Has the media ignored good news about Jeremy Corbyn?

By Patrick Worrall11 DEC 2017

People have been asking FactCheck why so few journalists covered the news that Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been awarded something called the Sean MacBride Peace Prize.

The complaint is that the “mainstream media” as a whole has ignored a good news story about Mr Corbyn, perhaps in a sign that they are biased against him.

Left-wing bloggers have picked up on the lack of media interest, as have the websites of RT and Press TV, broadcasters funded by Russia and Iran respectively.

We think it’s true that no major UK broadcaster or newspaper ran a substantive story on Mr Corbyn’s prize. But we don’t think it’s that surprising. Here’s why.

The prize doesn’t generally get much coverage in the UK media

The Sean MacBride Peace Prize is awarded by an organisation called the International Peace Bureau (IPB).

It’s named after the bureau’s former chairman, who also briefly held the post of chief of staff of the IRA in the 1930s, before becoming a mainstream politician in Ireland.

He served as Ireland’s foreign minister and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1974 in recognition of decades of human rights work.

Central to the story about Mr Corbyn facing a “media silence” is the idea that the prize is a prestigious one, and therefore something you would have expected the media to cover.

That’s the suggestion made on the left-wing website Skwawkbox – it’s a “landmark award” and a “major international award”.

Critics have noted that the International Peace Bureau effectively awarded the prize to itself last year. They named their own secretary-general, Colin Archer, as the winner.

Previous winners include Chelsea Manning, the former US soldier jailed for espionage after giving classified documents to Wikileaks.

We’re not really in a position to say whether winning a Sean MacBride Peace Prize is or should be considered a major achievement: it’s a matter of opinion.

But we can try to measure how much attention prizewinners usually get from the British media, to see whether Jeremy Corbyn is being unfairly scorned.

We used Factiva, a paid-for media archive, and searched for mentions of the prize in the UK media since it was established in 1992.

Leaving the search options as wide as possible (“all dates” and “all sources”), we can only find two mentions of the prize in UK newspapers.

One is a Sunday Times story from 1994 about activists trying to hand over the award to the Israeli nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu.

The other is a Guardian article from 2013 about a former winner – the Irish president Michael D Higgins.

There are a number of other mentions in Irish newspapers, mostly in respect of Mr Higgins as well.
We can’t find a single example of a British or Irish newspaper covering the announcement of the winner as a newsworthy event in itself – as, say, the identity of the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize is usually reported every year as a news story.

A Google news search shows a similar general lack of interest in the Sean MacBride prize from the online news media.

Again, we can’t find even one example of a major media outlet covering the prize as a news story in itself in previous years.

We can’t be sure that the searches we’ve done cover every single story ever published in newspapers or online, and they certainly don’t cover broadcast news.

But they do suggest that – rightly or wrongly – the British media doesn’t tend to report on the awards.

The story of Corbyn’s win is months old

Mr Corbyn accepted the prize in person in Geneva on Friday, but the news that he had won it was first announced via a press release in September.

The IPB said at the time that Mr Corbyn was due to receive the award at a ceremony in Barcelona in November, but they told FactCheck they changed the handover to a time and place more convenient for the Labour leader to attend.

The IPB issued a press release about Mr Corbyn’s win, but we can’t find any evidence that the Labour leader publicised it himself at the time.

A search of Labour press releases and Mr Corbyn’s Twitter feed for any mention of the prize comes up blank.

And as far as we can tell from Google, none of the websites reporting the silence of the mainstream media now – skwawkbox, rt.com and presstv.com – covered the news that Mr Corbyn had been given the award back in September.

He wasn’t the only winner

The 2017 Sean MacBride Peace Prize had three recipients this year: Mr Corbyn, the linguist and activist Noam Chomsky and a Japanese protest group – the All Okinawa Council Against Henoko New Base.

It’s the first time the prize has been split between three winners.

The verdict

It’s true that there was little media interest in Mr Corbyn’s peace prize. Is this a sign of institutional bias against him? Probably not.

We know that the media aren’t ignoring the Labour leader in general. His speech to the United Nations in Geneva last week was widely covered by media outlets.

But it seems from our archive searches that the media generally pays little attention to the Sean MacBride Peace Prize. The prize has not historically been viewed as a particularly newsworthy event in the British media.

That may be fair or unfair, but it offers a more straightforward explanation than a nefarious media conspiracy of why Mr Corbyn’s win got little attention.

Judge rules transgender people can enlist in military, denying Pentagon bid to delay deadline

Protestors at the White House in July (Paul J. Richards/AFP/Getty Images)

By Ann E. Marimow and Spencer S. Hsu December 11 at 2:25 PM

A federal judge on Monday denied the Trump administration’s request to delay an order requiring the military to begin accepting transgender recruits starting Jan. 1 saying the argument for more time seemed based on “vague claims.”

“The Court is not persuaded that Defendants will be irreparably injured by” meeting the New Year’s Day deadline, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly wrote.

The ruling from Kollar-Kotelly of the District of Columbia follows her earlier opinion blocking the president’s ban on military recruitment of transgender men and women that possibly would have forced the dismissal of current service members starting in March.

“With only a brief hiatus, Defendants have had the opportunity to prepare for the accession of transgender individuals into the military for nearly one and a half years,” when the policy was initially issued in June 2016, she wrote. “Especially in light of the record evidence showing, with specifics, that considerable work has already been done, the Court is not convinced by the vague claims in [the government’s] declaration that a stay is needed.

A second federal judge in Baltimore also issued a preliminary injunction in November that goes further in preventing the administration from denying funding for sex-reassignment surgeries after the order takes effect.

