Video shows foreigners, Filipino kidnapped in Philippines

A group of hostages kidnapped by Islamist militants appears on camera and each appeals for help. The four, two Canadians, a Norwegian and a Filipino woman were abducted at gunpoint from a resort in the Philippines in September. (Reuters)

By Jim Gomez-AP October 14

MANILA, Philippines — Suspected Muslim militants have posted a video purportedly showing for the first time two Canadians, a Norwegian and a Filipino who were abducted from a southern Philippine resort last month and demanded that government forces stop their artillery attacks.

Army Brig. Gen. Alan Arrojado said Wednesday that the military would reject any demands from the militants. Two government counterterrorism experts who examined the video separately concluded that hostages shown in it were the three foreign men and a Filipino woman seized from a marina on the island of Samal. They said the military and police were assessing details in the video to try to identify the kidnappers and determine their location.

The video was circulated online and by the U.S.-based SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors jihadi websites. It shows the hostages sitting in a grassy clearing with a dozen mostly masked gunmen standing behind them. Two black flags hang in the backdrop of lush foliage.

The three foreign hostages, speaking at gunpoint, urged the Canadian and Philippine governments to stop the military assaults, particularly artillery fire, which one captive said had hit close to them. One of the hostages, who identified himself as John Ridsdel, spoke as a long-haired militant held his head and aimed a machete on him.

“We beseech the Canadian government to please, please help us and the Philippine government ... by stopping all of the operations that have been going on, like artillery fire which came near us,” Ridsdel said.

This frame grab from militant video purportedly shows armed militants surrounding two Canadians, a Norwegian and a Filipino woman abducted last month in the Philippines. The Philippine army said on Wednesday, Oct. 14, 2015, that authorities were trying to verify the authenticity of the video, adding that the military would reject any demands from the militants. (Militant Video via AP) ( /Associated Press)

One of the masked gunmen read a statement saying they would negotiate with the Canadian and Philippine governments and would issue their demands once the military assaults stopped. The gunmen then erupted in yells of Allahu akbar, or God is great.

Arrojado, who has been leading months of offensives against Abu Sayyaf militants in Sulu, a predominantly Muslim province about 950 kilometers (590 miles) south of Manila, said the assaults would not stop.

“Our mandate is to go after the enemies of the state,” Arrojado said by phone.

The kidnappers did not identify themselves, but Philippine authorities suspect Abu Sayyaf militants are behind the abductions because they have a history of kidnappings and such video postings. They usually seek large ransoms from governments and relatives of their hostages.

The two government experts said intelligence received by the military and police indicated the involvement of an Abu Sayyaf commander, Hatib Hajan Sawadjaan, in the Samal kidnappings. Sawadjaan, who is based in the mountains of Sulu’s Patikul town, was also implicated in the kidnappings of two German tourists last year. Sawadjaan’s group posted a video of the Germans, who were later freed, reportedly in exchange for a large ransom.

The two experts, one from the army and the other with an anti-terror agency, spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media.

Ridsdel and fellow Canadian Robert Hall; a Norwegian man, Kjartan Sekkingstad; and Filipino Tess Flor were abducted last month by gunmen from a yacht-berthing resort on Samal Island in southern Davao del Norte province.

The video was the first indication that they were still alive. “The positive thing that we derived from this video is that the kidnap victims are in good health,” military spokesman Col. Restituto Padilla told reporters.

Following the Sept. 21 kidnappings, Philippine authorities vowed to strengthen security in the south. But three weeks later, gunmen abducted a former Italian Catholic missionary from his pizza restaurant in southern Zamboanga Sibugay province.

The abductions highlight the long-running security problems that have hounded the southern Philippines, a region with bountiful resources, but which also suffers from poverty, lawlessness and decades-long Muslim and communist insurgencies.

___

Associated Press writer Oliver Teves in Manila contributed to this report.

Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

The Chinese Oscar Winner that Wasn’t

Wolf Totem is a spectacular film, but its soul is missing. That's just how Beijing wants it.

BY BETHANY ALLEN-EBRAHIMIAN-OCTOBER 14, 2015

On Oct. 8, when the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences released its list of submissions for the Best Foreign Language Film Academy Award, Wolf Totem wasn’t on it. The Academy’s disqualification of the Chinese-French co-production, long rumored to be the ruling Communist Party’s choice for this year’s submission, was technical — with a foreign director and three of four screenwriters also non-Chinese, the film had too much foreign creative influence to qualify as Chinese. This dashed the country’s latest, greatest hope for a Chinese Oscar winner. (Its replacement, the romantic comedy Go Away Mr. Tumor, seems a poor substitute). But even if the film had stayed in the running, an Academy award would likely still have proved elusive — for in order to be released in the world’s largest authoritarian country, Wolf Totem had to compromise the heart of its message.

The Chinese Oscar Winner That Wasn’t by Thavam Ratna

Man Booker Prize winner Marlon James 'in exile' from Jamaica

WEDNESDAY 14 OCTOBER 2015

Marlon James, whose first novel was rejected 70 times, fled Jamaica fearing persecution for being gay. Now he has become the first Jamaican to win the Man Booker Prize.

(Above: Marlon James interviewed by Channel 4 News in September)

The author left Jamaica after spending time living as an openly gay man in New York.

Mr James took the coveted award, billed as "fiction at its finest" with his third novel, A Brief History Of Seven Killings.

The book creates a fictional history based around the attempted murder of Bob Marley in 1976.The attempted assassination is the starting point for an examination of gang violence and political corruption on the Caribbean island.

Mr James, 44, who was born in Kingston, Jamaica, teaches creative writing in Minnesota in the United States.

He collected the award, which comes with a £50,000 prize, from the Duchess of Cornwall at a ceremony at central London's Guildhall on Tuesday.

An option to turn the Booker winner into a film has reportedly already been taken up by HBO.

Marlon James's first novel was rejected 70 times before being published. The book, John Crow's Devil, was a finalist for the Los Angeles Times Book Prize and the Commonwealth Writers' Prize. It was also a New York Editors' Choice.

He is the first Jamaican to win the literary prize in its 47-year history. This is the second year the prize has been open to writers of any nationality writing in English and published in the UK, having previously been restricted to the UK and Commonwealth, Ireland and Zimbabwe.

Mr James said: "Jamaica has a really rich literary tradition. It is kind of surreal being the first and I really hope I will not be the last. I do not think I will be because there is this real universe of spunky creativity that is happening. For me, first just means the first to get attention. I think there is a lot more that is coming."

Leaving 'in a plane or a coffin'

Some Jamaican commentators have noted that whilst being celebrated as a Jamaican author, Marlon James fled the country due to his sexuality.

Under Jamaican law, practising homosexuality is punishable by up to 10 years' "hard labour".

Becoming fraught at living as a closeted gay man in Jamaica, Mr James told the New York Times: "Whether it was in a plane or a coffin, I knew I had to get out of Jamaica."

 Follow

Damien King @DamienWKing

Considering our shameful intolerance that drove Marlon James from Jamaica, his winning the Man Booker prize is hardly a proud moment for us.

5:39 PM - 13 Oct 2015 · Bolivia, Bolivia

ollow

Aglee @azzleprock

Marlon James has won £50,000; a tidy sum for talent indeed. A shame he wrote the novel in exile, though.

5:50 AM - 14 Oct 2015 · Camden Town, London, United Kingdom

In an interview with Channel 4 News in September (watch video above), Mr James described being considered a "gay batty man" at an all boys' school as "pretty traumatic".

He said: "Nobody wants to be rejected at school, it is the exact point in your life when you need acceptance."

