“There are Thousands of Us”: Mental Health Professionals Warn of Trump’s Increasing Instability

DECEMBER 08, 2017

As questions over President Donald Trump’s mental health grow, we continue our interview with Dr. Bandy Lee, a forensic psychiatrist on the faculty of Yale School of Medicine and an internationally recognized expert on violence. She edited the best-selling book, “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President.”

Dr. Bandy Lee declares that she is not representing the views of Yale University, Yale School of Medicine or Yale Department of Psychiatry.

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman. Last month, Pentagon leaders told a Senate panel they would ignore any unlawful order by President Donald Trump to launch a nuclear strike. The testimony came as part of the first congressional hearings in more than 40 years on the president’s authority to start a nuclear war. This is Connecticut Democrat Chris Murphy.

SEN. CHRIS MURPHY: We are concerned that the president of the United States is so unstable, is so volatile, has a decision-making process that is so quixotic, that he might order a nuclear weapon strike that is wildly out of step with U.S. national security interests.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, for more, we’re joined by someone who’s led a discussion of mental health professionals who are deeply concerned about President Trump’s psychological instability. Dr. Bandy Lee is a forensic psychiatrist on the faculty of Yale School of Medicine, an internationally recognized expert on violence. She organized the “Duty to Warn” conference at Yale and edited the book The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President. The book became a best-seller the instant it was published in October, sold out, resupplied, sold out again. Dr. Bandy Lee is with us to talk about the issues raised by these 27 psychiatrists and mental health experts. Of course, it’s now many, many more, not just people who participated in this book.

What are your deepest concerns about President Trump? And have you had concerns about, oh, presidents you agree with and disagree with, mental health concerns, before?

DR. BANDY LEE: Well, it’s actually historically unprecedented that so many mental health professionals have come forth with their concerns, under any president, of any party. So it really is the first time that this many mental health professionals are coming together in a coalition. We even have a website now, DangerousCase.org, where the public and lawmakers can discourse with us. There are thousands of us at this point.

AMY GOODMAN: So talk about—lay out what your concerns are as a psychiatrist.

DR. BANDY LEE: So, our concerns are that someone with this level of mental instability and impairment has this much power, in the office of the presidency—basically, the power to start a devastating war, to launch nuclear missiles, without any inhibition. You saw from the hearings that there is very little inhibition in place right now. Within five minutes of the commander-in-chief’s orders, nuclear missiles could be launched without question. And—

AMY GOODMAN: And how does that relate to his mental fitness?

DR. BANDY LEE: And, of course, his decision-making capacity, having such levels of impulsivity, having a loose grip on reality and being so fragile in his ability to cope with ordinary stresses, such as basic criticisms or unflattering news, will tend to unravel, especially in times of heightened stress, such as under the special counsel’s investigations.

AMY GOODMAN: Just last week, Tony Schwartz, author of—well, co-author of Trump’s book, The Art of the Deal, told MSNBC’s Ari Melber that the president’s inner circle is worried about his mental state.

TONY SCHWARTZ: I know that two different people from the White House, or at least saying they were from the White House, and that turned out to be a White House number, have called somebody I know in the last several weeks to say, “We are deeply concerned about his mental health.” That’s—

ARI MELBER: Wait a minute. You’re saying you have knowledge of people calling from a White House line raising that question. Why would they do that? How do you know that?

TONY SCHWARTZ: I know that because I know the person that they called. And this is a person who I absolutely trust, who has great integrity.

AMY GOODMAN: So, that was Tony Schwartz, who I think ghostwrote the book The Art of the Deal, very close to Trump for a period of time. What are your thoughts about what he said?

DR. BANDY LEE: Well, as you know, he has a chapter in the book, even though he’s not counted among the 27 experts. We do have three others who have been included for their special insight, their special experience with Mr. Trump. And we included him because he has special insight into these matters. And I would agree with his assessment. We speak often. We share our observations. And we’re both deeply concerned.

AMY GOODMAN: The chapter that Tony Schwartz wrote in your book, “I wrote The Art of the Deal with Donald Trump. His self-sabotage is rooted in his past.” Explain his point here.

DR. BANDY LEE: Well, there’s actually a lot that’s outlined. It’s a reprint of an article that he wrote, I believe for The New Yorker. He outlines very much his interactions and experiences with the president. And he describes, most markedly, this emptiness, this—what he calls a black hole level of self-esteem or self-worth that is missing, whereby he can have all the admiration of the world, all of the successes, and he will—his thirst will never be quenched, because of that intense need. And that is what we’re seeing, over and over.

And what is most concerning for us is that his way of coping with this critical sense of need at every moment, so much, to the point where he cannot think of the past or the future or consequences, his main urgency is to quench the need at the moment. And the way he does this is by burnishing his power, by going to belligerent language or affirming conflicts and others’ sense of the world as a threatening place where you have to be violent.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina speaking about, well, then-candidate Donald Trump. This was back in 2016.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: I’m not going to try to get into the mind of Donald Trump, because I don’t think there’s a whole lot of space there. I think he’s a kook. I think he’s crazy. I think he’s unfit for office.

AMY GOODMAN: So that was Graham in 2016. But Senator Graham sounded different last month, when he spoke to CNN.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: You know, what concerns me about the American press is this endless, endless attempt to label the guy as some kind of kook, not fit to be president.

AMY GOODMAN: So, that is Senator Graham now. What about what he’s saying?

DR. BANDY LEE: I think the laypersons, the public or lawmakers, would be prone to underestimating the dangers of this president, because most people are used to seeing individuals who are healthy. It’s only professionals who see those who are impaired, day in and day out. And so, the natural tendency will be to interpret what they’re seeing in terms of a normal range, a normal variation of human choices, decision making and behavior. What we are—what we feel pressed to do is to warn about the situation where someone is not acting within normal range, where one is normalizing what is in fact a malignancy in one’s interpretation of reality.

