Alagaratnam explains BASL role

Controversial HC appointment

February 22, 2017, 9:51 pm 

Geoffrey Alagaratnam, PC, President of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) has responded to accusations directed at the BASL in respect of the recent appointment of Ramanathan Kannan as High Court judge.

The following is the text of Alagaratnam’s statement: "There has been much speculation and allegations related to the above appointment and the role of the Bar Association in relation to it.

For over a year, representations were made by lawyers, especially from the Eastern Province, that there was an acute shortage of High Court Judges in the Northern and Eastern Provinces conversant in the Tamil language resulting in a backlog and delay in disposal of cases. These representations were made both at the Bar Council and Executive Committee meetings of the Bar Association.

This issue was taken up at the regular Bench and Bar meetings between representatives of the Bar Association and His Lordship the Chief Justice and other members of the Judicial Service Commission on several occasions.

At these meetings it was indicated that there was a serious shortage of Tamil speaking career judges senior enough to be promoted to the High Court and that even the Attorney General’s Department was unwilling to release its officers conversant in the Tamil language for such appointments due to its heavy reliance on its very few Tamil officers.

Consequently it was suggested by His Lordship that if members of the Unofficial Bar even from the Northern and Eastern Provinces were willing to give up their practice and offer themselves for such appointment the same will be considered and that they could be posted outside the province of their practice. As Your Lordship is aware previously some members of the Unofficial Bar in Colombo were requested to consider accepting appointment but such was not successful.

In August 2016 a member of the Akkaraipattu Bar was recommended and his application supported by a senior President’s Counsel was forwarded to His Lordship the Chief Justice to be considered for such appointment through the constitutional process, but this did not materialise.

In September 2016 Mr. R. Kannan’s application was forwarded by the President of the Batticaloa Bar to the undersigned. The referees were a former Attorney General and a retired additional Solicitor General as Mr. R. Kannan, prior to taking up private practice, had been an officer of the Attorney General’s Department for close to Twelve years. Upon inquiries from several members of the legal fraternity about his suitability the undersigned was advised that he is a competent individual of integrity, trilingual, with over seventeen years as a practitioner enjoying a successful practice at the Batticaloa Bar of which he was the Secretary, though Mr. Kannan, in fact hailed from Matale.

Accordingly, the application of Mr. Kannan, as directed, by His Lordship the Chief Justice, was forwarded by the undersigned to His Excellency the President the appointing authority for consideration, with copy to His Lordship the Chief Justice and the Minister of Justice by the undersigned’s letter of 21st September 2016.

In the meantime, representations continued to be made to me as President of the Bar Association from members of the North and East as to the delay in appointing Tamil conversant judges to the Northern and Eastern Provinces due to the retirement of two High Court judges aggravated by a policy decision not to continue to appoint already retired Tamil conversant judges as Commissioners. Such delays had caused immense hardship to the litigants and the practitioners in those areas resulting from the postponement of cases.

Due to this prevailing situation around September 2016 a capable career judicial officer, conversant in Tamil though junior in the seniority list of career judges was appointed as a Commissioner with the intention of giving him a permanent High Court judge’s appointment when he reached the required seniority. However there were some technical errors in his letter of appointment and eventually he was appointed as a High Court Judge in December 2016.

To the best of my recollection there was never any concern or reservation communicated to the undersigned by the Presidential Secretariat or any other party on the suitability or otherwise of Mr. Kannan for appointment to the High Court. Consequently there was never any appeal or the need for an appeal by the undersigned or a delegation of the Bar Association on the application of Mr. Kannan.

Against this background and delays, discussions and representations continued for the need to make early appointments especially as the application of Mr. Kannan, from the Unofficial Bar, was pending since 21st September 2016.

Eventually the Judicial Services Commission with the concurrence of the Kannan to the High Court in accordance with the Constitution. I have no doubt that prior to making such recommendation the Commission would have made its own inquiries and come to its own decision on such appointment.

The undersigned wishes to clarify that there has never been a practice of either the Bar Council or the Executive Committee of the Bar Association or Branch Associations approving persons that are to be recommended for appointment to the judiciary though there have been several appointments to the judiciary from the Unofficial Bar in the past.