How to Reduce Diabetic Eye Pressure

By Susan Renzo, Jul 28, 2015

Every diabetic is at increased risk of developing eye disease. Diabetics who are members of certain populations – African American, Hispanic American, Native American and the elderly – face an even higher risk.

Diabetes causes vascular damage throughout the body. Because the blood vessels within the eye are so tiny, any damage at all can have a tremendous impact on eye health.

One of the most prevalent of the diabetes-related eye diseases is glaucoma. In fact, people with diabetes are between 40% and 50% more likely to develop glaucoma than non-diabetics.

Glaucoma causes the pressure within the eye to increase gradually, damaging the optic nerve and leading to partial or complete vision loss. The exact mechanisms for this are unknown. While there are several types of glaucoma, the most common form is open-angle glaucoma.

Open-Angle Glaucoma

The eye is full of fluid which continually refreshes. Normally, fluid drains at a point in the eye where the iris and the cornea meet. If this opening becomes even partially blocked the fluid drains out of the eye too slowly, even as new fluid is added. This backup of fluid causes an increase in pressure within the eye, damaging the optic nerve.

Open-angle glaucoma does not cause any symptoms until the disease is well-advanced. By that time, vision is impacted, with loss of peripheral vision first, advancing to tunnel vision and then total vision loss as the disease progresses.

Treatment

The goal of treatment is to lower intraocular pressure. This can be approached one of three ways: lower eye pressure, improve drainage of fluid from the eye or decrease the volume of fluid produced within the eye.

There are a variety of eye drops that may be prescribed.

Prostaglandins (Xalatan, Lumigan) and cholingeric agents (Isopto Carbine and Isopto Carbachol) act to increase outflow of fluid from within the eye.

Beta blockers (Betimol, Timoptic, Betoptic) and carbonic anhydrase inhibitors (Trusopt, Azopt) reduce the production of fluid within the eye.

Alpha-adrenergic agonists (Iopidine, Alphagan) both lessen fluid production and increase fluid outflow.

Physicians may prescribe a combination of the above.

Oral medications may also be prescribed, if eye drops alone are not sufficient. These are usually in the form of a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor.

If medications are not sufficient to halt progression of the disease, thensurgery might be necessary.

Drainage implants might be inserted within the eyes to facilitate drainage.

Laser surgery, known as laser trabeculoplasty, can be done to open clogged drainage canals.

Filtering surgery, known as trabeculectomy, removes a small piece of tissue from the location of the drainage canals, widening the opening and improving drainage.

The best possible treatment for glaucoma is prevention. Everyone above 40 years of age should have an eye exam at least every three years. Diabetics should have a dilated examination of their eyes annually.

Well-controlled blood sugar levels are another preventive measure that will lessen the odds of developing glaucoma.

Foreign participation in ‘domestic mechanism’ confirmed

Weliamuna reiterates Lanka lacks expertise to investigate ‘system crimes’

By Shamindra Ferdinando-October 12, 2015

Attorney-at-law J.C. Weliamuna yesterday confirmed that there would be international participation in the proposed domestic court to inquire into accountability issues in Sri Lanka.

Addressing the media at the Information Department, Weliamuna said that Parliament would have to make the required amendments to pave the way for international participation in the process. He said that a hybrid court would have been much better where the addressing of the issues was concerned, but the recently adopted Geneva resolution co-sponsored by the government of Sri Lanka had promised on less intrusive mechanism.

The Information Department organised the briefing in collaboration with the state-run Rupavahini.

Weliamuna was flanked by Deputy Foreign Minister Dr Harsha de Silva.

Weliamuna, a former head of the Transparency International, Sri Lanka insisted that Sri Lanka needed foreign expertise to meet the challenging task of inquiring into accountability issues. Post-war Sri Lanka required international expertise though some extremists sought to cause chaos. Quoting from the recently released UN report that dealt with Sri Lanka, Weliamuna said that the local judiciary lacked the capacity to investigate system crimes.