Federal judge blocks Trump’s transgender military ban (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

[Federal judge says Trump administration can’t stop funding sex-reassignment surgery for service members]

Justice Department spokeswoman Lauren Ehrsam said, “We disagree with the Courts ruling and are currently evaluating the next steps. Plaintiffs’ lawsuit challenging military service requirements is premature for many reasons, including that the Defense Department is actively reviewing such service requirements, as the President ordered, and because none of the Plaintiffs have established that they will be impacted by current policies on military service.”

In July, President Trump surprised military leaders and members of Congress when he announced the proposal in a series of tweets. Trump’s order reversed an Obama-era policy allowing transgender men and women to serve openly and to receive funding for sex-reassignment surgery.

[Trumps wants to ban transgender military troops. His top general feels differently.]

In October, Kollar-Kotelly found challengers likely to prevail in asserting that the president’s order violates equal-protection guarantees in the Constitution. The administration has appealed the ruling, and in the meantime asked the judge to temporarily postpone the recruitment requirement.
On Monday, Kollar-Kotelly noted the government waited three weeks to appeal her Oct. 30 order barring the military from implementing a transgender ban, did not file its motion to stay the Jan. 1 deadline until last Wednesday, and has not sought any sort of expedited any review of her initial decision.

“The Court notes that Defendants’ portrayal of their situation as an emergency is belied by their litigation tactics,” the judge wrote, adding, “If complying with the military’s previously established January 1, 2018 deadline to begin accession was as unmanageable as Defendants now suggest, one would have expected Defendants to act with more alacrity.”

[Mattis asked these two men to help determine the future of transgender military service]

After the Jan. 1 start was cleared Monday, Former Navy Secretary Raymond Edwin Mabus Jr. said in a statement that based on his experience, allowing transgender candidates to enlist is not a complicated process and that nearly all of the necessary preparation had been completed when he left office more than a year ago. “It is inconsistent with my understanding of the status of those efforts and the working of military personnel to conclude that the military would not be prepared almost a year later — and six months after the date on which the policy was originally scheduled to take effect,” Mabus wrote.

Forcing the military to accept transgender applicants and implement such a significant change in policy may “negatively impact military readiness,” government lawyers had said in asking for the delay.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs said in court filings that the military had already been preparing to accept transgender recruits. Before the change in administration, the Defense Department was gearing up to accept transgender applicants starting in July 2017 and had started training and other preparations.

“The government cannot credibly claim that it will be irreparably harmed by implementing a policy that it was on track to implement almost six months ago,” according to the filing from the plaintiffs.

“This administration needs to stop creating fake problems and get on with it,” said GLAD

Transgender Rights Project Director Jennifer Levi after Kollar-Kotelly’s decision Monday.

Best Sleeping Positions For Back Pain: Ease The Discomfort With These Tips

You spend a third of your day sleeping, so if you’re struggling with back pain, finding a good sleeping position can ease your pain. Lie on your side or back if you have upper or middle back pain. Stick to the side sleeping position if you have lower back pain to minimize strain and pain. Stomach sleeping is best avoided because it has the potential to strain your spine, nerves, and muscles and worsen the pain. Use cervical or ergonomic pillows or normal pillows carefully positioned to keep your spine neutral.

CUREJOY EDITORIAL  DEC 4, 2017

A good night’s rest is important to restore and revive you for the next day. If you are grappling with back problems, that sleep becomes more vital than ever. Unrestful sleep could leave you more exhausted and in pain than ever before. Finding a good sleeping position and the right kind of support for your spine and back can ease your upper, middle, or lower back pain and even prevent it from worsening. That’s aside from helping you get a better night’s rest. Here’s what could work best for you.

Sleeping Positions Can Impact Back Pain And Comfort

Depending on how you sleep, you may actually worsen your pain or alleviate it. Each position places pressure on different parts of the body. For instance, lying on your side with a lot of pressure on the arms can interfere with circulation and pinch your nerves, resulting in a numbness or pins and needles type of feeling. Overall, the more neutral your spine is, the less pain you are likely to experience, the more comfortable you are going to be, and the less fitful or restless your sleep will be.¹

Lie On Your Side Or Back For Easing Upper Back And Neck Pain While Sleeping

If you are plagued by upper back, shoulder, or neck pain, always sleep on your side or back to reduce strain. This puts less pressure on your spine and keeps the back more relaxed. Also, support yourself with a rounded pillow that takes the natural curve of the neck along with a flatter one to cushion your head.²

Side Sleeping Is Best For Reducing Lower Back Pain

If you are prone to lower back pain, nothing beats the side sleeping position. It is also good for a lot of people with hip pain. If you are a back sleeper, know that it is not ideal. But you could manage to keep the neutral curvature of the spine with the help of some pillows. Sleeping on your stomach, however, is a strict no-no. You are likely to have fitful restless sleep as you struggle with neck and lower back strain.³ This position causes you to strain the neck and compresses both muscles and nerves in the area, bringing on further pain and tightness.⁴

Get Middle Back Pain Relief By Sleeping On Your Back or Side

If you have a middle back pain, chances are it is a result of your posture. Postural pain can begin when you sit or stand badly or because you’ve had an injury or accident of some kind that’s altered your posture. So, find a sleeping position that doesn’t cause stiffness or strain your back. A sleep position that’s good for the other parts of the back – like sleeping on your side or back – should work fine here too.

But remember, it is just as important to ease the strain of your daytime posture by sitting tall with your shoulders pulled back a bit. One trick is to pull them back as much as you can and then bring them forward a third of the way to find the optimal position. Massage, foam rolling, chest stretches, and back strengthening exercises can all help ease the pain and get you a better night’s sleep.⁵

Use Cervical Pillows To Ease Pain Whether You Sleep On Your Side, Back, Or Stomach

One time-tested method to ease strain on the back when sleeping is to use pillows. They can keep your spine neutral and supported and ease postural problems. If you have upper back or neck pain, try using a neck roll in the pillowcase of your flat pillow. Most people find this less unwieldy. You’ll also find pillows that have built-in neck support with indentations for the head. Feather pillows work well but need replacement annually. Memory foam is another option.

