenge governments about their human rights record or campaign for democratic reforms, without being accused of treason and other defamatory terms. Dissenting views should be seen by the authorities as an opportunity for dialogue and mutual understanding. The European Court of Human Rights in affirming this principle ruled that “an organisation may campaign for a change in the legal and constitutional structures of the State if the means used to that end are in every respect legal and democratic and if the change proposed is itself compatible with fundamental democratic principles.”(18)

33. In addition to the fact that justification on the grounds of State sovereignty violates international norms and standards related to freedom of association, the Special Rapporteur is extremely concerned about increased denigration and unfounded accusations against individuals and organizations receiving foreign funding. Special procedures mechanisms have expressed their particular dismay about cases of vicious verbal attacks, intimidation, property damage, physical assaults and even criminalization against activists accused of having ties to a foreign entity, on the sole ground that they had allegedly received foreign funding (e.g. Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan). Allowing or inciting public discredit on individuals’ or organizations’ honour and reputation or inciting nationalist and xenophobic sentiment is likely to cause associations to engage in self-censorship and, more gravely, to incite hatred

and fuel further human rights violations.

34. Finally, the Special Rapporteur is concerned that in most cases, States which restrict or stigmatize foreign funding under the guise of preservation of sovereignty are also those which limit access to domestic funding or which subject associations to discriminatory treatment due to the thematic area they focus on. Where domestic funding is scarce or unduly restricted, it is critical for associations to be free to rely on foreign assistance in order to carry out their activities. The Special Rapporteur recalls again that “governments must allow access by NGOs to foreign funding as a part of international cooperation to which civil society is entitled, to the same extent as Governments”.(19) He believes that States must demonstrate a change in mentality by highlighting that funding associations contribute to the development of a flourishing, diversified and independent civil society, which is characteristic of a dynamic democracy.

13. CAT/C/ETH/CO/1, para. 34; CCPR/C/ETH/CO/1, para. 25

14. A/HRC/20/17 Add. 1 paras. 83-86; see also CEDAW/C/DZA/CO/3-4, para. 19.

15. See Audrey Chapman and Sage Russell (eds.), Core Obligations: Building a Framework for

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Antwerp, Intersentia, 2002).

16. Maastricht Guidelines on Violations of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Maastricht, 22-26 January 1997), para. 14 (d) and (e); see also the Limburg Principles on the Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1986), para. 72.

17. European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Handyside v. the United Kingdom, application No. 5493/72, judgement of 7 December 1976, para. 49.

18. ECtHR, Zhechev v. Bulgaria, application No. 57045/00, judgement of 21 June 2007, para. 47.

19. A/59/401, para. 82.

Human Rights Council

Twenty third session

Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association,

Maina Kiai

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.39_EN.pdf

Last Night Dinner At SB’s Residence: MR To Appoint UGC Chairperson’s Husband As The VC Of University Of Colombo

May 23, 2013

The government seems to be heading for a yet another confrontation with university academics, this time over the highly controversial appointment of the Vice Chancellor (VC)  of University of Colombo.  It is reported that the President Mahinda Rajapaksa, under pressure within the family,  is yet again considering appointing Dr. Kumara Hirimburegama, as the VC. According to the sources from the pro government SLFP university teachers’ union, academics of all the faculties of Colombo University will join in trade union action against what they consider a blatant political interference in universality autonomy by appointing a lesser qualified applicant for the post ignoring the most qualified person among the candidates.  Moreover, academics have pointed out that Dr. Kumara Hirimburegama being the husband of Prof. Kshanika Hirimburegama, the Chairperson, University Grants Commission (UGC), in the event of his appointment to the post, a serious conflict of interest will emerge given the UGC Chairperson’s ability to use her official authority to interfere in the running the affairs of the University of Colombo.

Mahinda Rajapaksa

These facts have been revealed consequent to a dinner meeting hosted by  the Minister of Higher Education, S.B. Dissanayake at his residence in the evening of May 22nd. It is reported that the dinner had been organized under the President’s directive with the objective of reconciling the two warring pro-government sections within the University of Colombo which have fiercely lobbied the President to appoint the candidate of their choice, namely either Dr. Kumara Hirimburegama or Dr. Prathibha Mahanamahewa.