Weliamuna described a spate attacks on places of religious worship during the previous government as system crimes. The lawyer pointed out that the international community couldn’t be expected to have faith in Sri Lankan judiciary when Sri Lankans themselves lacked faith in it.

Weliamuna insisted that the country could have avoided international intervention had the army swiftly responded to allegations against it. The lawyer stressed that the army couldn’t ignore the need to address accountability issues on its own. Commenting on the role played by the Tamil Diaspora as regards the Geneva project, Weliamuna said that it wasn’t an exclusive Tamil Diaspora campaign. Many had contributed to the far reaching changes that had been brought in the wake of the January 8 revolution.

Referring to war crimes investigations undertaken in other countries, Weliamuna pointed out that instead of those who had fired weapons persons giving orders had been investigated. The attorney-at-law explained foreign expertise in investigating serious crimes with the help of latest technology.

Weliamuna said that the international community would have gone ahead with an international investigation if not for the change of government in January. According to him, international action wouldn’t have been deterred by protests here.

Weliamuna also insisted that the domestic law was superseded by international laws. The domestic law, he explained was a part of the international law and therefore there couldn’t be any justifiable reason to resist an international role in the proposed investigation.

The lawyer said that terrorism and the issue of human rights weren’t domestic issues. Weliamuna pointed out that Sri Lanka had been ready to secure international support to eradicate LTTE terrorism but when it came to human rights successive governments had taken an entirely different stand. The Maithripala Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government had acted decisively to change that situation, Weliamuna said.

Weliamuna dismissed the previous government’s claim that China and Russia could always use their veto power to protect Sri Lanka. That was nothing but a myth, Weliamuna said.

Weliamuna cited the then United Nations Human Rights Commission initiating an investigation into South Africa’s apartheid regime as an example of UN intervention. The UN intervened in South Africa and set up an investigation outside that country in spite of strong objections from the US and the UK. But, the UNHRC move received the backing of China, Russia, Germany, France and several other countries.

Weliamuna stressed that there was absolutely no dispute over the need to eradicate the LTTE. "Sri Lanka paid a huge price in its war against the LTTE. But that shouldn’t be reason for justifying excesses."

Weliamuna lambasted the previous government for not implementing the recommendations by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC). He alleged that not even 10 per cent of the recommendations had been properly implemented. The previous government also interfered with the Udalagama Commission and gone to the extent of using the then Attorney General to challenge the Commission. Weliamuna said that the Udalagama report too hadn’t been released so far and was gathering dust like other reports.

He said the previous government had even denied visas to foreign judges and acted contrary to international laws and obligations.

Weliamuna and Dr Harsha de Silva admitted that though they worked together they had differences. Weliamuna said that he felt the government should endorse the Rome Statute whereas the new government believed otherwise. The previous government and the new government both were reluctant to ratify the Rome Statute to pave the way for Sri Lanka accepting the International Criminal Court.

The UN has recommended that Sri Lanka sign the agreement without delay.

Weliamuna also called for the abolition of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA).

David envisaged human emancipation through Tamil struggle: Sachithananthan

[TamilNet, Monday, 12 October 2015, 23:10 GMT]
“The late Gandhiyam David was an example of a very cultured Tamil, soft-spoken, strong in his views, dedicated to his land and rooted to the soil – he was definitely a person who represented Tamil Eelam,” said Ma'ravanpulavu K. Sachithananthan, a senior activist and former UN consultant, in a video interview to TamilNet in Jaffna on Monday while remembering the contributions of the veteran Gandhiyam leader of early 1970s. “Very few people in history make such determined effort to save their community and hold on to their principles. [...] Even today, many of us hold on to very strong views about our future. We may not be there. But the dream will be there. David's dream will be there. [...] His dream was human emancipation through Tamil emancipation. He was dreaming for the community, not because he loved those around him, but because he loved the humanity,” Mr Sachithananthan said. 