AMY GOODMAN: On Wednesday, the House voted not to impeach President Trump. The vote failed 364 to 58, with all Republicans voting against the measure. The Democratic leadership also came out against the impeachment vote. The measure was introduced by Congressmember Al Green of Houston, who said on the House floor, “Donald John Trump, by causing such harm to the society of the United States, is unfit to be president and warrants impeachment, trial and removal from office.” And then, in April, Maryland Congressmember Jamie Raskin introduced a bill that would create a commission to determine if the president is mentally or physically unfit for office. This is Congressman Raskin, also professor of constitutional law, explaining how the bill is based on the 25th Amendment.

REP. JAMIE RASKIN: Section 4 of the 25th Amendment says that the vice president of the United States can act with a majority of the Cabinet to determine that there’s a presidential incapacity, or the vice president can act with a majority of any body to be set up—and Congress never set up the body that’s called for in the 25th Amendment. So this is us essentially following through on our constitutional obligation to set up a body in the event of a presidential disability. And that’s something that would be determined by the body, but, of course, only with the vice president of the United States. So, we’re talking about a body that is nonpartisan, that’s independent and that acts with the vice president, who, of course, is reporting directly to the president. So it would be in the most extreme cases where there’s a consensus that’s developed the president is incapable of discharging the duties of office.

AMY GOODMAN: So, that is Congressman Jamie Raskin. You just came from Capitol Hill, where you’re talking to—

DR. BANDY LEE: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: —Democratic and Republican congressmembers. What about this?

DR. BANDY LEE: Senator—or Representative Raskin was one of the members that I got to meet, but, unfortunately, he was called to vote, so we didn’t get to talk much. He definitely wishes to follow up. And we, among ourselves, have also been advocating for an expert panel, that would be separate and independent and appointed by the National Academy of Medicine, so, in fact, we could work on figuring out what the solution might be for us to be able to form an independent panel that can give recommendations that he could receive through a commission.

AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask you about this unusual article I just read that’s sort of going all over the internet, “Could Trump’s Hair Drug Threaten His Physical and Mental Health?” And it said—this is from months ago—”This week, President Trump’s doctor disclosed that the president takes finasteride, a drug marketed as Propecia, to treat male pattern baldness. While it is tempting to make jokes about Trump’s hair, and even the sexual side effects that accompany the drug, it also has many disturbing side effects that neither the president—nor any other man—should risk.

“In the 19 years since Propecia was approved to treat hair loss from male pattern baldness, side effects have been so concerning that the term post-finasteride syndrome (PFS) has been coined and hundreds of lawsuits have been brought. In addition to its sexual side effects, the drug’s effects on cognition, mood and mental states have been documented in the scientific literature.

“A 2013 study in Journal of Sexual Medicine noted 'changes related to the urogenital system in terms of semen quality and decreased ejaculate volume, reduction in penis size, penile curvature or reduced sensation, fewer spontaneous erections, decreased testicular size, testicular pain, and prostatitis.' [unquote] Many subjects also noted a 'disconnection between the mental and physical aspects of sexual function,' and changes in mental abilities, sleeping patterns, and/or depressive symptoms.”
Do you think this is relevant?

DR. BANDY LEE: Most definitely. Mental function is not separate from physical function, and many medications have profound effects on the mind’s capacity. And so, this is one of the reasons why an evaluation would be so critical, because mental impairment can be just as debilitating as physical impairment, and the both are connected. So, to have all the medical records, as well as to be able to get a list of medications and to do a medical exam, would be essential to doing a mental health exam.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go back to this issue of “duty to warn” and the conference that you put on—

DR. BANDY LEE: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: —where you had an auditorium at Yale University of something like 500 seats, and maybe 20 people showed up. Since then, you’ve had death threats. Talk about how this movement has grown, and, again, where this whole concept of “duty to warn” comes from, why psychiatrists should be weighing in here. A lot of people have to be scratching their heads and saying, “You haven’t had a sit-down discussion with Donald Trump. You haven’t personally analyzed him. You know, stay in your wheelhouse. This is not your business. You are trying to classify as a mental illness, perhaps, hatred, meanness, bigotry. This is not your right.”

DR. BANDY LEE: Well, actually, we deal with all those things in psychiatry. I am a forensic psychiatrist, which means I work at the interface of psychiatry and the law. So, legal cases, criminal cases, civil cases, I often deal with them. And what we do is distinguish between that which is mental impairment versus that which is criminal responsibility or intended choices. And oftentimes the distinction can be blurred for the public, especially when the impairment looks like someone’s intended choices or even look like a brilliant strategy, when in fact it follows a pattern of pathology and drives toward damage and destruction for oneself as well as others. And those are the times when I feel that it does enter into our domain.

AMY GOODMAN: So, explain “duty to warn.” You’re sitting in your office. You have a patient. They say, “I’m going to go out and kill,” and they name the person. What’s your responsibility there? And how does that relate to the president?

DR. BANDY LEE: So that was the Tarasoff case, where an individual was sitting with a counselor and expressed a desire, thoughts of harm. And the counselor respected confidentiality, did not warn the potential victim. And then, afterward, he went out and killed the person, Miss Tarasoff.

Since then, court cases have been added to expand the rule, so not only do you have a duty to warn the potential victim; because this is a danger and a case of—it’s an emergency, you have to break confidentiality or do what you need to do to protect safety. Safety comes first. When safety and survival are concerned, it doesn’t matter if the person, the victim, is not your patient. It doesn’t matter if the source of information does not come from the patient.

And also, there is a part in medical ethics that says, in an emergency, the physician does not have a choice not to take the person as a patient. So that would mean, if you were walking in the street and someone were having a heart attack, you do have to treat the person as if it were your patient—without consent, without need for confidentiality. The psychiatric equivalent would be someone acting erratically in a public place, say, in an airport or the subway. You have to intervene, especially if law enforcement or security would not be able to recognize the level of danger here, because they may not recognize the signs of mental impairment. Sometimes impairment can look like they are acting normally and making decisions out of conscious choice, especially because they themselves will insist that this is their own decision making and will have very little insight, meaning recognizing that something is wrong with them. So this is especially when it becomes important.

