White Americans say protests are a good thing — except when the protesters are black

People protest the Confederate flag flying in front of the South Carolina State House in Columbia on June 20, 2015. (Andrew Renneisen for The Washington Post)

By Janell Ross-June 23

An overwhelming majority of Americans say they believe protests against unfair government treatment make the United States a better country.

Unless, that is, the protesters are black.

A new Public Religion Research Institute poll asked whether protests against government mistreatment always improve the country, and a full 67 percent of white Americans strongly or at least partially agreed. But when it asked a separate sample whether black Americans protesting government mistreatment always makes the country better,  just 48 percent of white Americans agreed.

That's two-thirds, versus less than half.

And the racial differences didn't end there. In fact, non-white Americans are more likely to believe in the benefits of black Americans protesting Americans writ large. Among non-white Americans, 56 percent agreed that protests against government mistreatment are good for the country, but a full 65 percent said the same when the people protesting were black.

The gaps, as the chart below shows, are clear and remarkable.

“We expected to see some differences along racial lines when we asked these questions, but we certainly had not expected a gap that size, a gap that large,” Dan Cox, research director at Public Religion Research Institute, told me.

White Americans made up the lion's share of those polled in the survey — 709 of the 1,007 people surveyed. Pollsters also talked to 109 black Americans and 121 Latinos for the same survey. Those who responded were asked about range of issues shaping the country, including religion, race, language, patriotism and immigration.

Pollsters often worry that the people contacted for surveys will, because they are human, give in to the instinct to give the “right” or “admirable” answer rather than an honest one, Cox told me. They call this phenomenon the "social desirability bias." And that bias certainly makes the work of polling  challenging.

To subvert this problem, the PRRI asked a randomly selected half of the 1,007 people polled the question about whether protests against government mistreatment always improve the country. They asked the remaining half whether protests against government mistreatment by black Americans always improve the country. And the results were clear.

“Most white Americans generally believe that protests are good for the country, but they hold significant reservations about protests led by African Americans,” Robert P. Jones, chief executive of the Public Religion Research Institute, said in a statement released Tuesday along with the polling data. “Among white Americans, strong support for protesting government mistreatment drops dramatically when protesters are identified as black Americans.”

The PRRI/RNS Religion News Survey was conducted by the nonpartisanPublic Religion Research Institute in partnership with Religion News Service. The nationwide survey of 1,007 adults was conducted from June 10 to June 14, 2015, in English and Spanish.

The date range of the poll is significant because pollsters finished their work three days before a white gunman fatally shot nine African Americans in a Charleston church, setting off a new round of public debate about race and mistreatment and protests against the Confederate flag in South Carolina. But those polled would, quite probably, have been aware of recent events in Ferguson, Mo.; New York City, North Charleston, S.C.; and Baltimore that led to large protests.

In each of these cities, largely black (but certainly not exclusively black) groups of protesters took to the streets. Some marched in support of a growing national movement organized loosely around the slogan "black lives matter." In two of these cities, protests at points grew violent and devolved into riots. In Ferguson, police used military equipment, including tanks, to try to corral and quell protests, even before rioting or looting erupted.

Cox thinks that it is quite likely that protests against alleged police misconduct and excessive use of force were on the minds of those polled by the Public Religion Research Institute in June. But he also thinks that it was not simply the protests themselves but the way they were covered that might explain the nearly 20-point gap in the way that white and non-white Americans view the effect of protests involving black Americans.

News coverage of the protests and later rioting in Baltimore focused far more attention on the burned CVS store and disrupted sports events than on more complex and less visual issues such as the array of social and economic disparities that have created pockets of deep poverty in predominantly black neighborhoods in Baltimore.

What is clear is that Americans who generally support protests against government mistreatment aren't nearly as supportive if the ones doing the protesting happen to be black.

Janell Ross is a reporter for The Fix who writes about race, gender, immigration and inequality.

The confederate flag - key questions

South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley calls for the confederate flag to be taken down after the killing of nine black churchgoers. Why does the flag provoke such controversy?

TUESDAY 23 JUNE 2015

Following the shootings in Charleston, pictures have been published of the alleged gunman Dylann Roof holding the flag - and a campaign is under way to have it removed from the grounds in the state capital.

Have there been similar debates in the past?

