Zika found to remain in sperm for record six months

A 10-year-old Brazilian boy holds his two-month-old brother, who was born with an underdeveloped brain known as microcephaly

12 August 2016

The Zika virus has been found in the sperm of an Italian man six months after his first symptoms, twice as long as in previously reported cases.

Doctors at the Spallanzani Institute for Infectious Diseases in Rome said it pointed to the possibility that the virus was reproducing itself in the male genital tract.

The infection is suspected of leading to thousands of babies being born with underdeveloped brains.

Zika is spread by mosquitos.

The outbreak was declared a global public health emergency by the World Health Organisation in February.

Zika outbreak: What you need to know

The doctors' report suggests the potential for the sexual transmission of the virus may be greater than previously thought.

Current guidelines recommend infected patients should use condoms or abstain from sex for at least six months after the onset of symptoms.

The doctors said in light of this new evidence an extension of this recommendation might be advised, as well as the continued testing of semen after six months.

Christian Lindmeier from the WHO told the BBC the report would be looked at.

"The Zika outbreak is a constantly evolving situation and every new piece of evidence is looked into and evaluated as to whether or not guidelines will need to be revised."

The patient, who was in his early 40s, first presented symptoms after returning to Italy after a two-week visit to Haiti in January.

The patient reported he had received mosquito bites in Haiti, and his symptoms included fever, fatigue and a skin rash.

Follow-up testing showed the Zika virus was still present in his urine, saliva and sperm, 91 days after the onset of symptoms.

After 134 days it was only detectable in his sperm and this remained positive after 181 days.

Previously the longest registered symptoms remaining in the body after their onset was 93 days, found in a 27-year-old Frenchman.

"The results of this study confirm that the virus could replicate specifically in the male genital tract and may persist in semen," the Italian team said

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION OF SRI LANKA SUBMITS LAW & ORDER RECOMMENDATION

12/08/2016

The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka is of the belief the main purpose of a public security regime is to protect the people, and hence must be crafted in a manner that serves the best interests of the people. In this regard, the Commissions brings to the Sub Committee’s
attention the principles governing national security set out in Article 198 of the Constitution of South Africa which states that:

a. National security must reflect the resolve of the people, as individuals and as a nation, to live as equals, to live in peace and harmony, to be free from fear and want and to seek a better life.
b. National security must be pursued in compliance with the law, including international law.
c. National security is subject to the authority of Parliament and the national executive.

The Commission sets out below its recommendations on the public security regime to the Sub-Committee on Law & Order in line with its mandate stipulated in the Human Rights Commission Act No 21 of 1996.

The Commission reiterates that while public security is essential, the public security regime should be in line with Sri Lanka’s human rights obligations, in particular Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The recommendations are based on the jurisprudence of the IIN Human Rights Committee, the Paris Minimum Standards of Human Rights Norms in a State of Emergency, and the Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the ICCPR.

I. Declaration and extension of a state of emergency

– A state of emergency should be declared only when the ‘life of the nation is threatened’- which is an ‘exceptional situation of crisis or public danger, actual or imminent’. According to the [-]N Human Rights Committee and the Siracusa Principles, ‘exceptional threat’ should be construed subject to the following factors:

o The emergency must be actual or at least imminent – it cannot be of a preventive nature.
o The emergency should be of a magnitude so as to affect the whole country not just part of it.
o The very existence of the nation has to be threatened – this could be to the physical integrity of the population, territorial integrity, or to the
functioning of state structures.
o The crisis or danger must be exceptional in that normal measures for the maintenance of public safety are inadequate. Hence, the declaration of emergency should be considered as last resort.
o Emergency should be a temporary measure.

II. Judicial review

– Judicial review of a declaration of a state of emergency, emergency regulations and orders, must be guaranteed. This would include power and jurisdiction to:
o Determine the constitutional validity of the declaration of a state of emergency;
o Determine whether or not emergency legislation is in conformity with the constitution;
o Determine whether or not the exercise of emergency power is in conformity with the constitution and emergency legislation;
o Ensure there is no encroachment by emergency regulations and orders upon non-derogable rights, and that measures derogating from derogable rights are in compliance with the rule of proportionality;
o Declare null and void any emergency measure (legislative or executive) or . any act of application of any emergency measures, which does not satisfy the above-mentioned tests.
– If a state of emergency continues for more than six consecutive months, Parliament must approve its further extension by a special majority.

III. Derogation

– The Commission endorses the provisions in the Draft Charter of Rights (2009) on derogation of rights during periods of emergency. Accordingly:

o Measures prescribed by law derogating from the exercise and operation of the fundamental rights should be only to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation and necessary in a democratic society.
o The derogation should be in proportion to and consistent with the state’s other international legal obligations
o The derogation must not involve discrimination, i.e. it must not adversely impact a particular group or community (eg: women, a particular ethnic or religious group).

 As per the Draft Charter of Rights (2009) the following rights are non-derogable:

o Right to life
o Right to human dignity
o Security of the person
o Freedom from torture
o Freedom from slavery and servitude
o Retroactive penal sanctions
o Right to be recognised as a person before the law
o Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
o Freedom to hold opinions
o Family rights
o Rights of the child
o Freedom from exploitation
o From the right recognised by article 13 (7) of the Draft Bill of Rights unless legal provision is made requiring-

(i) the Magistrate of the area in which such arrest was made to be notified ofthe arrest; and
(ii) the person arrested to be produced before any Magistrate, within such time as is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.

IV. Amendment of Public Security Ordinance

The Commission also recommends the review of the Public Security Ordinance for purposes of reforming the legislative regime applicable to public security.