While Prof. Kshanika Hirimburegama and her husband had represented their faction at the dinner, Prof.  Premakumara de Silva, the President of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party teachers’ union and the Deputy Vice Chancellor (DVC), Student Affairs, University of Colombo had   lead the pro- Mahanamahewa faction with a few more members of the SLFP teachers union in attendance. Reportedly, the two factions had traded serious accusations against each other, the arguments being tense and hostile at times. It is reported that the discussion ended without reaching a point of reconciliation. While Prof.  Premakumara de Silva had threatened to resign from the post of DVC, members of the SLFP teachers’ union had pointed out that the above proposed appointment will lead to the strengthening of the position of FUTA yet again as the FUTA is bound to launch a trade union action over this appointment and that the SLFP Teachers’ Union would not stand in its way. It is this same SLFP teachers’ union that campaigned earlier to solicit the support of the Defense Secretary, Gotabaya Rajapaksa to get Dr. Mahanamahewa appointed to the post in vain.

The feud between the Hirimburegama faction and the SLFP University Teachers’’ Union

According to our sources, Prof. Premakumara de Silva had been initially a loyalist of Prof. Kshanika Hirimburegama when she was the Vice Chancellor, and both together were actively involved in undermining the FUTA strike. However, later Prof. Hirimburegama fell out with Prof. Premakumara de Silva and resisted the proposal of the Minister of Higher Education to appoint Prof. Premakumara de Silva as the DVC. However, the Minster’s authority finally prevailed upon and Prof. de Silva was appointed as the DVC by Prof. Kshanika Hirimburegama on the eve of leaving the VC post to take up the post of Chairperson, UGC. With the SLFP  university teachers’ union putting their full weight behind the candidacy of Dr. Mahanamahewa for the post of VC, the animosity between the Hirimburegama faction and the SLFP  university teachers’ union got intensified and hence the effort on the part of the government to reconcile the two parties before appointing  Dr. Kumara Hirimburegama as the VC. However this effort is said to have failed and now the SLFP university teachers’ union is said to be organizing itself to put their full weight behind the candidacy of Professor Lakshman Dissanayake for the post of VC and appeal to the President not to appoint Dr. Hirimburegama as it will lead to a situation where the academics will overwhelmingly rise up against that decision thus disrupting the life of the university.

Minister Dissanayake had revealed to the SLFP university teachers’ union that the President’s decision to appoint Dr. Kumara Hirimburegama is taken despite his objections to such a decision. The Minister had further added that while his first choice would be Senior Professor Lakshman Dissanayake, if the latter is to be sidelined  he would still prefer Dr. Mahanamaheava to Dr. Hirimburegama.

Playing  the card  of FUTA bogey and misleading the President

It has also been revealed that in the effort to get Dr. Kumara Hirimburegama appointed for the post, capitalizing on the President’s well known antipathy to the FUTA, the President has been purposely mislead by an interested party through a well planned misinformation and disinformation campaign.  The highlight of this has been portraying Professor Lakshman Dissanayake as a FUTA activist or a Fonseka loyalist. To this effect, fraudulently produced photographs using photo-shop technology, combining photos of  Professor Lakshman Dissanayaka from other occasions with those from FUTA general activities and Sarath Fonseka’s election campaign are said to have been submitted to the President.

Academics point out that the President who was formerly a trade unionist himself and the Minister of Labour should not consider as if it is crime to be a member of FUTA, the largest Union of the university academics representing thousands of members many of whom have supported to bring the Rajapaksa regime to power on two occasions.  With its very long history FUTA has been the sole representative of the entire university community in the country. Many members of the SLFP university teacher’s union themselves are members of FUTA affiliated sister unions. It is imperative that all self-respecting university academics should be members of FUTA and as such the FUTA is not an anti-government union.

Academics also point out that on the other hand Professor Lakshman Dissanayake is only a general member of  FUTA affiliated sister union of the Faculty of Arts, like almost all of the academics at the Faculty including many senior academics. It has also been pointed out that Professor Lakshman Dissanayake was not even in the country during the campaign of Sarath Fonseka of which Dr. Prathibha Mahanamahewa was an active campaigner. Another fraudulent argument put forward by the Hirimburegama faction is that Professor Lakshman Dissanayake has time to serve only one term as the Vice Chancellor if he is appointed to the post and because of that he will play havoc as the Vice Chancellor. It is reported that this information regarding the remaining period of service is also totally false and has been fabricated  to discredit the candidacy of Professor Lakshman Dissanayake. Academics are surprised that such blatant fabrication of lies have been carried out by persons who are holding high offices with a view to purposely mislead the President.

