Low sperm count and problems with sperm quality are factors in around one in three couples who are struggling to get pregnant.
But for this new study scientists analysed men in infertile couples in Italy, to see whether semen quality is also a marker for men's general health.
They found more of the men with low sperm counts had metabolic syndrome - a cluster of risk factors including a higher body mass index (BMI) and raised blood pressure. These increase the risk of developing diabetes, heart disease and stroke.
The men were also 12 times more likely to have low testosterone levels, which reduce muscle mass and bone density and can be a precursor to osteoporosis, a condition that weakens the bones and makes them more likely to break.
Dr Alberto Ferlin, who led the study, said: "Infertile men are likely to have important co-existing health problems or risk factors that can impair quality of life and shorten their lives.
"Fertility evaluation gives men the unique opportunity for health assessment and disease prevention."
Researchers say sperm quality is a marker of men's health
However, the study's authors stressed that their research did not prove that low sperm counts cause metabolic problems, but rather that the two are linked.
They said low testosterone levels in particular were associated with these health issues.
Dr Ferlin said the research showed that it was important that men being treated for infertility were given proper health checks.
"Men of couples having difficulties achieving pregnancy should be correctly diagnosed, and followed up by their fertility specialists and primary care doctor because they could have an increased chance of morbidity and mortality," he said.
'Canary in coal mine'
Kevin McEleny, a consultant urologist at Newcastle Fertility Centre, said at the moment men with sperm problems are rarely investigated for other health problems.
"This is a message to fertility clinics, particularly, to think about these other health issues in the patients they see.
"It might be the case that it's not just about fertility, about sperm in the men, but taking a slightly wider view of male health when they see these people and think about what else needs to be done to get the patients as healthy as possible."
Allan Pacey, professor of andrology at the University of Sheffield, said more research is needed to properly understand the relationship between fertility problems in men and other health issues.
"There is currently no suggestion that male sub-fertility causes health problems later in life and in my opinion, it is more likely that they both have a common cause.
"However, this highlights why we need to design better studies to investigate male sub-fertility as it could be an important 'canary in the coal mine' for other aspects of male health."
The study will be presented at ENDO 2018, the Endocrine Society's 100th annual meeting in Chicago.
There has been a mass relocation of Sinhalese from the South to the Tamil areas by the Government. What is not widely known is that the Sinhalese military and police who have quit their jobs are being relocated in the North with their families.
The result is a massive increase in the number of Sinhalese in the North and East. If this continues, the North and East will be dominated by Sinhalese. The electoral consequences are obvious. This will not be reversible as has happened in Amparai in the East, which was a Tamil area that has been ‘Sinhalised’.
The long-term objective of accelerated Sinhalisation of the Tamil area is to destroy the Tamil homeland and establish a monoethnic identity throughout the island – a Sinhala-Buddhist nation.
“Buddhistisation”
Buddhist temples and structures are proliferating in an area where there are no Buddhist civilians. The only Buddhists are members of the Armed Forces and Police.
What often is that a ‘Bo-tree” (Ficus Religiosa) is planted in an area which is then declared a Buddhist sacred site. A Buddhist temple is then erected.
The British Tamils Forum (BTF) has published an excellent book, “Proliferating Buddhist Structures in Tamil homeland – Sowing the seeds of Disharmony”.
Education in Jaffna in chaos
Daya Somasunderam, Professor of Psychiatry in Jaffna, delivered an important lecture, “A lost Generation of Tamil Youth: Impact of past war trauma, present psychosocial context, globalisation and Education”. What he said was alarming. 70% of students failed the Grade 5 examination annually, and 50% failed the Ordinary Level (O/L) examination. Of those who sit for the Advanced Level (A/L) examination, only 15 % enter Universities.
Even the few who enter universities are not assured of a bright future. The university system that was dong reasonable well up to the early 1980s has deteriorated drastically due to the general chaos
of war, poor resources, and support from the State, loss of able academics and teachers with the general brain drain. This ‘must-read’ publication is on the net.
The difficulty in getting into universities is compounded by the fact that large numbers of Sinhalese from the South are getting into the Jaffna University. Some of them qualify for university education. Others get in because they know the ‘right’ people.
As someone who has been a Senior Lecturer in Medicine in the Peradeniya University in the late 1960s, I am well aware that a significant number of medical students were Tamils, many from Jaffna. There is no place that I know of in any part of the world that has produced more professionals than Jaffna. As such, what is now going on in Jaffna is an absolute disaster. Jaffna will take decades, if ever, to get back to where it was at the top of the educational league table.
Of equal concern is that parents, who can afford to do so, are sending their children abroad. Once trained, they are not going to return. This serious brain drain will affect not only Jaffna but the rest of the country.
Poverty and unemployment in the North
Poverty and unemployment are higher in the Northern Province than anywhere else in Sri Lanka. At the Northern Provincial Council’s 2nd budget reading on 12/12/17, Chief Minister Wigneswaran said that out of all 25 districts in Sri Lanka, Kilinochchi was the poorest. Mullaitivu which was previously the poorest is now number 2 on the list of poverty by district.
Jaffna is the 5th poorest district.
The level of unemployment is also highest in the Northern Province than in any other province.
Sexual violence in the North and East
Sexual violence has increased across the Northern Province. Women widows in their 20s are sexually assaulted at work. Women teachers are sexually assaulted in schools. Gangs commit sexual violence for money. Sri Lankan Tamil men pay huge sums of money to watch filmed village rapes.
Unwanted pregnancies and teenage pregnancies are an issue. Many men come to Jaffna from other places, have relationships with women, marry them and then leave them. Society shuns these women seeing them as indecent.
Sex is a taboo subject in Tamil culture. As such, sex educations is not taught or taught poorly. In what is still a male dominated society, such issues are difficult to deal with.