It is also pertinent to note and recognize that the Bar Association has constantly maintained that courts, especially the Apex and Higher courts, should comprise a healthy mix of members of the career judiciary, the Official and Unofficial Bars.

In the matter of appointment of judges from the Unofficial Bar in the past the practice has been to seek recommendations from the leaders of the Bar. This I believe is a healthy tradition and it should be continued. I repeat that there is no requirement nor a practice that approvals be obtained for such recommendations from the Executive Committee, the Bar Council of the Bar Association or any Branch Association and this practice has been in line with the nature of the subject matter of such recommendations.

The recent Sub Committee of the Constitutional Assembly on the Judiciary report related to the on-going constitutional amendments on the judiciary, based on recommendations made by the Bar Association of Sri Lanka and approved by the Bar Council, is that there should be consultation with several stakeholders including the President of the Bar Association when appointments/ promotions are made to the Apex courts.

Further the Bar has constantly maintained the position that promotions, especially to the higher judiciary, should, apart from comprising members of the Official and Unofficial Bar and career judiciary, be not based on mere seniority but on seniority and merit and that an adequate system of judicial audit is critical.

The Bar has also recommended a broader basis for the Judicial Services Commission and its functions to include other stake holders such as the President of the Court of Appeal, the Attorney General, the President of the Bar Association and other appropriate representatives to ensure a better and informed approach in the matter of appointments and tenure of members of the minor judiciary with appropriate safeguards to ensure that no conflicts of interest arise

It is pertinent to note that even in respect of the recent appointments to the minor judiciary that the Commission was pleased to make inquiries from the Bar Association on the suitability of potential candidates.

BASL President in hot water on judicial appointment?

2017-02-23

Appointment of a High Court Judge from the Unofficial Bar
The thorny issue on the appointment of the High Court judge from the Private Bar is brewing fast at a rapid phase, with conflicting statements, from various sources. Justice R. Kandiah Kannan is appointed from the Batticaloa Private Bar, allegedly on the recommendations of the Bar Association, which is the only statutory body of Attorneys-at-law in Sri Lanka established in 1974 with the merger of then professions Advocates and Proctors creating a powerful professional body of renamed as Attorneys- at – Law, which catalysed and initiated the formation of the Organization of Professionals which is the professional body of the majority of recognised professional associations in Sri Lanka. The powers of appointment of High court Judges outside the accepted and legal procedure is laid down in the Constitution to be enforced on special circumstances strictly on the advice of the Judicial Service Commission established under the same chapter. It is a mandatory requirement that the JSC should advice the President on the appointment on their own initiative and merits of the candidates free from influence or interference of political or other considerations. It is not clear on what basis the JSC could select candidates from the service, which is the normal procedure.

The Law Article 111(1) 
“There shall be a High Court of Sri Lanka, which shall exercise such jurisdiction and powers as Parliament may by law vest or ordain. ] (2) The Judges of the High Court shall be appointed by the President of the Republic by warrant under his hand and be removable and be subject to disciplinary control by the President on the recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission established under this Chapter. (3) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (2) of this Article, Parliament may by law provide for matters relating to the retirement of the Judge of such High Court. It is abundantly clear that the President has the mandate to make the appointment at his wish and will.  

Article 111(A) Commissioners of the High Court. 
 Where the Minister in charge of the subject of Justice represents to the President that it is expedient that the number of the Judges exercising the jurisdiction and powers of the High Court in any judicial zone should be temporarily increased the President may, by warrant, appoint one or more Commissioners of the High Court to exercise the jurisdiction and powers of the High Court within such judicial zone as is specified in the warrant of appointment of such Commissioner of the High Court.” This procedure permits Ministerial intervention unlike the previous Article in which the it is not imperative, but always complementary in the practice of good governance.  

112(1) The Judicial Service Commission
There shall be a Judicial Commission which shall consist of the Chief Justice, who shall be the Chairman, and two other judges of the Supreme Court appointment of the President of the Republic.
It is clear that the President has power to appoint High Court Judges at his will and following conventions and practices which are discretionary.  

A Constitutional Requirement?