Our sources report that academics at the University of Colombo are closely watching the situation and they earnestly hope that the government would not embark on the war path with the university academics by going ahead with the appointment of a lesser qualified person to the post of Vice Chancellor of this  leading university of the country or subjecting it to the family rule

On an earlier occasion Colombo Telegraph reported how the candidates for the post of VC  fared at the voting by the Governing Council of the University of Colombo. Of the three candidates, Dr. Kumara Hirimburegama, reportedly a grade II senior lecturer got 08 votes as against the 15 votes earned by the candidate with the highest votes, namely, presently Senior Professor  Lakshman Dissanayake

SRI LANKA: A man was arrested on suspicion of taking part in a bombing and sentenced to death after a sham trial

May 23, 2013

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information that Mr. Krishnaswami Ramachandran was arrested on suspicion of his involvement in the bomb blast at Daladha Maligawa in 1998. He was tortured and the charges were based on the confession he was forced to give under duress. In 2003 he was sentenced to death by the Kandy High Court. Ramachandran states that he was not given a fair trial. He further states that the trial was held in Sinhalese which is not his mother language and due to this he was unable to follow the proceedings. He also vehemently refutes the charges and says that he was convicted and sentenced for a crime he did not commit.

CASE NARRATIVE:

Mr. Krishnaswami Ramachandran of No 200, Mawalawatta, Uda-Peradeniya, in the District of Kandy, was arrested by the police on the suspicion of his involvement in the bomb blast at Daladha Maligawa in 1998. Ramachandran was arrested on 3 February 1998. He is married and the father of two daughters, Megala Ramachandran (24 years) and Kamalesh Ramachandran (22 years). He was detained at the Bogambara Prison.

In 2003 he was sentenced to death by the Kandy High Court. Ramachandran states that he was not given a fair trial. He further states that the trial was held in Sinhalese which is not his mother language and due to this he was unable to follow the proceedings. He also vehemently refutes the charges and says that he was convicted and sentenced for a crime he did not commit. In this regard Ramachandran has filed an appeal against the verdict of the High Court in the Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka which, according to his two daughters, is still pending.

Ramachandran daughters also affirm that their father did not get a fair trial as he was not kept apprised of the proceedings and that his full testimony was never submitted and to the trial judge who did not consider the scant information that he did actually receive. According to the two daughters, "On 14 January 1998 on a Thai Pongal Festival Day, one of our father's relatives, Subramaniam Ravindran came to our house after almost ten years. We were not aware of what he was doing or what his job was. When our father inquired about it, he said that he (Subramaniam Ravindran) got married in Trincomalee and that he is now doing a business(in small scale) in a lorry". Later Ramachandran learned that this Ravindran had been arrested by the police on the suspicion of his involvement in the bomb attack. It was one day after his visit that Ramachandran was also arrested. Ramachandran and his two daughters state that they were not aware that Ravindran had any connection to the bomb blast.

On 3 February 1998, Ramachandran was arrested from his home by police officers attached to the Kandy Headquarters Police Station as a suspect in the bomb blast. He was severely tortured and forced to sign several documents while in police custody. He was then produced in court and detained without bail at Bogambara Prison. In 2003 without any investigation and also without giving him a chance to properly defend himself he was sentenced to death. At that time of his arrest his children were 10 and 7 years old, respectively.

Setting off a bomb at Dalada Maligawa was considered a very serious offense against the Buddhists and therefore the lawyer was reluctant to appear for the suspects.

According to Ramachandran's daughters, "Krishnaswami Ramachandran, our father was just a laborer when he was arrested and we did not have anybody to help. Our mother had to take care of us all by herself from the day our father was arrested. However she got very sick after he was arrested and her illness got worse and she died (due to a cardiac arrest heart attack) on 30 September 2006 leaving both of us behind. After her untimely death we were cared by our relatives. We studied at Sarasavi Sinhala Maha Vidyalaya in Sinhala medium and we completed our G.C.E. Ordinary Level Examinations, and could not go further due to financial difficulties. We are still not married and expecting our father to return home".