Read the proposals as a PDF:HRCSL-proposals-to-Sub-Comm-on-Law-Order

HRC SL

HRCSL-proposals-to-Sub-Comm-on-Law-Order.pdf by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

The Left In The Tamil Struggle

By Rajan Hoole –August 13, 2016

Dr. Rajan Hoole

1979 – 83: The Mounting Repression – Part II

The idea of a revolutionary liberation struggle was in its origins a leftist notion, but the struggle largely became the property of the Right even though the use of leftist jargon persisted. All the militant groups that kept to their Left roots were driven to the margins or to extinction by the LTTE’s violent assertion of sole leadership. A generation earlier a corresponding process had taken place among the political parties in the democratic stream.

V. Karalasingham, a member of the LSSP who contested S.J.V. Chelvanayakam in the KKS electorate in 1960, did creditably, polling 5,042 votes against 13,545 by the charismatic and highly respected Tamil leader. Karalasingham has the distinction of having spoken at election meetings throughout the Island in English. The historian Seelan Kadirgamar in his memoir The Left tradition in Lankan Tamil Politics, presented at the Hector Abhayawardana felicitation symposium in December 1999, made this observation: “Karalasingam’s pungent criticism of the Federal Party is as much applicable to the FP in 1963, the TULF in 1977 and the Tamil political movements and leadership in the present impasse.” We will quote from the memoir in the rest of this section.

In the chapter Why They have Failed, from his book The Way Out for the Tamil Speaking People of 1963, Karalasingham observed: “It is worthy to note that all the parties that have hitherto gained the confidence of the Tamil people, have done so on the basis of resisting the ‘chauvinism’ of the majority community and securing for their people their legitimate demands. But the period of ascendancy of the Tamil Congress and that of the Federal Party has signified to the Tamil speaking people not an increase but a diminution – indeed a sharp and precipitous decline of their fortunes. What heightens their tragedy is that their present plight cannot be attributed either to their apathy or their lack of support to the parties which at different times spoke for them. Apathy there never was on the question of minority rights. If anything, the politics of the last 30 years in the Northern and Eastern Provinces has revolved round precisely this question, to the exclusion of all others. The popular support for the traditional Tamil parties has been so enthusiastic and overwhelming as to incur the envy and jealousy of their rivals.”

Karalasingham pointed to what he described as a strange paradox: “The Tamil-speaking people have been led in the last decade by an apparently resolute leadership guided by the best intentions receiving not merely the widest support of the people but also their enthusiastic co-operation and yet the Tamil-speaking people find themselves at the lowest ebb in their history. Despite all their efforts the people have suffered one defeat after another, one humiliation after another”. He pointed out that the fundamental flaw in the Tamil nationalist strategy is the position that the fight for the rights of the Tamil-speaking people is the responsibility of the Tamil-speaking people alone.

Read More

Corruption, assassination and war crimes: A dream of reconciliation for Sri Lanka

PHOTO: Lasantha Wickrematunge was shot dead on the morning of January 8, 2009. -PHOTO: For 15 years, Lal and Lasantha Wickrematunge published Colombo's The Sunday Times.

PHOTO: Lal Wickrematunge set up the Colombo-based newspaper the Sunday Leader. -PHOTO: Former attorney-general of Sri Lanka Shiva Pasupathy.

By the National Reporting Team's Natasha Robinson -12/08/2016

In the first days of a new year in January, 2009, Sri Lankan journalist Lasantha Wickrematunge sat down to write. The corruption-fighting father-of-three had long been violently targeted, and held little doubt that his life would be short.

"Is it worth the risk?" the editor of the Colombo-based investigative newspaper The Sunday Leader wrote in an editorial. "Many people tell me it is not."

"But there is a calling that is yet above high office, fame, lucre and security. It is the call of conscience."

Three days later, on the morning of January 8, 2009, Lasantha Wickrematunge was shot dead.

"He was followed by four motorcycles, they had black helmets on, black leather jackets, boots," the journalist's brother Lal Wickrematunge told the ABC in Sydney.

"They surrounded the vehicle, stopped it, smashed the windows. They used what is called a gun that they cull sheep with, it's a spring-loaded pointed metal that comes out and withdraws back into the barrel. They kept it against his temple and shot him."

'I was numb'

For 15 years, the brothers published The Sunday Leader despite physical threats, assaults, law suits, and the firebombing of the presses. Though they knew the risks, nothing could have prepared Lal Wickrematunge for his brother's assassination.

"I was numb, but at the same time I felt that what we all feared right through had come to pass, and was the dream of bringing Sri Lanka to the right path was going to end," he said.

Now, Lal Wickrematunge has settled in Sydney, where he is trying to live out his brother's legacy. He's the Sri Lankan Government's recently-appointed consul-general, and he is reaching to Sri Lankan Tamils across the city.

It is a local attempt at ethnic reconciliation in one of the world's largest Sri Lankan migrant populations.

"I feel very strongly that everybody is born equal," Mr Wickrematunge says. "If everybody had a choice where they were born, it would have been different. We don't have a choice."

Mending a divide from afar

On a winter's night at his home in Sydney's Canada Bay, Mr Wickrematunge is hosting an unusual gathering.

Among the dinner party guests at the home of the diplomat are two former attorneys-general of Sri Lanka, Shiva Pasupathy and Sunil de Silva.

These two men were close colleagues in their homeland but watched much of the civil war that tore Sri Lanka apart between 1983 and 2009 from afar.

"Before the war ended, the suspicions, the mistrust between the majority Sinhala community and the Tamil community continued even outside Sri Lanka," Mr Wickrematunge says.

"The diaspora groups, be they Sinhalese or Tamils, viewed each other with great suspicion."

"But I'm very pleasantly surprised that in Sydney, Sri Lankans have come a long way from the time of the strife, to accept that reconciliation is an absolute necessity. The willing support that we've had among the Sri Lankans to get together as one community and call themselves Sri Lankans first, is quite wonderful."