S.A. David at 60

S.A. David photographed at the age of 88 in Tamil Nadu

Even at the age of 92, Mr David was talking about continuing what he did in early 70s. He was talking about possibilities of developing cashew plantations in the East, Mr Sachithanthan, who is also a writer and publisher based in Chennai and Jaffna, said. 

Gandhiyam David was always interested in farms and making Tamils self-sufficient. 

He was a historical variant with vision. He never wanted anything to him personally. To be very frank, he was a detached person. Detached to the core. To the last, he held one view: Tamils should rule themselves. 

“David would talk continuously of achieving self-rule or a separate State for the Tamils. He would never bargain on that. He would never give up his ideas because of ‘changing situations’. He was very clear,” Sachithananthan added. 

“David was not a very strong believer in violence. But, he said there was no other way at the time when the young men took to violence. Even though he was a Gandhiyan, he felt he was not there to block them,” he added. 

Sachithananthan remembered how hopeful David Aiyaa was in January 2009 when Barack Obama was elected US President. “He had high hopes. Obama has come. We are definitely going to have some change in the American policy, Mr David was saying. But, when Mr Obama failed, when he did not grow up to the expectations of David Aiyaa, he fumbled.”

“Sachi, this American Establishment is against us, David Aiyaa would say.”

David aiyaa's dream is not limited to his life. It is a continuous process, because subjugation is also a continuous process. “We think subjugation is time-bound process and that somebody would conquer it. No. History repeats continuous situations.”

“The history also repeats David Aiyaas”. 

* * *

The senior ITAK Central Committee member was also hinting about the serious work that needs to be done among the Tamils in the Indian Ocean Region and was sharing his and Gandhiyam David's work in the past on this regard in Mauritius. 

Mr Sachithananthan went to Mauritius in 1980 and met the leaders of Tamils, Hindus, representatives of the political parties, government leaders including the prime minister, the governor and the opposition leader. Upon his return, he reported to the then TULF leader A. Amirthalingam and Kathiravetpillai urging them to send a political delegation to Mauritius. The people and the leaders of Mauritius were keen in extending their support to Tamils against the anti-Tamil pogroms taking place in the island of Sri Lanka at that time. 

But, the TULF leaders were not keen in respecting the request of Mr Sachithananthan to send a delegation to Mauritius. However, in 1982, the late PLOTE leader Uma Maheswaran organised a delegation to Mauritius on Sachithananthan's behest. Mr S. A. David and T. Siddharthan were part of the delegation. 

“If the Mauritius government did not host the Commonwealth meeting or did not participate in the meet [held in Colombo], it was because of the foundations we laid [in early 80s]. We found a nucleus among the Mauritius Tamils who would prop the political leadership there to take a pro-Tamil stand or an anti-pogrom stand,” Mr Sachithananthan observed. 

“In 1977, when I phoned the Prime Minister's office, they immediately took it up with the Sri Lankan government. I had a contact in Prime Minister's office, Mr Ponnusamy. He is still around.”

“In 1983, after the riots, I spoke to the prime ministerial candidate Anerood Jugnauth. He was campaigning in the Tamil platform that he would speak for the Tamils and they voted for him.”

“In 1983 September, thanks to David Iya and to Siddharthan – and my efforts were also there – Mr Jugnauth spoke at the United Nations. He was the first Prime Minister [of a country] to voice the concerns of the Tamils in Sri Lanka,” Sachithananthan said. 

“Subsequently, India was not very happy with that situation because they were taking control and they did not want any other government to be independent of their efforts. Neither Mr Amirthalingam nor any other leaders went to Mauritius. But the Mauritius Tamils kept the torch. [...] I think we should thank David Iya for that,” he said.

Getting Reconciliation Right in Sri Lanka After Rajapaksa

Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena addresses the media in Colombo,Sri Lanka, Oct. 2, 2015 (AP photo by Eranga Jayawardena).