The further explained the difficulties they face: "We are certain that Krishnaswami Ramachandran our father did not have any contacts with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE). He supported and helped our former ex-president Chandrika Bandaranayaka Kumarathunga during the time of presidential elections. He is now in prison for almost 10 years, suffering from diabetes. He is 58 years old but he has never done anything wrong against the government but unfortunately he was accused by the police officers for no reason, that he had no contacts with the LTTE. He was suspected because of the visit of Subramaniam Ravindran who was arrested just on the suspicion in connection with the bomb blast. The police officers who arrested our father, Krishnaswami Ramachandran were given promotion and were admired by the Buddhists community. The news reports said that Krishnaswami Ramachandran made a confession that he blasted the Dalada Maligawa".

The daughters further state that all these allegations were based on the confession which was made after severely torturing their father and where the officers took his signature by force. They confidently states that, "Our parents were born and raised in Kandy at the above mentioned address and our parents had no connection with the LTTE. Therefore we appeal for justice and fair trial".

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

The Asian Human Rights Commission has reported innumerable cases in which innocent people have been tortured by the Sri Lankan police. Torture is illegal under international and local law.

The Asian Human Rights Commission received several hundreds of cases where innocent people have been illegally arrested and detained under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act No. 48 of 1979 (PTA). This act has been used by state authorities to conduct mass arrests and detain people indefinitely without producing them before a court of law. Furthermore, this law allows authorities to prosecute the suspects with voluntarily recorded confessions. As a result of these legal provisions, the AHRC has observed hundreds of cases in which suspects who have severely tortured, are forced to sign blank documents or documents which have not been explained to them for use as confessions in court.

The AHRC has issued several Urgent Appeals in recent years calling for justice for the detainees who were illegally arrested and detained under the PTA. The basic principles of rule of law are not respected within the legal system of Sri Lanka. These draconian laws curtail the civil liberties and fundamental human rights of the people of Sri Lanka.

The State of Sri Lanka sign and ratified the CAT on 3 January 1994. Following state obligations, Sri Lanka adopted Act number 22 of 1994 making torture a crime punishable with a minimum of seven years and not less than ten years in prison, on being proven guilty. The Attorney General of Sri Lanka is suppose to file indictments in the case where credible evidence is found of people being tortured by state officers.

SUGGESTED ACTION: 
Please write to the Sri Lankan authorities expressing your concern about this case and requesting an immediate investigation into the allegations of illegal arrest, illegal detention, torturing by the police perpetrators, and the prosecution of those proven to be responsible under the criminal law of the country for misusing powers of a state. The victim must be released from the prolonged arbitrary detention immediately. The officers involved must also be subjected to internal investigations for the breach of the department orders as issued by the police department. Further, please also request the NPC and the IGP to have a special investigation into the malpractices of the police officers for abusing the state officers' powers.

Please note that the AHRC has also written a separate letter to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the Working Group on Arbitrary Arrest and Detention on this regard.

To support this appeal, please click here: 

SAMPLE LETTER:

Sri Lanka president's son faces rugby misconduct claims

By Charles Haviland-22 May 2013 -Mr Rajapaksa, 22

Rohitha (centre) - dealing with the powerful Rajapaksas is a delicate matter

Continue reading the main story

Sri Lanka's rugby authorities are investigating President Mahinda Rajapaksa's rugby-playing son after claims that he assaulted a referee.

One report says Rohitha Rajapaksa has been suspended from the game but the Sri Lanka Rugby Football Union (SLRFU) denies this.

Witnesses said they saw Mr Rajapaksa, 22, physically attack the referee after his side lost a match this month.

Rugby is the island's most popular sport after cricket.

A top rugby official said he believed the incident was merely verbal but must be looked into.

The case is politicised: all three of the president's sons play in the Navy SC team and the second son, Yoshitha, is captain of the national side.

That appointment prompted some senior players to quit, although the team has since won promotion back to the top tier of the Asian 5 Nations tournament.

Eyewitnesses at the Navy SC vs Police A match on 5 May said that after the defeat Rohitha Rajapaksa, the president's youngest son, grabbed the referee, Dimitri Gunasekera, by the collar and assaulted him.

'Unnecessary words'

Other match officials and Yoshitha Rajapaksa reportedly intervened to defuse the situation.