My book Sri Lanka: Sexual violence of Tamils by the Armed Forces has nearly doubled in size in two years since it was first published in 2015. It is now (March 2018) 264 pages.
Continuing violation of human rights
There continues to be involuntary ‘disappearances’, abduction, arrest without warrant, illegal detention at unknown sites and a failure to release those who are being held without charge or trial. Nothing has changed in the North and East with the replacement of the dreadful Rajapaksa regime by Sirisena.
The 2016/17 Amnesty International Annual report spells it out.
ARBITRARY ARRESTS AND DETENTIONS
Tamils suspected of links to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) continue to be detained under the PTA, which permits extended administrative detention and shifts the burden of proof onto the detainee alleging torture or other ill-treatment. In 2015 the government pledged to repeal the PTA and replace it with legislation that complied with international standards, but had not implemented this commitment by the end of 2016. A draft policy and legal framework for replacement legislation submitted for cabinet approval in October retained many of the PTA’s most problematic elements.
Two judges of the Supreme Court yesterday recused themselves from being members of the Bench hearing the Writ petitions against the decision of the Bribery Commission to institute proceedings against former Chief Justice and incumbent superior court judge.
When the Writ petitions were taken up yesterday before the Bench headed by Chief Justice Priyasath Dep, Justices Buwaneka Aluvihara and Nalin Perera declined to be members of the Bench to hear the Writ petitions challenging the decision of the Bribery Commission to institute proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court against former Chief Justice Mohan Peiris and the incumbent judge A.H.M.D.Nawaz of Court of Appeal.
The court fixed the matter to be taken for support on May 14.
Meanwhile, Justice Priyantha Jayawardane had sought the opinion of the Parties whether they had any objection to him to hear the case as he knew both parties.The Counsel for the Bribery Commission on that instance had informed the Court that he had to obtain instruction.
The Petitions were filed by Justice Nawaz, Bar Association of Sri Lanka and Kalyana Thiranagama seeking to quash the decision of the Bribery Commission to institute proceedings against former Chief Justice Mohan Peiris and Justice A.H.M.D.Nawaz in the Magistrate’s Court of Colombo and/or to continue with the proceedings.
Gamini Marapana PC with Nigel Hatch PC, Dr Harsha Cabraal PC, Palitha Kumarasinghe PC and Navin Marapana appeared for Mohan Peiris. K. Kanag Iswaran PC appeared for Justice Nawaz. Romesh de Silva PC with Sugath Caldera and Manjula Pernandopulle and Niran Anketell appeared for the BASL. Jeffry Alagaratnam PC and M.A.Sumanthiran appeared for the Bribery Commission. Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Rajaratnam appeared for the Attorney General.
Court had on February 26 issued an Interim Order until final determination staying the proceedings in the Colombo Magistrate’s Court against former Chief Justice and Justice Nawaz initiated by Bribery Commission.
BASL in its petition stated the gravamen (the essence or most serious part of the complaint or accusation) of the purported allegation is that 1st Respondent Nawaz provided a legal opinion as a Deputy Solicitor General in December 2010 to confer a wrongful or unlawful benefit or advantage on another person or knowing that the said legal opinion would cause a wrongful or unlawful benefit or advantage to another person.
It contends the correctness or otherwise of a legal opinion is not within the purview and/or jurisdiction of the Magistrate and is thus not a matter into which a Magistrate could inquire.
It states that ex facie no wrongful or unlawful benefit could have been caused to any person such certain undisclosed Directors of the Lanka Electricity Company Pvt Ltd and some other persons in that the decision to prosecute is in the hands of those responsible for the prosecution who are not bound by an opinion of the Attorney General.
It emphasizes the 1st Respondent is thus entitled to all his privilege and immunity in respect of such professional work carried out.
It laments the actions of the Director General of Bribery Commission are misconceived to seek to impose any personal criminal liability upon the 1st Respondent’s acts done ex officio on behalf of the Attorney General.
It points out that 1st Respondent’s appointment as the Judge of the Court of Appeal in 2014 was approved by the Parliamentary Council without the slightest allegation of wrongdoing.
It bemoans his actions amount to an abuse of the Bribery Act and the Bribery Commission and corruption Act is ultra vires (beyond legal power or authority) the said Act. (S.S.Selvanayagam)
(March 17, 2018, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) In his letter to Attorney General’s Department, Nagananda Kodituwakku, Public interest litigation activist, has accused Attorney General Mr. Jayantha Jayasuriya of Deceiving the Supreme Court.
Full text of the letter submitted the AG department as follows;
Gross abuse of office of the Attorney General to deceive the Supreme Court – SC/Writs/ 04/2015
Nagananda Kodituwakku
The above matter was initiated in the public interest by me against the CIABOC (Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption) on 04th Aug 2015, for its dismal failure to investigate into the credible complaint made against the former Secretary to the Treasury, P B Jayasundara, who was directly responsible for interfering in a Customs Investigation to exculpate two suspect companies, namely the LOLC and LB Finance, that were involved in a government revenue fraud, running into several hundred million rupees concerning abuse of concessionary car permits.
At the hearing of the above matter, which was resumed on 15th March 2018, dishonesty of the Respondent P B Jayasundara was vividly demonstrated with irrefutable evidence presented to the Court. Then the Deputy Solicitor General (DSG) Nerin Pulle, referring to a circular dated 09th Nov 2012 (marked P7) issued by the Respondent Jayasundara, made submissions to the Court that Respondent Jayasundara’s action in withdrawing the prohibition of ‘sale of vehicles for 3 years from the date of importation’, was in compliance with the Government Fiscal Policy Statement 2012/2013 and hence the Respondent’s directions conveyed to the Director General of Customs, compelling him to stop the relevant Customs investigation was lawful and therefore, there was no prima facie case against the Respondent Jayasundara.