Cervical pillows are designed especially for neck and back problems and can help you find a comfortable position to sleep regardless of whether you have upper, middle, or lower back pain. You could invest in a pillow designed to help those with sciatica or back pain. Ergonomic pillows don’t look like normal pillows and are usually made out of foam to lend greater support.⁶

Place Pillows Strategically For Optimal Support While Sleeping

Whether you’re using a combination of regular pillows to provide added support or relying on ergonomic or cervical pillows, here is how you should place them.⁷:

Pillow position for side sleepers: Lie down on your side and bring your legs in the direction your chest at a bit of an angle. Place a pillow between your knees to take the pressure off your back and also keep the spine itself from rotating. A full body pillow may also be good for you.
Pillow position for back sleepers: Keep pillows below your knees to help cushion joints and ease pressure on the back.

Pillow position for stomach sleepers: This position that isn’t recommended for anyone with back pain because it really can put a lot of pressure on the back. However, if you are unable to change to another position or in the interim while you try and learn a new sleep position, give yourself some added support by using pillows below the abdomen and lower pelvis. Avoiding the pillow below the neck and head altogether may also be comfortable for some people to avoid neck strain.

Look Beyond Sleeping Position: Other Sleeping Tips To Reduce Back Pain

Use these tips to help yourself get a better night’s rest and ease some of the back pain you’ve been experiencing by sleeping wrongly.^8 9 10

• Get a good mattress that eases the pain you experience. Take time to test and try out different mattresses until you find one that reduces your back pain. Firm mattresses come recommended for those who have back pain, but some people actually find a softer option works for them – so, listen to your body.
• Use the right pillows correctly: We’ve said this already but can’t say it enough!
• Flip mattresses regularly: Flip your mattress over and around every few months to keep the load on it even and the wear and tear balanced.
• Don’t put off replacing worn pillows and mattresses: If you feels bumps, lumps, or even the springs in your mattress or find you can only sleep on some sections of it comfortably, it may be time for a change. Most mattresses do fine for 5 to 7 years after which they need to be replaced. Replace pillows before they feel completely worn down. Wash it every 6 months or so to keep it in good condition. About 12 to 24 months is a good average life for a pillow.
• Get out of bed carefully: Rise slowly and gently, rolling to one side first and then pushing up slowly with the hands as you swing your legs to the side of the bed and onto the ground. Never bend at the waist because this strains the back as you get off the bed.

Catholic shrine near army camp attacked in Jaffna

10Dec 2017

A Catholic shrine in Jaffna was attacked by unknown persons during the early hours of Sunday morning. 

The glass casing which housed a statue of St Anthony was smashed. 

The shrine is situated within 100m of Jaffna police station and an army camp. 

The attack is the latest in a series of attacks against churches and temples across the Tamil homeland over recent months. 

Related Articles: 

21 November 2017 : Catholic shrine attacked in Jaffna

14 September 2017 : Another Catholic shrine attacked in Mannar

11 July 2017 : Vandal attack on Mannar Catholic shrine

21 November 2017 : Hindu shrines attacked in Mannar

02 November 2017 : Hindu temple in Vavuniya attacked overnight

18 October 2017 : Hindu shrine next to army camp attacked in Mannar

Democratic constitution, a dire need

Saturday, December 9, 2017

We are discussing the past to bring an acceptable solution to the Lankan Tamil National problem. There is an open atmosphere to come out with what you think, particularly about what happened in the past. We have to stop the tragedy of war repeating; hence it is necessary to give credit to those who work hard under difficult situation to build a bridge acceptable to all. It is necessary to remember everything that happened in the past to make a proper analysis; but it is quite unnecessary to remind everything in a purposeful discourse.

As one would expect the British government wants Sri Lanka to fully implement UN Human Rights Council Resolution 34/1, according to the answer of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office Minister, Mark Field.

Answering three written questions submitted by a Labour MP he indicated that he stressed to Sri Lanka’s Foreign Minister, Tilak Marapana, and the importance of implementing the Resolution.

“The UK is committed to the full implementation of Resolution 34/1 and will continue to support the government of Sri Lanka in its efforts to promote reconciliation and human rights”, he noted. This may influence other counties in Europe and America to take up the same position.

Resolution 30/1 recognized the importance of a credible accountability process for those most responsible for violations and abuses. It also called for the participation in Lankan judicial accountability process of Commonwealth and other foreign judges, defence lawyers, and authorized prosecutors and investigators. Lankan government has not accepted latter as a necessity. However the commitments include the return of all military-held private land, the activisation of the Office of Missing Persons and the development of new counter-terrorism legislation instead of PTA in line with international human rights standards.

UN Human Rights Council resolution

However the release of another 29 acres of land under military control in Jaffna to civilian owners is a signal that the government remains committed to the reconciliation process it embarked upon in January 2015 when it came to power. The high point of the government’s commitment came nine months later in October of that year when it went beyond expectations in co-signing the UN Human Rights Council resolution on Sri Lanka. In the past Mahinda regime had considered previous UN resolutions on the subject to be Imperialists interventions in Lanka and to be necessarily opposed and rejected.

In the modern world human rights are implement by world authorities due to the power of the proletariat and the conscious middle classes in the developed world. One could see the power of active masses in US against the policies of President Donald Trump. As such the Yahapalana government turned this negative approach around. The problem, however, has been that the government’s implementation of its commitment has subsequently been slow. This has given rise to doubts about the government’s commitment to the reconciliation process. With the holding of local government elections looming on the horizon, the present circumstances are not the best for the government to disturb the peace process. Though it is local government election the results of these elections will be seen as a vote of confidence in the performance of the government midway in its tenure.