Though not a constitutional requirement, it is generally the practice and the convention to consult the Minister of Justice and the Bar Association as a matter for safety, courtesy and guidance to the President in such appointments on exceptional situations. Whether this procedure was followed previously is a mot issue though it is not in the public domain, it is obvious and imperative that the Judicial Service Commission shall recommend with the Attorney General is “nod” as the advisor of the State and the President. Then how was the appointment initiated?, and recommended to the Judicial Service Commission, as JSC can recommend the appointment to the President only from and among 66 serving judges awaiting for promotions, who apparently have shown the strong protest by refusing to take part as returning officers at the BASL election which is postponed indefinitely which is considered to be a matter of serious nature. By Convention the Judges act as returning officers of BASL elections and the AG on the apex body in conducting and supervising election procedure.
President made it clear in the presence of the President BASL, and the Chief Justice at a function that Bar Association has made a request, when the Minister of Justice denies of any knowledge or involvement on any such appointment. President’s position is substantiated by a statement by a group of lawyers responsible for the Regime Change, using the phrase “Upon a nomination by the president BASL, and not from the Executive body, recommendation was made” which is unconstitutional and irregular as the President BASL is bound to act strictly on the advice and directions of the Executive Body alone. He cannot take arbitrary decisions which are illegal and unconstitutional.
 Issue has become still complicated by the statements of the former President and former Foreign Minister alleging involvement of a political party in the recommendation process requesting the President to make the appointment under his powers and prerogative, which is rarely used. Making matters worse the Secretary of the Bar Association has denied any involvement or connection by the Secretary as the Chief Executive officer. Bar Council which is the Executive Body of the Bar Association deciding on all issues pertaining to the Association. Neither the President of the Bar Association nor the Social and active groups except a pro-government group of lawyers have made any comments or statements, on this thorny issue of paramount importance to the independence of Judiciary. Dead silence by the social groups’ active in the campaign of good governance and independence of the Judiciary is raising eyebrows of the public awaiting action on the issue close their hearts of adjudication of justice and maintenance of Rule of Law.
Logically and constitutionally citizen is bound to believe the convincing statement made by the President on the issue and it is clear that the Bar Association should not dabble in politics or appointment of judges. Bar Association had an ugly history in dabbling in politics and the citizen still remembers by the BASL in the role played in the Regime Change process, for which the President of BASL was amply compensated with a plum office, and using USA aid by allowing them to function in the BASL premises and using data which are confined to the Lawyers alone. The “Hulftsdorp Gossip” is that the current Leader BASL is looking for a plump diplomatic appointment in a powerful western state, by killing two birds with one stone. Judges are appointed from and among the official and unofficial Bar with strict procedures adopted by the JSC alone with no political or any kind of interference. Head of the State and the Executive is expected to perform the sacred duty of the appointment of judges with great care, and impartiality appointing fit and proper learned and respected in the profession.  

First Appointment of this nature based on Article 111(A)
The President made an appointment of appointing a retiring High Court Judge under Warrant for a specified period, despite protests from the Bar Association, after she discharged Hon. Ravi Karunanayaka from the charges on a technical ground on the controversial case involving millions of foreign dollars connected to disgraced Raj Rajaratnam - a USA ballooner national of Sri Lankan origin. The current appointment is the second appointment under the first part of the Article, which is rarely used in extreme circumstances. Protest from the Bar was not considered seriously.  

Judges unhappy
Judicial Service Association which is the only body of the serving Judges have shown the protest on the appointment for reasons left to themselves and as a result the BASL election is postponed indefinitely for want of returning officers, which is a serious matter that may ignite further unless immediate steps are taken to remedy as there appears to be no constitutional remedy on an appointment made by the President despite technical defeats.
It appears that the Judicial Officers Association will stick to their guns, with displeasure and unpleasantness growing among the minor judiciary, depending on job security and due promotions they toil for during their service of employment.  