This was followed by a request made to produce a copy of the said Fiscal Policy Statement (2012/2013) to the Court, but it was not acceded. Thus, the DSG was able to induce the Court to decline the issuance of Notice on the Respondent CIABOC to conduct a credible investigation against the Respondent Jayasundara, solely depending on the submissions made for the Attorney General. Accordingly the case was dismissed.
After studying the said Government Fiscal Policy Statement 2012/2013 (a copy enclosed for your attention), I have now found that the submission made by the Deputy Solicitor General referred to above was manifestly false, misleading and unfounded and amounts to contempt of the Supreme Court.
It is the bounden duty of the person appointed to the office of the Attorney General to perform office only for public good and not to abuse it to protect corrupt elements occupying office in the Legislature and the Executive.
Therefore, please take notice that unless you make a plea forthwith to the Court to reinstate the matter, SC/Writs/ 04/2015 action will be initiated for contempt of the Supreme Court to cover up a colossal revenue fraud committed against the Republic of Sri Lanka.
Copies to: Hon’ Chief Justice Priyasath Dep for information
Hon’ Justice K T Chitrasiri for information
Hon’ Justice Prasanna Jayawaradena for information
Colombo Fort Magistrate Court yesterday issued an order directing the Navy Commander that Rear Admiral Ananda Guruge be referred to the CID to record a statement regarding the investigations into the disappearance of 11 youth in Colombo.
Magistrate Lanka Jayaratne made this order pursuant to a request made by CID through a motion.
Filing a motion in court, the CID complained that Rear Admiral Guruge had disregarded court orders, even though he was noticed to appear before the CID to make a statement regarding the incident.
At a previous occasion, the Magistrate rejected a request made by the defence that investigations pertaining to former Navy Spokesman Commodore D.K.P Dassanayake and nine others be transferred from the CID to any other police station. In this case, former Navy Spokesman Commodore D.K.P Dassanayake and nine others are accused of aiding and abetting the abduction and disappearance of 11 youths in 2008 and 2009.
The missing persons had been abducted by an unidentified group at Dehiwala, Battaramulla and Wattala in 2008 and 2009.
Deputy Minister Ranjan Ramanayake yesterday said he would disclose details of a million dollar scam, with regard to Sri Lankan Cricket in Parliament next week.
Mr Ramanayake told the Daily Mirror that this scam could be worse than the Bond Scam.
“The Bond Scam was in Sri Lankan Rupees, while this scam regarding cricket has been in US dollars,” Mr Ramanayake said.
He said the scam involved fixing of matches and broadcasting rights.
He said some cricketers and others had provided him with all the details and he had a whole file full of details.
“These cricketers and others have requested me to disclose details of this scam and therefore I will do in Parliament next week,” he said.
“Those, who one could hardly imagine would get involved in scams, have got involved in it. Several members are also involved in it,” he added.
Asked as to when he would reveal the details of those who have obtained cash from Mendis Distilleries belonging to Perpetual Treasuries Chief Arjun Aloysius as he said earlier, the Deputy Minister he said he would do that when he gathers all the details.
“I need some more details on the matter and I will reveal that as well when I get all information,” he added. (Yohan Perera)
As the violence that affected parts of the Kandy District quietly moves into the history of ethno-religious confrontation in the country, society is faced with a new situation and issue of considerable importance that arose from the violence of recent days. It is the issue of handling Social Media, which brings a whole new area of the freedom of expression and the rights of Internet users into the considerations of politics and government.
Sri Lanka has undergone many years of censorship of the media due to left-wing and trade union protests, ethnic and religious confrontations, and the three-decade long war with the separatist LTTE. The voices that were critical of the use of censorship have been many, and since the lifting of the Emergency by the last government, many months after the defeat of the LTTE, the country has seen a prolonged period of free expression.
Under the present government, there has been a major advance with the passage of legislation for the Right to Information. The current government has certainly opened the paths to media freedom, although there have been concerns about the use of this freedom by sections of the media, and management of news and information by the government itself.
Fear of the Censor
But the things did change with the situation in the Kandy District requiring the government to declare a State of Emergency throughout the island. Although this did not see the usual introduction of regular media censorship and a Competent Authority who would pass a copy for publication, the new developments in the Internet and the involvement of Social Media in a very wide role of social, personal and corporate communication, did bring about the banning of social media networks such as Facebook, WhatsApp and Viber which have presented a new area of media, and involvement of the people in an expanding area of communication.
Many diplomats from western democracies have been strong in their call for these bans to be lifted. The ban has also impacted strongly on local politics, with most political parties, other than those directly associated with the government, calling for the lifting of the ban. Some of the affected networks such as Viber and WhatsApp are already free, and Facebook is due to be free very soon.
The protests that have come out, and very loud and effective indeed, have brought to light the importance of an area of the media that was largely unknown to administrators and regulators until the Kandy crisis erupted.
The Government has now declared that laws will soon be introduced to control Social Media. The situation that developed in the Kandy District and the threat of it spreading to other areas too, due to alleged wrong and false reportage and comment in social media networks, certainly points to the need or a good regulatory practice in this regard.
The government also had to face attacks from the Joint Opposition and other political opponents that its control of social media was due to its own weakness, following the recent defeat in the local government polls. Some comments by the government’s own ministers, too, gave an impression that the government had fears of the political impact of social media.
All of this makes the new proposal to impose curbs on social media a matter of considerable interest, with regard to the safeguarding of media freedom, the right to free expression, and the hopes of widening the freedom of expression that the country has seen in the past three years. Measures to genuinely ensure reportage of the truth and fair comment on social media will be most welcome, as well as genuine moves to prevent hate speech on all media, with necessary democratic judicial controls.