The clearing of the path to conducting the long delayed local government election is almost complete. The delay is not due to intervention of leaders of Yahapalanaya government. This delay in elections was due to a combination of factors. The need to re-demarcate local authority areas and boundaries has given rise to extended work for several departments. The fascistic interventions by the previous government which sought to manipulate electoral areas by altering their boundaries to gain an unfair political advantage at elections have created many problems. To the restless political activists, it was also evident that the government was delaying for reasons of its own, which included reluctance to face the electorate in the midst of the many controversies among the leaders.

Constitutional reform and war crime issues

One set of controversies that the government would wish to settle before any election is based on solutions to the Tamil national problem. These go to the heart of racism and its attendant high emotions. The fascistic opposition has denounced the proposed new constitution as paving the way for the division of the country and denounced war crime investigations as being an insidious means to punish war heroes. According to them Gotabhaya and others suspected of criminal activities are above the law as war heroes! In former President Mahinda Rajapaksa and his colleagues in the Joint Opposition, the country has the most potent demagogies with ringing voices to arouse Sinhala Buddhist racism with lethal effect. Obviously Prime Minister Wickremesinghe does not want to raise constitutional reform and war crime issues in the run up to local government elections.

However the opposition will devastate the country with vile racist campaigns. On the other hand at the present time all attention is being focused on the forthcoming local government elections, the constitutional reform process is likely to come to a halt. At this time a government victory will give it the confidence it can prevail to take the new constitution forward and face the referendum which will need to be called sooner rather than later.

Clearly a breakdown of the constitutional reform process will be a political defeat for the government whether or not it wins at the local government elections. It will also be a big blow to the Tamil and Muslim parties, Sama Samaja parties and voters, whose support was decisive in bringing the yahapalana government to power.

Clearly, it is constitutional change that will ensure the national and religious minorities are not dependent on the goodwill of government or opposition politicians and their temporary opportunist policies, but on guarantees that come from more permanent law; the constitution. Both public opinion polls and prevalent public opinion on the street clearly indicate that most of the population believes constitutional reform is important, not least because the present constitution is defective and needs to be changed in a comprehensive manner.

In February 4, 1978 when this dictatorial constitution came in to affect Nava Sama Samaja party opposed it publicly hoisting black flags throughout the country. Several months later NM joined them creating a broad opposition. From that time, when the present constitution’s executive presidential system was subject to abuse, academic and civil society opinion formers have critiqued the constitution and called for its replacement. Therefore, the popular movement to change the present constitution has a much longer history than the government’s present bid to formulate a new constitution.

Different political parties

The three day parliamentary debate on a report on constitutional reform by a select committee of parliament was extended by a further two days reflecting the interest of parliamentarians in the subject. On the positive side there was a broad consensus among all the parties that the matters that were being debated were important to the country, and needed to be discussed at length.

The general thinking in the country is that the coalition of the two biggest parties in the government provides the best opportunity to address the unresolved problems of the past, particularly the nationality conflict. They have a stable 2/3 majority in parliament on their own.

There is agreement that this is the time to address problems that cannot be neglected any longer. However, there was no consensus on the positions taken by the different political parties on the substance of the options for constitutional reform during the debate. This includes the issues of federal power sharing, the units of devolution, executive presidency and the incorporation of some aspects of international legal standards. There is a serious struggle in the coming period to establish a democratic constitution. 

Human Rights Day: Reflections on the UDHR and our collective future

Today is Human Rights Day

Sunday, December 10, 2017

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”

The above quotation is from Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Declaration was adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 10, 1948. It has gone on to become the most respected secular document in the world, translated into more than 500 languages and dialects. Constitutions, including our own, have adopted parts of it, it is often cited in courts of law, parliaments and invoked by millions of people in distress.

I have been deeply moved and profoundly influenced by the Declaration. Millions around the world have had the same experience.

The Declaration celebrates its 70th anniversary next year and global commemorations have already begun. Sri Lanka too should join in the celebrations and reflect on lessons we can learn from this document if we wish to seriously work toward a decent and humane future for ourselves and our children.

The idea of human rights has been around for millennia. The Declaration broke new ground by proclaiming a set of ‘universal human rights’, rights which all of us are entitled to as human beings. The idea of universal human rights does not respect the arbitrary boxes we have created for ourselves– race, ethnicity, caste, class, sex, etc. The rights recognised also cover all aspects of human existence. They span the right to life, freedom from torture, freedom of expression to the right to just and favourable conditions of work and the right to education and medical care.

The Declaration was adopted for humankind to rekindle faith in itself after the brutalities of two devastating world wars in the first half of the 20th Century. One cannot say in all honesty that brutal tendencies of human kind are behind us. Yet today we have a frame of reference to reassure ourselves of the ideals we have set for ourselves and the need to work to achieve those ideals. The genius of the drafters of the Declaration is that they have succeeded in capturing the essence of what it means to be human anywhere in the world and articulate that essence in the form of rights that have a resonance in our everyday lives.

Two statements from the exquisitely worded Preamble to the Declaration are, in my opinion, of great significance:

First,

‘ Whereas it is essential, if man (sic) is not to be compelled to have recourse as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law…’

Secondly,

‘The General Assembly proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive … to promote respect for these rights…’

The first is the call on governments to protect human rights by the rule of law if they do not wish to see political uprisings against tyranny and oppression. That is the fundamental tenet of human rights—that governments bear the primary responsibility to protect people’s rights. The expectation of peoples all over the world is just that. Sri Lankans are no exception. Sri Lankans have invested heavily in political change to secure and freely exercise their rights. A major demand for change was the right to live free from fear. Being able to live in an equal and inclusive society was another.