13/10/2015 

Shashank Iyer

It has been a bad year for former Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa and his nationalist support base, which comes predominantly from the country’s majority Sinhalese ethnic group. Rajapaksa’s rout in January’s presidential election, followed by his August defeat in parliamentary elections, can be seen as nothing short of a mandate from the Sri Lankan people to distance themselves from his authoritarian tendencies and divisive policies and move toward political reform and reconciliation.

Rajapaksa managed to secure a parliamentary seat in Kurunegala district, a stronghold of the United People’s Freedom Alliance in the Sinhalese heartland. But his dissident faction of the UPFA was unable to win enough seats to force President Maithripala Sirisena, who defeated him in January and heads the UPFA, to reconsider his appointment of Ranil Wickramasinghe of the rival United National Party (UNP) as Sri Lanka’s prime minister. While the UNP overcame the threat of a resurgent and re-energized Rajapaksa and won the August elections, it failed to gain a majority of seats in parliament. In a sign of Sri Lanka’s domestic stability, the UNP entered into a unity government with the UPFA last month.

August’s results were a relief to Sri Lanka’s minority Tamil and Muslim communities, which voted in significant numbers—the culmination an eight-month-long political transition in which Rajapaksa, although marginalized, was not entirely vanquished. Indeed, for Sirisena, Wickramasinghe and much of the Sri Lankan electorate seeking to bring about tangible reforms, the only way to overcome Rajapaksa’s specter is to deliver on the reforms promised following the January and August elections.

Most urgently for the new administration will be how Sri Lanka goes about mending its troubled past. Rajapaksa was president when the government, in 2009, brought about the end of the three-decade-long Sri Lankan civil war against the Tamil Tigers through brute force, from extrajudicial killings to forced disappearances and torture. But the six years since the end of the war have seen little accountability for the crimes committed. In mid-September, the government released its long-awaited proposal for the establishment of a truth, justice and reconciliation commission, as well as an office of missing persons and an office of reparations.

While the long-delayed measure was applauded by many in Sri Lanka, others, especially within Sri Lanka’s Tamil community, have criticized the proposed commission, because it doesn’t require the presence of international lawyers and investigators. Two days after the Sri Lankan proposal, the United Nations published its own long-delayed report calling for a special court with international lawyers and judges to investigate crimes committed during the civil war. The coordinated roll-out of the proposal and report represented a choreographed denouement of the stand-off between the two sides over Sri Lana’s previous unwillingness to address the issue of accountability. Nevertheless, the divergence between the two proposals underscores the tough balancing act facing the new government: remaining the face of the reforms and national reconciliation, but doing it in a manner that is legitimate in the eyes of both Sri Lankan Tamils and the international community.

Both Sirisena and Wickramasinghe will be keenly aware of the fact that their ability to deliver on much of their other proposed reforms will only be achieved by getting reconciliation and accountability right. Reversing Rajapaksa’s earlier rejection of international involvement in the civil war-era investigations can be more easily achieved now that his support has diminished and the mandate for change is there. If the new administration passes on this opportunity, it runs the risk of losing much of its credibility.

But getting reconciliation right is closely connected to reforming both the rule of law and the security sector in Sri Lanka, both of which were the foundations of Wickramasinghe’s election platform. Sri Lanka’s laws still do not explicitly criminalize war crimes and forced disappearances, vestiges of the extraordinary powers granted to the presidency under Rajapaksa.

Drafting a new constitution that devolves power from the center, coupled with greater accountability at the local level, are central tenets of the transparent, good governance model that Wickramasinghe and Sirisena hope to institute. The mandate given to them by the Sri Lankan people in August is a testament of the desire to turn their backs on Rajapaksa’s divisiveness. But it won’t be easy for the government to satisfy everyone. It needs the international community to buy into these reforms, to say nothing of Sri Lanka’s minority communities as well as a quorum of the Sinhalese majority that still might hold the old “Rajapaksa model” in high regard, since it broke the back of the Tamil Tigers and brought relative peace to the war-torn island.