Past fears and modern trends
A country that has seen the activity of the Free Media Movement at times when the media was under serious threat, and one with a past (not too far, too) where the killing of and attacks on journalists, and white van dispatches had been the order of the day, it is not surprising that any calls for control of social media could raise many fears and opposition. It is necessary for the government to engage in a wide discussion with the public, media organisations, the journalists on the Internet in this day of blogging, and social media network users and contributors, before such rules and regulations are introduced. The examples of such regulations in the UK and Germany, and any other democracies, as well as the rules in developing countries such as Kenya, require careful study; to ensure that any necessary curbs of social media, in given situations, do not threaten the core principle of freedom of expression in a democracy.
Persons such as the US Ambassador in Colombo who has been very vocal in calling for removal of the ban on social media networks, should not forget or ignore the problem that social media has allegedly caused in the US, seen in allegations of Russian interference in the last Presidential election which brought Donald Trump to the White House in 2016. Congressional inquiries have shown that Facebook, Google, and other organisations had to deal with several millions of what is seen as ‘fake news’ or communications with special or misleading interest, that were planted on those sites.
Facebook, Google, and other institutions have announced their intent to prevent such misuse of their networks. True the US did not impose any ban on social media networks, but it did not have to face a situation of violence, and only election propaganda, which may have benefited the current president (whose attitude to the Third World is highly questionable), and helped defeat the candidate who received the wider majority votes, and was no friend of Sri Lanka. The situation in Sri Lanka is certainly different. We can learn from the US records on Freedom of Expression and the First Amendment to its Constitution. But we also need to look at our own problems, from the point of view of a society that has different thinking on gun ownership and control. Democracies can and will differ, and it is best to encourage such differences, without unreal punditry.
The women, they said, were alone as the men would be at prayers. Some commented on the youth and beauty of the women, noting how attacking them would be somehow pleasing to the eye. In other groups, an assorted array of knives was an invitation to bring whatever weapon possible to join a mob in cleansing an area of Muslims. Defiling Islam was common, and in some cases it seemed like a competition amongst those participating in the discussion as to how best to come up with insults that were the most heinous or violent. In a widely shared message reported to Facebook, the invitation was to kill all Muslim infants without sparing even one, as they were no different to dogs. And therein lies the rub. After six days, Facebook got back to the person who reported the post noting that it did not violate their community guidelines and policies against hate speech.
Social media platforms as we know them today are broken, badly. Facebook last week was called out by the United Nations in Myanmar as having a central role in fanning the flames of Islamophobia and hate. The situation is more complex. Governments, including those in Mynamar, the Philippines, India and most notably, Russia, are weaponising social media in various ways, using platforms, apps and services used the most daily as a means of communication and engagement against the very sections of society that trust in large part information received or shared on these platforms. This is akin to poisoning on an unprecedented scale, with the target not the body, but mind. And there are many actors competing to wrest control of public perception, with a view to informing their reactions and responses.
In the middle of this melee are the social media companies themselves, notably, Facebook, which owns and controls in addition to the eponymous and almost ubiquitous platform, Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp and Instagram. Twitter, YouTube and a comparably smaller family of instant messaging apps like Viber or Telegram, which still have users in the hundreds of millions and are growing apace, and you have what the father of the world wide web, Sir Tim Berners-Lee called ‘platform power’, which is crushing the nature of the web as he conceived it, and wanted it to grow as. His concern is twofold – that Silicon Valley companies today are invisible yet ever-present interlocutors through their technology in how we all interact with the rest of society, and the world. Secondly, that given the sheer numbers online and on these privately controlled platforms, designed to maximise profit over all else, it is a challenge – to say the least – for companies to control their technology against being used for terrorism, the spread of hate or incitement to violence. Money, ethics, jurisdiction, monopoly, privacy, surveillance, oversight, control – there are many wars being fought simultaneously on and around these platforms, around the world.
Sri Lanka is now in the spotlight for just this reason. During the violence in Digana two weeks ago, the government decided to block social media they claimed was fanning the violence, including Facebook, Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, Viber and Instagram. An immediate consequence of the block was the use of VPNs – apps or sites that easily by-passed the blocks. On Google, searches for popular VPNs over just the course of a week saw an astronomic rise, and VPNs entered popular, social discourse as a way to access what for many was their primary means of communication and engaging with their friends, peers and indeed, customers. Small businesses that rely on social media were badly hit. The telecoms companies that blocked social media sites, and later on, the most popular VPN services, also blocked popular discussion sites (in no way connected to the violence in Digana) and other random websites including blogs. All this was by no means unpopular. Somewhat simplistic surveys done by mainstream media suggested a high degree of public support for the social media blocks, in light of the violence and going by the explanations provided by government at the time.
The blocks played into an older generation’s enduring fear – piggybacked on by government - that all social media is evil, all the time, and only serves to corrupt the minds of the young. In their incomprehension of how social media works, what it does and how it helps stem, prevent and combat violence, a blanket ban or block over social media remains one that many are partial to – just like the opposition to the Internet, the VHS recorder, TV and telephone in years past. The significant, multifaceted and growing ways through which social media help combat rumour, misinformation and shape public perceptions around democracy, governance, political participation and social mobilisation for good remain unexplored or often undervalued.
There is a far more sinister element also at play, increasingly evident as the blocks on social media continued long after the violence on the ground in Digana died down. The government, especially under Emergency Regulations, seemed overtly interested in engaging Facebook to stop the transmission of hate on its platforms, but covertly interested in negotiating ways through which dissent could also be controlled. Using Digana as a powerful, emotive reminder of what we as society should never again see, the government seeks to monitor and control the use of social media in particular, in ways yet to be publicly disclosed, and may never be fully revealed. True, governments have a legitimate purpose in ascertaining public mood and sentiment over social media, for obvious reasons related to governance, law and order and policymaking. But the constant refrain in Sri Lanka, including from Ministers in Government, is that it is the Ministry of Defence or the Army best positioned and capable of social media monitoring.