Yes, in 2013 there was a row over proposals to fly the flag outside the Virginia state capital. Its use on car number plates in southern states also attracts regular controversy.

What is the history of the confederate flag?

The confederate flag - also known as the southern cross, the Dixie and the rebel flag - is associated with the army of the southern states in the American civil war in the 1860s.

It was the battle flag of General Robert E Lee's Northern Virginia army, but only became associated with the wider Confederacy after the war (the flag's stars represent the number of states in the Confederacy).

The southern states wanted to secede from the rest of the US and stop the abolition of black slavery, an issue that still arouses strong emotions across America.

After the war, it was used to commemorate fallen soldiers, but in the late 1940s was adopted by the segregationist Dixiecrat party, with the racist Ku Klux Klan also proudly flying it. The confederate flag was also adopted by some southern American servicemen during the second world war.

Why is the flag criticised?

Its detractors say it is a symbol of white supremacy, slavery, segregation and a past the US needs to escape from. This is not a new argument: critics made the same point during the black civil rightsmovement of the 1950s and 1960s.

For years, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has led an economic boycott of South Carolina and in 2000 succeeded in having the flag moved from the capitol building. In California, there is a ban on the state government displaying it.

Why is the flag defended?

Some white Americans see it as a symbol of a proud south and say, in the 21st century, it has no racist connotations. It is still used to commemorate the deaths of relatives during the civil war.

Five southern states - Florida, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina and Louisiana - have passed laws banning the desecration of the flag, although this is unenforceable.

It forms part of the flag of Mississippi, the only state to incorporate it following Georgia's decision to change its emblem in 2003.

What does the wider American public think?

Polling by the Pew Research Centre shows that 10 per cent of Americans have a positive view of the flag, with 30 per cent seeing it in a negative light. Most people - 60 per cent - do not have a positive or negative view.

Those most likely to dislike it are African-Americans, Democrat voters and the well educated.

How has the flag been used in recent popular culture?

The US blues-rock band Lynyrd Skynyrd, best known for their song Sweet Home Alabama, have regularly used the flag over the years. But in 2012, their lone surviving original member, Gary Rossington, said they would stop displaying it on stage because it had been "kidnapped" by racists.

In the 1980s US television series the Dukes of Hazard, the confederate flag design graced the roof of the famous General Lee stock car.

It was also used on the cover of the British band Primal Scream's 1994 album Give Out But Don't Give Up, which featured black funk pioneer George Clinton as guest vocalist.

Have other flags attracted controversy?

Yes, the UK's union flag also arouses controversy. It is not popular with nationalists in Northern Ireland and Scotland.

But it is no longer associated with the far right, as it was when the National Front was taking to the streets in the 1970s: the Spice Girls saw to that.

In 2016, New Zealand will hold a referendum to remove the union jack from its national flag because many consider it outdated.

Japan's rising sun military flag was banned by the victorious allies after the second world war, but was re-adopted in the 1950s: a painful reminder to victims of Japanese aggression, like China and Korea.

When newly independent Macedonia adopted the Vergina sun flag in 1992, Greece objected. The flag was named after a Greek town and Athens protested to the World Intellectual Property Organisation, leading to the flag being changed.

The Iran Deal Proves That Peace Is Possible

We need to recognize that this is an unprecedented diplomatic effort.

BY TRITA PARSI-JUNE 24, 2015

It is difficult to maintain much hope in humanity these days. The Islamic State is on a rampage in Iraq and Syria; Bashar al-Assad’s government continues to massacre its own people; the war in eastern Ukraine grinds on; even in the United States, where war feels like a distant notion, mass shootings have become a regular feature of modern life. More than ever before, peace seems an aberration, and conflict the norm.

But there are bright spots. And there is one development, in particular, that may be a new frontier in humanity’s ability to be humane: The effort by the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany and Iran to resolve the latter’s nuclear program through peaceful diplomacy.

Behind the wonky op-eds about enrichment, breakout capability, and sanctions relief, there is an innovative attempt to find a lasting peace that I believe is unparalleled. If the two sides manage to reach a deal by their June 30 deadline, their achievement will go beyond just preventing a war or blocking Iran’s paths to a bomb. The real achievement may be that a major international conflict — a conflict that has brought the United States and Iran to the brink of war in recent years — has been resolved through a compromise achieved by diplomacy.