When danger is concerned, what you can get from an individual interview is limited. What is more important are others’ reports, observation of behavior. And, in fact, with this president, we have far more information than we often have with our own patients. We see his reactions to situation in real time, over extended time. And to declare dangerousness, you don’t need all the information. You just need enough information to alarm you.

AMY GOODMAN: And, Dr. Bandy Lee, how do you assess—you know, President Trump, the Access Hollywood tape comes out. You know, he acknowledges it. And then, what, however many months later, he says, “Oh, this is all fake.”

DR. BANDY LEE: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: So, how does this fit in to the analysis of a psychiatrist like you?

DR. BANDY LEE: So, whereas we would not make a diagnosis without all the information—in fact, it would be irresponsible to do so. And I believe that we basically cannot, until we do a full assessment. But, of course, we have many running hyphotheses in our head, what we call differential diagnoses. And so, we have some hyphotheses as to what might be going on with the president. What we—things that we predicted seven months ago, when we put the book together, have mostly come true.

AMY GOODMAN: Like?

DR. BANDY LEE: That he was worse than he appeared in public, that he would get worse, that he would not be containable, and that—I think around this time people were expecting he would pivot and become more presidential—that all of this would not happen, and in fact his impairment is more deep-seated and would follow a certain course. In other words, with increasing pressures, with evolution of his presidency, that he would grow worse.

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go to Robert Jay Lifton, who contributed to your volume. In October, he was on Democracy Now! and talked about the debate over whether Donald Trump understands and can responsibly manage the most destructive nuclear arsenal on Earth.

ROBERT JAY LIFTON: Well, any restriction on the president—any president, but especially Trump—on his capacity to initiate a nuclear war, any restriction on that is profoundly desirable. It’s a strange world, to say the least, when the generals are there to restrain the civilian. The generals aren’t, on the whole, known for their military restraint. There are exceptions. With the Vietnam War, as you know, it was initiated by civilians, “the best and the brightest,” as it was called. The military was at first a little reluctant, then entered it and became corrupted by it, and created what I came to call atrocity-producing situations. That could happen here, too, with the generals, who are ostensibly restrainers, allowing him, being unable to prevent him from initiating some form of war, being themselves drawn in and then corrupted by it. That’s a really dangerous sequence. Anything that holds that back or in check is desirable.

AMY GOODMAN: So that’s Dr. Robert Jay Lifton, the world-renowned psychiatrist who wrote about Nazi doctors, who wrote about the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Hiroshima survivors. He wrote a piece in The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump. Your final comments, Dr. Bandy Lee?

DR. BANDY LEE: So, violence is an end product of a long process. And we have seen this process evolving, in the mind of Mr. Trump, but also in his public responses, his effects on the public. And I would agree with Dr. Lifton that we cannot place the greatest dangers to our existential continuation.

AMY GOODMAN: And your final comment in summarizing the message you have, the whole “duty to warn” movement that you’re a part of, where it’s headed now?

DR. BANDY LEE: Well, we’re pushing for an evaluation. We’re warning about dangerousness. We’re actually trying our best to educate the public so that people will be aware, they will be affirmed in what they are seeing, they will be educated on the depths of what they are seeing, and also that there is a way of dealing with the situation, handling it.

AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Bandy Lee, we want to thank you for being with us, forensic psychiatrist on the faculty of Yale School of Medicine, internationally recognized expert on violence, editor of the best-selling book, just recently published, The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President.

This is Democracy Now! To see Part 1 of our discussion, go to democracynow.org. I’m Amy Goodman. Thanks for joining us.

The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

Contaminated blood report 'full of lies'

Carol Grayson's husband, Peter, died after contracting hepatitis C and HIV from infected blood products

By Sarah Bloch-Budzier-19 December 201

Government officials have apologised for using a discredited report into the contaminated blood products scandal that left thousands of NHS patients infected with viruses including HIV.

Despite assurances that the "inadequate" document would be ditched, a health minister has referred to it this year, the BBC can reveal.

The government admits that the document was used for too long.

This week it will announce who will run its official inquiry into the scandal.

Critics say the whole process has taken far too long and have accused the government of a "whitewash".

Campaigners have always said that the 2006 report - originally billed by the government as an official account of how the scandal unfolded - was misleading and incomplete because original documents had been destroyed.

Contaminated blood

It has been called the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS.

At least 2,400 people died after they were given blood products that were infected with hepatitis C and HIV during the 70s and 80s.

Thousands of NHS patients with an inherited bleeding disorder called haemophilia were given the plasma products, which came from abroad, including the US.

Much of the plasma used to make the clotting treatment Factor VIII came from donors like prison inmates in the US, who sold their blood.

Carol Grayson's husband, Peter, was one of the victims who died.

She says campaigners have challenged the Department of Health over its investigations for more than a decade.

She told BBC News: "I had to give my career up to care for my husband for many years and I didn't have my own children because at the time I wanted to conceive, I was told I might infect the child and the advice at the time was, don't have children. So there are huge implications for families. It doesn't just impact on one person, it impacts on the whole family.

"I go from being absolutely furious and thinking everything I was brought up to believe in, you know about democracy, about justice is a lie."

The investigation

In July, the prime minister ordered the Cabinet Office to oversee the independent investigation into how the scandal happened, after family members warned that the involvement of the Department of Health would mean it would be, in effect, investigating itself.

The BBC has now seen a series of letters from ministers and civil servants, accepting that the 2006 report (Self-Sufficiency in Blood Products in England and Wales) previously seen within Whitehall as a "definitive account", was inadequate.

Sir Chris Wormald, permanent secretary at the Department of Health, wrote to Liberal Democrat peer Lady Featherstone in August assuring her that the document "has not been used by officials in recent years… and it will not be used in the future".

But the BBC has also seen a letter written by health minister Lord O'Shaughnessy to another MP in January this year, which referenced the report and its conclusions.