This is dangerous for two reasons, at least. One, obviously, the Army isn’t really interested in human rights, the freedom of expression or privacy and the deep or dark State, dormant to date, now has the perfect vector through which to stamp its authority. Secondly, less evident, is that this government for the best of reasons is setting up the worst of templates – one ripe for abuse by more authoritarian, illiberal regimes in the future. Monitoring architectures, by their very nature, are turnkey solutions – which can be used for the benefit of society, or to severely restrict their rights. Who controls the architecture matters in a country without any constitutional or legal provisions to safeguard the right to privacy or oversight around surveillance.
Facebook, as a company, isn’t known for its ethics. For many years, data-driven and evidence-based arguments were presented to the company around the violence and hate produced, promoted, projected over its platform in Sri Lanka. It took Digana for the company to take serious notice. For years, Facebook was asked to strengthen its Sinhala language moderation in order to deal with the reporting of content. This wasn’t done. What is even more disturbing is that content explicitly, through direct translation and without any need for contextual awareness was in violation of community standards, passed muster – suggesting that those in charge of responding to user generated reports at Facebook who understood, or were Sinhalese, allowed their own personal bias and prejudice to take precedence over the company’s moderation guidelines. Facebook’s impunity regarding all this is indicative of Silicon Valley’s approach to the problem of hate writ large – profit first, public relations second, government satisfaction third, user capture fourth, ethics and rights – well, that’s for another day. Coupled with governments like ours who will use any excuse to control, contain and censor inconvenient narratives, and you have a perfect storm.
All this, of course, does nothing whatsoever to really address the root causes of the violence in Digana. Why did the STF attack innocent Muslim civilians? Why were the Police so impotent? Why hasn’t the government addressed racial hatred over three years? Why is a Buddhist monk, a central figure in the promotion of hate, openly seen with and beside the President in official tours abroad, even as he is wanted by the courts in Sri Lanka? Why isn’t the catastrophic failure of our intelligence services a matter of concern? Why did it take Digana for the government to wake up to the nature, volume, vector and sources of hate online, well-known, reported on, and flagged for years by civil society? What has any programme, policy or project on reconciliation done to address underlying communal and social grievances that give rise to this kind of violence? Why is there so much of hatred in those who are so young? Why is it that in Sri Lanka today, an accident, a drunken argument, a brush, nudge, poke or prod, a word or glance, a random action in sober or inebriated state, can immediately or days after, become a flashpoint for the worst communal violence, ignited by architects seeking political gain through chronic instability?
These are questions Facebook cannot answer, because they are our own creations. Social media wasn’t the cause of Digana, Gintota, Ampara or Aluthgama. These are two conversations here. One, around popular technologies and media, is emotive and helps conveniently gloss over the other more urgent, enduring and serious one, around the grievous failure of government. Our interest is perennially around the public optics of cosmetic solutions.Social media and Facebook today grab headlines because it’s easier than tackling the real issues that plague society and polity, post-war. The future is clear. We either fix and address them or face many Digana’s in the future.
A news report by India’s World Is One News (WION) claims that while Sinhalese intolerance is on the rise in Sri Lanka, as apparent in the recent communal violence, the root cause for the distrust of Muslims in Sri Lanka lies in the alarming spread of Wahhabism among one of the most tolerant and peaceful Muslim communities of the world.
It states that most of the international media especially Middle Eastern concerns are painting exaggerated pictures of bloodthirsty Sinhalese and victimized Muslims, but WION has been talking to Sri Lankan analysts of all religions and that what they are discovering paints a slightly different picture.
“It is true that Sinhalese intolerance is on the rise and this time it is not Sri Lanka’s Tamils who are the targets but the country’s nearly 2 million Muslims. There can be no justification for violence of course, but one must examine the root cause of the distrust of Muslims in Sri Lanka since 2009.”
“And that root cause lies in the alarming spread of Wahhabism among one of the most tolerant and peaceful Muslim communities of the world, that of Sri Lanka,” WION’s Padma Rao says.
She says that it is no secret anymore that close neighbor the Maldives is already in the throes of Saudi Arabia’s wealth and radical indoctrination, reportedly with the blessings of the Maldives’ dictatorial President, and that Saudi Arabia has reportedly trained and been dispatching English-speaking Wahhabi speakers around the world.
“And which region could be more attractive than South Asia, where there are already huge Muslim communities?”
She claims that some of the controversial speakers trained and dispatched by Saudi Arabia reportedly include Ismail Menk, Zakir Naik and Tariq Jameel. Menk has been banned in the United Kingdom and Singapore while Zakir Naik is in India’s most wanted list.
The report says that there are 749 Madrasas in Sri Lanka and one Islamic University. There are at least 10 major Muslim mosques in the island nation and dozens of smaller ones. It claims that “90% Sri Lanka’s mosques are in the clutches of Wahhabi preachers” and that 33 Sri Lankan Muslims are reported to have joined Islamic State.
“Analysts say Sinhalese intolerance is on the rise because of the changes noticed in traditionally tolerant Muslim neighbors,” the news report added.
It said that former President Mahinda Rajapaksa has added another startling element to the possible cause of the riots. In an article he contributed to in a Lankan daily, he points to “foreign elements” hell-bent on tearing Sri Lanka apart.
Speaking further, WION’s Padma Rao says:
“I wouldn’t go as far as to put it on the same scale as the LTTE-led form of terrorism among the Tamils. So let’s not make that comparison. But certainly, yes there is a rise and this is what analysts in Sri Lanka have been telling us, since 2009 when the war ended. And most people are concerned about the borders and that immigration control is not doing enough to prevent such known radicles from entering the country and slowly indoctrinating and poisoning the minds of what is essentially one of the most peaceful and tolerant Muslim communities in the world, Sri Lanka’s second largest minority.”