This may sound unexceptional — isn’t that the work of diplomats, after all? — but if this feat is accomplished, few examples in history will match its magnitude. It is the norm that diplomacy settles a new peace after devastating carnage — not before.

There are four characteristics of the nuclear talks that make this case unique.

First, the confrontation over Iran’s nuclear program is a major global dispute. It involves the entire international community, not just Iran’s neighbors. This is important because larger conflicts like this are rarely resolved through diplomacy without the various sides going to war first. And only the most extreme voices hold out that war with Iran would be quick and easy — most military experts believe it would be a massive, costly, and lengthyengagement with no certain outcome.

Second, the two sides were actually on the brink of war. War against Iran has been on the agenda in Washington since at least 2005. The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate is credited with thwarting the George W. Bush administration’s plans — confirmed to me by administration officials — to attack Iran by revealing that the U.S. intelligence community had concluded that Iran did not have an active nuclear weapons program.

But the fear that Israel might launch an attack against Iran remained. President Barack Obama’s administration partially beefed up diplomacy in 2011 in order to deter Israel from launching an attack. In addition, by 2013, the Obama administration slowly came to the conclusion that the sanctions it had pursued were more likely to drag the United States into war than produce Iran’s capitulation. In June of that year, the Iranian people provided an exit from this escalation by electing Hassan Rouhani, a moderate, as president. Shortly thereafter, negotiations intensified. Prior to that, however, the conflict was not only heading toward war, but a military confrontation was at times closer than most people thought.

Third, the outcome of the negotiations will be the result of genuine compromise. This is perhaps the most astonishing characteristic of the ongoing diplomacy. Neither side is negotiating the terms of its defeat or capitulation; nor are they securing a zero-sum victory. They are, instead, defining the terms of their mutual victory — a “win-win” as the Iranians havecast it.

The contours of this compromise are well known and are unlikely to change dramatically in the final round of talks. The United States and the other interlocutors have discarded the “zero-enrichment” requirement, i.e. demanding that Iran dismantle all its centrifuges and cease all enrichment activities. This demand was at the center of the Western position for many years and was a key reason that earlier negotiations failed. Moreover, the West will suspend and then lift many of the sanctions it has imposed on Iran. The Iranians, in turn, will allow for unprecedented transparency measures while limiting their enrichment activities in both scope and degree for at least 10 years. The combination of limitations and transparency will close off all of Iran’s paths to a bomb.

The fourth and final reason this deal will be a unique achievement for world peace is because of its scope. It does more than just limit Iran’s nuclear program: It addresses the evolution of the broader relationship between Iran and the West. This conflict has always been about much more than nuclear enrichment, and while few would suggest that Iran and the United States are likely to form an open alliance, a transformation of their enmity is plausible.

The secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Ali Shamkhani,has said that the United States and Iran can, in a post-deal environment, “behave in a way that they do not use their energy against each other.” If Iran and the United States can reach a détente and avoid getting entangled with each other, this would be a radical shift from their antagonistic rivalry of the past three decades. It wouldn’t necessarily be a partnership — much less an alliance — but their relationship would no longer be characterized by enmity, but rather by a truce.

Are there any other conflicts in modern history that fit these four characteristics?

The Cuban missile crisis may come close. A global conflict was on the verge of a massive war, and a tense standoff was resolved through talks that led to a mutual compromise. But on the fourth characteristic, transforming the nature of a historically antagonistic relationship, the missile crisis can’t compare with the Iran nuclear deal. After the crisis, Washington and Moscow remained in a tense and dangerous Cold War. Forget about partnership — that deal didn’t even produce a real truce.

Another possible example is Operation Brass Tacks. In November 1986, tensions between India and Pakistan climaxed, with India deploying400,000 troops within 100 miles of the border with Pakistan for a military exercise. It was a massive affair. Unsurprisingly, Pakistan felt threatened and put its military on high alert. A hotline between the two countries was activated, and officials from both sides tried to ease fears of an open conflict. The United States acted as a mediator and initiated high-level diplomacy that led to both a mutual withdrawal and an “Agreement on the Prohibition of Attack Against Nuclear Installations and Facilities.”