When this was brought to Sir Chris's attention, he apologised, and said there were "some instances in recent years where the department had referred to the document" and reiterated the assurance that the document would be taken out of use.

Lady Featherstone told the BBC that civil servants promised to make clear online that the document had been discredited, but this was not yet apparent.

The peer, whose own nephew died from an infection from contaminated blood products, said: "That document is full of holes, and lies, and mistruths, and lines to take, and I went to the Department of Health to challenge the use of this document.

"I think the permanent secretary was quite genuine in his desire - he saw that the evidence proved that they couldn't use the document - and he wrote to me to assure me that this document was not being used any longer, had not been used in recent years and would never be used again in the future.

"It indicated to me that they knew it was wrong, that they must have acknowledged it was telling untruths."

A Department of Health spokesperson said: "The 2006 document, Self-Sufficiency in Blood Products in England and Wales: A Chronology from 1973 to 1991, remained in use by the department for too long. It is no longer used.

"The infected blood scandal of the 1970s and 80s is an appalling tragedy and the government has announced an independent statutory inquiry to ensure that victims and their families finally get the answers they have spent decades waiting for."

Total of 65 journalists were killed in 2017, 326 are currently in prison, and 54 are held hostage-Reporters Without Borders (RSF)

December 19, 2017

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) is releasing its annual round-up of violence and abuses against journalists throughout the world. A total of 65 journalists were killed in 2017, 326 are currently in prison, and 54 are held hostage.

Читать по-русски / Read in Russian

The 65 journalists who were killed were either fatally injured in the course of their work (for The 2017 annual round-upREAD THE ROUND-UPexample, in an artillery bombardment) or were murdered because their reporting angered someone. The murdered reporters were the majority – 60% of the total figure.

Although these figures are alarming, 2017 has been the least deadly year for professional journalists (50 killed) in 14 years. Journalists are of course fleeing countries such as Syria, Yemen and Libya that have become too dangerous, but RSF has also observed a growing awareness of the need to protect journalists. The UN has passed several resolutions on the safety of journalists since 2006 and many news organizations have adopted safety procedures.

The fall does not apply to deaths of women journalists, which have doubled. Ten have been killed in 2017, as against five in 2016. Most of these victims were experienced and combative investigative reporters. Despite threats, they continued to investigate and expose cases of corruption. The victims include Daphne Caruana Galizia in Malta, Gauri Lankesh in India and Miroslava Breach Velducea in Mexico.

In another noteworthy trend in 2017, some countries that are not at war have become almost as dangerous for journalists as war zones: 46% of the deaths occurred in countries where no overt war is taking place, as against 30% in 2016. There were almost as many deaths (11) in Mexico as in Syria, which was the deadliest country for journalists in 2017, with 12 killed.

"Investigative journalists working on major stories such as corruption and environmental scandals play a fundamental watchdog role and have become targets for those who are angered by their reporting," RSF secretary-general Christophe Deloire said. "This alarming situation underlines the need to provide journalists with more protection at a time when both the challenges of news reporting and the dangers are becoming increasingly internationalized."

Like the death toll, the number of journalists in detention has also fallen. The total of 326 journalists in prison on 1 December 2017 was 6% fewer than on the same date in 2016. Despite the overall downward trend, there is an unusually high number of detained journalists in certain countries, such as Russia and Morocco, that did not previously number among notable jailers of journalists.
Nonetheless, around half of the total number of imprisoned journalists are being held in just five countries. China and Turkey are still the world's two biggest prisons for journalists. They are followed by Syria, Iran, and Vietnam.

Finally, 54 journalists are currently held by armed non-state groups such as Islamic State and the Houthis in Yemen. Almost three quarters of these hostages come from the ranks of local journalists, who are usually paid little and often have to take enormous risks. The foreign journalists currently held hostage were all kidnapped in Syria but little is known about their present location.


See the full round-up here

* These figures include professional journalists, non-professional journalists and media workers.

Media battered with Ranil’s big stick

Sunday, December 17, 2017

How times have changed! Three years ago in December the Common Candidate contesting the presidential election and political leaders of various hues who had gathered round him were making myriad promises which would turn our nation into a paradise flowing with milk and money. One such promise was to restore media freedom.

Those determined to effect regime change promised not only a free press but also to safeguard the rights of journalists unlike the government they were struggling to uproot and dump along with the garbage. A laudable undertaking indeed. The media in general seemed cowed by fear that harsh criticism of the government and expose’s of political crookedness and corruption could result in unimaginable horrors to editors and journalists and their immovable property.

I was in Sri Lanka in those exciting months before and after the election that brought Maithripala Sirisena to power. Every promise pledged from political pulpits including that of press freedom, had been greeted with enthusiastic applause by a public with great expectations. Now the time had come to see them fulfilled.

Criticise us if we do wrong, criticise us if we fail to keep our promises to the people, said the leading lights of the campaign who promised the citizens a new dawn. After years of gestation was the Miracle of Asia about to be born?

A public eager for change lapped it all up. But those who have heard such sonorous sayings time and again especially at election time were not entirely convinced. In conversations with senior journalists, commentators and the politically savvy one could detect a smell of cynicism. It seemed to say one thing-we have been through this before. Not once, not twice.

With the parliamentary election won a few months later and political power consolidated the sweet smell of success was unmistakable. But soon the euphoria of success began to fade as Sri Lanka’s new unity government stumbled along and the media started to articulate the growing disillusionment of the people who had expected an end to nepotism and cronyism. They saw the sheaf of promises turn into a distant dream. Those who promised a corruption free society, a transparent and accountable government enveloped themselves in opaqueness.

Offered media freedom the newly galvanised press and a largely infantile social media more dedicated to gossip and fiction than fact gradually turned on the new yahapalanaya government which had publicly said to criticise it if it failed to keep its faith with the people.


Before long that umbilical link between government and media, particularly the plethora of websites and news platforms with often untrained practitioners that had emerged, began to fray. At various times government politicians began to growl and threats of new media laws were heard probably to keep the widely expanding media scene on the straight and narrow.