Our Commission’s observation, by and large, is that, the largest accomplishment of the government in the past two years is to create a free environment for people to exercise their rights, in particular free expression, association and assembly. The climate of fear has dissipated. Demonstrations and strikes have become daily fare.

There are, of course, exceptions such as the constant complaints we receive from the North about surveillance of civil society activities allegedly by intelligence authorities. Yet, we also see an openness in the North and East about discussing violations and the like that was previously absent. Significantly, we have not received complaints of enforced disappearances or of politically motivated extra-judicial killings. The enactment of the Right to Information Act, legislative recognition of the need to increase women’s political representation, ready ratification of human rights treaties are also significant achievements.

Thankfully, the Commission has yet to witness an attempt at political interference in its work.

However, custodial violence, torture in particular, continues to be a problem. Radical police reforms are needed to address those serious concerns. Due process rights in law enforcement and administration of justice need to improve, including the abrogation of PTA. Hate speech is not addressed expeditiously paving the way for bigots to spread tribal venom. Disappointment is rife about the failure to address impunity issues relating to violence against journalists and similar political crimes. Also, the long delay in establishing promised transitional justice mechanisms is greatly disappointing. We are encouraged though by news that the Office of Missing Persons may be set up soon.

So, the challenge is to consolidate the improvements and to continue to press for progress in other areas.

Improving human rights in a country, however, is not a one way street. We cannot only expect governmental behavior to change. As the second statement in the Declaration quoted above calls for, have even a reasonable number of ‘individuals and organs of society’ in Sri Lanka striven to work toward respecting others’ rights? Are we, as citizens and community and professional bodies of this country, invested in creating a decent and peaceful society? Do we have a vision of a democratic and inclusive future we want to leave for our children?

In my opinion, the moral compass of a society becomes clearer when there is freedom to enjoy rights. So, have we done well? What does our conscience tell us?

Amidst some progress I observe the alarming silence of decent people; the brashness of tribal voices that once again wish to unleash ethnic violence; that they get a lot of press, not the peace makers; of the many who think only of their rights and benefits and not of the larger good; of professional bodies that play politics and abandon ethical obligations; of a partisan media culture that one is hard pressed to understand given the oppression and violence they were once subject to; of opinion makers who think of winning an argument for the moment, and abandon responsibility for the future.

The Universal Declaration is clear in its message: The possibility of living free and dignified lives in a society comes as a package deal. It has to be a collective effort. If others’ rights are violated, it will eventually affect me. Our efforts must not be limited to demanding from our elected government that it discharge its paramount duty to protect our rights. We too are obligated as citizens, to sincerely believe in, and live by, human rights values.

JERUSALEM: THE SILENCE OF SRI LANKA

-

By SANJA DE SILVA JAYATILLEKA-December 10, 2017, 9:51 pm 

On Friday the 8th of December, 8 of the 15 members of the United Nations Security Council called an emergency meeting. It was called by Bolivia, Egypt, France, Italy, Senegal, Sweden, UK and Uruguay, in response to President Trump’s unilateraldeclaration that the United States recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Writing in Japan Today Edith M. Lederer reported that "One by one, 14 members of the U.N. Security Council spoke out against President Donald Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital … some with regret and some with anger at the 15th member, the United States."

Speaking from Jerusalem at the start of the emergency meeting of the Security Council, Nikolay Mladenov, UN Special Coordinator on the Situation in the Middle-East said "For both Israel and Palestine, Jerusalem will remain an integral part of their national identity". He said, "The UN position is clear. Jerusalem is a final status issue, for which a comprehensive, just and lasting solution must be achieved through negotiation…" Expressing his concern in the context of President Trump’s announcement that there was "potential risk of violent escalation", he warned that if a solution was not found "it risks being engulfed in the vortex of religious radicalism throughout the Middle East."

All of the UN Security Council members, except for Ambassador Nicky Haley of the United States, said that the US President’s statement violated a number of Security Council and General Assembly resolutions. Several including the Ambassador of Sweden said it "contradicts international law". The Swedish Ambassador added that 40% of the inhabitants of Jerusalem were Palestinian and that UN resolutions had previously ruled that any changes to the character and status of Jerusalem were null and void. He also stated that all members of the EU were unanimous in the decision to call the emergency meeting. France said that it was "greatly alarmed by the risk of escalation" and what was at stake was the "legitimacy of the Security Council".

Bolivia's Ambassador Sasha Llorenty Soliz said the U.S. declaration undermined "the chance of achieving fair and lasting peace" and that it affected the multi-cultural and multi-religious identity of Jerusalem. He said the US statement was damaging and irresponsible, and will have an impact on the entire region.The outspoken Ambassador said that the situation in Palestine was the "most prolonged military occupation in modern history" and if the Security Council doesn't take the responsibility for "decisions and measures", the "Security Council will become an occupied territory" and "will have to add itself to the list of settlements by the occupying power".

China said it was "highly concerned" that it "will trigger new conflicts" in the region. The Ambassador said that China stood for a two state solution with East Jerusalem as the Capital of Palestine. He also said that China had put forward proposals for a peace settlement.

The Russian Ambassador said that it had proposed a summit in Russia for all parties to come to an agreement. Russia, he said, was for a solution with East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine and West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

US Ambassador Nicky Haley, speaking at the emergency meeting said that President Trump "acted to no longer deny the will of the American people". She said the declaration "reflected an honest assessment of reality" adding that it will help the peace process when people are honest with each other. She added that the "UN has been one of the foremost centres of hostility to Israel". She said that the US will not stand by when Israel is unfairly attacked and that the US will not be lectured to by countries that lack any credibility when it comes to treating Israelis and Palestinians fairly."