This certainly serves as an example of impressive diplomacy, but it is still limited compared with the Iran deal. A war between India and Pakistan would have been disastrous, but it is unclear whether nuclear weapons would have been used. If not, it would have remained a regional rather than global conflict. Moreover, the true motivations behind the escalation remain unclear. Many scholars believe it was an accidental crisis driven bymisinterpretations rather than a desire for war. The two sides were playing a very high-stakes political game but were quick to de-escalate when opportunity arose.

Perhaps the most celebrated American diplomatic feat is the Shanghai Communiqué. Born out of President Richard Nixon and National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger’s famous 1972 trip to China in the middle of the Cold War, the communiqué paved the way for the normalization of U.S.-China relations and created a framework for Beijing and Washington to resolve their differences — or to make sure their differences didn’t lead to conflict. The two sides also agreed that neither would seek hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region. The communiqué was indeed a diplomatic success that transformed U.S.-China relations. But compared with the Iran nuclear negotiations, it falls short on a major point: China and the United States were not on the brink of war. Rather, the United States cleverly took advantage of rising Russian-Chinese tensions to further the rift between the communist countries during the Cold War.

If the United States and its partners and Iran manage to come to a deal by end of this month, it will be a break from the pattern as old as humanity itself in which diplomacy is used to conclude, rather than prevent, war. It may prove a milestone, an important step toward making war, and not peace, the aberration.

Image credit: BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images

Uh-oh: One of the world’s worst invasive species just showed up in the United States

The highly invasive New Guinea flatworm has been spotted in Florida. (Pierre Gros)

By Rachel Feltman June 23

The New Guinea flatworm is kind of a pest. In fact, it's considered one of the world's most invasive species. When it shows up uninvited to a region where it lacks natural predators, it makes itself at home -- at the cost of native species forced to compete with it. And now, the flatworm has made its way to mainland Florida, putting the whole country at risk of an invasion. Reports of the worm were published Tuesday in PeerJ.

[This invasive fish can live for days on land, dragging itself along with its gills]

Platydemus manokwari isn't dangerous to humans. Not directly, anyway. But it also isn't pretty: The very flat worm grows to about two inches long, and has a murky olive back and a pale belly -- a belly with a mouth in the middle of it. So it basically looks like a sneeze with eyes.

[This slimy, pink-tongued green sea monster will haunt your dreams. But what is it?]

But while the New Guinea flatworm poses no danger to you, it could harm the ecosystem: The flatworm is known to feast on local snails wherever it lands, even climbing up trees to get to them. When the species showed up in France in 2014, researchers argued that consequences could be dire if the species wasn't eradicated immediately. The species is currently contained to a single hothouse, but hasn’t been eradicated.

The flatworm is known to devour local snails. (Pierre Gros)

"All snails in Europe could be wiped out," Jean-Lou Justine of France's National Museum of Natural History (who also led the most recent study) told The Guardian in 2014. "It may seem ironic, but it's worth pointing out the effect that this will have on French cooking."

But don't think you're safe if you don't have a taste for escargot: Snails -- and earthworms, which the flatworm goes after, if its prey of choice isn't around -- are important members of any ecosystem. Earthworms are important in supporting agriculture, and snails are a major source of food for many animals higher up the food chain. Unless Florida's birds develop a taste for flatworm (which is unlikely, because it reportedly has a taste too astringent to tempt even chickens) we might be in trouble.

The main concern -- both in France and in the United States -- is that New Guinea flatworms have been prolific on islands they've made their way to. It takes them a long time to end up on a new island, because they have to be carried in accidentally in some infested soil or plant matter. But now that the species has landed on large land masses -- like the continents of Europe and North America -- there's no telling how quickly it will be able to spread.

Read More:

Tiny, silver flies deployed to save East Coast hemlock trees

Watch doctors lure a worm out of a boy’s eye with … basil?

The humane way to kill a toad, according to science

An endangered giant tortoise population is finally stable, thanks to some aggressive goat eradication

Now there’s a guide to penis worm teeth

Rachel Feltman runs The Post's Speaking of Science blog.

Dutch government ordered to cut carbon emissions in landmark ruling

Dutch court orders state to reduce emissions by 25% within five years to protect its citizens from climate change in world’s first climate liability suit

Urgenda supporters celebrate at the Hague after court ruling requiring Dutch government to slash emissions. Photograph: Chantal Bekker/Urgenda

Arthur Neslen The Hague-Wednesday 24 June 2015

A court in the Hague has ordered the Dutch government to cut its emissions by at least 25% within five years, in a landmark ruling expected to cause ripples around the world.