At a recent UNESCO- sponsored conference in Colombo Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe used his keynote address to point more than one finger at sections of the media which he said did not seem to value media freedom that the Unity Government had restored.

While government leaders and their acolytes fired salvoes at the media for abusing press freedom, the most vocal of the leaders was Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. In a previous avatar as premier he had taken positive steps to strengthen media freedom and protect journalists from such abhorrent institutions as the state-run Press Council. Defamation as a criminal offence was lifted. He worked hard to introduce a freedom of information law. That was then though the Right to Information Act was passed this time round.

At a recent UNESCO- sponsored conference in Colombo Prime Minister Wickremesinghe used his keynote address to point more than one finger at sections of the media which, he said, did not seem to value media freedom that the Unity Government had restored. But where are they today when press freedom was being discussed along with the physical abuse of journalists that had gone before?

They were nowhere to be seen except for a couple of heads of state-institutions and the editor of a privately owned media organisation, he pointed out looking at the audience. Speaking at this conference on “Regional Cooperation to Promote Freedom of Expression and the Rule of Law in Asia through Ending Impunity for Crimes Against Journalists” in Colombo, Prime Minister Wickremesinghe took the opportunity to castigate some media owners and journalists for their unconcern over media freedom.

Referring to a spate of killings and brutal assaults of journalists during the Rajapaksa era he said that the absence at this event of owners of media organisations as well as editors, except those he had mentioned, showed only too well their lack of interest.

There could of course be many reasons why heads of media organisation kept away. With titles like that for a conference which seemed to meander like the Mahaweli who would want to be there. Whoever the bureaucrats who produced that title should be given some elementary lessons in how to be succinct!

Not to make too finer a point of Wickremesinghe’s reference to the presence of two heads of state-run media organisations present, one might ask what happened to the other heads that were missing? The state-run media institutions are Lake House, Rupavahini, SLBC, ITN and Lankapuwath. There may be other divisions and sub divisions too seeing how institutions separate and multiply like amoeba.
Does Prime Minister Wickremesinghe include the absent heads of state-institutions in the category of those with little or no interest in media freedom or the safety of journalists?

Apart from the long-winded subject that might have kept journalists away from the opening session only to appear at the panel discussions which are more fruitful, another reason for their absence may well be to avoid the haranguing that the media is often subjected to by the prime minister be it in parliament or outside.

It might be recalled that weeks earlier some journalists were embarrassed by Wickremesinghe at a press conference because their news organisations had supposedly concocted a story about the Maha Nayake Thera of Malwatte rejecting some proposed constitutional changes.

Admittedly, everybody – prime minister or pauper – has the right to challenge false news and denounce the media for deliberately misleading the people if they had done so.

It is for this reason and to maintain the professional integrity of the established media and check the damage being done to professional media outlets that some years back the Editors’ Guild provided readers with a “right of reply” so that errors-deliberate or otherwise – might be corrected and apologies, where necessary, offered.

I dare say that Ranil Wickremesinghe has a case when he accuses some media of false or distorted reporting. But he is wrong when he implies that press freedom does not extend to attacking the government in office or supporting an opposition that sections of the media wish to return to power.
It is the attempt of some media to support the Rajapaksa clan and bring them to power that appears to get the prime minister’s goat. Freedom of the media is not divisible to pieces that suit one and to reject others that do not.

If one opens the doors to press freedom and exalts that virtuous deed one needs to accept the good, the bad and the ugly. That comes with the territory. If a government makes press freedom its policy, then it also accepts the right of the media to support whoever it likes and criticise whoever fails to fulfill the promises made especially at election time.

It was the legendary C.P. Scott, more than 50 years the editor of the internationally respected Manchester Guardian who on the golden jubilee of the newspaper wrote “Comment is free, facts are sacred.” That is true and it should be so.

The media in the western world which the UNP admires so much takes political sides. Some might remain neutral but others are politically committed. It might be recalled that at the British elections in 2010, Rupert Murdoch’s widely circulated and influential tabloid the “Sun” switched sides at the eleventh hour. When the Conservatives won, it took the credit for the victory.

Today newspapers such as the Washington Post are highly critical of President Trump and his administration. So are several regional newspapers and reputed TV networks. It would be ridiculous to claim that one restored media freedom and then attack the media for using that freedom-unless that freedom is misused or abused as Murdoch’s News of the World and others had done by clearly transgressing the boundaries of that freedom.

Perhaps Ranil Wickremesinghe was too young to remember that in 1964 when the Sirima Bandaranaike under pressure from her coalition partner the LSSP, proposed a Press Bill to control the media, it was his father Esmond, who led the campaign against it. At the time he was managing director of the Lake House newspapers and Lake House was the command centre of the campaign to defeat the bill.

The bill was defeated in parliament by one vote and Mrs. Bandaranaike resigned. If I remember correctly Mangala Samaraweera’s father Mahanama Samaraweera who was an SLFP MP defected with C.P.de Silva and others and voted against the Press Bill.

Esmond Wickremesinghe used the power of Lake House and its media to bring down the Bandaranaike coalition. Subsequently Esmond was presented with the Golden Pen of Freedom award by the International Press Institute for his sustained campaign to defeat government efforts to subjugate the press.

I still remember Sir John Kotelawala telling me in Esmond’s presence how the master-strategist used the Ceylon Observer at the very last moment to deprive Sir John of the premiership and make Dudley Senanayake prime minister after D.S. Senanayake’s premature death.

We know that the media has been used for political ends

PRESIDENT SIRISENA IN CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION COUNCIL; HAS REFERRED BACK THE LIST OF NOMINEES TO THE OMP; CC TO STAND BY ITS DECISION

19/12/2017

(SLB/19^th Dec 2017) According to informed sources president Sirisena has not approved the nominated  list of commissioners  by the Constitutional Council (CC) for the Office of the Mission Persons (OMP). Instead he as referred the list back to the CC for a review.