Mr Wickrematunge's appointment as one of two Sri Lankan consuls-general in Australia six months ago was something of an act of reconciliation in itself from the Sri Lankan Government and President Maithripala Sirisena.

For years, Mr Wickrematunge has led a campaign in Sri Lanka for justice for his brother's murder. Seven years on, it's clear that the loss of his brother is still raw.

As he sits with his guests around his Sydney dinner table, his voice cracks as he asks the men to rise to their feet and observe a moment of silence.

"May I request that we stand up and say a prayer in whatever religion we follow for all those who have passed away during the strife and the conflict which we had," Mr Wickremantunge says.

A long way off prosecuting war crimes

The prayer follows a briefing for the guests on what unfolded recently at the UN Human Rights Council, where Sri Lanka gave an update on its progress on reconciliation.

The nation this week passed legislation to establish an Office of Missing Persons, but it's a long way off from the establishment of a judicial mechanism to investigate and prosecute war crimes that were carried out in the end stages of the war by operatives on both sides of the Sri Lankan conflict.

Sri Lanka last year co-sponsored a UN Human Rights Council resolution that committed the country to the establishment of a credible justice process that would include Commonwealth and other foreign judges, defence lawyers and authorised prosecutors and investigators.

In an oral update on Sri Lanka's implementation of the UNHCR resolution in June, UN human rights commissioner Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein praised Sri Lanka's "positive and productive engagement" with UN human rights mechanisms.

But he raised concerns that Sri Lanka appeared to be resisting the participation of international judges, prosecutors, investigators and lawyers in the judicial mechanism that it eventually establishes to probe allegations of human rights abuses and international crimes.

There were also concerns raised at Sri Lanka's slow progress on reconciliation and redress.

As they discussed the update at the Human Rights Council over dinner, some of Lal Wickrematunge's guests also said they believed the reconciliation process was progressing too slowly in their homeland. But Sunil de Silva said it was important that redress mechanisms be carefully planned.

"They say that justice delayed is justice denied, but it's always preferable to justice extradited," Mr de Silva said. "So therefore you've got to make sure that what you are doing lasts the test of time."

Fellow former attorney-general Shiva Pasupathy, a former legal advisor to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, is now preparing to advise the Sri Lankan Government on its constitutional changes.

He says that in his adopted country of Australia, the Sri Lankan High Commission has made special effort to reach out to minorities.

"This has not happened before," Mr Pasupathy said. "It will make a lot of difference in the attitude of different communities."

Sri Lankans living in fear in Australia

But outside the leadership community, there are many Sri Lankan refugees living in acute fear in the suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne.

Lawyer Daniela Gavshon compiled testimony from war victims as part of the Sydney-based Public Interest Advocacy Centres's International Crimes Evidence Project.

She says there are many victims of war living in Australia who want to tell their stories as part of an eventual judicial process, but much work will need to be done to ensure victims have confidence in any judicial mechanism.

The International Crimes Evidence Project found a high likelihood that war crimes were committed by both sides in the Sri Lankan conflict.

"People witnessed things, people were victims to heinous, heinous crimes and they can give that information that can form part of an evidence base for future prosecutions," Ms Gavshon said.

"There are two reasons why people will engage in a transitional justice mechanism, one is if they believe it's independent and impartial, both in practice and in perception, and the other reason will be if they feel safe to do so.

"And without a foreign presence it's very hard to see how people will feel safe to participate and how the government is going to be able to deliver fair and just outcomes and a just process, given the track record it has, unfortunately."

As the slow process towards truth and justice grinds on, though he is far from his homeland, Lal Wickrematunge remains determined to continue to build relationships between Tamil, Sinhalese and Muslim Sri Lankans in Australia.

And though he hails from the Sinhala majority, it's a project that would have been dear to his lost brother's heart.

"The original dream of bringing Sri Lanka as one nation, one people, was our intention," Mr Wickrematunge says.

"Our editorials constantly reminded people of that. And I think if we can do that even now, that would be one of the greatest achievements, which is what I am trying to do even here in Australia.

"If we do that, as for me, it would be realising Lasantha's dream."

Tamils, Muslims And The Issue Of North & East Merger

By Ameer Al –August 11, 2016

Dr. Ameer Ali

The issue of merging the Northern and Eastern provinces into one larger Tamil dominant unit is continuing to create tension between the Muslim and Tamil communities at a time when constitutional reforms are under consideration. From the majority Sinhalese point of view such a merger is feared as a stepping stone for the ultimate division of the country. There are historical antecedents to support this fear and tension respectively.

While a combination of factors such as the confused double talk between Federalism and Tamil Arasu or Rule by Tamil leaders in the past, the bitterness caused by a senseless civil war, and above all the proximity of Tamil Nadu to the north of the island are contributing to an embedded fear of Tamils in Sinhalese psych, an equally historical and mutual suspicion between the Tamils and Muslims especially in political matters is continuing to thwart a rational discussion of issues involved in the proposed merger.

As far as the Muslim community is concerned and viewed objectively the issue of North East merger is a problem for Muslims of the North and the East only and not for the entire Muslim community. This may be disconcerting to the current Muslim political leadership. However, it is a fact that in terms of economic and linguistic interests the Muslims of these two provinces are different from their counterparts in the other seven. In fact in terms of economic interest only one can divide the Muslim community into three groups: those of the east and north whose economic interests are wedded primarily to the land; those of the Western, Southern, North-Eastern, South-Western and Sabragamuwa provinces whose primary interests are mostly in commerce; and those of the Central and Uva provinces whose interests are mostly in petty business and market gardening.

The present Muslim leadership without an understanding of these sectional differences is making a cardinal error in conflating all Muslim issues into a mega one. Similarly, in the matter of constitutional reforms Muslim leaders must take a visionary approach and propose measures that will ultimately strengthen the unity of the nation while making its Muslim constituents a dynamic element.