The ‘lectures’ came from all those present there, except for the US and Israel, which had been invited to the emergency session with other non-members, Palestine and Jordan. It is obvious that all Security Council members except the US feel strongly that President Trump’s declaration would lead to an escalation of violence in the Middle East, a region that has already suffered more than any other.

The timing of President Trump’s statement is also significant given that two new initiatives for a settlement had been proposed and welcomed. The question arises as to why President Trump chose this moment to announce recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, when it could clearly jeopardize on-going initiatives for peace in the region. If this was clear to most of the world, including its allies, how was it that the United States found this an opportune moment for such an announcement?

In July this year the China Daily reported a proposal of "a tripartite dialogue mechanism among China, Palestine and Israel to promote major projects to assist the Palestinian side.Under the proposal, China will host a symposium on peace between Palestine and Israel later this year."

Chinese Special Envoy for the Middle East Issue Gong Xiaosheng had told Xinhua in a recent interview that "Israel, which previously did not want any other country except the United State to get involved in the Israeli-Palestinian issue, has now changed its attitude and is willing to engage China in the peace process."

Dr. Yoram Evron a Lecturer in the Department of Asian Studies at the University of Haifa, writing in August this year in The Diplomat says that the 2017 Chinese proposals are the first to be made "in the context of the One Belt, One Road (OBOR) vision. This vision has unprecedentedly advanced China’s interest in the Middle East, and its stake in regional stability has grown significantly. Concomitantly, OBOR provides China with unprecedented means to influence regional processes in ways that it finds acceptable under its "business first" approach to the Middle East". Commenting on China’s motivation for the proposals he says "as Beijing regards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a major destabilizing factor in the region, OBOR provides it with clear motivation, and equips it with economic-political tools, to promote its resolution."

In May, the Middle East Monitor reported that a Russian initiative had been welcomed by President Abbas who said after meeting President Putin at Sochi that "solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be "impossible" without Moscow taking part in the peace process". It said that the Russian state news agency Tass had reported the Palestinian leader as saying "It is impossible to solve the Palestinian issue without Russia’s meaningful participation in the peace process…That is what we have been emphasizing at all international meetings" .

Given Russia’s recent success in Syria, it is unsurprising that a Russian initiative was welcomed in the region with renewed hope and optimism after decades of unsuccessful negotiations interrupted by regular and bloody conflict at intolerable human cost, a repeated reminder of a helpless humanity, powerless in the face of prolonged and horrendous human suffering.

Strong European allies of the United States, the Prime Minister of Britain, the President of France, Germany’s Chancellor and the Prime Minister of Italy made statements disagreeing with the US declaration, calling it "unhelpful" "regrettable", and appealed for the status of Jerusalem to be resolved "in the framework of a two state solution".

An intifada has already been called by both Hamas and Hezbollah. Demonstrations have taken place in Cairo, Gaza and the West Bank and Paris. How does this help move the peace process along, as the US claimed in the aftermath of the announcement?

The UN Secretary General speaking to the press at UN Headquarters in New Yorkcondemned"any unilateral measures that would jeopardize the prospect of peace for Israelis and Palestinians".

The Pope said that "Jerusalem is a unique city," and that it was, "sacred to Jews, Christians and Muslims, where the Holy Places for the respective religions are venerated, and it has a special vocation to peace." He said "I wish to make a heartfelt appeal to ensure that everyone is committed to respecting the status quo of the city, in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the United Nations".

What is Sri Lanka’s current stand on this, the most vexingand the oldest issue in international relations? There have been several editorials in the Sri Lankan press condemning the US announcement. The Foreign Ministry has remained silent, perhaps due to Sri Lanka’s new alliance with the United States. Can it articulate Sri Lanka’s traditional position and risk the annoyance of its new patron, or does its silence on the issue question the foreign policy direction of the Unity Government?

The SLFP wing of the Unity government has traditionally been supportive of the Palestinian position, with President Rajapaksa heading the Sri Lanka Committee for Solidarity with Palestine,whilealso ensuring that Israel’s concerns were accommodated. The SLFP never failed to make a public stand of its support for Palestine. With the change in the leadership of the SLFP, has this policy changed? The Middle East is not a region that Sri Lanka can ignore, given that a large percentage of its foreign earnings emanating from the region, to say nothing of the imperatives of common humanity.

On the 7th of December, The New York Times reported that "All but two of 11 former United States ambassadors to Israel contacted by The New York Times after President Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital thought the plan was wrongheaded, dangerous or deeply flawed." The mounting criticism of the US from within the country and around the world on this issue brings into question its pronouncements on other issues, including on Sri Lanka.

The Foreign Ministry is in a bit of a bind. How it evaluates the importance of articulating Sri Lanka’s stand on the issue of Palestine, given the context in which the US announcement was made and the near universal condemnation of it, will dictate the Foreign Ministry’s response. So far, itseems to have decided that it is in Sri Lanka’s national interest to remain silent. For how long can it do so?

Chuckles over political grandstanding and impunity questions

Sunday, December 10, 2017

Several rather fantastic claims in respect of restoring the Rule of Law were made by the Government at the highest levels this week.

Droll statements at talkfests

Ideally the Government’s commitment to closing the spluttering legal and investigative processes on killings of Sri Lanka’s scribes in the Rajapaksa decade should have been the main focus during a talkfest in Colombo on ‘Ending Impunity for Journalists.’ Instead what emerged was the blistering attack by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe on the private media’s many sins. That was accompanied by the frankly droll statement by the Minister of Law and Order that the police will (now?) prioritize ‘cases violating freedom of expression’ including some recent incidents in the North which the Minister appears, on all accounts, to have been blissfully unaware of.