The Lankadeepa newspaper says Rohitha and another player have been suspended pending an inquiry by a special SLRFU committee.

The SLRFU Chairman Asanga Seneviratne told the BBC he did not believe there had been a physical assault but thought "unnecessary words were exchanged".

"I'm surprised [Rohitha] is involved," he said. "It's very unfortunate it happened, and must be investigated."

The secretary of the SLRFU, Rizly Illyas denied the account in the Lankadeepa newspaper, saying there had been no decision to suspend Rohitha and that the inquiry was continuing.

Reports say the special committee was appointed after the SLRFU's regular disciplinary committee refused to take up the matter.

The president's eldest son, Namal, said on Twitter that the "entire incident was a misunderstanding" but did not answer questions on whether an assault took place.

Dinka Peiris of the Society of Rugby Football Referees declined to comment but said referees were seeking better control over the conduct of matches.

Days after the alleged assault there were more allegations of misconduct - by a school rugby team which is trained by Rohitha Rajapaksa.

In recent newspaper interviews, the youngest Rajapaksa son said his hobbies include working out and motorbike racing.

He also said he planned and designed a Sri Lankan communication satellite launched into space from Chinese soil last year.

14-year-old Citizen Journalist Killed Covering Clashes in Syria

14-year-old Citizen Journalist Killed Covering Clashes in Syria

Written byRami Alhames

Omar Qatifaan, a 14-year-old media activist, was killed 21 May, 2013 while covering clashes between the Syrian Army and the rebel Free Army in the southern Daraa al-Ballad area of Syria near the border with Jordan.

Youth media project Syrian Documents reported on his death, and Syrian news blog YALLA SOURIYA called him the “Spirit of Syria”.

The conflict in Syria, as well as other Arab Spring uprisings, has seen a rise in citizen journalists reporting from the ground on the ongoing war between the country's pro- and anti-government forces. Many have been detained, tortured, and even killed while trying to bring the story of the revolution to the world.

Children have also paid a terrible price during the conflict, with thousands killed during the violence so far.

Media activist Omar Qatifaan was 14-years-old when he was killed while covering a battle in Daraa, Syria. Photo from the Twitter account of ‏@RevolutionSyria

Another media activist recorded video of Qatifaan after he was killed. The footage was posted on YouTube by SyrianDaysOfRage [GRAPHIC VIDEO]:

Written by Rami Alhames 
Posted 22 May 2013

Man killed in deadly terror attack in London street

Vikram Dodd-, Wednesday 22 May 2013 
• Alleged attacker is filmed brandishing knife and cleaver
• Two suspects shot by armed police
• Ministers holding emergency Cobra meeting

Follow the latest on the Woolwich attack here

Link to video: Woolwich: suspect believed to be involved in attack

Dramatic footage has emerged of the suspected terrorist attack near theLondon barracks that left one man dead, showing a suspect with blood-covered hands using jihadist rhetoric to justify the violence.

On Wednesday night the prime minister, David Cameron, vowed that Britain will "never buckle" in the face of terrorist incidents, and condemned the "absolutely sickening" killing in Woolwich.

As the government's emergency committee Cobra convened in central London to assess the implications of the incident, ITV News broadcast footage of one of the alleged attackers.

Brandishing a cleaver and a knife, and with the body of the victim lying yards away, the man said: "We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you. The only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying every day. This British soldier is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."

"We must fight them. I apologise that women had to witness this today.

Map showing the exact location of the incident

"But in our land our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your government, they don't care about you."

The man then walks away and talks to another suspected attacker.

Later footage shows the aftermath after the two suspects were shot bypolice.

Police at the scene in Woolwich, south London, where a man was killed and two others were taken to hospital with gunshot wounds following a 'serious incident'. BBC screengrab

It is believed the person died after suffering knife injuries, possibly around the head area.

Two people have been taken to hospital after they were shot by armed police.

There were reports that the man who was fatally attacked was wearing a Help for Heroes T-shirt.

The Woolwich and Greenwich MP, Nick Raynsford, said it was his understanding that one person, a serving soldier, was dead but there was no immediate confirmation of this from the Ministry of Defence.

The prime minister said: "Tonight, our thoughts should be with the victim, with their family, with their friends."

"People across Britain, people in every community, I believe, will utterly condemn this attack.