In the Eastern Province and particularly in the Batticaloa district the Muslims form roughly thirty per cent of the population; but they have only three per cent of the land. Under various government schemes in the past some of the Muslim paddy lands were acquired and not all of that was given back to the owners once the schemes failed. Various colonization schemes in the East have disturbed the communal population balance in that area and that was one of the issues that prompted the Tamil youth to take up arms. The most crucial question the Muslims face in the East therefore is which one of the options – a merged province or a demerged entity – provides better prospect for not only protecting the existing holdings but also to expand them. The Tamil leadership must understand this issue and initiate an honest dialogue with the Muslims.

Read More

Govt. turns tables on JO to pass Office of Missing Persons law

• „„Foreign Minister champions Officeof Missing Persons amid jeers andslurs from JO
• „„Govt. neutralises pro-Rajapaksafaction; passes OMP bill without a vote
• „„Joint Opposition insists ontwo-day debate on the Office ofMissing Persons and a postponement of vote
• „„ JO MPs storm the well of theHouse; scream and rail againsttreacherous Govt.
• „„ TNA hails OMP legislation as aresponsible step towardsreconciliation by two main parties
• „„ Sumanthiran slams Vasu for‘masquerading as a leftist and humanrights activist’
• „„ Bimal speaks passionately aboutimpact of disappearances on JVPcomrades
• „„ JVP strongly backs permanentinstitution to investigatedisappearances

By Dharisha Bastians-Friday, 12 August 2016

The National Unity Government passed landmark legislation to help thousands of families trace missing loved ones after skillfully outmanoeuvring the pro-Rajapaksa Joint Opposition, which launched a sustained effort to obstruct proceedings and prevent the bill’s passage in Parliament yesterday.

The Office of Missing Persons Bill was passed with amendments and without a vote after a debate that lasted less than an hour amidst a constant stream of disruptions by Joint Opposition MPs.

As the Joint Opposition screamed and railed against the establishment of the OMP in the Well of the House, Speaker Karu Jayasuriya put the bill to Parliament. Supported by the Coalition Government and the two recognised opposition parties, the TNA and the JVP, the OMP legislation was enacted into law.

“Today is a historic day. It is a day when we take the very first step towards righting the wrongs of 68 years,” said Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera, who shepherded the legislation through Parliament, amid howls of protest by the Joint Opposition that denounced him as a traitor to the nation.

History would judge the true traitors, the Foreign Minister said during a press conference convened after the bill was enacted into law.

The Office of Missing Persons to be incorporated by an Act of Parliament as a permanent independent body with wide-ranging powers to investigate disappearances and trace missing persons is the first mechanism of a four-pillared structure for truth-seeking and justice in post-war Sri Lanka.

Amid deafening hooting and jeers from members of the Joint Opposition who stood menacingly close to him, Minister Samaraweera moved the second reading of the OMP bill, screaming himself hoarse as he accused the Joint Opposition group of sowing racial hatred and sabotaging the country’s fragile reconciliation process. Recognising the danger of a scuffle, UNP Ministers and MPs flanked Samaraweera creating a barrier between him and the Joint Opposition MPs, allowing him to continue speaking.

The OMP bill would herald a new era of peace and reconciliation for a longsuffering country, the Foreign Minister said, in an emotional speech amidst disruptions. “60 years after independence Mr. Speaker, two insurrections and a 26-year-old war later, Sri Lanka is now ready to commence the healing process of our wounded and fractured nation, coming to terms with the tragedies of our past...to pave the way for the future,” the Foreign Minister told a House in tumult.

“This Government of the SLFP and the UNP will never allow the likes of you to drive a wedge between our communities again,” Samaraweera raged against the Joint Opposition MPs surrounding him as he presented the bill. “Where were all of you when Mahinda Rajapaksa was plundering this country for 10 years and using soldiers to wipe the sweat from his brow?

There were ominous signs when members of the ‘Joint Opposition’ UPFA faction entered the chamber of Parliament last morning, sporting black armbands and neck-scarves and accusing the Government of seeking to pass legislation that would betray the country’s armed forces.

When the Leader of the House Lakshman Kiriella moved the debate on the OMP Bill, Joint Opposition Convenor Dinesh Gunewardane insisted on a two-day debate, followed by a vote to be taken in the third week of August. Gunewardane said the OMP was a serious piece of legislation to conduct a “witch-hunt of the country’s war heroes” and should not be rushed through Parliament.

Sittings suspended

When Speaker Karu Jayasuriya ruled that the vote on the OMP bill could not be postponed since party leaders had agreed on Wednesday to vote on Friday, about 30 incensed MPs of the Joint Opposition stormed the well of the House and advanced shouting towards the Speaker. Unable to proceed with business, the Speaker suspended sittings for 45 minutes.

When Parliament reconvened at 1.30 p.m., the Speaker announced that the party leaders had agreed to debate the OMP bill well into the night on Thursday. Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe also agreed to push the vote on the OMP bill back until 2.00 p.m. on Friday. With all parties in Parliament agreeable to this proposal except the Joint Opposition, Speaker Jayasuriya asked the Government to proceed with the debate.

Pandemonium reigned as members of the Joint Opposition led by former disappearances activist Vasudeva Nanayakkara re-entered the well of the Chamber where they would remain until proceedings concluded about an hour later. At least four sergeants took up position to guard the Mace, as the group advanced towards the Speaker’s podium once more.

The group, which was fighting a proxy battle on behalf of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, refused to heed the Speaker’s orders to return to their seats. Unruly scenes followed, with Nanayakkara and Pavithra Wanniarachchi leading chants of ‘traitor’ and ‘red elephants’ – slurs against the Government and the JVP.

Meanwhile, the Speaker continued to recognise MPs scheduled to make speeches during the debate. Occasionally, the Joint Opposition even launched into song to maintain the confusion and chaos.