A Noble Profession/Way forward
The legal Profession is one of the noblest professions depending on the good will and reputation with the society maintaining highest integrity of individual members and the association collectively. President of the Bar Association is the Leader of the Unofficial Bar when the Attorney General is the Leader of the Official Bar all of whom are selected by and among the lawyers of high repute and professional standings, who are expected to be whiter than white in their personal and professional conduct before the public, judges and litigants, where the integrity is judged by the conduct of the member of the profession. In this instance we are in the dark until the tip of the ice bag is wide open by concerned parties in high office for the benefit of the citizen waiting for justice, fair play and remedies for laws delays and justice they are clamouring for with defective systems and want of facilities and learned judges and judicial system on the tract. Leader of the Bar should be responsive, responsible and live up to the expectations of the Nation, Judiciary and the members of the profession elected the leader with the highest expectations expecting no shady deeds or deals with ulterior motives or personal gains by acting arbitrarily and independently when there are clear guidelines to follow the due process.
As all those involved in this issue are members of the legal profession, apart from the President holding sole authority on appointments members of the Bar and the citizen expects the parties concerned to shed light to the public, and we as a part of the concerned citizens request the NGOs and Active social groups demanding good governance to take the campaign over in this matter of public interest and importance in promoting independence of the judiciary, rule of law and good governance.
Writer could be contacted on sarath7@hotmail.co.u/Views expressed are that of the Author.

Appointing Judges From Unofficial Bar: BASL President In Hot Water

By Sarath Wijesinghe –February 22, 2017

Sarath Wijesinghe

Appointment of a High Court Judge from the Unofficial Bar

The thorny issue on the appointment of the High Court judge from the private Bar is brewing fast at a rapid phase, with conflicting statements, from various sources. Justice R Kandiah Kannan is appointed from the Batticaloe Private Bar allegedly on the recommendations of the Bar Association, which is the only statutory body of Attorneys- at – law in Sri Lanka established in 1974 with the merger of then professions Advocates and Proctors creating a powerful professional body of renamed as Attorneys- at – Law, which catalysed and initiated the formation of the Organization of Professionals which is the professional body of the majority of recognised professional associations in Sri Lanka. The powers of appointment of High court Judges outside the accepted and legal procedure is laid down in the Constitution to be enforced on special circumstances strictly on the advice of the Judicial Service Commission established under the same chapter. It is a mandatory requirement that the JSC should advice the President on the appointment on their own initiative and merits of the candidates free from influence or interference of political or other considerations. It is not clear on what basis the JSC could select candidates from the service, which is the normal procedure.

The Law

Article 111(1)

“There shall be a High Court of Sri Lanka, which shall exercise such jurisdiction and powers as Parliament may by law vest or ordain. ] (2) The Judges of the High Court shall be appointed by the President of the Republic by warrant under his hand and be removable and be subject to disciplinary control by the President on the recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission established under this Chapter. (3) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (2) of this Article, Parliament may by law provide for matters relating to the retirement of the Judge of such High Court. It is abundantly clear that the President has the mandate to make the appointment at his wish and will.

Article 111(A) Commissioners of the High Court.

Where the Minister in charge of the subject of Justice represents to the President that it is expedient that the number of the Judges exercising the jurisdiction and powers of the High Court in any judicial zone should be temporarily increased the President may, by warrant, appoint one or more Commissioners of the High Court to exercise the jurisdiction and powers of the High Court within such judicial zone as is specified in the warrant of appointment of such Commissioner of the High Court.” This procedure permits Ministerial intervention unlike the previous Article in which the it is not imperative, but always complementary in the practice of good governance.

112(1) the Judicial Service Commission

There shall be a Judicial Commission which shall consist of the Chief Justice, who shall be the Chairman, and two other judges of the Supreme Court appointment of the President of the Republic.

It is clear that the President has power to appoint High Court Judges at his will and following conventions and practices which are discretionary.

A Constitutional Requirement?

Though not a constitutional requirement, it is generally the practice and the convention to consult the Minister of Justice and the Bar Association as a matter for safety, courtesy and guidance to the President in such appointments on exceptional situations. Whether this procedure was followed previously is a mot issue though it is not in the public domain, it is obvious and imperative that the Judicial Service Commission shall recommend with the Attorney General is “nod” as the advisor of the State and the President. Then how was the appointment initiated?, and recommended to the Judicial Service Commission, as JSC can recommend the appointment to the President only from and among 66 serving judges awaiting for promotions, who apparently have shown the strong protest by refusing to take part as returning officers at the BASL election which is postponed indefinitely which is considered to be a matter of serious nature. By Convention the Judges act as returning officers of BASL elections and the AG on the apex body in conducting and supervising election procedure.