"We have had these sorts of attacks before in our country and we never buckle in the face of them."

Cameron was speaking at a Paris press conference with French president Francois Hollande but confirmed he would cut short the visit to return to the UK tonight to chair a meeting of the Government's Cobra emergency committee in the morning.

Chiefs at the Woolwich barracks were understood to be trying to account for military personnel, amid reports the dead person may have been connected to the military. The incident happened 300-400 metres from the perimeter of the barracks.

The barracks is home to the Princess of Wales regiment and the Kings Troop, which is a ceremonial unit, that relocated to Woolwich last year.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission is investigating the shooting by police, which is standard in cases where officers open fire.

In a statement the IPCC said it had "been made aware by Metropolitan Police Service of an incident in Woolwich, south London. IPCC investigators have been deployed to the scene and to the post-incident process. The IPCC has declared this as an independent investigation."

Earlier Raynsford said: "The incident occurred early afternoon. One individual is dead, two others are seriously injured and in hospital.

"We think a serving soldier was the victim. We don't know the circumstances surrounding the incident.

"We do know a number of weapons have been seized. They include a gun, various knives, and a machete, apparently."

Video: London Attack: Jihadist Claims Filmed On Mobile

May 23, 2013 

A man suspected of staging a terrorist attack that left a British soldier dead near a military barracks in London, was caught on camera clutching a meat cleaver and knife in hands apparently covered in the blood of his victim, as he justified the violence as part of a jihadist-inspired fight against the west, the Guardian reports.

We publish below the BBC report in full;

A man killed in a suspected terrorist attack in south-east London was a member of the armed forces, senior Whitehall sources have confirmed.

Two men spent the night under arrest in hospital as counter-terrorism police investigate the killing in Woolwich.

One man – his hands covered in blood- was filmed by a passer-by, saying he carried out the attack because British soldiers kill Muslims every day.

The PM is to chair a Cobra emergency response committee later.

David Cameron flew back from France yesterday to lead the government response. The meeting will be attended by politicians, the UK’s most senior police officer and the new head of MI5.

Meanwhile, security has been increased at barracks across London.

The two suspects were shot and wounded by police after the attack – which took place in John Wilson Street, the A205, at 14:20 BST.

One is in a serious condition while the other is also being treated for injuries.

Eyewitnesses say the victim was hacked to death by two men shouting Islamist slogans.

The men made no attempt to flee and encouraged people to take pictures of them and their victim.

One of the men was filmed wielding a bloodied meat cleaver and making political statements.

“I apologise that women have had to witness this today, but in our land our women have to see the same,” he said.

“You people will never be safe. Remove your government, they don’t care about you.”

The other was pictured holding a knife and speaking to a woman at the scene.

The Daily Telegraph says it has spoken to the woman.

According to the paper, Cub Scout leader Ingrid Loyau-Kennett asked him: “Would you like to give me what you have in your hands?”

She added: “I did not want to say weapons but I thought it was better having them aimed on one person like me rather than everybody there – children were starting to leave school as well.”

A vehicle believed to be involved in the incident has been towed away from the scene – it is thought the victim may have been hit by the car before he was attacked.

The Muslim Council of Britain said the murder was “a truly barbaric act that has no basis in Islam and we condemn this unreservedly”.

Meanwhile, a man was arrested on suspicion of attempted arson and possession of an offensive weapon at a mosque in Braintree, Essex, on Wednesday night.

At a press conference with French President Francois Hollande in Paris, Mr Cameron said Britain would “never buckle” in the face of terror attacks.

“People across Britain, people in every community, I believe, will utterly condemn this attack,” said Mr Cameron, who was previously planning to stay in Paris on Wednesday night.

Met Police Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe, MI5 director general Andrew Parker, Home Secretary Theresa May, Defence Secretary Philip Hammond and Mayor of London Boris Johnson are among those expected to attend Thursday morning’s Cobra meeting.

Meanwhile, armed forces personnel based in London and elsewhere have been told to be more vigilant.

That is on top of the extra precautions now being taken at London’s 10 or so main barracks.

BBC defence correspondent Caroline Wyatt said that, since British forces intervened in Iraq and Afghanistan, they and their families have been well aware they might be targets at home.

At least two plots by Islamic extremists to kill soldiers in the UK have been foiled in recent years.