The key to gaining this last group’s approval will be transforming the crony capitalism of Rajapaksa’s system and bringing about better economic development. Wickramasinghe has already declared his plans to root out nepotism and corruption in the education and health care sectors. In the long term though, his pro-business stance, in contrast to the UNFP’s relatively autarkic socialist leanings, must seek to convert Sri Lanka’s business environment from a small-scale domestic market to one more closely linked to the global economy by courting foreign investment.

Rajapaksa ostracized investments from India and Western states by linking Sri Lanka to China’s business and military interests. During his time, collaboration with China increased significantly, including a highly controversial Chinese project to build a major port off of Sri Lanka’s strategically vital western coast. Since Sirisena’s January victory and even more so after the August elections, India and Sri Lanka havepledged to boost economic and maritime ties, a welcome change for New Delhi. India, for its part, must veer away from pandering to Tamil sectarianism, especially radical fringe elements within India who seek to continue to push for Tamil autonomy in northern Sri Lanka.

The West also has an important role to play in bolstering Wickramasinghe and Sirisena’s position as they move toward implementing concrete reforms. Since fighting between the Tamil Tigers and the government resumed in 2005, Sri Lanka has been off the list of countries qualified to receive funding through the Millennium Challenge Corporation, a U.S. foreign aid agency. Reconsidering Sri Lanka’s eligibility would be a small yet significant step towards reviving businesses and bringing about development in areas of the country’s north and east that remain devastated from the war.

Rejecting Rajapaksa at the ballot box twice in one year is a conclusive message from Sri Lankans to their new leadership about the need for decisive reform. While the challenges confronting the government are monumental, it can make the changes Sri Lankans demand for an economic and social revival only by pushing through the political changes vital to healing a wounded nation.

Shashank Iyer is a graduate student at the Jackson Institute for Global Affairs and the School of Management at Yale University. He studies and works on issues related to forced migration and population resettlement. You can follow him on Twitter @skiyer15.

WPR

Sri Lanka Tamil prisoners on hunger strike demand release

Sri Lankan jails have seen violent rioting, sometimes fatal, for decades

Tamil prisoners in Sri Lanka, some held without charge since the 1990s, have gone on hunger strike to press for their release.

12 October 2015

Some 223 inmates have joined the fast in jails in Colombo, Anuradhapura, Jaffna and Kandy.

Most have been imprisoned on suspicion of links with the defeated Tamil Tiger rebel group.

Tamil politicians are calling on the authorities to either release them, grant them bail or put them on trial.

They are being held under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), which allows the security forces to detain people for up to 18 months without bringing them before a court.

But some have been jailed since 1997.

The UN's human rights chief, Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein, said in a landmark report last month that the government had acknowledged holding 258 men and women under the PTA but only 54 of them had been convicted of anything.

He said 60 had not been charged while 144 of the cases were still pending.

Human rights campaigners have in the past given a figure of more than 650 Tamil detainees and Mr Hussein said there was also an urgent need to investigate reports of secret and unacknowledged places of detention.

Fears of violence

"The government has pledged to the UN Human Rights Council that the PTA will be repealed," a Tamil legislator, M A Sumanthiran, told BBC Sinhala.

"So they should release those detained under the PTA before repealing it."

He said that since the government had rehabilitated and freed some 12,000 former Tiger fighters after defeating the rebels in 2009, there was no sense keeping the long-term detainees in jail.

Another Tamil politician, Northern Province Chief Minister C V Wigneswaran, wrote a letter to President Maithripala Sirisena saying there was concern that the hunger-striking prisoners might be dealt with violently by prison officers as, he said, had happened in the past.

He said inmates should be categorised, with some freed and others bailed - or charges swiftly filed and cases heard.

Nearly 30 prisoners of varied ethnicities died in prisons during rioting in 2012.

Mr Wigneswaran said a list of the Tamil prisoners could be prepared "within one week".