Dutch Government Ordered to Cut Carbon Emissions in Landmark Ruling by Thavam Ratna

Indonesia moves to restrict sale of condoms… again

An Indonesian women holds balloons some 1,000 condom balloons during a ceremony commemorating the World AIDS Day in Jakarta, Indonesia. Pic: AP.

By Asian Correspondent Staff Jun 24, 2015

In what almost seems like an annual event at this point, Indonesian lawmakers have moved to limit the sale of condoms. They say the widespread availability of contraceptives encourages extra-marital sex and contributes to the spread of AIDS.

The so-called logic of the proposed ban is that young people will be so terrified of becoming pregnant they will stop having sex altogether. It doesn’t take too much brain work to expose some of the flaws in this plan, but many in Indonesia are right behind the proposal.

This time the ban comes from lawmakers in Bengkulu province on the southwest coast of Sumatra. They are currently drafting a bill that would limit the sale of contraceptives to pharmacies and other stores licensed to sell medicines.

They even have the backing of the head of the provincial health agency, Amin Kurnia, whotold the Jakarta Post: “We highly appreciate the Bengkulu DPRD for drafting a bill to prevent HIV and AIDS. This proves that the council members are very concerned about HIV and AIDS.”

This isn’t the first time a ban on condom sales has been mooted in Indonesia. In 2012, a top official of the government’s Indonesian Child Protection Commission said young people shouldn’t be allowed to buy condoms. Asrorun Ni’am Sholeh was apparently alarmed that condoms were being given away with chocolate for Valentine’s Day.

In February of this year authorities in Surabaya moved to restrict condom sales after more Valentine’s Day hijinks.

While such knee-jerk proposals are likely misguided, the spread of AIDS in Indonesia is a serious problem. Deaths from the disease jumped 427 percent between 2005 and 2013. Local authorities often blame extramarital sex and drugs for the spread of the disease, thoughUNAIDS says the lack of availability of antiretroviral drugs is a key factor in the high number of deaths.

HIV Positive College Student: ‘How I Infected 324 Men’ And Target Is At Least 2,000 Men. Truth or Hoax??

Posts by: Panacea-Jun 20, 2015

The news regarding an HIV positive college student infecting 324 and targeting a minimum of 2000 men has been flooding the internet. However, the first question that arises is whether the such news is authentic and can this be believed? Most often that not most people share false information without being aware of the fact that the information is a false one. They often fail to verify the authenticity of the information that they are sharing. If such information is authentic is always beneficial to all people since it would make people aware. However, if such information is false, it has the ability to ruin the life of those about whom such rumors are being spread. Hence, one should always conduct a ground research before sharing any information on social media or any other form of media.

On conducting an exhaustive research on this matter I came to the conclusion that this news is indeed true. I sympathies with the condition and the illness of this lady. However, I strongly condemn her actions taken as a defense mechanism. Her way of dealing with her illness by taking revenge against so many males is a cruel act. I am of the belief that people who she listens to and is inspired by should make a difference by encouraging her to stop such cruel acts by making her realize that her actions would not benefit anybody but it would only cause harm to the human beings at large.

A 19 year old girl, who’s name is still held to be confidential, stated that she would transmit HIV to at least 2000 men as a revenge against the man who infected her with the same at a party.

The girl corresponded with Kenyan Scandals via Facebook claiming she had something to confess. She confided in Kenyan Daily Post to share her experience by stating that she had gone downtown for clubbing purpose where she had excessive alcohol with some of the seniors of her high school. She stated that she went back to hostel at 2 am post the party only to be told by her friends that she had had sex with a boy called Javan.

She contacted him to ask him if he used a condom to which he replied yes but on taking a bath she could notice sperms in her vagina . On realizing that she had had sex with Javan without using condom, she was terrified as she thought she could have contracted sexually transmitted disease or could have gotten pregnant. She felt suicidal after the incident that happened on September 22^nd 2013. She went to various hospitals for various tests only to find out that she had HIV positive.

On finding out the same, she spoke to Javan about it who still denied the fact that he had HIV. She felt extremely guilty about having sex with the stranger and even guiltier about having conducted HIV. She wanted someone to suffer because of her pains and sufferings so she decided to infect all men she came across with HIV . She claims to be good looking and she also claims to have been approached by men of all age gaps. She had set up a goal for herself which was to infect as many people she encountered.