“Maldives is not that far away, we’ve seen that kind of penetration and infiltration in both directions before. That seems to be happening not only from the Maldives, but also from preachers who are landing at Colombo airport and who have been meeting and indoctrinating people. At the very simple village level people are seeing two pictures and putting together a story. They have also heard reports of the 33 Sri Lankan Muslims who joined the Islamic State.”
“And these are simple people in small villages who are afraid when they see visible signs of shriller preachers in mosques or more and more women covering themselves in hijab which is not typical to this region of the world. These are alien influences and whenever there is an alien influence people tend to get paranoid.”
“However, having said that I would like to emphasize that in absolutely no way does WION support any violence by any community against any community, be they minority or majority, but unfortunately we have to look at the root cause also and not just tarnish all Sinhalese or all Muslims with the same brush as certain sections of the international media have been doing over the last one week.”
(CPA /16 MARCH 2018)SRI LANKA’S LAST STATE OF EMERGENCY LASTED FOR 28 YEARS, AND WAS TERMINATED IN AUGUST 2011, HAVING CONTINUOUSLY BEEN EXTENDED BY GOVERNMENTS SINCE IT WAS FIRST DECLARED IN 1983. ON MARCH 6TH 2018, PRESIDENT MAITHRIPALA SIRISENA DECLARED A STATE OF EMERGENCY IN ORDER TO ADDRESS AND CONTAIN THE VIOLENCE UNFOLDING IN THE KANDY DISTRICT, WHERE VIOLENT ATTACKS ON THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY SAW WIDESPREAD PROPERTY DAMAGE AND TWO DEATHS. RECENT STATEMENTS BY THE PRESIDENTIAL SECRETARY AND THE PRIME MINISTER ON ITS EXTENSION HAVE RAISED CONCERN.
This brief illustrates basic information on the terms, legal procedure and concerns regarding the curtailing of citizens’ rights around a state of emergency.
What is meant by a ‘State of Emergency’? A state of emergency is a situation of exceptional threat, danger, or disaster in the life of a nation, the existence of which is clear to all, in which the government is given extraordinary powers not permitted during normal times to deal with the threat, including powers to restrict certain fundamental rights.
The Sri Lankan Constitution does not provide a formal definition of a state of emergency. Instead, the conditions that may give rise to the need for emergency powers are described in the Public Security Ordinance (PSO). The President may issue a Proclamation of a state of emergency where, “in view of the existence or imminence of a state of public emergency, he is of the opinion that it is expedient to do so, in the interests of public security and the preservation of public order or for the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community.”
This is therefore (1) a general description of the conditions that would give occasion to the President to proclaim an emergency, along with (2) the aims – national security, public order, and maintenance of essential services – for which such powers are to be used.
What is the procedure for the declaration of emergency? Under Article 155 of the Constitution, a state of emergency is brought into being by a Proclamation made by the President, which brings into operation the provisions of the PSO. This includes the power to make Emergency Regulations by the President, which may override any law, regulation, or provincial statute. Emergency Regulations however cannot override the Constitution.
The sole discretion in issuing a Proclamation declaring a state of emergency is vested in the President. But this must be communicated forthwith to Parliament, which must be summoned for the purpose. The President is empowered to issue a Proclamation that is valid for a period of one month, although he may revoke it earlier. But Parliament must approve it by a resolution within fourteen days. If Parliament does not approve the Proclamation within fourteen days, then it expires. Any continuation of a state of emergency is subject to the approval of Parliament. The President’s decision to declare a state of emergency cannot be challenged in the courts.
Was this procedure followed in March 2018? Yes. The President issued the Proclamation on 6th March, effective for a period of one month. Whether or not the circumstances warranted a declaration of emergency may be debatable, but it is legally irrelevant, because that decision is at the sole discretion of the President (and in any case, on this occasion he did so in consultation with the Cabinet). He also promulgated a set of Emergency Regulations on the same day, which are quite standard. Unless Parliament approves the Proclamation by resolution within fourteen days of the Proclamation, it will expire by operation of law on 20th March. The President can either let it lapse or revoke it himself during this period. If he wants the state of emergency to extend beyond that date, he must get Parliament to approve it. A fresh Proclamation (and parliamentary approval) is needed if the state of emergency is to be extended beyond the initial one month.
What are the legal effects of a state of emergency? The most significant power under a state of emergency is the general law-making power given to the President in the form of Emergency Regulations, which may override any law except the Constitution. This extraordinary power is unusual in that it impacts on the Separation of Powers. Normally, it is only the legislature and not the executive that can make law. Although sometimes the power to make rules is delegated on the executive by some Acts of Parliament, such rules cannot override law. These two aspects – that they are made by the President and that they prevail over other laws – give Emergency Regulations their special character. However, it is also important to remember that Parliament can at any time revoke or amend any Emergency Regulation by resolution. Likewise, the courts will under certain circumstances annul Emergency Regulations that violate the Constitution.
The PSO enumerates various purposes for which Emergency Regulations may be made. These include provision for the detention of persons, commandeering and acquisition of private property, entry and search, and hearings, appeals and compensation for those affected by the regulations. Other than the power to make Emergency Regulations, the PSO also sets down the special powers of the President during a state of emergency, including calling out the armed forces in aid of the civil power, the procedure for arrest, detention and executive review of detention, and the suspension of certain safeguards for the liberty of the individual in the Code of Criminal Procedure.
To what extent are citizens’ rights curtailed in this period? There are a number of criminal law rights that may be curtailed under the PSO, as noted above. The Constitution also permits restrictions to be placed on fundamental rights through Emergency Regulations.
The freedom of thought and conscience, the prohibition of torture, and the right to be heard at a fair trial by a competent court (but excluding pre-trial detention which can be imposed by Emergency Regulations) are not subject to any restriction and are thereby to be considered absolute. These therefore may never be restricted by Emergency Regulations.