President made it clear in the presence of the President BASL, and the Chief Justice at a function that Bar Association has made a request, when the Minister of Justice denies of any knowledge or involvement on any such appointment. President’s position is substantiated by a statement by a group of lawyers responsible for the Regime Change, using the phrase “Upon a nomination by the president BASL, and not from the Executive body, recommendation was made” which is unconstitutional and irregular as the President BASL is bound to act strictly on the advice and directions of the Executive Body alone. He cannot take arbitrary decisions which are illegal and unconstitutional.

Issue has become still complicated by the statements of the former President and former Foreign Minister alleging involvement of a political party in the recommendation process requesting the President to make the appointment under his powers and prerogative, which is rarely used. Making matters worse the Secretary of the Bar Association has denied any involvement or connection by the Secretary as the Chief Executive officer. Bar Council which is the Executive Body of the Bar Association deciding on all issues pertaining to the Association. Neither the President of the Bar Association nor the Social and active groups except a pro government group of lawyers have made any comments or statements, on this thorny issue of paramount importance to the independence of Judiciary. Dead silence by the social groups’ active in the campaign of good governance and independence of the Judiciary is raising eyebrows of the public awaiting action on the issue close their hearts of adjudication of justice and maintenance of Rule of Law.

Logically and constitutionally citizen is bound to believe the convincing statement made by the President on the issue and it is clear that the Bar Association should not dabble in politics or appointment of judges. Bar Association had an ugly history in dabbling in politics and the citizen still remembers by the BASL in the role played in the Regime Change process, for which the President of BASL was amply compensated with a plum office, and using USA aid by allowing them to function in the BASL premises and using data which are confined to the Lawyers alone. The “Hulftsdrop Gossip” is that the current Leader BASL is looking for a plump diplomatic appointment in a powerful western state, by killing two birds from one stone. Judges are appointed from and among the official and unofficial Bar with strict procedures adopted by the JSC alone with no political or any kind of interference. Head of the State and the Executive is expected to perform the sacred duty of the appointment of judges with great care, and impartiality appointing fit and proper learned and respected in the profession.

First Appointment of this nature based on Article 111(A)

The President made an appointment of appointing a retiring High Court Judge under Warrant for a specified period, despite protests from the Bar Association, after she discharged Hon Ravi Karunanayaka from the charges on a technical ground on the controversial case involving millions of foreign dollars connected to disgraced Raj Rajartnam – a USA ballooner national of Sri Lankan origin. The current appointment is the second appointment under the first part of the Article, which is rarely used on extremely circumstances. Protest from the Bar was not considered seriously.

Read More

Complaint against SAITM CEO who fled the country

February 22, 2017 by

All Ceylon Medical Officers’ Association (ACMOA) states it will take legal action against the Chief Executive Officer of medical degree selling SAITM institute who passes off as a doctor publicly without being registered at Sri Lanka Medical Council (SLMC).

Issuing a press release the General Secretary of ACMOA Dr. Jayantha Bandara states a complaint would be filed at Police Headquarters today (22nd) asking authorities to take legal action against Sameera Renuka Senaratna who functions as the CEO and Director of the medical section of SAITM.

Sameera Renuka Senaratna who functions as the CEO of SAITM institute suddenly left to Russia while investigations were being carried out on a complaint he had made stating he was shot at while travelling in his car from office to his home.

The investigators have found several contradictions during their investigation into the incident.

Court Order to determine cause of deaths of Turtles along Southern coastal belt

Feb 22, 2017

A Judiciary Order has been issued to determine the cause of deaths of Turtles along the Southern coastal belt and to inform the Judiciary.

In the event the cause is owing to a human phenomenon to arrest those involved.This Judiciary order has been issued by the Tanglle Magistrate and District Magistrate Mahee Wijeweera to the Headquarters Inspector of the Tangalle Police station and the Fisheries Inspector on the 20th instant

It is reported that during the recent past a number dead Turtles have been washed ashore between the coastal belts of Tangalle and Hambantota.