But the UN's Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein said President Sirisena's new government appeared to be "facing challenges" in drawing up such a list, which it says it is working on with Red Cross help.

The Sinhala-language media - which dominate national discourse - frequently refer to the Tamil prisoners as "terrorists", while many of the Tamil population regard them as political prisoners.

Forming the New Constitution

The Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka has been the constitution of our country since its original promulgation in 1978. It is Sri Lanka’s second republican constitution and its third since the country’s independence in 1948. 

---

2015-10-14



The first constitution that provided a parliamentary form to Sri Lanka was the Soulbury Constitution in 1947.  It introduced a bicameral legislature (Two-house Parliament) which was headed by the Governor General.  While minority rights were safeguarded constitutionally, a Judicial Service Commission and Public Service Commission were established. 

Forming the New Constitution.odt by Thavam Ratna

Compassion For A Few, Gallows For The Rest

By Gehan Gunatilleke –October 13, 2015

Gehan Gunatilleke

Impatience is a luxury victims of state violence can ill afford. The state is often the victor; and victors hold the pen. They write the story. They define it for posterity.

In 2015, Miriam Gebhardt did the unthinkable. Her book, When the Soldiers Came, claimed that American soldiers raped thousands of women during the Allied occupation of Germany following the Second World War. The claim was largely based on records meticulously kept by Bavarian priests. What is extraordinary about the claim is not its contents but its timing. Gebhardt’s book was published seven decades after these atrocities allegedly took place.

Despite the overwhelming odds, some stories can eventually be told. In that belief, victims celebrating the recent adoption of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) resolution on Sri Lanka must prepare for a long and perilous journey. Their struggle is not against some lone perpetrator. It is against a state that has monopolised the telling of their story; a recurrent version defined by compassion for a privileged few and brutal finality for the unfortunate rest.

The forgiveness trap

After the war, the Sri Lankan state constructed a narrative that trapped victims within its walls. ‘We defeated terrorism; we must be grateful to our war heroes; we must forget the bloodshed and move on.’ What held this narrative together was the idea that the ‘Sri Lankan’ version of transitional justice was based on ‘maithri’—i.e. compassion.

It was the previous administration that first championed the idea. In 2011, former Attorney-General Mohan Peiris proposed that Sri Lanka’s religious teachings and cultural values produced a uniquely ‘Sri Lankan’ version of justice based on tolerance and compassion.[1] Sri Lankan victims were presented as subscribing to this model. A year earlier, former Foreign Affairs Minister, G.L. Peiris argued that the ‘Sri Lankan approach’ did not focus on punishment, but rather on what he defined as ‘restorative justice’.[2] In late 2013, former High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, Chris Nonis, reiterated these sentiments in a celebrated interview with CNN.[3]

The purpose of this narrative is simple. By reducing victims to creatures of compassion, it seeks to minimise the accountability of the state. The political inconvenience of investigating military crimes ultimately shapes the contours of the narrative. It is therefore designed to dispel calls for accountability by casting them as Western impositions of retribution on a society predisposed towards compassion.

The Sri Lankan state then co-authored the UNHRC resolution on Sri Lanka in September 2015. By doing so, it signalled a motivation to shift away from a reductive narrative. It is now committed to enacting new laws criminalising war crimes and crimes against humanity, and ensuring their retroactive application. It is equally committed to recognising command responsibility and establishing a credible justice mechanism with the participation of foreign judges, prosecutors, lawyers and investigators.

Yet the new government’s rhetoric of late has been strangely reminiscent of its predecessor’s. The Prime Minister recently announced the establishment of a ‘Compassionate Council’ as an adjunct to the proposed Commission for Truth, Justice, Reconciliation, and Non-Recurrence.[4] Champika Ranawaka earlier claimedthat investigating the past would ‘rub salt on old wounds’.[5] Such terminology betrays a continuing agenda to reduce Sri Lanka’s search for truth and justice to a narrative of forgiving and forgetting.Read More