The girl claims to have infected 324 men, 156 of whom were her college mates from Kabarak University while the remaining were elder men which included married men from all walks of life. She also confessed to having had sex almost everyday with approximately four people a day. She further threatened the readers of her confession that she would continue having sex with all the boys she encounters. She concluded her confession by expressing no guilt over her deeds. Instead, she seemed to continue her mission so as to make people pay for her illness without any remorse.

Though the truth of this report was not conclusively confirmed. However, after Kenyan Daily Post reported he news a person who chose to remain anonymous claimed to know the girl. He also claimed that he had had sex with her.

Navy Commander Karannagoda Aware of ‘Navy Abductions’

( Commander Karannagoda )
23/06/2015

CID tells Magistrate’s CourtRoshan Thushara Former Navy Commander Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda was aware of the abductions of children by commandos of the Sri Lanka Navy.

Sub Inspector Nishantha Silva of the CID told Colombo Chief Magistrate Gihan Pilapitiya yesterday that information has surfaced to the effect that the former Navy Commander and several high ranking officers of the Navy were aware of abductions which took place on September 17, 2008 in Dehiwala.

When the case was taken up for hearing yesterday at the Colombo Chief Magistrate Court, SI Nishantha said the duty of the higher authorities of the Sri Lanka Navy would have been to release the abducted children without detaining them in torture houses if they found that the children were not involved in any criminal activity.

It has also been revealed that even several Ministers were aware that those children were held in custody by the authorities. Sub Inspector Nishantha Silva was giving evidence in the Habeas Corpus application filed in respect of five children, including two medical students. SI Nishantha responding to questions raised by lawyers appearing for the missing children, said that information had revealed that the children who went missing in 2008 were kept in a place referred to as Pittu Bambuwa at the Sri Lanka Navy Headquarters.

They have been later removed to the Trincomalee Camp and kept in prison cells. The children have spoken to their parents using telephones. “The prisons where the children were kept had very poor living conditions. It was very difficult to live inside those cells. We have sealed them now. Those cells were used during the Dutch period to store arms.

Minister Felix Perera had written to the Sri Lanka Navy Commander asking him to take steps to release the children after numerous pleas from the missing childrens’ parents,” the SI said. ‘The officers responsible for the abduction of the children viz Lt. Commander Sampath Munasinghe, Hettiarchchi and Ranasinghe belonged to the private security outfit of the Navy Commander. Therefore, it is certain that the Commander should have been aware of the abduction. The abductors have demanded money to the tune Rs. ten million and five lakhs from the parents to release them. Our investigations have not been completed.

We have forwarded a report on the matter to the Attorney General. We have not received any directions from the AG yet. As we are still to complete our investigation, we have not taken any suspects into custody,” he said. J. C Weliamuna, K.B. Thawarasa appeared for the applicants of the Habeas Corpus application the Case was put off for July 14.
CDN

திருமலை வதைமுகாம் ஆதாரம் அம்பலம்! கடற்படைத் தளபதி சிக்கினார்!

[ செவ்வாய்க்கிழமை, 23 யூன் 2015, 07:01.11 PM GMT ]

2008ம் ஆண்டு செப்டம்பர் மாதம் 17 ஆம் திகதி இரவு 10 மணியளவில் தெகிவளையில ஐந்து மாணவர்கள் கடத்தப்பட்டு காணாமல்போன சம்பவத்துடன் கடற்படையைச் சேர்ந்தவர்கள் தொடர்புபட்டுள்ளனர்.

கடற்படையைச் சேர்ந்த லுதினன் கமாண்டர்களான ரணசிங்க சுமித் ரணசிங்க, ஹெட்டிஆராச்சி பிரசாத், சம்பத் முனசிங்க ஆகியோர் மூவருக்கும் எதிராக சான்று உள்ளதெனவும் இந்தக் கடத்தலில் புலனாய்வுப் பிரிவின் விசேட விசாரணைப் பிரிவின் பொறுப்பதிகாரியான நிசாந்த டி சில்வா சாட்சியமளித்தார்