It has been concluded by the wild life security officer of the Kalametiya wild life office Uthpala Adaranga that no injuries had been seen on the dead bodies of the Turtles washed ashore dead.However according to him he had said that the deaths cannot be owing to natural causes.

It is suspected that these deaths may been caused by "madhu"nets deployed by fishermen to catch "Madhu" fish in the deep sea. During this attempt the Turtles may have been caught and died without sufficient air to breath.The wild life security officer had confessed that in the event the prohibited nets are used could be the cause for the deaths of Turtles.

However three bodies of dead Turtles have been sent to the Veterinary Surgeon of the "Eth Athuru Sevena"Udwalawe for a thorough examination.The wild life security officer Adaranga had identified these Turtles into two varieties as "Kola" and "Batu" Turtles.This information has been conveyed to the Magistrates courts .

The Magistrate had wanted the postmortem report to be submitted to him.He also had wanted the authorities to monitor the fishermen and find out whether they use banned nets or any other traps to catch fish.In the case suspects are caught to be brought before the law.The Magistrate had wanted a complete report to be submitted to him before the 31st March 2017.Thes instructions have been given to the Headquarters Inspector of Tangalle Policeand to the Inspector of Fisheries Tangalle.

Batticaloa LRC director injured in shooting



By Yusuf Ariff-February 22, 2017

The Land Reform Commission’s director in charge of Batticaloa and Trincomalee districts, Nesathurai Wimalaraj, has been injured in a shooting at his residence in Kaluwanchikudy this evening. 

Police said that the shooting was carried out by two armed men who arrived on a motorcycle at around 7.15pm today (22). 

Mr Wimalaraj has been admitted to the Batticaloa Teaching Hospital with serious injuries. 

Kaluwanchikudy Police is conducting an investigation into the incident. 

How Booking.com is aiding Israel’s war crimes

Mieke Zagt-

22 February 2017

A Booking.com for an Israeli hotel at the Dead Sea does not mention that it is in the occupied West Bank.

Two years ago, I wrote an article exposing how Booking.com was offering hotel rooms in settlements that Israel has built in violation of international law. I also highlighted how the travel website was misleading clients by giving “Israel” as the address for hotels in the occupied West Bank and Golan Heights.

How Booking.com is aiding Israel’s war crimes.docx by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

REVEALED: UK universities told to 'manage' Palestine activism

Prevent training package advises that events involving 'vocal support for Palestine' should be 'risk-assessed and managed'

Prevent guidance says that support for Palestine is among views that 'may be regarded as extremist but are not illegal' (PSC/Flickr)

Simon Hooper-Wednesday 22 February 2017

British university staff are being advised to "risk-assess and manage" events on campus relating to "contentious" issues including Palestine and criticism of western foreign policy in the Middle East in order to demonstrate their compliance with the government's Prevent counter-extremism strategy.

Critics fear that the guidance, which is contained in an online training presentation, is already stifling free speech and political expression, with one institution, the University of Central Lancashire (UCLan), on Tuesday cancelling an event organised by a Friends of Palestine society because of concerns that it would not be "balanced".

Other issues for which higher education institutions are being instructed to put in place measures to ensure that "extremist views" are challenged include opposition to Prevent itself following vigorous campaigning against the strategy by the National Union of Students (NUS) and the University and College Union (UCU), which represents more than 100,000 university staff.

"Vocal support for Palestine", "Opposition to Israeli settlements in Gaza", "Criticism of wars in the Middle East" and "Opposition to Prevent" are included in a list of "contentious topics" in the presentation on a website, Safe Campus Communities, created for university staff to help them fulfil their Prevent Duty obligations.

Since 2015 the Prevent Duty has required public sector workers by law to "have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism".

UK councils link ‘empathy’ for Palestinians to terrorism threat

The creators of Safe Campus Communities, who include the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and the government's Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), told Middle East Eye the list was intended to promote free speech by encouraging universities to ensure that "topics that may be seen as controversial" could be "debated in a safe environment".

Elsewhere in the training material, the topics are described as a "list of views that may be regarded as extremist but are not illegal". Accompanying notes state that holding such views "may be legitimate provided they are not expressed or furthered by statements, deeds or actions which result in the harassment, intimidation or threats of violence against individuals or society itself".