So it takes an international conference for the responsible Minister to assure the public that law and order agencies will activate themselves on gross abuses against journalists? Who exactly are the credulous souls inclined to accept these assurances as credible currency? Certainly they will not persuade many citizens who are sick and tired of exaggerated claims, issued with great flair by politicians even as the Rule of Law flounders in a quagmire of confusion.

At its core, there is a grain or more of truth in the Prime Minister’s accusations. Quite evidently the professionalism of Sri Lanka’s media (once the envy of the region) has sharply deteriorated. This is in common with the equally deplorable decline of standards in the legal, medical professions as well as in academia. Less said meanwhile of the palpable loss of sanity among the political class, the better. This symbolizes the wholesale degradation of societal norms and values in this country. That is the painful price that we have paid for decades of vicious conflict, hate and distrust.

The duties of the Government

And no doubt, journalists in the privately owned media have their own agendas, political or personal as these may be. There is little mystery about this or about the Rajapaksa ‘taming’ of the media with the whip as well as the golden carrot. Indeed, that knife sharply cuts both ways. As much as some media is accused of Rajapaksa-bias quite rightly, others are accused of toeing the Government’s agenda.

But that is not the point at which we are. Even conceding all this, the Prime Minister’s logic is questionable at several levels. First, linking the absence of journalists at the impunity summit to the conclusion that the media community is not interested in bringing the killings of its own to justice is bizarre. One does not necessarily or logically follow the other. Indeed, many do not prefer to attend events held with pomp and show in Colombo’s five star hotels with no public impact whatsoever for the simple reason that they are assessed as ‘prattling’ exercises of limited value.

Second and more importantly, regardless of the sins of Sri Lanka’s media of which some may be perceived but others are very real, the responsibility of bringing the criminal justice process to a head in pending cases is fairly and squarely on the Government’s shoulders. That duty cannot be shrugged off by grandstanding on the decline of the media by the Prime Minister or by the Minister of Law and Order.

Impact of the Gintota violence

Meanwhile, the recent Sinhala-Muslim communal violence in Gintota brings another array of issues to the debate. The fear psychosis visiting Muslim communities in the wake of the violence which had led to considerable damage to shops, property and vehicles is undoubted.

Reportedly the Government has decided to prosecute those implicated in the Gintota violence under the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Act No 56 of 2007 (the so-called “ICCPR Act”). The Act prohibits the propagation of religious hatred and provides a remedy to the High Court against executive or administrative action. The remedy should be invoked within three months of the alleged infringement either by the person whose rights have been infringed or are to be infringed or by a person on his behalf.

It must be noted that this assertion that the ‘ICCPR Act’ would be resorted to in regard to these incidents conflicts to some extent with the Law and Order Minister’s recent claim in Parliament that no dereliction of their duties on the part of state law officers had been evidenced. Regardless, this is the first instance of the Act being actually used since its enactment in 2007. For long, it had ‘decorated’ Sri Lanka’s statute book and little more. Meant to give effect to human rights “which have not been given recognition through legislative measures”, the Act reproduces only a few selected rights out of the more than twenty-two substantive rights contained in the ICCPR.

The Government cannot divest itself of a core responsibility

In brief, the Act prohibits the propagation of war, religious hatred and so on and secures the right of every person to recognition as a person before the law, procedural entitlements to an accused including the right to have the assistance of an interpreter in Section 4(1)(e), protection of the rights of a child as well as the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs, either directly or through any representatives and to have access to benefits provided by the State. In the Determination communicated to the Speaker upon the Bill being referred to the Supreme Court as an “urgent bill” at the time, the Court stated that the jurisdiction of the High Court should be limited to “residual rights” that are not within the limits of the constitutional rights chapter.

But whether in the case of the killings of journalists or in the incidents on communal violence at Gintota, what matters is not only the law but how the law is employed by responsible state agencies. This is where impunity stops.

As much as we may chuckle at statements of politicians at conferences, this Government is held to an infinitely higher standard than what was expected from the Rajapaksas. It cannot absolve itself of a core responsibility of the Rule of Law by holding forth on the defaults of others.
That must be clearly emphasized.

Response To Dr Nalaka Godahewa’s Speech At The UNHRC In Geneva – Part IX

By Lionel Bopage –December 11 2017

[Part 8 of this series was published on Thursday, the 7^th of December 2017]

8. Dr Godahewa says: Demand for a separate state was to go back to “their age-old practice” of suppressing and exploiting their own people; emergence of terrorism was a result of this false propaganda; they continue to spread hatred, preach separatism, and mislead the international community with false information.

During the colonial period, all political parties took the policy position that Sinhala and Tamil languages should have parity of status in all spheres of governance. This position had even been incorporated one time into the constitution of the SLFP. Since 1926, late Mr Bandaranaike was a strong believer in federal structures for accommodating aspirations of diverse peoples. Demand for a separate state, however, was a later culmination of the political and emotional expressions of nationalism, awakened against majoritarianism that was advantageously transformed and diverted into generating an anti-Tamil consciousness for sinistrous political motives. Anti-colonial nationalistic expressions of Sinhala leaders were increasingly uttered with an anti non-Sinhala twist.

In 1952, nepotism pushed out Mr Bandaranaike from the deputy leader position of the UNP and late Mr Dudley Senanayake was appointed instead. Mr Bandaranaike changed his religious allegiance from Christianity to Buddhism and also became a master-orator in Sinhalese. He used all available opportunities to reinforce his political position and started championing the class interests of the Sinhala Buddhist national bourgeoisie, by advocating for recognition of their rights that had been heavily violated under colonialism. With this, pro-Sinhala nationalist sentiments took the centre stage, gradually making the anti-capitalist political sentiments secondary. Many members and sympathisers of the left also changed their political allegiances and joined the newly formed Sri Lankan Freedom Party.