The fundamental rights that may be restricted by law (including Emergency Regulations) in the interests of national security and public order are: the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof, and retroactive penal sanctions; equality before the law and non-discrimination; the ordinary procedure for arrests and judicial sanction for detention; and the fundamental rights to freedom of expression, assembly, association, movement, occupation, religion, culture and language.
The Constitution does not establish substantive controls on the extent to which these fundamental rights may be restricted, except that they be imposed by law (for which purpose, ‘law’ includes Emergency Regulations, and is therefore not a control at all). Thus, for example, there is no constitutional requirement that the restriction be proportionate to the harm sought to be averted, and it falls entirely to the goodwill of the executive to act responsibly and/or the courts’ willingness to enforce the rule of law and fundamental rights. Sri Lanka does not have a reassuring record on either.
Independently of emergency powers, the government also has recourse to the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). These antiterrorism powers are extensive, and their use is not subject to the formal requirement of continuous parliamentary approval as in the case of emergency powers.
How does the Sri Lankan legal framework for states of emergency align with international standards? The Sri Lankan framework complies with international standards insofar as it requires a formal proclamation, parliamentary approval for declaration and extension, and there is some judicial oversight over the exercise of emergency powers. However, Parliament is not very good at holding the executive to account even in conditions of normalcy, and historically, it has been even less effective in times of crisis. Presidents usually are also the leaders of the party enjoying the majority of seats in Parliament, and this prevents meaningful scrutiny and accountability of presidential action. The Supreme Court has a mixed record as a checking mechanism. Some judges in the past have been robust especially in the protection of fundamental rights against abuses through emergency powers. At other times, the courts have failed to check the executive through excessive deference.
The Sri Lankan law is not in line with a number of international standards. The Constitution permits restrictions to be placed on a number of fundamental rights through emergency powers which are not allowed by international best practice, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to which Sri Lanka is state-party. As already noted, the Constitution also does not require restrictions on fundamental rights to be proportionate to the legitimate aims of national security. Although this principle has been judicially recognised by the Supreme Court on some occasions, it is not applied uniformly. There is no requirement in Sri Lankan law that emergency measures be consistent with the state’s international obligations, in particular, international humanitarian law and law of armed conflict. Likewise, the Constitution expressly permits restrictions to be placed on the right to non-discrimination during a state of emergency, which is clearly contrary to international human rights law. However, it is required by the ICCPR that a state-party derogating from rights during an emergency should immediately inform other state-parties through the UN Secretary General and Sri Lanka has frequently made these derogation notifications in previous states of emergency.
What concerns are raised by the past experience of states of emergency? Many of the widespread abuses during past emergency periods occurred in the context of a protracted war. Emergency powers frameworks in democratic constitutions – including ours despite all its defects – are predicated on the central distinction between times of ‘normality’ and ‘exceptional’ times of crisis. It is the recognition that exceptional times and crises demand exceptional responses that justifies the grant of extraordinary powers to the executive as well as the restriction of fundamental rights. What happens in conditions of protracted conflict is that the ‘exception’ becomes the ‘normal’, and emergency rule becomes normalised for both the government and citizens who get used to it. This has long-term effects on a society.
We no longer have an active conflict to justify the prolongation of a state of emergency, so it seems likely that the current state of emergency will either lapse or be revoked sooner rather than later. However, this begs deeper questions about the circumstances that necessitated – in the mind of the government – the invocation of these powers. These include the lack of post-conflict reconciliation and inability to embrace diversity, the culture of criminal impunity and selective application of the law, the social tolerance of violence, the deficiencies of the police in relation to their basic responsibility to maintain law and order, the impotence of secular authority in face of religious power, and the similarly medieval ignorance and superstition that allows atavistic tribalism to thrive in our society.
#
This brief was prepared by CPA Research Fellow Dr. Asanga Welikala. He has previously authored A State of Permanent Crisis: Constitutional Government, Fundamental Rights and States of Emergency in Sri Lanka, States of Emergency: Issues for Constitutional Design and The state of Emergency in Peacetime.
Image: Sri Lanka’s army soldiers and police personnel stand near a vandalized Mosque in Digana, a suburb of Kandy, Sri Lanka, March 6, 2018. Buddhist mobs swept through the town on Monday, burning at least 11 Muslim-owned shops and homes. Sri Lanka’s president declared a state of emergency Tuesday amid fears that anti-Muslim attacks in the central hill town could spread. (AP Photo/Pradeep Pathiran)
By Veeragathy Thanabalasingham/Daily Express-By Editor on
Whenever violence is unleashed on ethnic minorities, political leaders from South Sri Lanka invariably hold a small group responsible for it and reiterate that an overwhelming majority of the majority community has always wanted goodwill and peace among the communities.
This was the refrain last week as well, following the anti-Muslim violence that erupted in the Central Province.
There is no gainsaying the credence of this statement. A significantly large proportion of the majority community does abide by law and want goodwill and harmony among the communities. But the question is, when the larg majority is so civil and amicable, how do small groups get together to unleash violence for several days, disrupting normal life?
Pondering this question, I am reminded of the quotes of two of the great sons of the last century.
Albert Einstein, a theoretical physicist who developed the theory of relativity and one of the two pillars of modern physics, said that the world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil but because of the people who didn’t do anything about it. Martin Luther King Jr., the American Black civil rights leader, said we would have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people.
There is no denying that during the many bouts of violence, victims from minority communities have received support and help from friends, neighbours and well-wishers from the majority community. But the question is, why haven’t these friends and well-wishers and the majority of the majority community help create a culture of tolerance and civility that could prevent ethnic violence?
There needs to be a change in the current situation where these ‘good people’ remain helpless spectators when violence is at its peak. No doubt the status quo remains because of the political patronage the so-called small groups receive.
The ‘hate politics’ against the minority communities is not something new to the country. It is an obnoxious trend that has grown parallel with the evolution of ethnic majoritarian politics of modern Sri Lanka.