TNA Jaffna District Legislator M.A. Sumanthiran congratulated the Government for what he called a “first baby step” in the process of reconciliation.

“It is creditable that the Government composed of two major parties in this country have taken this responsible step towards reconciliation,” he noted.

Sumanthiran pointed out the irony of Nanayakkara opposing the OMP legislation yesterday, when he had fought alongside Mahinda Rajapaksa in the 1990s on behalf of the families of the disappeared in the South. For years Nanayakkara had "masqueraded as a leftist" and a person who surpassed ethnic boundaries as he fought on behalf of disappeared Sinhala youth, the TNA MP said.

 “It is unfortunate that Vasudeva Nanayakkara leads this chant as I make this speech, unashamedly calling himself a human rights activist. Today he has demonstrated that he only cares about the human rights of Sinhala youth. That is the depth to which he has fallen,” the TNA MP asserted.

Also recognised by the Chair was JVP MP Bimal Ratnayake, who noted in a poignant speech that the JVP understood the grief of families of the missing, perhaps even more than the TNA MPs did. “Members of our party are on these lists of disappeared people. Rohan Wijeweera’s death was a disappearance. We understand that justice is necessary,” he said.

‘Justice for all’

Ratnayake explained that a permanent institution to look into hundreds of thousands of disappearances from 1971-2009 was essential and said the JVP strongly backed the OMP legislation. “There are soldiers, civilians and LTTE cadres in the lists of disappeared in this country. The JVP stands for justice for all those victims,” the JVP MP said.

After the JVP MP concluded his speech, the Speaker offered to grant time to the Joint Opposition to say their piece, on the condition that they leave the well of the House and return to their seats. National Freedom Front Leader Wimal Weerawansa, sensing a Government strategy in the offing and realising that the opportunity for the pro-Rajapaksa faction to prolong the debate and record its opposition to the bill was slipping away, returned to his seat and tried to raise a Point of Order.

Speaker Jayasuriya stood his ground, refusing to allow the Joint Opposition to speak until they resumed their seats. Joint Opposition MP Bandula Gunewardane also tried to make his colleagues return to their seats, but to no avail. The demonstration had taken on a life of its own. The debate on legislation deemed treacherous and dangerous by the Joint Opposition ultimately ended without the participation of the pro-Rajapaksa faction that had been explicitly mobilised to delay the enactment of the OMP Act.

The Government made a decision yesterday as the controversy began in Parliament that it would not allow a group of 25 MPs loyal to the former President to hold the OMP legislation to ransom, an authoritative Government source told Daily FT. The highly placed source told Daily FT that with the TNA and the JVP supporting the legislation, and broad support for the OMP within the SLFP-UNP coalition the simple majority required to pass the bill had never been in question. The Government parliamentary group only needed a strategy to counter the Joint Opposition's delaying tactics, the source said.

Bhavani Fonseka, attorney at law and Senior Researcher at the Centre for Policy Alternatives, told Daily FT following the passage of the historic Office of Missing Persons legislation that the Office would provide permanency in the search for truth and justice for families of the disappeared.

“It was heartening to see the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who has been a disappearance activist for decades, so strongly championing the legislation to set up a permanent office to trace and investigate disappearances in Sri Lanka,” Fonseka said.

She added however that the political events leading up to yesterday’s debate and the controversial parliamentary session itself demonstrated the immense challenges facing the country as it pushes forward on reconciliation and reckoning with a difficult past.

This is the first step towards creating a single SL nation; never again a bloodbath: Mangala when presenting missing persons bill (video)

(Lanka-e-News- 12.Aug.2016, 5.00PM)  Never will there be a blood bath again in Sri Lanka, and it is aimed at  creating a single Sri Lankan nation , said minister Mangala Samaraweera in Parliament when tabling the bill pertaining to missing persons which is a first step taken today towards commencing  an office pertaining to  them,  amidst tremendous odds and obstacles placed by the slaves of the  Rajapakses .

Racists including Vasudeva Nanayakkara, Udaya Gammanpila and  Sanath Nishantha  by leaping  forward to the middle tried to sabotage the salutary  move by raising objections meaninglessly and foolishly against  the bill along with  the amendment which was presented already at the meetings of party leaders , select committees and other parties.

The most reprehensible and abominable part of this racists’ drama is ,Vasudeva Nanayakkara who was the advisor to the association of the parents of missing persons during the 1988-89 era then , most shamelessly and  unscrupulously now opposing the creation  of an office for the very missing persons. It is a  common adage  when people grow older they grow wiser  , whereas in the case of Vasudeva only his beard has grown greyer while all the  grey matter in his head seems to have gone dead or haywire.  

JVP M.P. Bimal Rathnayake speaking on the occasion said ,  about 5000 members of the forces had gone missing during that period , and in the South too persons went missing.

Dinesh Gunawardena did not speak though he was informed of it by the speaker . Thereafter the debate was called closed by the speaker , and the second and third reading of the  bill were  taken up . The bill was passed without a vote being taken on it.

Mangala  Samaraweera rebutting the allegations made by the racist Rajapakse slaves and lackeys that this bill was a betrayal of the forces asked  , where were they when soldiers were most disdainfully treated and used to put on socks , shoes and tying laces , to wipe out the sweat  and were fastening pins on the blouses of ‘ammandis’ - wives of those VIPs so called .

This enactment has no judicial powers  , and four main tasks have been entrusted to this missing persons office , said Mangala Samaraweera. Those are :
‍
Searching for missing persons and preparing registers regarding them
Investigating the background that led to the disappearance and making a report on their fate.
With a view to minimizing disappearances  and the causes , making proposals to the officials in that regard.
Identifying methodologies to provide relief to the families of the missing persons , the minister  noted. 