The presentation states: 'Holding these views may be legitimate provided they are not expressed or furthered by statements, deeds or actions which result in the harassment, intimidation or threats of violence against individuals or society itself'

The presentation advises institutions to take steps for events at which "extremist views are likely to be expressed" to ensure that such views are challenged by "inviting additional speakers with opposing views" and through "independent and effective chairing".

"Relevant higher education bodies also need to risk assess and manage events where these or similar views may be expressed," it says.

But critics fear that the guidance could lead to a culture of caution and censorship on campuses in which discussion of topics considered controversial is shut down.

On Tuesday, UCLan said it had cancelled a Friends of Palestine event scheduled to take place on 28 February as part of "Israel Apartheid Week" because of concerns that it would be anti-Semitic and unlawful.

The event, titled "Debunking misconceptions on Palestine and the importance of BDS [the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement]", was due to feature Ben White, an MEE contributor.

Ben White on the two-state mirage: A fake promise that gives cover to Israel

In a statement, UCLan said it believed the event would fall foul of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-Semitism adopted by the UK government last year.

The IHRA defines anti-Semitism as "a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews" including "denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, eg., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour".

"We believe the proposed talk contravenes the new definition and furthermore breaches university protocols for such events, where we require assurances of a balanced view or a panel of speakers representing all interests," a spokesperson for the university said.

"In this instance our procedures determined that the proposed event would not be lawful and therefore it will not proceed as planned."

White told MEE: "It is clear from social media posts, as well as an earlier statement issued by the university, that officials caved to pressure from pro-Israel groups, and in so doing, threw their students - and their right to freedom of expression - under a bus.

"Israeli Apartheid Week is marked on campuses across the globe, and its importance is only underlined by the fact that the Israeli government - emboldened by the Trump administration - is so openly opposed to Palestinian self-determination."

Ben Jamal, director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, told MEE it was absurd to single out support for a Palestinian state or opposition to Israeli settlements as controversial or extremist.

"Given that all major political parties in the UK and the overwhelming majority of governments across the world support a Palestinian state and oppose settlements on the basis that they violate international law and are an obstacle to peace it is absurd to define these as extremist views," he said.

"There is an urgent need for the relevant bodies to review these materials and ensure that any training offered to educational establishments truly reflects the stated intention to uphold academic freedom and freedom of expression."

A screengrab from the Safe Campus Communities Prevent training presentation

The Safe Campus Communities presentation is the most substantial element in a "package of HE-specific Prevent training materials" produced collaboratively by HEFCE, the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education, Universities UK and BIS, according to HEFCE’s website.

Since last year, the implementation of Prevent on campuses has been overseen by HEFCE and its counterparts in Scotland and Wales.

But the training material also acknowledges concerns about the government’s efforts to define extremism.

"It is the difficulty in defining what is and what isn’t extremist that has led people to be concerned that the Prevent duty constitutes a threat to academic freedom/freedom of expression," it says.

"The government definition of extremism is considered by some to be somewhat vague."

In a statement to MEE, HEFCE said the material in the presentation was intended to uphold free speech and was currently being evaluated.

The training material acknowledges that the government's definition of extremism is considered "somewhat vague"

"The presentation slide makes reference to a non-exhaustive list of examples of potentially controversial topics for the person completing the module to consider. These are topics that may come up for discussion on campus, and should be allowed to be debated in a safe environment on campus as part of a commitment to freedom of speech," the statement said.

"Rather than undermining freedom of speech, it in fact does the opposite. By mitigating very specific risks associated with views being expressed that risk drawing people in to terrorism it allows a range of events that may otherwise have been cancelled to go ahead and upholds freedom of speech within the law."

A spokesperson for Universities UK told MEE: "Universities have a duty not only to tackle violent extremism and protect the safety of students and staff, but also to secure freedom of speech within the law. This is not always easy to balance, but universities are experienced in this area, are following the statutory guidance and have their own policies and processes in place.

"External speakers play an important role in university life. It is important that universities continue to be places where controversial subjects can be discussed openly, and flawed or dangerous ideas challenged."