However, what remains a cause for major concern is the Southern polity’s failure to recognize the genuine grievances, rights and legitimate political aspirations of the minority communities, even after the three decade-long bloody civil war that caused havoc to all communities.
It is easy to be wise after the incident. Sri Lankan politicians are adept at analyzing an incident after it happens. Politicians who bemoaned the blow to Sri Lanka’s image in the international arena during the civil war have been saying the same thing after the recent incidents against the Muslims in Kandy and Ampara. They also repeat the claim that that the economy has taken a blow, perhaps unwilling to realize the stark truth that it is the failure to take stringent action against the Sinhala-Buddhist ultra-nationalist forces that paved the way for the frequent resurgence of hate politics and violence against Muslims in the last few years.
What emerges as being painfully clear after the latest bout of violence is that the present government has failed to learn anything from the monumental blunders of its predecessors.
Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, during a Buddhist ceremony last Sunday (March 10), repeated the Southern polity’s cop out, but with a caveat. He had said that only a handful were engaged in the recent violence, but that the Sinhalese and Buddhists have been blamed for the actions of this small group, and that it would affect the Buddhists in the whole of South Asia.
It is in this context that we have to look at a relatively lengthy AFP news analysis despatched from Hong Kong early this week under the headline ‘Rise of violent Buddhist rhetoric in Asia defies stereotypes’. It states:
“Buddhism may be touted in the West as an inherently peaceful philosophy, but a surge in violent rhetoric from small but increasingly influential groups of hard-line monks in parts of Asia is upending the religion’s tolerant image.”
“Buddhist mobs in Sri Lanka last week led anti-Muslim riots that left at least three dead and more than 2000 Muslim-owned establishments in ruins, just the latest bout of communal violence there stoked by Buddhist nationalists.”
“In Myanmar, ultra-nationalist monks led by firebrand preacher Wirathu have poured vitriol on the country’s small Muslim population, cheering a military crackdown forcing nearly 700,000 Rohingya Muslims into Bangladesh. And in neighbouring Thailand, a prominent monk found himself in hot water for calling on followers to burn down mosques.
“What has prompted this surge in aggressive rhetoric from followers of a faith that is often equated, rightly or wrongly, with non – violence?
“In Sri Lanka, Buddhist militancy has gone mainstream, with clergy seen clashing with riot police and leading anti-government protests. During the brutal 26 years civil war, the ire of ultra-nationalists among the mainly Buddhist Sinhalese majority was focussed on the island’s Tamil Hindus. But after the Tamil Tigers were beaten in 2009, hardliners turned on Muslims, who make up some 10% of the population.”
After every bout of ethnic violence, Sinhala Buddhist leaders, the Most Venerable Mahanayakes of the main Buddhist sects, invite and offer counsel to the leaders of the government of the day and important politicians on establishing peace and goodwill among communities. This is well and good, but why don’t they make any effort to stop the sizable number of monks from the Maha Sangha, headed by them, from spreading hate propaganda and engaging in violence against the minority communities?
The yellow robe of Buddhist monks has always been held in great veneration by Buddhist in Sri Lanka. This has, in turn, led to many criminal and other elements taking cover under the robe in order to carry out their nefarious activities.
The trouble in Sri Lanka is that the Buddhist clergy is seeking great influence in the politics of the country. Citing that kings of old were advised by the Buddhist monks of that time, they seek to advice and influence the government and its leaders. They have even gone to the extent of becoming directly engaged in politics and contesting in elections transforming Buddhism into a political religion.
The Mahanayakes have been unable to discourage their monks from directly joining olitics, though it is detrimental to the basic teachings of the Buddha.
The Sangha, as the monks are collectively called, was created by the Buddha as a vehicle to spread his doctrines. But there has been a sea change from the time the Buddha ordained the original monks and sent them into the world. Today’s monks bear no resemblance, either in their habits of life or in doctrinal purity, to the original monks of the Buddha’s time. The Buddha taught that monks should have no attachment to any worldly or material things. Today’s monks not only live worldly lives but even own property.
There is no doubt that during almost all the communal violence in the country, Buddhist monks are seen not only urging and inciting lay people to acts of violence but even committing them themselves. It is the robe that gives them the immunity and the protection, which ordinary men do not have. It is time that we put a stop to this.
It is unfortunate that the Sangha in Sri Lanka has allowed itself to be infiltrated in this manner and thereby lost the respect of the people.
It is difficult to find a parallel among the monks or priests of other religions in Sri Lanka or elsewhere. The priesthood is a sacred calling and it can only be sullied by a heady mixture of politics. If Sri Lankan society does not separate politics from the Sangha, there is no future for the island.
However, the reality was graphically summed up in the following paragraph by Tissarani Gunasekara, a prominent and well-meaning political analyst, in a well-received article during the height of the anti-Muslim violence:
“Even as I write these words, Kandy is burning. Muslims, their homes and their properties are being targeted in the name of Buddhism, within shouting distance of the Temple of Tooth. If the custodians of the Tooth Relic, chief prelates of Malwatte and Asgiriya, look out from their windows, they’d probably see the smokes from the fire and fire – makers. There is no greater pervasion of Buddhism than killing in the name of Buddhism.”
“In the Buddha’s teachings, there is no place for any kind of violence, no concept of Holy war or Just war, no room for revenge, whatever the crime.If the chief prelates are true followers of the Buddha, they would have walked among the rioters, pleading for calm. But, the only monks visible and audible in Kandy seem to be those who are feeding the fires. The chief prelates and other leading monks are silent, no word of condemnation, no plea for sanity and peace. If Kandy- burning symbolizes the failure of Buddhism in Sri Lanka, the silence of the monks indicates why that failure happened.”
Kandy riots raise concerns about the inaction of the Sangha and the silence of the majority added by Editor on View all posts by Editor →
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
18 March 2018
Researchers say sperm quality is a marker of men's health