The video footage of the speech of Mangala Samaraweera made amidst tremendous odds and obstructions posed by party slaves and racists  is hereunder 

---------------------------
by     (2016-08-12 11:39:49)

AMENDMENTS TO OMP BILL FROM JVP WHILE MAHINDA FACTION OBSTRUCTS

12/08/2016

(Lalith Kumar and Kugan Murugananthan, who had been activists of the JVP, too were disappeared)

When the debate on the Office of Missing Persons (OMP) Bill was held in Parliament today (11th) Parliamentarians of Mahinda faction of the SLFP opposed taking a vote for the Bill while Members of the JVP presented several amendments to the Bill.

The JVP Parliamentarian Bimal Rathnayaka participating in the debate said disappearances have taken place from 1987 until recently as 2014 and during the war more than 5000 security forces personnel have disappeared between 2006 and 2009.

He said during the war tens of thousands of Sinhalese, Tamil and Muslim citizens of this country have disappeared and the parents and relatives of the disappeared in the North and the East go through the same sorrow and the feeling of loss felt by the parents and relatives of JVP Members who were made to disappear during 88/89 period.

Mr. Rathnayaka said the death of JVP founder and Leader Rohana Wijeweera and the deaths of other leaders of the JVP such as Upatissa Gamanayaka, Shantha Bandara and many others are definitely disappearances and pointed out that Rohana Wijeweera’s children couldn’t see their father’s body nor could the members of his party see the body of their beloved leader.

Mr. Bimal Rathanayaka said Lalith Kumar and Kugan Murugananthan, who had been activists of the JVP, were disappeared as soon as they withdrew from politics of the JVP and their disappearance is connected with their activities while they were members of the JVP. He said the government is responsible for their disappearance.

The rulers, who came to power unearthing skeletal remains at Sooriyakanda, later made the murderers of Sooriyakanda their party organizers, appointed as a governor and at a certain period those murderers were made body guards of these politicians said Mr. Rathnayaka.

The JVP would never expect that bringing such Bills would justify those who were disappeared in 71, 89 or during the war but the move could have an effect to prevent such disappearances in the future said Mr. Rathnayaka.

The parents in the North as well as parents in the South have a right to know what happened to their children and it is the responsibility of the government to consolidate this right said Mr. Bimal Rathnayaka.

Lanka Truth

‘Don’t do in dinning room what is done in toilet,’ Speaker tells MPs of both sides 

by Saman Indrajith-August 12, 2016, 10:00 pm

Incidents during the debate on the Office of Missing Persons (OMP) Bill in the House on Thursday had caused huge damage to the dignity and decorum of Parliament and both the government and the Opposition should be ashamed of it, Speaker Karu Jayasuriya said yesterday.

Jayasuriya said the Joint Opposition MPs were entitled to stage protests but they had to be mindful of when and where they should do so. "Politicians may be rebellious when staging protests. But such protests should be held at appropriate places like the Lipton Circus and the Hyde Park not in the Well of Parliament. They should act with some restraint when registering their protest against something in Parliament."

"The MPs should not choose the dining room to do what they are supposed to in a lavatory (vesikiliye karana de kema kamaraye karranna epa)," the Speaker said.

Referring to a report on what happened during the passing of the Bill published in a Sinhala daily, the Speaker said according to some media some MPs were singing songs inside the chamber. "Both government and opposition should be ashamed of this situation," he said.

MEP Leader Dinesh Gunawardena requested the Speaker to review the procedure followed in passing the Office of Missing Persons Bill because it had been passed in violation of the Constitution.

He said the members of the proposed office of missing persons were to be appointed by the Constitutional Council. But the said office did not come under the independent commissions that were appointed by the Constitutional Council under the 19th amendment to the constitution. That situation would amount to usurping the powers of the executive president. "That was what we needed to highlight yesterday but the government did not allow us. The Bill was not passed in accordance with the Standing Orders," he said.

Speaker Jayasuriya: I gave the Joint Opposition MPs the opportunity to speak. But, they were not willing to go back to their places and remained in the well of the house shouting.

Dignity of Parliament had suffered as the Opposition MPs disrupted the debate, Leader of the House Higher Education and Highways Minister Lakshman Kiriella said. The opportunity to hold an effective debate on the OMP Bill and to discuss a host of interesting issues had been lost owing to the irrational behaviour of the Joint Opposition. "It would have been possible to discuss the events of 1971, 1987 to 1989 and many more, but the drama that took place on Thursday had prevented that opportunity. Parliament has lost though the Bill was passed," he said blaming the Opposition for protesting inside the chamber.

Joint opposition MP Vasudeva Nanayakara said that it was the government that should take the blame for the disruption of the session. "A proper debate could have been held if the government agreed to the opposition demand to put off voting for another day," he said.

JVP Leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake said that there had been a deal between the government and the Joint Opposition to prevent a proper debate on the OMP bill. The government followed a stubborn attitude in getting the legislation passed preventing the JVP MPs from getting certain things clarified and to make effective amendments to the bill. "We wanted to seek clarifications on certain clauses of the Bill and state our objections to some other clauses but the drama which took place inside the well of the chamber prevented all this. The protest staged by the Joint Opposition was a result of a deal they got into with the government. The joint opposition jumped into the well of the House to enable the government to pass the Bill without any difficulty. We can also talk of other deals between the government and the joint opposition under which certain people are allowed to get away from corruption charges," he said.

Joint opposition MP Sriyani Wijewickrama complained that a government MP Wijepala Hettiarachchi had abused her verbally during the passing of the OMP Bill. "The MP had made nasty remarks about me and abused me verbally," she said adding that her parliamentary privileges were breached.

Speaker Jayasuriya requested MP Wijewickrama to make a written complaint and assured that he would look into the matter.