The CC had finalised the selections of nearly 100 applicants to posts of 7 commissioners of the OMP and has forwarded the list of names to the president some 10 days ago. According to the sources the CC has decided to stand by the list of nominees it has made and not changed any of the nominations. By 23rd of this month the nominations of the CC to OMP will come in to effect.

It is in this context that the President Sirisena has now publicly criticised the Constitutional Council, saying that he does not approve its all decisions.

According to political grapevine  the CC nominees to the OMP include a retired justice who headed a Rajapkasa appointed commission on disappearances, a retired military officer, a Tamil female human rights activist, former Colombo university professes who the head of human rights programme and a known Muslim lawyer.

Speaking at the Annual National Meeting of Judicial Officers Association On Sunday the 18^th Sirisena has said: ( as reported by theDaily Mirror)

“Everybody knows the power of the President after the 19th Amendment of the Constitution. The Constitutional Council takes the final decisions about the promotions. I always tried my level best to get impartial decisions during my tenure in the last three years. I dedicated myself towards it. When some problems arose, I checked and clarified matters with the Attorney General. I got recommendations from the Chief Justice and the Judicial Services 

Commission. I did so to avoid any crisis situations. After getting these recommendations I sent the names to the Constitutional Council. There are times that I have not agreed with the constitutional council. Sometimes I agreed with them. I do not like to speak much about it. I think if there is an issue that hampers the promotion of an officer on disciplinary grounds, it is fair that such information is conveyed to me in writing before the recommendation of such names are made to me.”

According to the 19^th Amendment to the constitution of Sri Lanka Constitutional nomination will automatically come in to force after 14 days notwithstanding whether the president approve it or not:

 “ In the event of the President failing to make the necessary appointments within such period of fourteen days–

(a) the persons recommended under paragraph (3), to be appointed as members of a Commission, shall be deemed to have been appointed as the members of the Commissions; and

(b) the person whose name appears first in the list of names recommended under paragraph (3), to be appointed as the Chairman of a Commission, shall be deemed to have been appointed the Chairman of the respective Commission,”

Earlier media reported that the Sinhala nationalist – Marxist JVP member of the CC has opposed the nomination of long time human rights activist and NGO leader Dr. Nimalka Fernando to the OMP.

This is what the 19^th amendment says on the CC and appointing members to the independent commissions.

(3) It shall be the duty of the Council to recommend to the President fit and proper persons for appointment as Chairmen or members of the Commissions specified in the Schedule to this Article, whenever the occasion for such appointments arises, and such recommendations shall endeavour to ensure that such recommendations reflect the pluralistic character of Sri Lankan society, including gender.

In the case of the Chairmen of such Commissions, the Council shall recommend three persons for appointment, and the President shall appoint one of the persons recommended as Chairman.

(4) The President shall appoint the Chairman and the members of the Commissions specified in the Schedule to this Article, within fourteen days of receiving the recommendations of the Council for such appointments. In the event of the President failing to make the necessary appointments within such period of fourteen days–

(a) the persons recommended under paragraph (3), to be appointed as members of a Commission, shall be deemed to have been appointed as the members of the Commissions; and

(b) the person whose name appears first in the list of names recommended under paragraph (3), to be appointed as the Chairman of a Commission, shall be deemed to have been appointed the Chairman of the respective Commission,

with effect from the date of expiry of such period.

The way forward on Constitutional reforms

 

2017-12-20

The discussion in the Constitutional Assembly on the interim report of the Steering Committee turned out to be a very positive discussion, where a large number of members of the constitutional assembly expressed their views critically.

There emerged few important positions on which there was wide agreement that will enable the Steering Committee to move on to the next stage of the process to prepare a draft constitution for the consideration by the constitutional assembly.

Positive developments that we notice through the discussion in the Constitutional Assembly on the interim report were:

i. The broad acceptance of devolution of power to the provinces.

ii. Acceptance of the need for a rights-based constitution with the wide chapter on fundamental rights.
iii. The importance of power sharing.

iv. The nature of the state to be unitary with its meaning well defined in the constitution itself with provisions for the protection of the rights of minority groups and marginalized sections of society through entrenched clauses.

v. Equality to be the foundation of the constitution.

It is seen that to proceed from this point to the next stage of preparing a draft constitution, certain important changes in the process is needed to strengthen the process.

It emerged from the discussion that the constitutional reform process is being carried on by a few, giving rights to the serious criticism that the process is not open and lacks transparency.

This drawback in the process has to be corrected at this point of the process to proceed further towards the ultimate step of drawing up a constitution acceptable to all sections of the people. The process has to be broadened to include:

I. In the steering committee even as observers representatives named by the President so that President will be able to play a major role in the process by his being privy to the discussions and decisions of the Steering and/or Drafting Committee and his views being placed before the Steering Committee / Drafting Committee.

II. It is absolutely necessary for the process to acquire legitimacy that there should be a broad consultative committee of persons from civil society (from outside the political community) who has the knowledge, experience, competence and acceptability to make a contribution on issues that may arise from outside the political community.

The nature of the state to be unitary with its meaning well defined in the constitution itself with provisions for the protection of the rights of minority groups and marginalized sections of society through entrenched clauses

For example, people of the calibre of Dr. Jayantha Dhanapala, Dr. Nihal Jayawickrama, Dr. Nessiah, Dr. Selvakumaran, Dr. Uyangoda, Dr. Harini Amarasooriya and Dr. Deepika Udagama to mention few names to explain my point.

The Steering Committee itself should be broadened to include such personalities who can contribute towards the development of a constitution acceptable to a vast majority of the people and more particularly to show that it is not the work of a few but the work of the best minds available, for example, it should include people of the calibre of Dr. Sarath Amunugama, Mahinda Samarasinghe, Iran Wickremaratne, Harsha De Silva, Ajith Perera, Dr. Fernandopulle.

What I would like to highlight is the fact that if the Constitutional Reform Process is to move forward and reach a meaningful end, then it is of vital importance to broaden the process and allow the meaningful participation of a wider section of society. These corrections have to be made today without delay.