 

As I have pointed out elsewhere, up until the early 70’s, Tamils as a community were not only against separation, but also rejected those politicians that advocated for it. A typical example is the late Mr. C. Sunderalingam[1], the distinguished professor of mathematics of the Ceylon University and MP, who contested the electorate of Vavuniya in the March 1960 general election. His entire election campaign was based on the slogan of establishing a separate state for Tamils. Though as a MP he was a strong voice in the Parliament demanding for the just rights of the Tamil people, Tamils in Vavuniya made him lose his deposit at the election for his separatist stand.

Soon after independence, stubborn refusal of legitimate Tamil demands by the successive Sri Lankan regimes, led to the next phase of their struggle, i.e., a demand for the formation of a federal state for the people in the north and east. Later Sinhala nationalists wrongly interpreted this as a demand for a separate state, because the Tamil name ‘Ilankai Thamil Arasu Kadchchi’ (ITAK – Tamil State Party) was taken to reflect a separate Tamil state. However, a fact check indicates that this demand was for an autonomous political structure with a level of devolution, which is even less than what is currently offered under the provincial council’s system.

In 1972 ITAK merged with the All Ceylon Tamil Congress and Ceylon Workers’ Congress to form the Tamil United Front. The Tamil United Front later changed its name to Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF) in 1976. From the Tamil point of view, all efforts to resolve their problems within a united country through negotiations had failed. Those in power always repressed peaceful Tamil agitations and protests with violence. The Tamil United Liberation Front at its congress adopted the Vaddukoddai Resolution on 14 May 1976 at the insistence of its youth wing called ‘Tamil Illaignar Peravai’. It stated that problems of the Tamil people can only be solved by establishing a separate independent state called Tamil Eelam. Despite adopting this resolution, the TULF did not have any firm action program to establish it, and at the end of the 1970s the youth wing broke away to form an independent movement of its own.

Following the TULF’s resounding victory at the general elections of July 1977, the late 1970s saw the Tamil militant youth gradually taking forward the demand for Tamil Eelam through armed struggle. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE) had autocratically dominated almost all other movements that aimed at establishing a separate state. Some militant movements compromised themselves or were pushed to compromise with the opponents of the LTTE. Many who did not agree with the autocratic methods of the LTTE had willingly or unwillingly become appendages of the security forces and ended up fighting with them as their units or vigilante groups. Thus, the LTTE came to be considered as the sole party with which any political or ‘armed negotiations’ had to be done.

During the history of the conflict the Tamil leadership had minimal political contact with the progressive forces in the south. The forces like the JVP in the south had minimal contact with the Tamil nationalists or progressive forces in the north-east. This could be due to many factors shown below, such as Tamil militancy increasingly becoming extremely violent, moving away from democratic principles using terror as a weapon; autocratic and gradual elimination of Tamil progressive militant movements; acceptance of the LTTE as the ‘sole’ representative of the Tamil people; violent attacks on Tamils in the south led by Sinhala chauvinists; weakened hold on the masses of the progressive left forces in the south; betrayal of Tamil peoples’ democratic rights by some left forces that formed alliances with the nationalist leaderships since 1968; the fear of alienation of the left forces from the Sinhalese; and fear of repression if engaged with Tamil militants.

 

The Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA)[2] was first enacted as a temporary law in 1979 then made permanent in 1982. It gave the police broad powers to search and arrest for unspecified unlawful activities, and detain people without warrant up to 18 months and without being produced in a court of law. The provisions of the PTA have made it possible for removing detainees to torture cells usually installed in camps. So many abuses over the years have been reported including torture, enforced disappearances and extrajudicial executions of individuals, particularly Tamils. It is continued to be used in the North and East to oppress the Tamil people.

From being a small group of militants the LTTE gained prominence after the government initiated July 1983 riots, which came to be known as the ‘Black July’. A problem that was confined to the borders of the Island became internationalised due to the exodus of Tamil people. Both Tamil and Sinhala diaspora under the direction of their respective leaderships, ‘worked’ extremely hard to internationalise the issue. With the emergence of the “9/11” fundamental Islamic terror in 2001 that saw a succession of four coordinated aircraft attacks on the USA, the tables turned. With around 3,000 deaths, over 6,000 injured and over $10 billion property damages, the US twisted arms of most governments to oppose militant liberation movements around the world.

The failed policy framework of successive Sri Lankan regimes led the country into a protracted civil war. Tamil leaders have also been derivatives of the same colonial process previously explained. While representing the interests of the local capitalist class, they also represented the social and cultural interests of Tamils as a community. In the 1940s while agitating for political independence they also agitated for a just and reasonable representation of the Tamils in state political institutions. Tamil demands were not for a federal state, nor for a separate state but for reasonable representation for their people. Their demands did not deviate away from the unitary state structure the British had imposed on the peoples of the island. The inhabitants of the land whether they were Sinhalese, Tamils or Muslims, have never voluntarily agreed to a unitary state structure. It was an alien construct.

Compared to long surviving federal states such as the United States, Canada, Australia, Switzerland and India, the devolution envisioned by Mr Chelvanayagam was extremely mild in both content and form. They were demanding a Tamil federal state within a united Sri Lanka, with the power to administer “agriculture, cooperatives, lands and land developments, colonisation, education, health, industries, fisheries, housing, social services, electricity, water schemes and roads”[3]. This demand in itself does not in any way constitute a demand for separation. Federalism or a federal system that Mr Chelvanayagam campaigned for did not represent a division of the country into legally separate independent entities.

Read More