WRONGFUL RESTRAINT AND CONFINEMENT

know your law  By Chandra Tilake Edirisuriya-2016-08-12

Of "wrongful restraint", Section 330 of the Penal Code of Sri Lanka says, whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said "wrongfully to restrain" that person. The exception to this Section is that the obstruction of a private way over land or water, which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct is not an offence within the meaning of this Section.

In illustration it is said that A, obstructs a path along which Z has a right to pass, A not believing in good faith that he has a right to stop the path; Z is thereby prevented from passing; A wrongfully restraints Z.

Of "wrongful confinement" Section 331 says, whoever wrongfully restraints any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits is said "wrongfully to confine" that person.

Illustration
In illustration it is said, (a) A, causes Z to go within a walled space and locks Z in; Z is thus prevented from proceeding in any direction beyond the circumscribing line of wall; A wrongfully confines Z and (b) A places men with firearms at the outlets of a building and tells Z that they will fire at Z if Z attempts to leave the building; A wrongfully confines Z.

Prescribing punishment for wrongful restraint Section 332 says, whoever wrongfully restraints any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to fifty rupees, or with both.
Prescribing punishment for wrongful confinement Section 333 says, whoever wrongfully confines any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Wrongful confinement
On wrongful confinement for three or more days, Section 334 says, whoever wrongfully confines any person for three days or more, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
On wrongful confinement for ten or more days, Section 335 says, whoever wrongfully confines any person for ten days or more, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

On wrongful confinement of a person for whose liberation a writ has been issued, Section 336 says, whoever keeps any person in wrongful confinement, knowing that a writ for the liberation of that person has been duly issued, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, in addition to any term of imprisonment to which he may be liable under any other Section of this Code.

On wrongful confinement in secret, Section 337 says, whoever wrongfully confines any person in such manner as to indicate an intention that the confinement of such person may not be known to any person interested in the person so confined, or to any public servant, or that the place of such confinement may not be known to or discovered by any such person or public servant as herein before mentioned, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, in addition to any other of punishment to which he may be liable for such wrongful confinement.

Imprisonment
On wrongful confinement for the purpose of extorting property, or constraining to an illegal act, Section 338 says, whoever wrongfully confines any person for the purpose of extorting from the person confined, or from any person interested in the person confined, any property or valuable security, or of constraining the person confined, or any person interested in such person, to do anything illegal or to give any information which may facilitate the commission of an offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Of wrongful confinement for the purpose of extorting confession or of compelling restoration of property, Section 339 says, whoever wrongfully confines any person for the purpose of extorting from the person confined, or from any person interested in the person confined, any confession or any information which may lead to the detection of an offence or misconduct, or for the purpose of constraining the person confined, or any person interested in the person confined, to restore or cause the restoration of any property or valuable security, or to satisfy any claim or demand, or to give information which may lead to the restoration of any property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Prof. G.L. Peiris, in his monumental work on the Criminal Law, Offences under the Penal Code of Sri Lanka says that in the case of Herath v. William Silva (1928) 30 NLR 376 the accused was convicted of having wrongfully restrained the complainant from proceeding along the public highway in a lorry. The complainant's version was believed by the Court was that the accused was seated on the middle of the road and that, as the lorry approached the accused sprang up and walked backwards, so that the driver could not proceed without running over him. The question of law raised in appeal on behalf of the accused was that, to constitute the offence of wrongful restraint, the obstruction offered must be one which raises in the person obstructed a fear other than for the person obstructing. This contention was uncompromisingly ejected by Lyall Grant J. who observed:

Physical obstruction
"The accused put an actual physical obstruction in the way of the lorry, namely, the obstruction of his own body. The mere fact that, physically, the person obstructed might have been able to overcome the obstruction does not seem to me to alter the nature of the accused's act. The complainant could not have overcome the obstruction except by running the accused down, which would have been a criminal act. An act by one person which prevents another from proceeding in a direction, in which he has a right to proceed, unless the latter chooses to commit a criminal act, seems to me to amount to wrongful restraint".

On the meaning of "obstruction" Lyall Grant J declared: "The word 'obstruct' in Section 330 has not, so I am informed, been the subject of decision in Ceylon. Nevertheless, His Lordship accepted as applicable to Ceylon the following principles which had been formulated for Indian law: (a) Obstruction may consist of a physical impediment or the use of physical force to restrain movement. (b) However, obstruction need not necessarily consist of actual application of physical force. The element of obstruction may be satisfied by a threat or order which operates on another's will and in consequence of which the natural operation of the will is changed or subverted. In other words, harm actually inflicted is not necessary; threatened harm is sufficient. (c)The crucial consideration is not the act by the accused, but the effect it produces in the mind of the other party. Whatever the nature of the accused's act may be, the legal requirement of obstruction would be satisfied if the result of the accused's act was to prevent a person from proceeding in a direction in which he had a right to proceed – this consequence being voluntarily brought about".

Sympathizers
In the case of Justin Perera v. Ratnayake (1957) 63 NLR 90, the accused persons were either employees or sympathizers of employees of a bus company. On the day in question, most of the company's employees had struck work and assembled outside the garage.

The management of the company had requested X an employee who had not joined the strike, to drive one of its buses out of the garage and on to the road in order to commence the normal passenger service. This proved impossible because the thirteen accused persons sat down or reclined in front of the bus and, while lying on the ground, declared that X would not be allowed to reach the road.

The point of law urged in appeal on behalf of the accused persons was that, as the obstruction was to X driving off in the bus and as X was free to proceed by himself without attempting to take the bus with him, the offence of wrongful restraint could not be held to have been committed. It was held that this contention was not entitled to prevail. T.S. Fernando J posed the question: "Is not a person prevented from proceeding in a direction in which that person has a right to proceed when he is not permitted to proceed armed or equipped or even encumbered with anything with which he may lawfully be armed, equipped or encumbered? If it is lawful, for instance, for a person to lead his dog along the road, is he not being wrongfully restrained within the meaning of Section 330 when obstruction is offered to his so leading the dog, although it is made clear to him that he would be allowed to proceed if the dog is not brought along with him?"