There has to be a wider public discussion on the draft constitution if it is to gain legitimacy.

Expressions Beyond The Traditional

 

By Mass L. Usuf –December 19 2017

It takes two for any form of communication. The self and the other. The self knows everything about itself but very less about the other. The self expresses itself with the specific knowledge and learning that it knows, perceives, idealises and interprets. What is expressed is understood by the other applying the same qualities of the expresser. Between the various shades of expression of the self and the understanding of the other, there are universal expressions. These are, generally and mutually, understood by the expresser and the other in a unified sense. One such area is human rights.

Human rights both in the spoken and written forms are ubiquitous in the electronic, print and social media. Less so is its prevalence articulated through the medium of Art and the various creative forms art can manifest itself through. Herein excels the joint efforts of the Sri Lanka Arts Council and the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka visualising itself at the JDA Perera Gallery in Colombo at the ‘The First Human Rights Arts Festival 2017’ held from 11th to 17th of December. 

The Festival consisted of Visual Arts, New Media exhibition, Music, Dance and Theatre performances on the themes of Human Rights. The architect of this Festival Mr. Chandragupta Thenuwara, President of the Arts Council of Sri Lanka and Senior Lecturer at the University of the Visual and Performing Arts was upbeat at the response from the public and art lovers. 

 

Giving credence to the conceptual theme of Mr. Thenuwara was the value added by Dr. Deepika Udagama, Chairman of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka. A much-desired blending of professionals, though rare, from the field of human rights and the virtuosos of the world of Art. Clearly establishing the statement that art too has a major role to play in promoting social cohesiveness and, the general wellbeing of the people.  “The plan is to have the Festival next year in a grander scale” said, Mr. Thenuwara, obviously energised by its success.

Freedom Of Expression

Our constitution under Chapter III on Fundamental Rights enshrines in Article 14 (1) (a) as follows:

“Every citizen is entitled to the freedom of speech and expression including publication”   

Human Rights and Fundamental Rights are intertwined. Yet, there is an unfathomable distance between legislated fundamental rights and that supreme universalness of human rights. As such human freedom per se is ineffable. An extension of these rights from its normative sense would permeate into the realm of mystical thoughts and conscience. These two freedoms, thought and conscience, are also enshrined in the Constitution in Article 10 of the same Chapter. 

 

What was demonstrated at the Arts Festival was the fantastic capability of the human mind to express itself when unbounded. The artists’ expressions captured both the esoteric and exoteric sense of the labyrinth feelings of man. Depiction of the naturalness of being free and the unnaturalness of being fettered where freedom is violated. Artistic expositions pontificating the sacredness of human rights while urging restraint from sacrileging that sanctity. 

The Dark Side Of Art

As much as art can be used to depict the beauty, aesthetics and the good values of human life, there are those who use art forms to sully these adorable qualities. While art can help to heal the wounds of human rights abuses, the abusers would use it to justify their actions. 

At the infamous Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay detention centres, the military interrogators of the United States of America used heavy metal music at excessively loud volume as a form of torture. The Psychological Operations (psyops) experts adopted this method of torture since it does not leave any physical trace on the body. Detainees were stripped to their underwear, shackled to chairs, and blinded by strobe lights (powerful bright light which flashes on and off very quickly). The lights were blinding their eyes while the heavy metal music was deafening their ears. This was, according to US interrogators, to disorient the detainees or, as they would call it, to break the Iraqi prisoners.

The United Nations and the European Court of Human Rights have banned the use of loud music for interrogations. It is considered a form of torture.

The interpretative power of art can turn love towards hatred, hope towards hopelessness, mercy towards ruthlessness, peace into horror and empathy to antipathy. Thus, art is sadly exploited sometimes as a tool to create dissension and chaos in society – stereotyping an ethnic group in main stream media, racial slurring in social media are classic examples.

“Clearly, there are many artworks which may fall short of hate, but which may still be, or be perceived to be, antagonistic to certain groups of people including vulnerable minorities. Just as art can help to dismantle harmful stereotypes, it can reinforce them: art is not necessarily “progressive” in relation to human rights. Examples include numerous cartoon depictions associating Islam with terrorism, and the sectarian murals on display in Northern Ireland. Art can combat propaganda, and can also constitute propaganda.” (Exploring the connections between arts and human rights:  European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights).

Read More

Sri Lanka: LG Election Reforms fail to promote Reconciliation or new Political Culture

Several amendments to the Local Government Elections which could have been enacted parallel to the review of the delimitation process in order to save time was instead presented to the Parliament only after the new delimitation was gazette.

by Javid Yusuf- Dec 19, 2017

( December 19, 2017, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The run up to the Local Government Elections has been plagued with controversy mainly due to the delay of over two and a half years in calling for such Elections. Mercifully nominations have now been called for and the Elections are scheduled to be held in February 2018.

A delimitation of Local Government wards had been carried out by the previous Government. The Minister of Local Government and Provincial Councils Faiszer Musthapha appointed a panel headed by Asoka Pieris to review the previous delimitation which review process dragged on for several months resulting in the delay.

The Opposition cried foul and accused the Government of deliberately delaying the Local Government Elections. Adding fuel to the fire was the statement by Asoka Pieris that the Minister had asked him to deliberately delay the process.

Several amendments to the Local Government Elections which could have been enacted parallel to the review of the delimitation process in order to save time was instead presented to the Parliament only after the new delimitation was gazette.

Thereafter mistakes in the amending legislation neccesitated further amendments thus contributing to additional delays. All this has resulted in the Minister having two no confidence motions moved against him. In Parliament Priyankara Jayaratne who was his Deputy Minister until recently dubbed him “Asamath” (inefficient).

The whole situation relating to the delay was further compounded by the totally unacceptable manner in which changes to the Local Government system was made. The Minister brought in changes to the Amending Bill at the Committee stage of Parliament which were completely at variance with the substantive nature of the Amending Bill which had been gazeted and was in the public domain.