கொழும்பு பிரதான நீதவான் நீதிமன்றில் நடைபெற்ற ஆட்கொணர்வு மனு விசாரணையில் புலனாய்வுப் பிரிவின் விசேட விசாரணைப் பிரிவின் பொறுப்பதிகாரியான நிசாந்த டி சில்வா சாட்சியத்தை சிரேஸ்ட சட்டத்தரணி கே.வி தவராசா நெறிப்படுத்துகையில்,

சாட்சி மேலும் தனது சாட்சியத்தில் கடற்படையை சேர்ந்த லுதினன் கமாண்டர்களான ரணசிங்க சுமித் ரணசிங்க, ஹெட்டிஆராச்சி பிரசாத், சம்பத் முனசிங்க ஆகிய மூவரும் கொழும்பு தெகிவளை, செட்டித்தெரு, வத்தளை ஆகிய இடங்களில் வைத்து 11பேரைக் கடத்தியதாகவும் அவர்களில் தெகிவளையில் கடத்தப்பட்ட ஜந்து மாணவர்களும் உள்ளடங்குவதாக சாட்சியமளித்தார்.

மேலும் தனது சாட்சியத்தில் கடத்தியவர்கள் இவ்வாறு கடத்திக் கொண்டுவந்து முதலில் சைத்திய வீதியிலும் பின்னர் திருகோணமலை கடற்படை சித்திரவதை முகாமில் அடைத்து வைத்ததன் பின் மாணவர்களை விடுதலை செய்வதற்கு கப்பமாக ஒவ்வொருவரிடமும் ஒரு கோடி ருபா கப்பம் கோரியுள்ளதாகவும் சான்று காணப்படுவதாக சாட்சியம் அளித்ததார்.

இதன்போது சாட்சியத்தை நெறிப்படுத்திய சிரேஸ்ட சட்டத்தரணி கே.வி தவராசா, சாட்சியிடம் மூன்று கடற்படை அதிகாரிகளும் மாணவர்களை கடத்திவந்து சித்திரவதை முகாமில் தடுத்த வைத்து கப்பம் கோரியமையை கடற்படைத் தளபதி வசந்த கரன்னாகொடவுக்கு தெரியுமா என வினவியபோது சாட்சி தனது சாட்சியத்தில்,

கடற்படைப் முகாமில் அடைத்து வைக்கப்பட்டிருந்தமையை முன்னாள் கடற்படைத் தளபதி வசந்த கரன்னாகொடவும், முன்னாள் கடற்படை பேச்சாளர் திசாநாயகாவும் நன்கு அறிந்திருந்ததாகவும் தனது சாட்சியத்தில் தெரிவித்ததுடன் தளபதி வசந்த கரன்னாகொட நினைந்திருந்தால் இந்த மாணவர்களை விடுதலை செய்திருக்கலாம் எனவும் தனது சாட்சியத்தில் தெரிவித்தார்.

42 சாட்சியங்களை விசாரணைக்கு உட்படுத்தியதுடன் சைத்திய வீதியிலுள்ள தடுப்பு முகாமையும் திருகோணமலையில் அமைந்துள்ள கடற்படை சித்திரவதை முகாமையும் விசாரணைக்குழு சென்று பார்வையிட்டு விசாரணை நடாத்தியதில் வெளிவந்த சான்றுகளின் அடிப்படையிலேயே சாட்சியம் அளிப்பதாக சாட்சி நீதிமன்றில் தெரிவித்தார்.

இது தொடர்பான மேலதிக விசாரணையை ஜிலை மாதம் 14ம் திகதிக்கு பிரதான நீதிமன்ற நீதிபதி கியான் பிலபிடிய ஒத்திவைத்தார்.

மனுதாரர்கள் சார்பில் சிரேஸ்ட சட்டத்தரணிகளான கே.வி தவராசாவும் ஜே.சி வலியமுனவும் ஆஜராகினர் என்பது குறிப்பிடத்தக்கது.

Tourism mega-development in Sri Lanka results in human rights violations

Luxury Room in Thalsevana Holiday Resort-----------------------------Fishing community in Ippanthivu (Kalpitiya)

• • by Yves Bowie 
  • - on 06/23/2015

Sri Lanka has an increasing number of tourist arrivals which could be very good for the development of the island. Therefore, of course, the local communities should benefit from the tourism above all. This does not seem to be always happening.

Tourism Mega-Development in Sri Lanka Results in Human Rights Violations by Thavam Ratna