In circumstances where a legal right to proceed is dependent on fulfillment of a condition, obstruction of the complainant before he satisfies the condition does not amount to wrongful restraint. In Knatchbulv. Fernando (1906) 9 NLR 222, the complainant, a military officer, charged the accused, a toll-keeper, with wrongful restraint. It appeared that the complainant, who was in uniform but was not on duty at the relevant time, rode his bicycle through the toll bar but did not pass the bridge on being asked by the accused to pay the toll, the complainant refused to do so on the ground that he was in uniform. The accused did not ask the complainant for his name and address but detained him until the arrival of a constable who noted the material particulars and released the complainant. It was held that the complainant was liable to pay the toll because he was not on duty even though he was clad in uniform.

Wrongful restraint
It follows from this conclusion that the accused's refusal to allow the complainant to pass the toll bar cannot be the basis of a conviction of wrongful restraint, because the complainant had the right to proceed beyond this point only on payment of the stipulated sum. However, the evidence indicated that, before the constable arrived, the complainant had offered to re-pass the toll bar and go back but that the accused had declined to allow this. It was on the footing of this latter act that the conviction of wrongful restraint could have been sustained. While the complainant had no right to traverse the toll bar without payment, he did have the right to turn back and to proceed in the opposite direction. It was the accused's unwillingness to allow this that exposed him to criminal liability. Wood Renton J, in his judgment, also placed some emphasis on the fact that the complainant was at no time asked for his name and address. His Lordship declared: "In any event, the onus of justifying the detention rested with the toll bar keeper, and as he made no attempt to ascertain the complainant's identity before detaining him at the toll, it appears to me that he was guilty of wrongful restraint".

Where the complainant prima facie has a legal right to use the road but the accused maintains that there was justification for curtailment or denial of the right in the circumstances of the case, the onus of establishing the facts which gave rise to the legal justification for suppression of the right, devolves on the accused. This is illustrated by the decision in the case of Ossen V. Ponniah (1932) 1 CLW 246. The accused, an Excise Inspector, received information that arrack was likely to be transported in a particular car. He made arrangements to watch it and took with him an instrument in the form of a small inverted harrow with spikes which had been designed in accordance with the instructions of the Excise Commissioner for the purpose of puncturing tyres. The complainant's car was damaged by the use of this instrument. The number of the complainant's car did not correspond with that of the vehicle under suspicion. The accused failed entirely to prove that there was any reasonable cause to believe that illicit arrack was being transported in the vehicle in question. Dalton J held, on these facts that the accused's act in preventing the complainant from proceeding along the road amounted to wrongful restraint. The conclusion reached in this case is defensible in the light of evidence which revealed a complete absence of legitimate grounds for suspecting the complainant or his vehicle.

Court gives permission to interrogate a most infamous media coolie in connection with Sunday Leader editor’s murder

(Lanka-e-News- 12.Aug.2016, 5.20PM)   The Court  granted  permission to the CID to interrogate infamous journalist Saman Gamage of ‘Divaina’ in connection with the ghastly murder of Sunday Leader newspaper editor Lasantha Wickremetunge.

This scoundrel of a journalist time and again by reporting this is not what happened and that , to distort  facts and create wrong impression among the public has  all along impeded the CID investigations. Based on the reports of this scoundrel  , the CID requested court to grant permission to investigate him pertaining to the information he had been disclosing.

Saman Gamage is a low breed notorious journalist who had been white washing the murders committed during the nefarious decade of the Rajapakses. He is so unprofessional ,  unethical and unscrupulous that he paints the picture that murdered Prageeth Ekneliyagoda was a ‘Tiger’ and late Lasantha was a spy of RAW organization , based on his reports. The hired assassins of the Rajapakses who killed them are ,according to this villainous coolie  of a journalist , ‘ war heroes.’ By describing those murderers as heroes this villain has in fact insulted the true war heroes .
  
This media coolie who belongs to the class of self seeking  opportunistic journalists of the country who would not only sell the country but even their souls for personal gains . In any other country the genuine journalist organizations them , would be spearheading the campaign against these villainous media coolies , in SL never do such organizations rise against them ,  object to or oppose the actions and activities of the media coolies of Gamage’s  category who  like him descend to any lowliest levels to resort to any  disgraceful  activities like the shameless itchy stray dog when it sees a bitch. Hence ,those who are operating as  spies after joining  as tea makers  have secured the ability to embed  any inhuman views (against human rights) among the public using the journalist label . They have even the license to stoke racism.

It is Welgamas who introduced Gamage to Divaina newspaper establishment  . They are from  the same native place. Gamage while working as a tea boy making tea for the staff was passing information about the editorial board to Welgamas. Thereafter he started writing what Welgamas wanted; and now the tea boy has turned so powerful that there is nobody in that office even to edit what he writes. He was in the pay of the Rajapakses  on illicit and monthly remuneration .

Of course there is another villainous two legged beast in the same Divaina office who can  distort and misrepresent  the facts to deceive the public even worse  than Gamage regarding the interrogation of Gamage by the CID. His name is Keerthi Warnakulasurya  another media coolie who stinks worse  than the latrine coolies.

Meanwhile the Mt. Lavinia magistrate Ms.Sulochana Weerasinghe ordered that sergeant major of the army intelligence division Premananda Udalagama who is now in remand custody over the murder of Ekneliyagoda be further remanded until the 25 th.

In an identification parade conducted earlier on Udalagama was identified by  the driver of Lasantha Wickremetunge . He is now to be produced for another identification parade before Lal Valentine who is an eye witness in this brutal murder. However because the eye witness is sick the parade that was to be held today was postponed until the 25 th.

---------------------------
by     (2016-08-12 12:08:50)