The amendments moved at the Committee stage by the Minister not only took Parliamentarians by surprise but also deprived the public of an opportunity to discuss the merits or demerits of the changes sought to be made to the Local Government Election law. The legislative process set out in the Constitution which requires gazetting of any intended legislation is not only for the purpose of challenging such Bills in the Supreme Court but also to keep the citizenry informed and allow public discussion on the matter. Unfortunately in the case of the Local Government Election Law Reforms and later in the Provincial Council Election Law Reforms this essential step in the democratic reform process was not followed.

As a consequence of the flawed legislative process followed by the Minister, the opportunity to align the Local Government Election process with the expressed goal of a change in the political culture has been lost.

Among the several shortcomings in the amended Local Government Election Law two features stand out which negatively impact against the National Interest. The first is the absence of any provision which allows individuals to contest the Local Government Elections and the second is the creation of multi member seats for Local Government bodies.

The Local Government system is the third tier of Government and is the administrative level that is closest to the people. The proposed Constitutional Reforms have suggested an enhanced role for Local bodies with more administrative powers being conferred to them. This is to bring Government closer to the people and to make devolution of power more meaningful.

With the new system in large measure reverting to the old ward system which characterized Local Government in the past, it would have been prudent to include provisions that enabled public spirited individuals to come forward to serve the people as had happened previously.

Such individuals may not wish to be aligned with political parties but are known to the local community as persons with integrity and a commitment to serve society and easily identifiable at the local level. An infusion of such public spirited individuals into Local Government would greatly help in infusing new blood into the system and rehabilitating Local Government which had deteriorated rapidly in recent times. The Local Government system reached its lowest ebb in the last decade with members of Local bodies becoming a law unto themselves and running riot and engaging in all forms of corruption and other illegal activities.

Unfortunately the new system precludes and discourages well meaning public spirited individuals from playing their role in society. If any individual wishes to contest an election he can do so only if he does so through a political party or an independent list of candidates. If he chooses to contest as an independent the number of independent candidates he has to gather for such a list will vary according to the Local body in which he hopes to contest. For example for the Colombo Municipal Council he will have to gather a total of 113 candidates to be on his list out of which 34 have to be women. The deposit that he will have to pay is 565,000/-. For the Bulathsinhala Praddeshiya Sabha he will have to find 28 candidates including 8 women and pay a deposit of 140,000/-. For Walikamam North Pradeshiya Sabha he will have to find 38 candidates including 11 women and pay a deposit of 190,000/-. For the Muttur Pradeshiya Sabha he will have to find 24 candidates including 7 women and pay a deposit of 120,000/-. Any aspiring independent candidate wishing to contest any other local body in the country will have similar challenges before embarking on a mission to serve his community.

The need to make such an effort even before starting his campaign will completely dim the enthusiasm of any civic minded individual and make him give up his idea of serving his fellow community by seeking election to a Local Government body. In contrast if an individual is permitted to contest by himself all that he has to do is to pay a deposit of 5,000/- and walk round his ward and canvass around 1000 households to support him at the Election. The voter will judge him on his personal attributes of integrity and capability rather than his religious, ethnic or political identity. This will greatly enrich the quality of Local Government.

Another big flaw in the new system is the creation of multi member wards for Local bodies which is unprecedented and is unknown to the constituency based Local Government system of the past. The multi member constituency in the first past the post Parliamentary Elections was designed to facilitate representation of large concentrations of minorities in an electorate. Hence there was the Colombo Central, Colombo South, Beruwela, Harispattuwa electorates to name a few.

In the Parliamentary Elections there was a justification to ensure adequate representation of minorities because the Legislature has to enact legislation that effects different communities and groups and their voice has to be heard and their interests represented in the formulation of policy and the passage of laws at the highest levels.

In contrast at the Local Government level there is no legislation being passed and the special interests of communities do not have such a relevance. If in a rare situation such special interests of communities come into play the local Councillor is sufficiently close to his voter to understand and reflect such interest.

The function of Local bodies are more basic and involve the delivery of essential services effecting the day to day lives of the public which are common to all sections of the community. The ethnic or religious identity of a Councillor has no relevance to the delivery of such basic needs. What is of greater significance is the qualities of such an individual like personal integrity and commitment to public service which the local community can easily identify in individuals who live among them irrespective of his or her ethnic and religious identity.

What is important is to ensure that individuals like those who held office in the previous local bodies are not elected. The last set of Local bodies had several Councillors who ran riot and were accused of murder, rape and corruption and who could not be restrained or kept in check by the Law enforcement agencies.

It is this writers view that such wanton acts of abuse of power was the direct result of the institution of the Executive Presidency. When the Executive Presidency was seen as the repository of absolute power, those at the Local Government level arrogated to themselves similar powers acting as if they themselves were local ‘Executive Presidents’. However while institutions of Government do play apart in influencing the conduct of local politicians, the qualities of such individuals also are relevant in off setting the negative effects of institutional influence.

The impact of the creation of multimember constitutencies in Local bodies however has a larger National Impact. When the country is struggling to bring about National Reconciliation the building of understanding among the communities at grass root level is of critical importance. The multimember constituencies in the new Local Government bodies goes against the grain of the goals of National Reconciliation as espoused by the Yahapalana Government.

When voters at the grassroot level should be encouraged to look at the strengths and weaknesses of those who offer themselves for election to local bodies, instead the new system encourages them to look at ethnic and religious identities which are irrelevant to the functions that local bodies are required to perform.

When voters at Local Government look at the capabilities of Councillors whom they elect rather than their communal identities it will create greater understanding among the people and have a positive spiraling effect on the larger need of National Reconciliation. Otherwise it will institutionalise ethnic and religious identities at the community level and make the task of coexistence and National Reconciliation that much more harder.

Speaking in Parliament recently Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe said that a review of any shortcomings in the Local Government Election process would be made based on the experience of the forthcoming elections and any necessary changes made thereafter. It is hoped that such measures will take into account the impact of the Local Government Election laws on changing the political culture and National Reconciliation as well as steps to address any shortcomings in that regard.