Prevent on campus: London university reads students' emails

But Sally Hunt, the general secretary of the UCU told MEE that the Prevent Duty "risked doing more harm than good by shutting down debate on contentious topics and creating mistrust between teachers and students".

"The government’s current approach risks silencing those who are most vulnerable, leaving them no space in which to express their opinions or be challenged safely," she said.

"Universities and colleges rightly cherish academic freedom as a key principle of our civilised society, and we do not believe that draconian crackdowns on discussion of controversial issues will achieve the ends the government says it seeks."

Shelly Asquith, the NUS's vice-president for welfare, told MEE that the union had set up a helpline for student union officers and activists affected by Prevent.

"The implementation of Prevent relies on racial profiling, making Muslim students in particular a common suspect. It is stifling students’ ability to organise politically, or practice their faith, for fear of referral, so it’s no surprise students’ unions are a target in this," said Asquith.

The UCU and the NUS last year organised a "Students Not Suspects" protest campaign calling for Prevent to be abolished and accusing the government of using the strategy to stifle political dissent and curtail civil liberties.

While the training guidance notes that opposition to Prevent is "permissable", university staff are warned that they would be breaking the law by boycotting the Prevent Duty.

"Non-cooperation by specified authorities in implementing the duty through a boycott would not be legal," it says.

Muslim Americans unite to raise funds for vandalized Jewish cemetery

By Alexandra Larkin and Faith Karimi, CNN-Wed February 22, 2017

(CNN)A fundraiser for a vandalized Jewish cemetery is sending a strong message of unity and tolerance.

The effort organized by Muslim American activists Linda Sarsour and Tarek El-Messidi was launched this week to fund the repairs of nearly 200 headstones that were damaged and toppled in the Chesed Shel Emeth Society cemetery in the St. Louis suburb of University City in Missouri.
Jewish cemetery vandalized, JCCs receive bomb threats

The fundraiser exceeded its goal of $20,000 so fast, it has expanded into an effort to support Jewish community centers that have been targets of anti-Semitism.

The vandal or vandals destroyed more that 170 headstones at the cemetery, according Anita Feigenbaum, the cemetery's executive director.

Members of the community have been left rattled.

"A lot of people are coming out (to the cemetery) -- they're just interested to see, 'Was their loved one's monument affected by this?' " Phillip Weiss, owner of a monument company helping the cemetery lift the downed stones, told CNN affiliate KTVI on Tuesday.

This year alone, 54 Jewish community centers in 27 states and one Canadian province received dozens of bomb threats, according to the Jewish Community Center Association.

"All bomb threats this year proved to be hoaxes, and all JCCs impacted have returned to regular operations," the association said in a statement.

Muslim Americans step up to support

Sarsour of MPower Change and El-Messidi of CelebrateMercy organized the crowdfunding campaign to support the vandalized cemetery.

Their goal of reaching $20,000 by the end of March was surpassed in three hours, with donations at nearly $60,000 and rising early Wednesday.

CNN has reached out to Sarsour for comment but has not heard back.

American Muslim communities and organizations have also stepped up to support Jewish community centers that have targets of bomb threats. The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, is offering a $5,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of those who made the false bomb threats.

Muslim Americans' efforts to support the Jewish community centers are in contrast to Rick Santorum's accusations Tuesday.

"If you look at the fact, the people who are responsible for a lot of this anti-Semitism that we're seeing, I hate to say it, a lot of it is coming from the pro-Palestinian or Muslim communities," Santorum told CNN's Chris Cuomo. Santorum did not provide details or examples to support his assertion.

No clues yet

Police are reviewing security camera tapes from the St. Louis area cemetery, but its director, Feigenbaum, said the footage has not provided any clues on who was behind he attack.

Crews are cleaning up the cemetery, straightening the headstones and assessing the damage.

The White House has denounced the spate of threats made against Jewish community centers around the country.

The response followed weeks of criticism that the Trump administration has not been forceful enough in denouncing the anti-Semitism that has occurred since his election.

"Hatred and hate-motivated violence of any kind have no place in a country founded on the promise of individual freedom. The President has made it abundantly clear that these actions are unacceptable," White House deputy press secretary Lindsay Walters said.